South Park Creators Threatened by Radical Muslims

[Pogo]

I'm not sure who on this forum watches South Park, but I'm sure that those that do have been recently made aware of the latest two episodes that depicted Muhammad. When a New-York based radical muslim group caught wind of the episodes, the following threats were issued towards Trey Stone and Matt Parker;

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them".

The so called "warning" contained information about the addresses of Matt and Trey, as well as a sermon on blasphemy. Comedy Central ended up censoring the images of Muhammad and even censored out a speech by some of the characters on the show. Is anyone else outraged that we are becoming so ridiculously politically correct that we are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the irrational and violent beliefs of these radical muslim groups in our own countries?

Edit: Link to youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbtgjx9xE0&feature=related

Edited April 25, 2010 by Pogo

[August1991]

I'm not sure who on this forum watches South Park....

I don't watch South Park and I only know of it through blogposts and youtube clips.

IMV, this has the potential to go viral - among people who use the Internet. For broader humanity, this story is irrelevant.

----

We in the West do not face stupid people who use the Internet. We face backward, ignorant, superstitious people.

We must bring them into our world.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't watch South Park, but from what I've read, it was the network that censored the show about Mohammad. Apparently everyone and everything else is a go, but not Mohammad.

They have depicted the Queen blowing her brains out after a failed attempt by the British army to reinvade America, Saddam Hussein as Satan's gay lover, and Jesus as a trigger-happy superhero. Mormons, Scientologists, Catholics, Jews, politicians and film stars have all been skewered on the razor-sharp wit of South Park.

Now the caustic animated satire appears to have reached its limits within the confines of mainstream US television. Fans and pundits alike were taken aback last night when an episode featuring the prophet Muhammad purportedly dressed in a bear costume had bleeps and "Censored" blocks slapped liberally throughout to remove all audio and visual reference to the prophet.

Seems as if this is going viral on the internet, as May 20th has been declared "Draw Mohammad Day" by "The Stranger," and other blogs apparently are passing on the word. Wonder what reaction this will invoke?

Via Dan Savage's blog at The Stranger, some clever chappie (I don't know who) has declared May 20, 2010 "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day," in support of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and in opposition to religious thuggery.

link

[waldo]

Is anyone else outraged that we are becoming so ridiculously politically correct that we are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the irrational and violent beliefs of these radical muslim groups in our own countries?

perhaps in your expression of outrage, you could edit your thread title to offer distinction to the stated threat as having originated from a 'radical Islamic group'

[Sir Bandelot]

"Radical Islamic Group" would be accurate. Mainstream Muslims will be offended, might even complain but will just quietly move on and try to ignore it.

I see no reason why certain elements of the degenerate western media insist on pouring gasoline on a fire. To what end is it useful to be the antagonist here? Because it is our legal right to do so?

[Guest American Woman]

I see no reason why certain elements of the degenerate western media insist on pouring gasoline on a fire. To what end is it useful to be the antagonist here? Because it is our legal right to do so?

If Islam were being singled out by South Park, you would have a point. But as I already pointed out, it satires everyone and everything. Except, apparently, Mohammad-- because of death threats. And you are ok with that? You believe it's ok to silence free speech with such threats?

[sharkman]

I don't watch South Park and I only know of it through blogposts and youtube clips.

IMV, this has the potential to go viral - among people who use the Internet. For broader humanity, this story is irrelevant.

----

We in the West do not face stupid people who use the Internet. We face backward, ignorant, superstitious people.

We must bring them into our world.

This is much of what Bill Clinton once said, that we need to have such countries/people experience the benefits of capitalism/freedom and once they do they will embrace them. But I have to disagree. It's a false logic because these backward superstitious people (Islamic terrorists) think freedom and anything the west supports is from Satan and to be resisted. Therefore we can not bring them into our world. That is why they are still killing innocents the world over.

[Sir Bandelot]

If Islam were being singled out by South Park, you would have a point. But as I already pointed out, it satires everyone and everything. Except, apparently, Mohammad-- because of death threats. And you are ok with that? You believe it's ok to silence free speech with such threats?

I was referring to the wider notion of "draw Muhammad" day, etc.

[Sir Bandelot]

This is much of what Bill Clinton once said, that we need to have such countries/people experience the benefits of capitalism/freedom and once they do they will embrace them. But I have to disagree. It's a false logic because these backward superstitious people (Islamic terrorists) think freedom and anything the west supports is from Satan and to be resisted. Therefore we can not bring them into our world.

Yes the problem is that their religious leaders have condemned western values at their very core, stating that democracy and capitalism are evil. And they give various religious arguments for why that is, based on their beliefs about leadership being valid only when it is guided by theocracy. I think they criticize democracy in ways that are sometimes valid, but obviously to have a theocratic dictatorship would be even worse. Nevertheless the notion that they embrace westernism now means to betray Islam.

[Guest American Woman]

I was referring to the wider notion of "draw Muhammad" day, etc.

I have to say, I don't see anything wrong with that, either. What do you suggest, that people just quietly sit back and accept our speech/freedom of expression being censored because of their threats?

They get to say what they want and they have freedom of religion because the U.S. values those freedoms. So who are they to prevent the rest of us from having our say? If they see that they can get away with it, if making death threats accomplishes what they set out to accomplish, ie: silence anything they don't approve of regarding Islam/Mohammad, then the rest of us aren't enjoying the freedoms that they are enjoying. They have successfully taken away our freedoms -- while enjoying those very freedoms themselves.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have to say, I don't see anything wrong with that, either.

Of course you don't. You're not a Muslim. I don't understand what's wrong with it either, but I see that it upsets a great many people. So I ask myself, why should I offend these people, what do I gain besides the childish insisting on my rights to say anything I want, to whomever I want. Beyond this, if there is some actual benefit to insulting Muhammad, that matters in a positive way, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I have to say, why do you need to do it.

[msj]

We in the West do not face stupid people who use the Internet.

Au contraire: I see stupid people on this forum on a daily basis.

We face backward, ignorant, superstitious people.

I also see these people on these forums everyday.

Presumably these people are from the "West."

-------

I guess my point here is I really don't understand Augusts' point of blanket insults against a group of people (whether it is those "others" or me turning it around to some of those who post in these very forums).

Augusts' comments above are really irrelevant to this story and it is strange to make such comments given that this story is "irrelevant" for "broader humanity" in the first place.

Well, maybe August thinks of himself as some kind of ironic comedic genius?

[msj]

Of course you don't. You're not a Muslim. I don't understand what's wrong with it either, but I see that it upsets a great many people. So I ask myself, why should I offend these people, what do I gain besides the childish insisting on my rights to say anything I want, to whomever I want. Beyond this, if there is some actual benefit to insulting Muhammad, that matters in a positive way, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I have to say, why do you need to do it.

I ask myself, why should these offended people get to shut me up based on the childish insistence of their right to prevent other people from blaspheming their "God?"

Is there some actual benefit from preventing people from insulting Muhammad?

Why do you need to shut people up?

Edited April 24, 2010 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

Of course you don't. You're not a Muslim. I don't understand what's wrong with it either, but I see that it upsets a great many people. So I ask myself, why should I offend these people, what do I gain besides the childish insisting on my rights to say anything I want, to whomever I want. Beyond this, if there is some actual benefit to insulting Muhammad, that matters in a positive way, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I have to say, why do you need to do it.

My not being Muslim has nothing to do with it. You didn't see me complaining about Christianity and/or Jesus being the subject of South Park's satire, did you? Or any of the other subjects/topics I mentioned?

As I already pointed out, if all we do in response to death threats is to give them what they want, we are reinforcing the idea that death threats will silence us when they want us silenced. We are saying that death threats effectively take away our freedom of expression. We are encouraging death threats whenever we say anything that they don't like.

While I have no desire to partake in such an event myself, I don't see "insisting on my rights to say anything I want" as "childish." I see it as standing up for the reality that everyone has the same freedom of expression. I see it as saying 'death threats won't give you what you are demanding.'

It's fighting fire with fire, not one side "putting gasoline on a fire."

[Michael Hardner]

So I ask myself, why should I offend these people, what do I gain besides the childish insisting on my rights to say anything I want, to whomever I want. Beyond this, if there is some actual benefit to insulting Muhammad, that matters in a positive way, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I have to say, why do you need to do it.

I see your point. Of course comedy always needs fuel for the fire, but the Daily Show finds a way to do it more intelligently, and maybe in a less obvious and offensive way.

The Daily Show Insults All Religions

[Sir Bandelot]

I see your point. Of course comedy always needs fuel for the fire, but the Daily Show finds a way to do it more intelligently, and maybe in a less obvious and offensive way.

The Daily Show Insults All Religions

I think that to the west, the Islamic notion of not portraying images of Muhammad is absurd. And exposing absurdity is the basis of comedy, so the two are on a collision course in a way. I enjoy comedy when it exposes absurdity or hypocrisy, as South Park often does. From the perspective of western liberal values these comedies are bang-on. But at the same time I knew it would upset lots of people, and not all of them are Muslims. This boils down to the great social conflict between liberal and conservative values, and although in this case it is one society ridiculing another, the same conflict exists within each society. But on a large scale, we are far more liberal than they (Islamic) are. And there is a Deep disagreement and misunderstanding on both sides. This could elevate tension between two societies who are basically at war over these principles, and have been for centuries. So that part is not very funny.

I believe in free speech at least in principle, but I don't think our society allows it completely either. We also have our "sacred cows". I'm sure I don't need to list them off for people. But in this country you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong things, even as a joke. So there should be a comedy, about us. About how the free speech dogmatists are in themselves hypocrites as well. Now that would be funny!

Edited April 24, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Pogo]

"Radical Islamic Group" would be accurate. Mainstream Muslims will be offended, might even complain but will just quietly move on and try to ignore it.

I see no reason why certain elements of the degenerate western media insist on pouring gasoline on a fire. To what end is it useful to be the antagonist here? Because it is our legal right to do so?

I admit I made a mistake in the thread title but that shouldn't let what I'm trying to convey be disregarded. The actual episode regardless of the censorship was able to portray some issues with freedom of speech. Not only was the character Muhammad censored, referring to his name was as well. This is in the same episode that has Buddha doing lines of cocaine beside Jesus who is watching porn. This isn't just about why the "degenerate western media" using satire to insult many religions. It's about a larger social issue that has people catering to the threats of these radical muslim groups.

It is our legal right to be the antagonist that questions certain aspects of social groups. This is a perfect example of a radical group that is against our freedom of speech to question their beliefs, however, they avoid getting in trouble for the clear and ridiculous threat they made by claiming they have the right to free speech. Quite hypocritical.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe in free speech at least in principle, but I don't think our society allows it completely either. We also have our "sacred cows". I'm sure I don't need to list them off for people. But in this country you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong things, even as a joke.

People can't be imprisoned for saying "the wrong thing" unless it's in regards to presenting a danger. No one can be prevented from saying anything, much less imprisoned for it, simply because some find it offensive. And that's the issue here.

So there should be a comedy, about us. About how the free speech dogmatists are in themselves hypocrites as well. Now that would be funny!

Yeah, that would be .... hilarious. "We can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." How funny is that?

But please, provide a source for me, just one example, where those "free speech dogmatists" issued a death threat to someone for saying something they didn't like.

[Sir Bandelot]

I ask myself, why should these offended people get to shut me up based on the childish insistence of their right to prevent other people from blaspheming their "God?"

Is there some actual benefit from preventing people from insulting Muhammad?

Why do you need to shut people up?

You are free to do and say what you want. But I hope you will recognize that words have power, words matter and there can be consequences for whatever you say or write. Saying to your loved one, "I hate you" is just words, but they have obvious consequences. Most people would not easily offend someone they care about. They have learned that mere words can have power to offend and there might be consequences.

When you are in a fight with someone, you must choose to either escalate the fight, or try and stop the fight. The choice is up to you. Either way, right or wrong, face the consequences.

Go to a bar and insult a bunch of big tough drunken guys, and they will attack you for your words. You may not like those guys, you may think their stupid for going to bars and getting drunk. But as long as you mind your own business and they mind theirs, there is no problem.

If President of the United States insulted or threatened the leader of North Korea vehemently and persistently, there would be a problem over the words. The President knows he won't do that, unless there are good reasons for it. He balances his right to free speech and criticism against the Koreans, vs. the possibility of creating violent conflict. He would enter into conflict only when its to his advantage to do so, or when there's no other choice.

It's easy to insult someone from behind a computer or TV screen. I'd like to know how many would insult someone to their face, just because. It rarely happens in those circumstances. Why is that?

Edited April 24, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[msj]

You are free to do and say what you want. But I hope you will recognize that words have power, words matter and there can be consequences for whatever you say or write. Saying to your loved one, "I hate you" is just words, but they have obvious consequences. Most people would not easily offend someone they care about. They have learned that mere words can have power to offend and there might be consequences.

When you are in a fight with someone, you must choose to either escalate the fight, or try and stop the fight. The choice is up to you. Either way, right or wrong, face the consequences.

So you're saying that people have the right to threaten and take the lives of people like Theo Van Gogh because "words can have power?"

Nice argument.

Go to a bar and insult a bunch of big tough drunken guys, and they will attack you for your words. You may not like those guys, you may think their stupid for going to bars and getting drunk. But as long as you mind your own business and they mind theirs, there is no problem.

Sure context is everything.

In your imaginary little story here I can see how a punch may be justified depending on what is said.

Anything more would be assault.

If President of the United States insulted or threatened the leader of North Korea vehemently and persistently, there would be a problem over the words. The President knows he won't do that, unless there are good reasons for it. He balances his right to free speech and criticism against the Koreans, vs. the possibility of creating violent conflict. He would enter into conflict only when its to his advantage to do so, or when there's no other choice.

You are mixing politics up with free speech. A non sequitur.

And, of course, this comes back to context.

A President has to follow protocols while a comedy show has to entertain.

It's easy to insult someone from behind a computer or TV screen. I'd like to know how many would insult someone to their face, just because. It rarely happens in those circumstances. Why is that?

It's easy to issue death threats behind a website. Why is that?

Edited April 24, 2010 by msj

[Sir Bandelot]

People can't be imprisoned for saying "the wrong thing" unless it's in regards to presenting a danger. No one can be prevented from saying anything, much less imprisoned for it, simply because some find it offensive. And that's the issue here.

Incorrect. Holocaust denial is a serious crime in Canada and many other western countries in the world.

On May 2, 2003, Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre and Solicitor General Wayne Easter issued a "national security certificate" against Zündel under the provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, indicating that he was a threat to Canada's national security of Canadian citizens owing to his alleged links with violent neo-Nazi groups including Aryan Nations leader Richard Girnt Butler, neo-Nazi Christian Worch, and former Canadian Aryan Nations leader Terry Long, as well as Ewald Althans, convicted in a German court in 1995 of charges that included insulting the memory of the dead and insulting the state.

He was then deported to Germany to face charges of Holocaust denial.

..

German prosecutors charged Zündel on July 19, 2005, with fourteen counts of inciting racial hatred, which is punishable under German criminal law, Section 130, 2.(3) (Agitation (sedition) of the People) with up to 5 years in prison. The indictment says Zündel "denied the fate of destruction for the Jews planned by National Socialist powerholders and justified this by saying that the mass destruction in Auschwitz and Treblinka, among others, were an invention of the Jews and served the repression and extortion of the German people."

Zundel spent two years in prison in Canada and five years in prison in Germany. His crime was his abhorrent anti-semetic views and publishing books and pamphlets on denying the holocaust was real.

Yeah, that would be .... hilarious. "We can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." How funny is that?

I was talking about comedy, not pulling fire alarms. It does not compare.

But please, provide a source for me, just one example, where those "free speech dogmatists" issued a death threat to someone for saying something they didn't like.

These are crimes with lengthy prison terms. We don't have capital punishment in Canada. That's something only the US does, as far as western nations are concerned.

Country, Number executed in 2009:

China At least 1700 - 5000

Iran At least 388

Iraq At least 120

Saudi Arabia At least 69

United States 52

Yemen At least 30

Sudan At least 9

Vietnam At least 9

Syria At least 8

Japan 7

Egypt At least 5

Libya At least 4

Bangladesh 3

Thailand 2

Singapore At least 1

Botswana 1

Malaysia Unreleased

North Korea Unreleased

Edited April 24, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Sir Bandelot]

So you're saying that people have the right to threaten and take the lives of people like Theo Van Gogh because "words can have power?"

Nice argument.

No, I didn't say they have the RIGHT. Murderers do not have the right. If people only obeyed the law we wouldn't need it.

I'm saying, people do things, out of passion. They get offended, publicly humiliated, they attack. That should be obvious. I'm saying, you want to say and do anything you want, go ahead. But reality dictates you will face the consequences, RIGHT OR WRONG.

And I do so hate repeating myself.

[Guest American Woman]

Incorrect. Holocaust denial is a serious crime in Canada and many other western countries in the world.

To be prosecuted for "holocaust denial" in Canada, one must be guilty of breaking Canada's hate laws or racial defamation laws, and that involves more than simply saying something offensive. As I said previously (and I do so hate repeating myself ), people here can't be imprisoned for saying "the wrong thing" unless it's in regards to presenting a danger.

On May 2, 2003, Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre and Solicitor General Wayne Easter issued a "national security certificate" against Zündel under the provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, indicating that he was a threat to Canada's national security of Canadian citizens owing to his alleged links with violent neo-Nazi groups including Aryan Nations leader Richard Girnt Butler, neo-Nazi Christian Worch, and former Canadian Aryan Nations leader Terry Long, as well as Ewald Althans, convicted in a German court in 1995 of charges that included insulting the memory of the dead and insulting the state.

He was then deported to Germany to face charges of Holocaust denial.

I think the key words there regarding Canada are "threat" and "violent." As for the charges "including insulting the memory of the dead and insulting the state in Germany," I would have to know more about that; I would have to know more about the charges and Germany's laws.

But in case it's escaped you, this incident didn't happen in Germany, or Canada either, for that matter; it happened in the U.S. -- so of course our "freedom of speech/expression" is what I was referring to in my posts and what's relevant to this issue. The people/group involved in the death threats are enjoying the freedom of speech and expression in the U.S., as they are issuing death threats to silence others. In the U.S.

Zundel spent two years in prison in Canada and five years in prison in Germany. His crime was his abhorrent anti-semetic views and publishing books and pamphlets on denying the holocaust was real.

Again, I would have to know what the specific charges were. Not that it has anything to do with what happens in the U.S., but from my understanding, Canada's hate laws involve more than one's view; it requires that one act on said views in a way that invokes danger.

I was talking about comedy, not pulling fire alarms. It does not compare.

So give me a concrete example. One that you are talking about. And make it an example that happened in the U.S., please.

These are crimes with lengthy prison terms. We don't have capital punishment in Canada. That's something only the US does, as far as western nations are concerned.

They aren't even crimes in the U.S., much less crimes with "lengthy prison terms." And what in God's name some states in the U.S. having capital punishment has to do with any of it is beyond me. All I can conclude is that you're pretty desperate to deflect from the actual issue.

Edited April 24, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

The radicals are deeply out of line. It's one thing to say that they must not create any image of their prophet; it's another thing altogether to say that nobody is allowed to do it.

All in all, I consider this a positive development. Stone and Parker knew exactly what they were doing, and knew full well this was likely to happen. They were making a political statement, and I think it was the right one to make. And I think people are supportive of this.

It's not for the sake of insulting people. It's for the sake of the right to do so.

Back in the days of the Mohammad cartoon controversy, virtually everyone decided not to publish those cartoons, even as they discussed the issue. However, two publications (that I know of) did publish them: a right-wing Canadian magazine (Western Standard), and a left-wing American magazine (Harper's...my personal favourite, incidentally).

No problem.

Edited April 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's fighting fire with fire, not one side "putting gasoline on a fire."

Agreed...it is fundamental in dragging Islam into at least the 19th century, and distinguishing the difference between political and religious frameworks. The tradition is long respected in the United States, going back to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", complete with biblical references.