South Park is on...they are censoring the word Muhammad altogether

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Famiking"]Why do they even bother airing episodes with Mohammed in it? The reason they're offended is because he's in it. Not because they made him a bear or something. And no, I don't think it's determental to free speech. If you're going to do something stupid/disrespectful, then you have to accept any criticism that's thrown at you.MystikFollower

Why would they not air it? Muslims should not be special-cased to be protected from parody they might find offensive when members of other religions are not.

Seriously! I don't see Christian groups or Buddhist groups, or Hindu groups, or even Jewish groups making threats and creating some big problem because they got offended. It's cause the rest of the world understands what South Park is, and that NO group, NO person, NO faith, NO nothing is ever spared from Trey and Matt. They shouldn't have to turn tail and suddenly change anything just cause one radical group got all huffy from probably the LEAST offensive joke they could've made.

Christians make threats in the name of Jesus all the time.

They just never act on them.

Muslims are no different; all the crazy muslims are overseas, and I while there is always the possibility of violence, I would say that possibility always exist anyway, so bring on the cartoon pictures of Muhammad

Muslims are no different; all the crazy muslims are overseas, and I while there is always the possibility of violence, I would say that possibility always exist anyway, so bring on the cartoon pictures of Muhammad

mrbojangles25

actually, The ones who made this threat are based in NYC.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Muslims are no different; all the crazy muslims are overseas, and I while there is always the possibility of violence, I would say that possibility always exist anyway, so bring on the cartoon pictures of Muhammad

Franklinstein

actually, The ones who made this threat are based in NYC.

yea but it is just a threat.

as I said, people threaten people all the time. Rarely do they follow up on it. I am sure Bobby Kotick has received thousands of death threats, but he likely doesnt have a security detail.

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

Taking the micky out of majority of religions and religious figures is quite discriminated and downright offensive. They have taken the piss out of Islam and other religions in previous series. Maybe a large portion of religious people do not actually watch south park? hence why theres no sizable group to debate such topic? I for one quit watching southpark on season 4.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]Dude, you guys that are saying that this episode isn't worth anyone getting hurt are ridiculous. You're missing the point of freedom of speech. It does not revolve around people getting offended. That does not matter. It is completely and one hundred percent irrelevant if people get offended. When you start thinking of people getting offended that's when things really start getting ugly. Imagine a world where one thing is not ok to say, that leads to two things, and eventually we have a situation where freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech at all. If Trey and Matt want to say something even if it is something I completely disagree with and I believe is offensive(which they've done several times), then it is there right as an American. Franklinstein

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

Again, bull****.

Freedom of speech hasn't taken ANY "hit to the groin".

I don't know the details of Parker's and Stone's contract with Comedy Central, but I ****ing guarantee that the contract allowed Comedy Central to do EXACTLY what it's doing now. If I'm wrong, then Parker and Stone are free to take Comedy Central to court and sue them for breach of contract.

But Parker have tried this **** before, and I'm assuming that Comedy Central would cover their asses in just such an event when renewing their contract.

Parker and Stone don't like it, no one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to sign the ****ing contract. Parker and Stone AGREED to this kind of censorship on Comedy Central's part, and VOLUNTARILY signed away their free speech for personal benefit. That is, unless Comedy Central is under breach of contract when they censored the episode. In which case I'd like to see that supported with real evidence.

Now, assuming that Comedy Central has their asses covered in regards to this issue, then the decision to censor the episode IS free speech in action. Censoring the epsiode DOES make a statement. And Comedy Central has a RIGHT to make that statement, at the expense of Parker and Stone. If Parker and Stone have a ****ing problem with that, then you need to ask yourself why they keep renewing their contract with Comedy Central. But Parker's and Stone's first amendment rights do NOT override the first amendment rights of the people in charge of signing on shows for Comedy Central. Comedy Central is a business which is free to look out for its own interests. They are free to say what they want, they are free to only pick up the shows that they want. And unless they've violated contract with Parker and Stone, they are free to censor this episode if they want to.

This has Jack **** to do with Freedom of Speech. Sure, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have freedom of speech, but so do the people running Comedy Central. If Parker and Stone have a problem with allowing Comedy Central to do this, then they should have damn well known by now that they shouldn't be making deals with Comedy Central.

And if we see can agree that Comedy Central is free to censor their shows as they see fit (by being smart enough to include stipulations in the contract which allow that to be the case), then it doesn't ****ing matter whether or not it's "ridiculous" to censor the show in such a way. It's still completely THEIR decision to do so, and choosing to do so or NOT do so is STILL an exercise of their right to free speech.

Really, what are you implying? That Parker and Stone have the right to free speech, but that the people running Comedy Central somehow don't?

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

MrGeezer

Again, bull****.

Freedom of speech hasn't taken ANY "hit to the groin".

I don't know the details of Parker's and Stone's contract with Comedy Central, but I ****ing guarantee that the contract allowed Comedy Central to do EXACTLY what it's doing now. If I'm wrong, then Parker and Stone are free to take Comedy Central to court and sue them for breach of contract.

But Parker have tried this **** before, and I'm assuming that Comedy Central would cover their asses in just such an event when renewing their contract.

Parker and Stone don't like it, no one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to sign the ****ing contract. Parker and Stone AGREED to this kind of censorship on Comedy Central's part, and VOLUNTARILY signed away their free speech for personal benefit. That is, unless Comedy Central is under breach of contract when they censored the episode. In which case I'd like to see that supported with real evidence.

Now, assuming that Comedy Central has their asses covered in regards to this issue, then the decision to censor the episode IS free speech in action. Censoring the epsiode DOES make a statement. And Comedy Central has a RIGHT to make that statement, at the expense of Parker and Stone. If Parker and Stone have a ****ing problem with that, then you need to ask yourself why they keep renewing their contract with Comedy Central. But Parker's and Stone's first amendment rights do NOT override the first amendment rights of the people in charge of signing on shows for Comedy Central. Comedy Central is a business which is free to look out for its own interests. They are free to say what they want, they are free to only pick up the shows that they want. And unless they've violated contract with Parker and Stone, they are free to censor this episode if they want to.

This has Jack **** to do with Freedom of Speech. Sure, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have freedom of speech, but so do the people running Comedy Central. If Parker and Stone have a problem with allowing Comedy Central to do this, then they should have damn well known by now that they shouldn't be making deals with Comedy Central.

And if we see can agree that Comedy Central is free to censor their shows as they see fit (by being smart enough to include stipulations in the contract which allow that to be the case), then it doesn't ****ing matter whether or not it's "ridiculous" to censor the show in such a way. It's still completely THEIR decision to do so, and choosing to do so or NOT do so is STILL an exercise of their right to free speech.

Matt and Trey are jerks.Franklinstein

I would argue they're more jesters in the truest sense of the word, not jerks. Did you know that only Jesters had the right to insult the king? Now, why do you think that is?

Insults have always followed parody. Read some old Latin plays, or something medieval like Flen flyys which insults the local monks and contains the first known use of the F-word.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

MrGeezer

Again, bull****.

Freedom of speech hasn't taken ANY "hit to the groin".

I don't know the details of Parker's and Stone's contract with Comedy Central, but I ****ing guarantee that the contract allowed Comedy Central to do EXACTLY what it's doing now. If I'm wrong, then Parker and Stone are free to take Comedy Central to court and sue them for breach of contract.

But Parker have tried this **** before, and I'm assuming that Comedy Central would cover their asses in just such an event when renewing their contract.

Parker and Stone don't like it, no one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to sign the ****ing contract. Parker and Stone AGREED to this kind of censorship on Comedy Central's part, and VOLUNTARILY signed away their free speech for personal benefit. That is, unless Comedy Central is under breach of contract when they censored the episode. In which case I'd like to see that supported with real evidence.

Now, assuming that Comedy Central has their asses covered in regards to this issue, then the decision to censor the episode IS free speech in action. Censoring the epsiode DOES make a statement. And Comedy Central has a RIGHT to make that statement, at the expense of Parker and Stone. If Parker and Stone have a ****ing problem with that, then you need to ask yourself why they keep renewing their contract with Comedy Central. But Parker's and Stone's first amendment rights do NOT override the first amendment rights of the people in charge of signing on shows for Comedy Central. Comedy Central is a business which is free to look out for its own interests. They are free to say what they want, they are free to only pick up the shows that they want. And unless they've violated contract with Parker and Stone, they are free to censor this episode if they want to.

This has Jack **** to do with Freedom of Speech. Sure, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have freedom of speech, but so do the people running Comedy Central. If Parker and Stone have a problem with allowing Comedy Central to do this, then they should have damn well known by now that they shouldn't be making deals with Comedy Central.

And if we see can agree that Comedy Central is free to censor their shows as they see fit (by being smart enough to include stipulations in the contract which allow that to be the case), then it doesn't ****ing matter whether or not it's "ridiculous" to censor the show in such a way. It's still completely THEIR decision to do so, and choosing to do so or NOT do so is STILL an exercise of their right to free speech.

Really, what are you implying? That Parker and Stone have the right to free speech, but that the people running Comedy Central somehow don't?

I agree

I hate it when people reply "Because I can!" when asked why they are doing something.

There are a lot of reasons to do stuff; one reason not to do something, however, is simply for the sake of doing it.

However, this specific case is an extenuating circumstance. Stone and Parker are excellent critics of society and generally have accuracte social commentary; the point they are trying to raise is not only relevant, but appropriate.

While we can sit here and "play it safe" by not offending Muslims, the truth is that the chances of something horrible happening are close to zero. I'd say the chances of someone in the US getting hurt by a pissed off muslim are equal to someone in the US getting hurt by a pissed off muslim due to Southpark. Angry Muslims are always angry, nothing changes that...South Park would simply be the flavor of the week; next week they'll be pissed off because two kids were killed in a drone attack, etc.

It is time to pull the trigger. It is time to offend all Muslims and distinguish the fact that Muslims are different than terrorists; they will get thousands of angry letters, but they will get no bombs.

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

MrGeezer

But to play Devil's advocate, South Park has lampooned dozens of portions of American or global culture over the years it's been on the air. Among the groups in Parker's and Stone's crosshairs have been Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, environmentalists, atheists, and countless others. Basically of those shows were aired as-is. Now, here, we have a show that was basically completely sanitized before release. What's different? Nothing, really, other than the fact that some guy launched a death threat towards its creators.

So, I mean, to put what you're saying together with what's happened, what one may effectively conclude is that one should stop whatever one's doing the moment a death threat is leveled and give in to the demands of whomever is making the threat. And the obvious question is, well, how far do you go in bending what you say and do to the demands of those who threaten you with death if you don't? If they proceed to threaten more people with death unless South Park is taken completely off the air, should they do that too? At what point can one say, "No, this is stupid; your demands are unreasonable; I'm going to do this anyway whether you like it or not"?

The censor it here in Serbia to actual

Hate Speech is illegal when it affects those who have been offended, insulted, or disrepected them in anyway, shape or form & when they actually take action towards it (ie. race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion & so on). Doesn't matter if Prophet Mohammed is wearing a bear suit or a clown suit or a freaking monkey suit, it offends those in the Islamic community & the Muslim Extremist group. It's part of the Freedom of Speech loophole. Every country has a Freedom of Speech/ Freedom of Expression loophole including the United States of America. Clueless? Please, don't make statements that make you sound like an imbecile. Learn about what Freedom of Speech actually is in the U.S.A. before you start & defend 2 moronic white guys.

envybianchi

Do some research on the matter and educate yourself. In the United States, hate speech is perfectly legal. The following supreme court rulings prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Gitlow v New York (1925)

Yates v United States (1957)

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)

National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie (1977)

How 'bout them apples? Eh? It looks like you're the one without a grasp on what freedom of speech means.

[QUOTE="envybianchi"]

Hate Speech is illegal when it affects those who have been offended, insulted, or disrepected them in anyway, shape or form & when they actually take action towards it (ie. race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion & so on). Doesn't matter if Prophet Mohammed is wearing a bear suit or a clown suit or a freaking monkey suit, it offends those in the Islamic community & the Muslim Extremist group. It's part of the Freedom of Speech loophole. Every country has a Freedom of Speech/ Freedom of Expression loophole including the United States of America. Clueless? Please, don't make statements that make you sound like an imbecile. Learn about what Freedom of Speech actually is in the U.S.A. before you start & defend 2 moronic white guys.

dkrustyklown

Do some research on the matter and educate yourself. In the United States, hate speech is perfectly legal. The following supreme court rulings prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Gitlow v New York (1925)

Yates v United States (1957)

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)

National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie (1977)

How 'bout them apples? Eh? It looks like you're the one without a grasp on what freedom of speech means.

On the other hand, a New York based website posting details of Stone and Parker's business and home addresses, highlighting that they aired an episode depicting Mohammed, and planned to hire another, subtly hinting someone might be willing to take care of them, is unlikely to pass the same test.

(b) Folks are suggesting we commit violence against an ENTIRE SEGMENT of people, because one member of that segment made a semi-violent remark

SquatsAreAwesom

No. I said that the United States has an inherent and unlimited right to utterly destroy any nation whose leaders threaten the lives of American citizens.

Actually, Brandenburg v Ohio ruled that hate speech is illegal when its likely to incite immediate, specific violence. While it hasn't been tested in court, the usual example is yelling fire in a cinema. On the one hand, a KKK spokesperson rambling about Hispanics and African Americans would be protected. The target, call to action and charges would be very general.

On the other hand, a New York based website posting details of Stone and Parker's business and home addresses, highlighting that they aired an episode depicting Mohammed, and planned to hire another, subtly hinting someone might be willing to take care of them, is unlikely to pass the same test.

Danm_999

Which is precisely why Matt Stone and Trey Parker's actions are absolutely protected free speech while the threat posted against them on a website is not protected free speech.

Insulting a religion=free speech

Saying that something bad is going to happen to someone and then publishing that person's home address=not free speech

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Actually, Brandenburg v Ohio ruled that hate speech is illegal when its likely to incite immediate, specific violence. While it hasn't been tested in court, the usual example is yelling fire in a cinema. On the one hand, a KKK spokesperson rambling about Hispanics and African Americans would be protected. The target, call to action and charges would be very general.

On the other hand, a New York based website posting details of Stone and Parker's business and home addresses, highlighting that they aired an episode depicting Mohammed, and planned to hire another, subtly hinting someone might be willing to take care of them, is unlikely to pass the same test.

dkrustyklown

Which is precisely why Matt Stone and Trey Parker's actions are absolutely protected free speech while the website that posted a threat against them is not protected free speech.

Insulting a religion=free speech

Saying that something bad is going to happen to someone and then publishing that person's home address=not free speech

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]Dude, you guys that are saying that this episode isn't worth anyone getting hurt are ridiculous. You're missing the point of freedom of speech. It does not revolve around people getting offended. That does not matter. It is completely and one hundred percent irrelevant if people get offended. When you start thinking of people getting offended that's when things really start getting ugly. Imagine a world where one thing is not ok to say, that leads to two things, and eventually we have a situation where freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech at all. If Trey and Matt want to say something even if it is something I completely disagree with and I believe is offensive(which they've done several times), then it is there right as an American. MrGeezer

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

I agree that offending a group is unethical, but issuing a death threat is far more unethical. While you are complaining about South Park's childish iconoclasm, I don't see you arguing that what the muslims are doing is highly unethical and incompatible with western values. The website posted a picture of a murdered individual to intimidate Matt and Trey. For me, this picture is highly offensive.

Also, there is no reason to get heated and continually curse and call my arguments bull****. Franklinstein

lol...Irony at its finest.

Anyway, I made sure to not "censor bypass" by bleeping out the entire curse (of course, you don't know it's a curse, since I bleeped it).

You obviously were offended, or else you wouldn't have pointed it out. Look at your wording..."there's no reason to...". Notice how you're talking as if I shouldn't have typed that. That even though I've committed no crime and am well within the bounds of free speech, you might think about reporting me for TOS violations. In other words, you would be trying to actively prevent me from further offending you, even though doing so is well within my first amendment rights.

Think about that for a minute. This whole time, I've acknowledged Parker's and Stone's right to do the show, as well as Comedy Central's right to censor it. You've been taking the whole "any censorship is bad, on purely moral grounds" idea, despite the fact that it is highly likely that Parker and Stone knew the terms of the contract before they ever signed it and before they ever made the ****ing South Park episode.

Question...if you complain about how you were obviously offended, and I somehow manage to get banned from this site, will you be one of the people clamoring for my return under the grounds that free speech should not be restricted? Hell, I could go to a different website and post the exact same **** (same way that Parker and Stone can find someone else to air their show if they think that Comedy Central is being too much of a douchebag). But will you be one of the people standing up for "first ammendment rights" (even though that doesn't apply since I signed a contract to post here, exactly like Parker and Stone surely signed a contract before Comedy Central aired their show) if I somehow get banned for that last post?

Also, let me clarify that my intent was absolutely NOT to offend you. And that I constantly try to make my posts here fit within the TOS (that is, the contract that I voluntarily signed in order to obtain posting privileges). I'm genuinely sorry if you were personally offended. That wasn't my intent. But let's keep in mind that all I did here was call your arguments "bull****" (that's within the TOS, isn't it?) MeanwhileParker and Stone are doing their DAMNDEST to offend the most sacred things that people hold dear. In order to accomplish this, they went under contract with Comedy Central. Now, Comedy Central thinks that they went too far, decided to censor Parker and Stone's material, and we have people here sayiing that Parker's and Stone's message should not have been compromised.

If a Gamespot user violates the terms of service, Is Gamespot violating free speech when they either delete the post or ban the user?

It's funny how I have been CONSTANTLY defending Parker's and Stone's free speech rights, while simultaneously claiming that they're acting like a couple of stupid kids who don't know how "free speech" actually works. I have Constantly said that they certainly can say what they want to, but that there's no reason for that and that they are being unnescesarily offensive. You then follow up with me saying "bull****" by replying "there's no reason for that."

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

And again, I am genuinely sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean for such offense to take place, and I tried to stay within the bounds of my contract with Gamespot. That's the truth.

But if I get banned or something for my comment, somehow I VERY much doubt that you're going to be there arguing for me to be allowed back.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Actually, Brandenburg v Ohio ruled that hate speech is illegal when its likely to incite immediate, specific violence. While it hasn't been tested in court, the usual example is yelling fire in a cinema. On the one hand, a KKK spokesperson rambling about Hispanics and African Americans would be protected. The target, call to action and charges would be very general.

On the other hand, a New York based website posting details of Stone and Parker's business and home addresses, highlighting that they aired an episode depicting Mohammed, and planned to hire another, subtly hinting someone might be willing to take care of them, is unlikely to pass the same test.

dkrustyklown

Which is precisely why Matt Stone and Trey Parker's actions are absolutely protected free speech while the threat posted against them on a website is not protected free speech.

Insulting a religion=free speech

Saying that something bad is going to happen to someone and then publishing that person's home address=not free speech

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Actually, Brandenburg v Ohio ruled that hate speech is illegal when its likely to incite immediate, specific violence. While it hasn't been tested in court, the usual example is yelling fire in a cinema. On the one hand, a KKK spokesperson rambling about Hispanics and African Americans would be protected. The target, call to action and charges would be very general.

On the other hand, a New York based website posting details of Stone and Parker's business and home addresses, highlighting that they aired an episode depicting Mohammed, and planned to hire another, subtly hinting someone might be willing to take care of them, is unlikely to pass the same test.

weezyfb

Which is precisely why Matt Stone and Trey Parker's actions are absolutely protected free speech while the threat posted against them on a website is not protected free speech.

Insulting a religion=free speech

Saying that something bad is going to happen to someone and then publishing that person's home address=not free speech

Wow, never thought South Park could create such a heated discussion here in the OT. I'm pissed because Itunes stopped offering the episodes and I have the season pass, so now I feel pretty screwed. I don't know whats going to happen with that, but this crap is affecting everything.

It is time to pull the trigger. It is time to offend all Muslims and distinguish the fact that Muslims are different than terrorists; they will get thousands of angry letters, but they will get no bombs.

mrbojangles25

While I STRONGLY disagree with your sentiment thst it is the time to "offend all Muslims" simply as a means of calling their bluff and telling them they they ain't going to do Jack ****, I would like to point out airplane security.

For a while, Americans have been scared as hell of Muslim terrorists blowing our asses to hell. We support amping up extreme measures when it comes to airport security, neglecting the fact that that's people's JOBS. There are people in charge of airplane security, hardly anything EVER ****ing happens, and complacency sets in. You can absolutely place restrictions on amounts of liquids, but the people checking this **** are doing it EVERY ****ING DAY. At some point, this **** becomes routine for them, then we get a big news story about how someone managed to sneak a bomb onto a plane, and this results in more restrictions that people will quickly start getting lax about enforcing.

This is entirely a tangent to the point that all the security is focused on ****ing airplanes. Which is simply a mind-bogglingly stupid example of "the illusion of safety". Make airplanes secure enough, and what the ****ing hell is stopping terrorists from blowing themselves up at a crowded nightclub, or a restaurant? Or packing a backpack full of explosives, walking onto a college campus containing our countries best and brightest young people, and then blowing them all the hell up. This **** wouldn't even have to be a suicide bombing. We're talking about a place where backpacks are EXPECTED, where security SUCKS, and where it'd be easy as hell for a terrorist to leave a backpack full of bombs in a lecture hall, leave to "use the restroom", and then pull the same **** at another university.

This **** CANNOT be stopped, which makes me wonder why the hell people are so afraid of the Muslim terrorist threat. This **** actually DOES happen in other countries, and there is absolutely NO ****ing reason why it hasn't happened here in the USA if "those people" hate us that much. There is NOTHING that can prevent this from becoming commonplace, this has actually become more commonplace in other countries, and the ONLY reason I can think of is that people are overestimating how much the "terrorists" want to do this.

We ABSOLUTELY need to stop being scared of the Phantom Muslim Menace, because there is absolutely ZERO reason why Muslim terrorists wouldn't be doing this **** a LOT more often in the USA. There's nothing stopping them. Security CAN'T stop them, the only reason why this **** isn't more common here is because the people who can do it it aren't doing it.

However, let me reiterate that just because Muslim extremists AREN'T doing this **** more often isn't a valid reason to antagonize them just because you can. While we're on the topic of what people "can but don't" do, these same people "can but don't" blow the hell out of you every time you ride a bus, dine in a restaurant, see a movie at a cinema, or attend a lecture at your university. However, as I said before, "can" does not and never has equated to "should".

If you tell your girlfriend that she is fat, then it is legal for her to dump you. However, if you insult a muslim, it is not legal for them to murder you. The unethical party in this situation are the muslims issuing death threats, Not Matt and Trey.

I agree that offending a group is unethical, but issuing a death threat is far more unethical. While you are complaining about South Park's childish iconoclasm, I don't see you arguing that what the muslims are doing is highly unethical and incompatible with western values. The website posted a picture of a murdered individual to intimidate Matt and Trey. For me, this picture is highly offensive.

civic_misfit

Yeah, because that's a criminal issue.

If people are committing CRIMES in order to keep Muhhammad from showing up on South Park, then that's for law enforcement to deal with while Comedy Central does whatever the hell it wants to.

That picture can be offensive, sure, and I have no doubt that the uncensored episode would have been "offensive".

Those making the "threats" were either committing a crime, or they were exercising free speech. If they were committing a crime, then they should absolutely be brought to justice, but that's certainly in no way a defense of South Park's intentionally offending people just for the hell of it.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

It is time to pull the trigger. It is time to offend all Muslims and distinguish the fact that Muslims are different than terrorists; they will get thousands of angry letters, but they will get no bombs.

MrGeezer

While I STRONGLY disagree with your sentiment thst it is the time to "offend all Muslims" simply as a means of calling their bluff and telling them they they ain't going to do Jack ****, I would like to point out airplane security.

For a while, Americans have been scared as hell of Muslim terrorists blowing our asses to hell. We support amping up extreme measures when it comes to airport security, neglecting the fact that that's people's JOBS. There are people in charge of airplane security, hardly anything EVER ****ing happens, and complacency sets in. You can absolutely place restrictions on amounts of liquids, but the people checking this **** are doing it EVERY ****ING DAY. At some point, this **** becomes routine for them, then we get a big news story about how someone managed to sneak a bomb onto a plane, and this results in more restrictions that people will quickly start getting lax about enforcing.

This is entirely a tangent to the point that all the security is focused on ****ing airplanes. Which is simply a mind-bogglingly stupid example of "the illusion of safety". Make airplanes secure enough, and what the ****ing hell is stopping terrorists from blowing themselves up at a crowded nightclub, or a restaurant? Or packing a backpack full of explosives, walking onto a college campus containing our countries best and brightest young people, and then blowing them all the hell up. This **** wouldn't even have to be a suicide bombing. We're talking about a place where backpacks are EXPECTED, where security SUCKS, and where it'd be easy as hell for a terrorist to leave a backpack full of bombs in a lecture hall, leave to "use the restroom", and then pull the same **** at another university.

This **** CANNOT be stopped, which makes me wonder why the hell people are so afraid of the Muslim terrorist threat. This **** actually DOES happen in other countries, and there is absolutely NO ****ing reason why it hasn't happened here in the USA if "those people" hate us that much. There is NOTHING that can prevent this from becoming commonplace, this has actually become more commonplace in other countries, and the ONLY reason I can think of is that people are overestimating how much the "terrorists" want to do this.

We ABSOLUTELY need to stop being scared of the Phantom Muslim Menace, because there is absolutely ZERO reason why Muslim terrorists wouldn't be doing this **** a LOT more often in the USA. There's nothing stopping them. Security CAN'T stop them, the only reason why this **** isn't more common here is because the people who can do it it aren't doing it.

However, let me reiterate that just because Muslim extremists AREN'T doing this **** more often isn't a valid reason to antagonize them just because you can. While we're on the topic of what people "can but don't" do, these same people "can but don't" blow the hell out of you every time you ride a bus, dine in a restaurant, see a movie at a cinema, or attend a lecture at your university. However, as I said before, "can" does not and never has equated to "should".

GOod points, I phrased myself poorly. I do not feel it is right to antogonize them, saying "its time to offend all muslims" was wrong.

Say what you want about South Park; hate, love, etc...but the fact is theyre fair.

Remember the episode when Muhammad first popped up? What did they do at the end of it?

THey made fun of America and Christ. They showed a gay couple, a single pregnant woman, and Jesus Christ crapping all over eachother.

I am simply saying it is time to put Muslims on the same pedastal as the rest of the world. The time for reverse discrimination is over.

In short, people are failing to notice what Southpark is saying: they have poked fun and damn near every single minority, race, disability, political spectrum and more. THey have criticized and said awful things about everything people hold sacred.

Except Islam.

Guess who's turn it is?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Bull****.

When you go to work and feel slightly annoyed, your first ammendment rights allow you to insult their bosses and their customers. Most people hold that **** in though, because they don't want to get fired.

Yes, people absolutely CAN say almost whatever the hell they want to. That doesn't mean that it's worth it.

It's your right to tell your girlfriend that she's fat and ugly, and it's your right to be surprised when she dumps your ass.

"Free speech" does not mean and never has meant that UNRESTRAINED free speech is a good ****ing idea. The fact that you CAN say something never has and never will mean that you SHOULD say it.

And that's why I think of Parker and Stone as a couple of juvenile-minded brats. They're the equivalent of a kid running around trying out every insult or curse word he's heard, in order to see what he can get away with. And when he doesn't get away with something, he throws a ****ing tantrum. People personally and voluntarily restrict their own free speech ALL THE TIME. Always saying what you think isn't an admirable quality, it's a characteristic of someone who is entirely ****ing ignorant about how society works.

YES, what people say revolves around whether or not people get offended.

GabuEx

But to play Devil's advocate, South Park has lampooned dozens of portions of American or global culture over the years it's been on the air. Among the groups in Parker's and Stone's crosshairs have been Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, environmentalists, atheists, and countless others. Basically of those shows were aired as-is. Now, here, we have a show that was basically completely sanitized before release. What's different? Nothing, really, other than the fact that some guy launched a death threat towards its creators.

So, I mean, to put what you're saying together with what's happened, what one may effectively conclude is that one should stop whatever one's doing the moment a death threat is leveled and give in to the demands of whomever is making the threat. And the obvious question is, well, how far do you go in bending what you say and do to the demands of those who threaten you with death if you don't? If they proceed to threaten more people with death unless South Park is taken completely off the air, should they do that too? At what point can one say, "No, this is stupid; your demands are unreasonable; I'm going to do this anyway whether you like it or not"?

I wasn't saying that at all.

I was saying that whether or not "an exception" is made is a matter of risks vs rewards. And that Comedy Central is in their right to make that assessment for themselves. THAT is an example of exercising free speech. As the ones in charge of determining what speech is allowed to be distributed over their channels, then it is not in ANY way a violation of free speech for Comedy Central to say "we'll show X uncensored, but we're going to censor Y".

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

You have totally lost me. This has nothing to do with any form of censorship. Its simply the fact about discrimination should be avoided in the first place then this garbage wont happen in the first place. Simple as ABC

Disturbed123

Not adhereing to islamic holy law=discrimination?

On the contrary, they are getting special treatment. Every other major religion gets parodied on south park. Why is it okay for those ones but discrimination when islam is involved?

How is showing a religious figure discrimination?

how is discrimination related to the Islamic holy law? Its should be a norm by todays society with or without religious context. Everyone should be treated equally and no form of discrimination or racism should exist. Period. . Just shows how screwed up society really is.

Who said those insults do not bother christians, buddhas etc? Just because they dont say anything on the Gamespot forum? :roll:

If anything, why is it essential to use "Muhammed" as a name of a character? Theres no reason behind it. Muhammed was a role model to muslims and is looked upto as a role model, its the first thing we think of when we think of the name Muhammed in terms of Islam, hence why people may have found it offensive. I would be equally as offended if they used Jesus, Moses etc aswell. Its pathetic how many hits this show gets just because they insult religion, how original :roll:

So you agree that Muhammad should be on the show? As it is, everyone is NOT being treated the same. Every other religion has been made fun of, Islam is the only one that can't be, because extremists threaten to kill others.

The insults might (I think Buddhists would forgive and forget, and most christians are probably over it since Jesus has been criticized for years) but none of them are threatening to kill people if they don't get their way.

It isn't essential. But it is their right to do it if they want. Islam should not be able to stop them. If Islam wants to stop anyone from using Muhammad, they should file for a copyright of him.

Religion should NOT be exempt to criticism and insults.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]Comedy Central changed it because there were demands and a fear of retaliation from Muslims....... Not because of the demands of their viewers which should be the reasons for their programming choices.MrGeezer

And they were perfectly capable of telling the people making the threats to go to hell, and then airing the show uncensored anyway.

They didn't change it because they were FORCED. They changed it because they looked at the potential rewards vs the potential risks, and decided that it wasn't worth it.

[QUOTE="CakeBalls"]As long as there is free speech this will always be a problem. The fix would be to ban free speech, but I'm not sure people will jump at the idea of that. You just have to deal with it.MrGeezer

Actually, the "fix" would be for viewers to start demanding standards of decency. Comedy Central is a business, and public demand will influence what they allow on the air.

Meanwhile, if viewers simply lack basic human decency and see no problem with intentionally trying to mock people's sacred beliefs for no other reason than that they can, then that's that.

Sorry, I don't agree with censorship. They should be able to air anything they want. I am not forced to watch it. I find Sean Hannity to be offensive but I can't demand he be taken off the air, can I? Instead I just DON'T WATCH IT.

[QUOTE="CakeBalls"]As long as there is free speech this will always be a problem. The fix would be to ban free speech, but I'm not sure people will jump at the idea of that. You just have to deal with it.MrGeezer

Actually, the "fix" would be for viewers to start demanding standards of decency. Comedy Central is a business, and public demand will influence what they allow on the air.

Meanwhile, if viewers simply lack basic human decency and see no problem with intentionally trying to mock people's sacred beliefs for no other reason than that they can, then that's that.

Yeah because south park viewers would want the shows content toned down to suit the needs of easily offended people that fail to grasp the concept of switching channels. Wheres the death threats from the other religions......nope they can deal with it, muslims should HTFU

So your accusing people of having no human decency because they enjoy a show that is based on lampooning anything and everything, it doesnt sound like your a fan so why the need to comment on something you dont watch, or are you one of those that cant change the channel.

I bet your the type of person that sees pr0n and thinks "how can people enjoy this, that is someones daughter, show some respect"

Everyone knows what to expect when they watch south park, if muslims think they're above everyone else and shouldnt be lampooned then they need a reality check. A religion that forces women to dress a certain way has no right to criticise a show that makes fun of everything equally.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="CakeBalls"]As long as there is free speech this will always be a problem. The fix would be to ban free speech, but I'm not sure people will jump at the idea of that. You just have to deal with it.Pixel-Pirate

Actually, the "fix" would be for viewers to start demanding standards of decency. Comedy Central is a business, and public demand will influence what they allow on the air.

Meanwhile, if viewers simply lack basic human decency and see no problem with intentionally trying to mock people's sacred beliefs for no other reason than that they can, then that's that.

Sorry, I don't agree with censorship. They should be able to air anything they want. I am not forced to watch it. I find Sean Hannity to be offensive but I can't demand he be taken off the air, can I? Instead I just DON'T WATCH IT.

Of course you can demand that he be taken off the air. Then he'll either be taken off the air, or you'll get told to get bent.

However, you are very much failing to grasp that a network's freedom to air want they want is EXACTLY the same as a network's freedom to NOT air what they DON'T want to show. You don't agree with censorship? Do you not agree with SELF-censorship? NOT saying something IS saying something, and the ability for censorship to exist is REQUIRED if freedom of speech is to exist.

I'm curious if that's bona fide censorship or whether they actually decided to do that themselves to make a statement.

GabuEx

Oh, Muslims are peaceful they wouldn't threaten someone for practicing their right of free speech!

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Actually, the "fix" would be for viewers to start demanding standards of decency. Comedy Central is a business, and public demand will influence what they allow on the air.

Meanwhile, if viewers simply lack basic human decency and see no problem with intentionally trying to mock people's sacred beliefs for no other reason than that they can, then that's that.

MrGeezer

Sorry, I don't agree with censorship. They should be able to air anything they want. I am not forced to watch it. I find Sean Hannity to be offensive but I can't demand he be taken off the air, can I? Instead I just DON'T WATCH IT.

Of course you can demand that he be taken off the air. Then he'll either be taken off the air, or you'll get told to get bent.

However, you are very much failing to grasp that a network's freedom to air want they want is EXACTLY the same as a network's freedom to NOT air what they DON'T want to show. You don't agree with censorship? Do you not agree with SELF-censorship? NOT saying something IS saying something, and the ability for censorship to exist is REQUIRED if freedom of speech is to exist.

You keep arguing from this angle that CC censored it via a sudden showing of human decency and because they didn't want to offend, not because of the far more obvious cause which was because a radical group threatened to possibly attack them. You must agree that had this group not threatened violence, they wouldn't of censored the show. As such, the group is the direct cause of it.

Indeed it was CC's final decision, but their decision was influenced by coercsion and possible threats of violence, which is alot different from freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the idea that you can preach what you want without threats of violence.

Do you really think it's smart to send the message that if you threaten to kill people you can change others opinions?

This is basically like if someone said "Punch yourself or I will shoot you!". Would you blame the person for punching themselves and say they did it of their own accord when it is obvious they would not of if not for threats of violence? Do you feel that persons decision was influenced by someone else and not their true desires?

Thats up to you to decide. But I think it's silly to act like CC did this of their own accord and not because a radical group threatened to kill people. Lets be realistic here.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm curious if that's bona fide censorship or whether they actually decided to do that themselves to make a statement.

Ninja-Bear

Thing is, it's probable that CC would NOT of censored it without threats. They didn't do it because they wanted to, they did it because a group of radicals said "Do it or we'll kill you". I don't feel thats what freedom of speech is about.

o come on man. these muslims wer bluffing. i am extreamly dissapointed

You keep arguing from this angle that CC censored it via a sudden showing of human decency and because they didn't want to offend, not because of the far more obvious cause which was because a radical group threatened to possibly attack them. You must agree that had this group not threatened violence, they wouldn't of censored the show. As such, the group is the direct cause of it.

Indeed it was CC's final decision, but their decision was influenced by coercsion and possible threats of violence, which is alot different from freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the idea that you can preach what you want without threats of violence.

Do you really think it's smart to send the message that if you threaten to kill people you can change others opinions?

This is basically like if someone said "Punch yourself or I will shoot you!". Would you blame the person for punching themselves and say they did it of their own accord when it is obvious they would not of if not for threats of violence? Do you feel that persons decision was influenced by someone else and not their true desires?

Thats up to you to decide. But I think it's silly to act like CC did this of their own accord and not because a radical group threatened to kill people. Lets be realistic here.

Pixel-Pirate

This isn't the first time someone has gotten a death threat, and it won't be the last. A hell of a lot of people have received death threats before, and still kept on doing what they did.

If this was something that Comedy Central wanted to stand behind, then there was absolutely nothing keeping them from sticking to their values and airing the episode uncensored anyway.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You keep arguing from this angle that CC censored it via a sudden showing of human decency and because they didn't want to offend, not because of the far more obvious cause which was because a radical group threatened to possibly attack them. You must agree that had this group not threatened violence, they wouldn't of censored the show. As such, the group is the direct cause of it.

Indeed it was CC's final decision, but their decision was influenced by coercsion and possible threats of violence, which is alot different from freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the idea that you can preach what you want without threats of violence.

Do you really think it's smart to send the message that if you threaten to kill people you can change others opinions?

This is basically like if someone said "Punch yourself or I will shoot you!". Would you blame the person for punching themselves and say they did it of their own accord when it is obvious they would not of if not for threats of violence? Do you feel that persons decision was influenced by someone else and not their true desires?

Thats up to you to decide. But I think it's silly to act like CC did this of their own accord and not because a radical group threatened to kill people. Lets be realistic here.

MrGeezer

This isn't the first time someone has gotten a death threat, and it won't be the last. A hell of a lot of people have received death threats before, and still kept on doing what they did.

If this was something that Comedy Central wanted to stand behind, then there was absolutely nothing keeping them from sticking to their values and airing the episode uncensored anyway.

I honestly think the US government contacted them about it if anything.. I can't see the creators of South Park giving a damn about this what so ever.. Afterall they have made fun of religions and NEWS FLASH, muslims are not the only group of people with radicals..

[QUOTE="civic_misfit"]If you tell your girlfriend that she is fat, then it is legal for her to dump you. However, if you insult a muslim, it is not legal for them to murder you. The unethical party in this situation are the muslims issuing death threats, Not Matt and Trey.

I agree that offending a group is unethical, but issuing a death threat is far more unethical. While you are complaining about South Park's childish iconoclasm, I don't see you arguing that what the muslims are doing is highly unethical and incompatible with western values. The website posted a picture of a murdered individual to intimidate Matt and Trey. For me, this picture is highly offensive.

MrGeezer

Yeah, because that's a criminal issue.

If people are committing CRIMES in order to keep Muhhammad from showing up on South Park, then that's for law enforcement to deal with while Comedy Central does whatever the hell it wants to.

That picture can be offensive, sure, and I have no doubt that the uncensored episode would have been "offensive".

Those making the "threats" were either committing a crime, or they were exercising free speech. If they were committing a crime, then they should absolutely be brought to justice, but that's certainly in no way a defense of South Park's intentionally offending people just for the hell of it.

For people complaining about censorship, it think it's important to point out that there's a massive difference between state-censorship and SELF-censorship. Free speech has not been damaged at all in this. Ninja-Bear

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"]For people complaining about censorship, it think it's important to point out that there's a massive difference between state-censorship and SELF-censorship. Free speech has not been damaged at all in this. LJS9502_basic

They're the ones facing any potential consequences. They can cave in to threats if they want to.

Now, if someone is to later threaten AMC or Cartoon Network, then they're free to NOT cave in to threats.

I think it's just something they're doing themselves wthout the instruction of Comedy Central. like the way they censor Tom Cruise and whatever other twak their is.

Comedy Central could get into quite a bit of trouble if they themselves were suddenly instructing their programs to start censoring religious 'dialogue' of any denomination, i think....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"]For people complaining about censorship, it think it's important to point out that there's a massive difference between state-censorship and SELF-censorship. Free speech has not been damaged at all in this. MrGeezer

They're the ones facing any potential consequences. They can cave in to threats if they want to.

Now, if someone is to later threaten AMC or Cartoon Network, then they're free to NOT cave in to threats.

I just wish to give my appraisal to Pixel-Pirate for defending freedom of speech so vehemently. It is a pity that they had to, however, for it depicts how many would just cower in fear of retaliation and would in return give up their personal freedoms.

LOL! People got more offended by showing Mohammed in a bear costume than Buddah doing lines of coke! What a retarded world we live in...Islandbeats

exactly lol

people just dont get it...Southpark has made fun of EVERYTHING except Islam! Why do they get special treatment? What makes them better than us? Time to bring them into the 21st Century...where we have a sense of humor!