STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Kari · Dooney & Bourke

Long Live South Park! (and free speech)

halleybird · Hermes

I haven't seen it, but I love South Park and I love free speech, so I am with you!

laken1 · Hermes

"Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing."

I think this says it all! I've watched them both & saw the second part twice & to be honest I thought the whole thing was about the Tom Cruise deal & them not re-running the Scientology episode up until the cut scene that said "comedy central censored showing Muhammad" or something along those lines...

I think they definitely got their point across. I do think the whole Jesus / Bush thing was a little much, but hey, back to the free speech issue. If you are easily offended (which I am not) then you probably shouldn't be watching South Park anyway!

Kari · Dooney & Bourke

laken1 wrote:

I thought the whole thing was about the Tom Cruise deal & them not re-running the Scientology episode

Me too! I was totally clueless until the end.

luckyclover · Dooney & Bourke

laken1 wrote:

If you are easily offended (which I am not) then you probably shouldn't be watching South Park anyway!

Lol well said. South Park cracks me up.

Maddie · Coach

Ok I'm not entirely sure what you guys are saying. Do you think they should've aired the originnal episode?

If so, I have a kind ofn entirely different perspective. It strikes me as extremely socially irresponsible to air images of Mohammed in light of recent events. I would just have to think Comedy Central was out of their minds if they did that.

Also, I think it's important to define "free speech." If Trey Parker and Matt Stone started their own network, they can air whatever the hell they want and I would be firmly against the governement deciding otherwise. However, it is the Comedy Central executives prerogative to choose what they air as ultimately they are the ones responsible for it. This is hardly an issue of free speech.

Also, this may just be an issue I have, but I don't realy see the comedy in that. And I'm seriously the most offensive person you'll ever meet. Honestly. The things that come out of my mouth are horrifying. However, I've always hated South Park. I think they just say and do ridiculously offensive things without having anything intelligent behind them. I have no problem at all with offensive anything, but I think offnensive jokes that are made solely for the sake of being offensive aren't funny. And I find that to be 90% of South Park.

laken1 · Hermes

Maddie wrote:

Ok I'm not entirely sure what you guys are saying. Do you think they should've aired the originnal episode?

If so, I have a kind ofn entirely different perspective. It strikes me as extremely socially irresponsible to air images of Mohammed in light of recent events. I would just have to think Comedy Central was out of their minds if they did that.

Also, I think it's important to define "free speech." If Trey Parker and Matt Stone started their own network, they can air whatever the hell they want and I would be firmly against the governement deciding otherwise. However, it is the Comedy Central executives prerogative to choose what they air as ultimately they are the ones responsible for it. This is hardly an issue of free speech.

Also, this may just be an issue I have, but I don't realy see the comedy in that. And I'm seriously the most offensive person you'll ever meet. Honestly. The things that come out of my mouth are horrifying. However, I've always hated South Park. I think they just say and do ridiculously offensive things without having anything intelligent behind them. I have no problem at all with offensive anything, but I think offnensive jokes that are made solely for the sake of being offensive aren't funny. And I find that to be 90% of South Park.

I guess my issue is that the Comedy Channel can show the images of Jesus - religious figure for dare I say the majority of the US CRAPPING on Bush - the President of the US - but they can't show Mohammed just standing there handing someone a fish on tv? I just don't get it. I am open to the argument as to why the former is ok & not the latter - but I think it's just as "socially irresponsible" to show the Jesus / Bush thing so where do you draw the line? I don't care how anyone feels about Bush but I think the office in general demands more respect than that & however disrespectful it is, they are allowed to show that. And I won't even get into the Jesus thing......So it's ok to poke fun at Scientologists, Christians in general, groups of Christians specifically but not even SHOW Mohammed? Please explain to me how it is different......

I am back to the point of "Either it's all OK, or none of it is" - and who decides what is or isn't?

Maddie · Coach

I think that the reason I think it's socially irresponsible is because of the reaction it will provoke. An image of Jesus taking a dump on Bush is more likely to result in angry letters than violent riots. However, images of Mohammed have been proven to induce the latter. Jyllands-Posten's printing of the Mohammed cartoons was certainly in poor taste, but they undoubtedly had no idea what the response would be. For Comedy Central to air such an image knowing what had just happened as a result of a similar situation strikes me as extremely irresponsible. This is not because of the content of the image, but what the consequences of airing it are.

However, in my mind this raises the question of are we giving in to extremists? I guess in a way we are. But I don't think they way to fight Islamism is by giving them fuel for the fire. I don't know, it's a difficult issue.

laken1 · Hermes

Maddie wrote:

I think that the reason I think it's socially irresponsible is because of the reaction it will provoke. An image of Jesus taking a dump on Bush is more likely to result in angry letters than violent riots. However, images of Mohammed have been proven to induce the latter. Jyllands-Posten's printing of the Mohammed cartoons was certainly in poor taste, but they undoubtedly had no idea what the response would be. For Comedy Central to air such an image knowing what had just happened as a result of a similar situation strikes me as extremely irresponsible. This is not because of the content of the image, but what the consequences of airing it are.

However, in my mind this raises the question of are we giving in to extremists? I guess in a way we are. But I don't think they way to fight Islamism is by giving them fuel for the fire. I don't know, it's a difficult issue.

Good points Maddie. It is a difficult issue because I have the same feelings / thoughts that you do about giving in to extremists. I have to give this more thought....

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

Maddie wrote:

I think that the reason I think it's socially irresponsible is because of the reaction it will provoke. An image of Jesus taking a dump on Bush is more likely to result in angry letters than violent riots. However, images of Mohammed have been proven to induce the latter.

I see what you're saying, but I do think that not airing the ep for fear of retribution is giving in to violence. And honestly, for those protesters, those cartoons were just a flimsy excuse for violence and anti-western hate-mongering. People were burning American flags and holding signs that said "down with America," when, for once in our lives, we had absolutely nothing to do with it. I certainly respect why people would be offended by it, but the people who used that as an excuse to kill and injure and threaten others are in a constant state of itching to do things like that at the slightest provocation. Their reaction to the insult was so egregiously wrong, so extreme, that I think it's validating them to say, "Okay, fine, you win, we'll let you have your way." I see it as standing up to extremists rather than giving them fuel for their fire. People like that turn everything into fuel.

And I don't think Parker & Stone were trying to provoke people for the sheer hell of it, although obviously that is usually what they like to do--given the context of the previous commotion over the Scientology episode, I think they were pissed off that the network is suddenly telling them what they can and can't satirize. I was the same as the others, I thought right up until that shot at the end that the whole thing was about the Scientology ep being pulled. I think it was both that and the Muhummad issue together. And I agree with Kyle, too--either it's all okay or none of it is.

kittenheels · Coach

I'd be interested in hearing from people with more experience regarding constitutional issues, but it seems the images in dispute fall into the "fighting words" category. It's definitely an interesting issue.

Jahni · Dooney & Bourke

kittenheels wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing from people with more experience regarding constitutional issues, but it seems the images in dispute fall into the "fighting words" category. It's definitely an interesting issue.

i think fighting words have to be spoken face to face, otherwise they can't be said to incite immediate anger and retaliation. But then again I only got a C+ in Con Law....(which I was VERY PROUD OF thankyouverymuch Prof. Arrow-crazy man)....

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

Uh, yeah...I think they should air any version they want. Screw all this bullshit with offending people. If its not child porn, then who cares.