The big issue of the day today in the blogosphere is Comedy Central’s admitted censoring of a cartoon image of Mohammed on last night’s Southpark episode (see here and here for background).
I’m not a Southpark watcher - have never liked the show, but the last two weeks I’ve watched the two episodes that dealt with the issue of showing a cartoon image of Mohammed (it was a two parter, and it was the second part where the cartoon image of Mohammed was censored). I’m not sure what drew me to watching the first episode other than the lack of nothing else being on TV the night it was on, but I did watch it and found it to be very much like art imitating life in terms of how we’ve been dealing with the issue of displaying the cartoon images of Mohammed that created so much controversy overseas - and to a lesser extent here. The first episode showed the entire town burying their heads in the sand in response to the Fox channel’s announcement that they were going to air an episode of Family Guy that included a cartoon image of Mohammed. The townspeople who buried their hands in the sand did so so that when the episode was aired, and the terrorists who threatened retaliation carried through with their threat, they’d skip over them because they didn’t watch the family guy episode.
The second episode’s focus was two of the main characters going to Fox studios - one of them to get the episode in question (and Family Guy) pulled off the air and the other one wanted to stop him (sorry, I don’t know the characters names because I don’t watch it often enough to know). The climax to the episode showed the two of them trying to persuade the Fox channel president to air the episode (the one who wanted the episode pulled was trying to do so by pointing a gun at the Fox channel prez). The president had been on the phone to I guess what was ‘command central’ for the Fox network and intially had told them to pull the episode. The lady who answered the phone said she needed a code reserved for him to use to confirm he wanted to pull the episode. He was about to give the code away when the one little guy persuaded him not to pull the episode (see the video here and also here).
When the episode did go on the air (literally seconds after the Fox prez gave the go ahead) we saw Family Guy and a character from that show open up the door to a house and that’s when we were supposed to see Mohammed. But we didn’t. What we saw was this:
I wasn’t sure if it was a joke or what, but I know I was disapointed last night when I saw that. Reading Malkin’s blog today I see that it was indeed the decision of Comedy Central to ban the cartoon image of Mohammed.
I can see the NYT or the Washington Post hypocritcally not publishing the image out of fear of hurting the feelings of the Muslim community, but Comedy Central has never been a network that worried about offending people. In fact, in last night’s episode, they had no issues showing an image of Christ defecating on the President.
Amazing, eh?
Here’s a write up on the controversy via the WaPo:
Parker and Stone [the creators of Southpark] were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn’t want to be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity.
The network’s decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.
Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: “In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.” Its executives would not comment further.
Comedy Central, obviously, is free to do what they want to as far as the image of Mohammed is concerned. But what they’ve done with this is two things: 1) display a blatant hypocrisy by censoring an image of Mohammed while in the next breath showing an image of Christ defecating on the President and 2) given in to the fear and intimidation that Islamofascists across the world want us all to.
Jeff Goldstein writes:
But with the Krazy Islamists (who, as Hillary and Tbogg and Digby and Atrios will happily remind you the Bushies keep “using” as a “scare tactic” to get neocon “bedwetters” to vote their way), it seems the execs at Comedy Central just couldn’t be too sure.
Naturally, they write off their cowardice to “cultural sensitivity”—but as I’ve noted here a thousand times already, when you surrender free speech to an interest group who claims to hold the only legitimate authority on how its narrative can be expressed, you have effectively done away with both the idea of free speech and the idea of tolerance in its non-bastardized form.
Because when “tolerance” is redefined as an interpreter’s right not to be offended, the onus is always on the utterer to make sure his speech is free of any potential offense.
And because just about anything can be offensive to someone, such a twisted idea of tolerance (which, like many other disasters regarding language grows out of fundamentally incoherent view of communication that refuses to recognize intent as the grounding for interpretation) has become the standard excuse the press and our universities have been giving for their increasing anti-intellectualism.
That they are selective in when to employ this type of tolerance simply marks them as cynical hypocrites, as well.
Yep.
Read more via: Captain Ed, Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy, James Joyner, Political Pit Bull, Anchoress, Wizbang, Lorie Byrd, Gateway Pundit, Flopping Aces, Iowa Voice
Update: On a related note, Cal at California Conservative has a post up about a MTV ad in Germany that makes fun of Jesus’ Crucifixion.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Borders and Waldenbooks won’t carry magazine that contains Mohammed cartoons
- Cartoon controversies from across the border
- Photos from the ’support free speech and Denmark’ rally in NYC
- Oh please
- Hitchensville
- An odd pairing - Dershowitz and Bennett
- Media double standard on offending Muslims
- Fanatical Islamists wage war on the Internet over cartoons
- Hats off to the Daily Tarheel
- EU windbags considering ‘media code’ after cartoon controversy
- The anatomy of the cartoon jihad
- NYT publishes virgin Mary “art” - but not ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons
- Oh indeed - it’s definitely about hate!
- Iran paper to publish Holocaust ‘cartoons’
- Another US media double standard re: cartoons
- US media will print Abu Ghraib photos but not controversial cartoons
- Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences
- US sides with Muslims in cartoon controversy
- More European papers reprinting “offensive” Islamic cartoons
- Bomb threats made against Danish paper over Mohammed cartoons
| Email This Post | Print This |
As dumb as it can be, I just love that show
Comment by Pam @ 4/13/2006 - 9:23 pm
How ironic, a cartoon censoring a cartoon. Malkin, appears to be getting more and more unstable. It must be living in Las Vegas with Noonan. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/13/2006 - 9:45 pm
It just shows the differences between Christians and Muslims - when an image of Jesus is portrayed in such a manner, you’re not going to see mobs hitting the streets, calling for the death of every non-Christian.. whereas with the images of Mohammed.. you know the drill..
Freakin death cult..
Comment by Ryan @ 4/13/2006 - 10:42 pm
That’s funny. They showed it where I live.
Comment by John Hansen @ 4/13/2006 - 10:57 pm
Hey Steve(FN)so if a cartoon can censor a cartoon does that mean we can censor you with any of the following halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, lamebrain, loony, loser, lunkhead, mental defective, muttonhead? How can you say anyone else is unstable as you are the most inconsistent, inconstant, insecure, irrational, yo-yo we know.
Comment by Jim M @ 4/14/2006 - 1:22 pm
I disagree with you a bit on this issue, ST. I think that the real reason that the MSM, Comedy Central and others do not publish the Mohammed cartoons is that there seems to be a tacit alliance between the Far Left and Islamofascism (a kind of modern Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact). The Far Left provides political cover for the Islamofascists in exchange for the Islamofascists continuing their jihad against the enemy of both groups - democracy.
Once freedom is extinguished, I suspect that these two groups will then fight each other for control. While I would want neither side to win in that case, my betting money would be on the guys with the beards shouting “Allah Akhbar!” coming out on top. The Far Left (represented by Democratic politicians and the MSM) is arrogant, greedy and stupid. That may be good enough to win elections, but not wars.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 4/14/2006 - 2:13 pm
The Left is represented by itself and by no one in either political party. The Islamo-fascists have far more in common with the religious Right then with the Left in America. You cannot have Peace(Christ) by making war(anti-Christ). If you support war then you have chosen the side of the anti-Christ. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/14/2006 - 8:06 pm
“The Far Left (represented by Democratic politicians and the MSM) is arrogant, greedy and stupid. That may be good enough to win elections, but not wars.”
- Hmmmmmm. If ao they need to bone up their act apparently, because that approach hasn’t been exactly burning it up at the ballot box lately.
- Sooner or later someone on the left is going to get trapped into actually having to deal with the Jihadists, mano-el-mano,(when its not a “setup”),and then you’ll see them in all their spinless, cowardly glory. To be a Liberal *spit* these days, you need to carry a white flag in your pocket at all times. For any of the asshat trolls out there that do not have one I’m sure Steve(FN) can fix you up.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/14/2006 - 8:41 pm
Don’t draw any illusions about the gentle nature of a people and their willingness to be consumed by fire until the world is sickened into conversion. That is not a white rag,Bang, it’s a red flag. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/14/2006 - 9:18 pm
- Steve, the reality of the “world” is that the only thing that could possible sicken most of its inhabitants is the stink of the “peacifists” burning bodies.
- I can tell just by the nature of your comments you’re a product of what other men have interpreted for you, which is an honest position, if sadly mis-guided.
- Many years ago when I first studied Hebrew, the first thing I became aware of was the numerrous mis-translations of Arameric/Hebrew words into the modern scriptures from the original writings of the apostles.
- Just as a single instance, I know how much you voice your distaste for people of wealth. This is a result of accepting what you’ve been told in the many alogories from the bible. In this case “A camel can pass through the eye of a needle easier than a rich man can enter heaven”. Sounds good. Worked wonders for the church elders in getting the wealthier patrons among their flock to tithe freely to the church coffers. Unfortunately its a completely wrong translation, since the word “camel” was a intentional use of a play on words, “ghamel”, in Hebrew being the word for “thread”, not the animal. So what G_d was really saying is, “….your earthly wealth means nothing in regards to your salvation”. So no one need be jealous, or hateful of another simply because of his or her success.
- There are countless other examples, but what I would say to you is reserve your opinion just a while longer until you’re more widely read. As far as I know neither G_d nor his deciples ever stated their respect for emulating yourself to shame your enemies, which in itself is a silly idea because they wouldn’t be your enemies in the first place if they had any character or shame. On the other hand it makes a hell 0f a good excuse if you’re just afraid to fight for your family, country, and ideals.
- Your enemies, almost always tend to be of the ruthless variety or they wouldn’t be attacking you to begin with, and they’ll will be more than happy to watch you die for them. Saves them a lot of bother. Liberty
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/14/2006 - 9:49 pm
I’m not big on religion, but I really think that the subject should be left alone in the cartoons. Throwing poop on religous figures is really a pathetic way to create ratings and isn’t really that funny. I think the more serious issue here, is how can one bomb another irishman because he believes in a different god? Or how can a sunni muslim attack a shiite muslim, because he believes in a different god? Here is where I have a problem with religion. And, we have this same problem in american politics. How can a family not get along at a thanksgiving dinner because they believe in a different political party? During the 2000 recount, did anyone here have a tough time at thanksgiving?
Comment by G Monster @ 4/15/2006 - 10:59 am
Why do you believe that Christ allowed Himself to be crucified? Don’t you think he could have struck dead anyone within earshot? Whether it’s a camel or a thread, how you get your wealth and what you do with it are the issues. Getting wealthy through war-profiteering will assure your ticket to Hell. bush,Cheney,Wolfowitz,Rumsfeld are all war-profiteers. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 11:21 am
Can’t we all just get along? Some big religous figure in Iraq needs to stand and say these words. Rodney King did and he stopped the LA riots. I’m not saying he doesn’t have his problems, but the day he said that, he did earn my respect.
Comment by G Monster @ 4/15/2006 - 11:48 am
G Monster,
I kind of understand what you are saying. Believe it or not Sunnis and Shiites both believe in the same god. Apparently their differences come from what happened after the prophet Mohammed died. I THINK that is what the difference is. I may be wrong. Can you believe that? They believe in the same god, but differ over something like that. Actually though, I think it is more political than religious.
But then again, look at religion in the U.S. Many people look down on others because of their denominations, even though they still believe in Jesus Christ. I’m Catholic and I certainly don’t agree with EVERYTHING the Catholic church does, that’s for sure. However, I certainly don’t look down on someone else because of their denomination.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/15/2006 - 5:03 pm
Getting along is a communal excercise. If you really want to get along then you accept that there is only one God, the God of all people. The God of the Christians, the Jews, the Moslems,the Zoroastarians,the Buddhists, the Shinto, all of the religious. To truely get along, the pursuit of Peace is the only valid excercise. You must work actively to end war. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 8:08 pm