As most of you know by now, Comedy Central censored last night’s episode of “South Park,” refusing to run an image of Mohammed—evidently out of cultural sensitivity to those who Comedy Central executives fear might, I dunno, key their cars? Write angry emails?
Or maybe there really is something to this jihadist threat after all, for all the time spent by other Comedy Central shows and personalities ironizing the threat away with a lot of wink-wink talk about duct tape and plastic sheeting and color-coded warnings and cowardly soccer moms.
Jesus taking a dump? Not a problem for Comedy Central. After all, Comedy Central execs realize that poking Christians with a stick—while it might raise a bit of controversy and bring in higher ratings—is not much different than, say, burning Steven Hawking with a cigarette: sure, he might not like it, but it ain’t like the dude’s going to hop up out of his chair, chase down a shrieking Jon Stewart, and lop off his head with a scimitar.
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.
****
Title of this post taken from Kevin C at Malkin’s place. Video highlights here. More, from Jim Lindgren, Capt Ed, and the Anchoress.
(h/t Kate)
****
update via Lindgren:
Comedy Central Releases Brief Statement on Decision to Censor Mohammed.–
I just had an amusing off-the-record conversation with someone at Comedy Central. They have released a simple public statement on their decision to deny South Park the right to show a depiction of Mohammed in their Wednesday episode, Cartoon Wars–Part II:
“In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.”
Recent world events?
Oh. They must mean the last time our brave and stalwart speakers of Truth to Power caved to the demands of Islamists and refused to run cartoons of Mohammed.
Turns out certain Muslims actually get violent over that stuff. And who needs that aggrevation when you can just pick on some Christian fundies or gin up another fake Bush scandal?
****
update 2: I have a good deal of respect for Hugh Hewitt, but not when he starts making arguments that question the “mocking” of religion and that seem to favor a view of “tolerance” for people’s faith that, in the abstract, drives a stake into the very heart of the First Amendment. Tolerance, as Hugh well knows, has to do with taking criticism, not building a world where we can guarantee everyone is free from offense.
Now sure, Comedy Central—like Burger King during the swirly cone of Allah kerfuffle—is free to self censor. But having the right doesn’t automatically make the decision a good or correct one. Which isn’t even to say that Comedy Central has an obligation to do what is good or correct—just that they did not, in this case.
Hugh writes:
On the other, and final hand, so what? Does the controversy help or hinder success in the war, which is difficult to define but which surely includes some reconciliation with the vast majority of Muslims who don’t want jihad against the West but who would also welcome some minimum of respect for their faith.
Well, far be it for me to quibble, but I find reconciliation and surrender two entirely different things.
And if what it takes to keep Muslims from engaging in jihad—or at the very least, holding public wildings over cartoons—is accepting their demands that we don’t talk about their faith in a way that upsets them, that is a sacrifice I’m not willing to make. And no one who is promoting classical liberalism in its cultural battle with the theocratic determinism of the Islamists should be willing to concede this point—even if they do so hoping that it means Comedy Central might not make fun of Jesus anymore.
This war is an ideological war. George Bush has been stressing western liberal values and universal rights. Muddying that message by surrendering one of the most important of those rights—the freedom to criticize—is a good start down the path to defeat.
(h/t Allah)
Video of Mohammed on South Park from 2001 is <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URtNqCDymrk&search=south park”>right here</a>.
Y’know, it’s one thing to claim “sensitivity and tolerance” in order to justify self-censoring. But it’s something different when it is done in the name of self-preservation.
Comedy Central’s release on the matter said “In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.”
I take this to mean, that in order to avoid violence against CC employees (and a great deal of liability for injuries that would follow a riot), the executives of CC decided to self-censor. That’s just good business sense.
Would you force me to wear a t-shirt with a Mohammed cartoon on it? If I refuse am I “giving in” to terrorists or just being smart?
And now South Park falls before the fanatics…
Sigh….
To answer your question Gabriel, no one can force Comedy Central to have the courage of their convictions, no one is even trying. But we can all point out what cowardly, hypocrtical, chickenshits they are. That’s what free speech is all about. You have objections?
Comedy Central already displayed Mohammed in an earlier episode called “Super Best Friends”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed1.jpg
Doomed I tell you, DOOMED!
I must have missed the CC release where CC promised to uphold the ideals of freedom.
Gabriel writes:
Just as I recognized with the Swirlee cone of Allah that Burger King had the right as a business to self-censor, I think doing so bespeaks a shortsightedness and a willingness to pander that will in the long run damage its credibility.
Comedy Central is supposed to poke fun at those who take themselves too seriously. Unless, now, its Muslims—who Comedy Central essentially just said couldn’t be trusted to see an image of Mohammed without erupting into violence.
That they are getting negative press for this is a sign that maybe it WASN’T the best business move. And I don’t believe they’d be liable for the “blowback” for showing a cartoon. I believe that the root causes, in the case of a riot, would be that fundamentalist Islamists are unwilling to be tolerant themselves, and use criminal violence to express their rage. They and ONLY THEY are responsible.
So I take it we can agree that Comedy Central isn’t upholding the ideals of freedom. With that as a given I have to ask shouldn’t some one? Especially someone who has benefitted from Freedom of Speech as much as Comedy Central? And shouldn’t the rest of us be allowed to comment when they don’t? Or had you rather the rest of us just pipe down?
You know, it’s a tough decision because the Islamo-Dirtballs have showed plainly enough that they are NOT fucking around. Who wants to have their throat slit for a laugh?
They are scary, but since when do did we start kissing the ass of fanatical morons who think the 7th century was the “good old days”?
Why not just hand over the government to MS-13? I am pretty much a hands-off-religion guy, but fuck this bloodthirsty Mohammud and the psychotic juveniles who believe that crap. So many people hate Bush for getting in their face, but as far as I can see, there IS no other way. I wish we lived on the Disney channel too, but the fact is, we don’t.
The Islamo-Dirtballs (I have lately taken to calling them “The Seed Of Chucky”) need to be removed from the face of the Earth, and anyone who thinks that we can reason with these idiots is absolutely INSANE.
God help us, when we have a press corps and a major politcal party that hates Bush so much they can’t even entertain a rational thought, and employ bald faced lies to make their seriously misleading arguments. If Comedy Central is afraid of these assholes, we should all be very concerned. I know that I am, but I am not going to shut up for a bunch of demented savages.
LD,
Take your medication and seek counseling.
corvan.
Yeah. Big joke, isn’t it? The Europeans think it’s pretty funny, too.
This isn’t just a failure to uphold the principles of free speech. By displaying a willingness to air cartoons offensive to Jews, Christians, Scientologists, et.al. while declining to visit the same ridicule on Islam the censors of Comedy Central have, in fact, elevated Islam above other faiths and creeds. It is defacto acknowledgement and agreement to the priniciples of Islam. As your titles says, they are truly Comedhimmi Central.
LD, a little edgy perhaps but right on! Kill a raghead for Christ! (As Ann Coulter may have already said!)
Actually CC caved over Scientology cartoon.
Considering that Comedy Central caved pretty easily to the Catholic Church on a Mary episode (re-read the Donohoe quote from the main article; he’s the one that got it pulled) and to the Scientologists on re-airing the original Scientology-mocking episode (due to unverified threats of Tom Cruise refusing to do publicity for MI:3, a property of CC’s parent company), I’m pretty sure that Stone & Parker knew what was coming. I’m not a big fan of any of the three decisions, but they’ve been pretty consistent, rather than selective.
No, no one is talking about forcing Comedy Central to display the images of Mohammed (or force you to wear a t-shirt). But if Comedy Central wants to be able to show something offensive (or you ever want to be able to wear a t-shirt with a politicaly sensitive image or slogan on it), you’re eventually going to have to stand up when you’re threatened. The more you give in, the more people will threaten you.
What I can’t believe is that people were offended for the WRONG REASONS. Yeah, it’s disrespectful to show Jesus and George Bush shitting on each other and the American flag. But Matt and Trey MEANT it that way; they’re poking all the Christians in their audience with a stick (an even bigger stick than usual) and saying, “See? See? Comedy Central told us THIS was less offensive than a picture of Mohammed! What does that tell you about what they think of YOU?”
Some speculation on my part with regard to the future of South Park:
Throughout the last two episodes, various characters observed that Fox had to cave to the demands of the writers of The Family Guy to air uncensored pictures because TFG was the highest rated show on Fox & as such had too much leverage. If Fox didn’t air the uncensored TFG episode, the writers were going to quit.
Back in the real world, South Park is either the highest or second highest rated show on Comedy Central (I’m not sure if The Daily Show has eclipsed it in ratings). Comedy Central recently pulled a South Park episode (the re-run anyway) about Scientologists because of outside pressure. So the question becomes, was the SP Mohammed episode Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s way of telling Comedy Central that they are going to quit making episodes if they’re censored?
That would explain, for one thing, why they made it a two part episode. They gave Comedy Central a full week to decide what they were going to do. They didn’t spring anything on them with only 24 hours to make up their mind (the SP guys are famous for cranking out topical episodes in 5 days–witness their Elian Gonzales send up, and their Terry Schiavo send up).
Comedy Central censored. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Stone & Parker decided to pull a Dave Chapelle, walk out on their contract, and never make another episode.
Incidentally, from Malkin’s post, you can contact Comedy Central to let them know your opinions here.
Rorschach makes the point that I can assume everyone will ignore about the episode and he describes it perfectly.
Good on ya mate. I wish this point was raised above the shouting, as this was the thesis behind the whole episode.
There was a story, mainly being fed by LGF, about Borders Books not carrying a low-readership periodical that displayed the Danish cartoons on its cover. LGF tried making an issue out of it, and the CEO of Borders Books told Charles Johnson where to stick it. The CEO’s position is that he made a business decision not to carry the mag in order to be responsible to his employees. He does not like being the last line of defense against crazy Islamists.
Is CC’s decision really any different, especially considering their previous decisions to censor the show regarding other topics? I can accept the argument that they’re hypocrites by censoring Mohammed when not censoring other blasphemous religious descriptions, but should CC, like the CEO of Borders, be expected to hold the torch for freedom of speech and put its neck on the line to defend it?
Thanks for the link Beck. Done and Done.
FWIW, here’s what I said:
I’m sure you’re aware of the irony of you caving in last night’s South Park episode and bringing a little piece of Sharia Law to the United States, so I won’t go in to details.
I can get South Park on DVD, I can live without the Colbert Report. Therefore, I can live without Conedy [sic, dammit!] Central.
TW: possible
noah
How perceptive of you! You think that my post is about killing “ragheads”? For Christ?
How about “ragheads” killing anyone who dares disagree with them, or make fun of them?
Eat me. I am an equal opportunity sniper, and anyone who takes themselves as seriously as the Islamic fanatics do is just more fodder for the cannon. The only true assholes in this world are the people who deny that they ARE assholes.
How many of your friends died in the Twin Towers? What do you think of being murdered for making a film about radical Islam? And how do you feel about millions of illiterate savages going postal because someone printed some CARTOONS of Mohummad?
No, noah, I am not advocating killing anyone. But what do you do when they show up at your door and threaten your life because you are not Muslim?
Oh. wait. I know. You just whine: “Hey! Can’t we all just get along?” as they rape your wife and slit your throat. Cool, man.
I am no commando, but I think that ignoring what the Islamo-Fascists have already proven they are willing to do in their quest to dominate the world is not a healthy thing to do. Perhaps you do, but please don’t think that I am some Troglodyte who’s eyes and ears don’t connect to the brain. Reality often sucks, but that doesn’t mean you should create your own when it becomes uncomfortable.
Perhaps you should spend some quality time with your computer and find out just what is happening in the Netherlands and France. Or you could just keep squeezing your eyes tightly shut.
That works pretty well for a while…
No diss to you or Rorschach, Tman, but that point hasn’t been overlooked. It’s been made on a number of threads.
Well then they need to earn that respect, not demand it.
Jeff had it right back in the original post. “Tolerance†as a core value of Western culture means tolerance of criticism. Parker and Stone and their enablers at CC can run cartoons that criticize George Bush and Jesus by showing them with the explosive Hershey-squirts, and Christians and Republicans can criticize the South Park crew for being a bunch of jerks. That’s tolerance.
“Tolerance†redefined as the absence of criticism is a complete oxymoron. It hands over the entire social agenda to the most intolerant and infantile members of society, and leads to the kind of incoherent, de facto dhimmitude we’re seeing on the part of Comedy Central and the rest of the usual suspects. If CC responds to this controversy by treating Jesus and Joseph Smith and every other religious figure with the level of ass-kissing “sensitivity†they’re currently reserving for Muhammad, then I’ll be totally disgusted. And not even faintly surprised.
I give his post … a B+.
Somebody had to say it.
Can you give it an enema?
To repeat: already pulled <a href=”http://www.catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter 4/051230_Southpark_pulled.htm” target=”_blank”>Mary-based episode</a> due to pressure from the Catholic League; already pulled Scientology episode.
And aired a bit involving Jesus taking a shit on the American flag sixty seconds after they had to cut the Mohammed image.
LD, I apologize for my post. I am completely with you. And no I am not advocating killing anyone either unless I happen upon a group of moslims planning to kill me or my fellow citizens then I hope that I would do the right thing like the passengers on flight 93.
Sorry.
I think utron addresses this, norbizness. “Tolerance” to all, in its current incarnation, is tolerance for none.
And for what it’s worth, at least one of those was pulled in a re-run. I believe I saw the Scientology episode when it originally aired. Was the Mary episode pulled originally, or in re-runs?
Either way, I would criticize the Catholic League for the same reason I’ve criticized Hewitt and Comedy Central here.
Comparing this to the episodes about Mary and Scientology that were pulled fails for another reason: strictly speaking, the show didn’t mock Mohammed. The deleted scene didn’t involve him shitting blood or fucking a goat or something; all he was going to do was hand a football helmet to the Family Guy character. Too much, alas.
“They”? This sounds an awful lot like the flip side of collectivist identity politics.
Both were pulled in reruns. Well, everybody has a home on Showtime. And I was responding to Utron, because he/she seemed to think this was the first time some beancounter at Viacom decided to cave to something.
Perhaps Joseph Califano, Donohue’s go-to guy on the Viacom Board, will get the final minute excised from last night’s episode in reruns… unless he thinks it’s more of a slam on what jihadists might find funny. Nah, the League’s got bills to pay like the rest of us.
Just in case I haven’t worked it in enough: Comedy Central is owned by VIACOM, who in turn hands off CC’s programming to somebody with the ethics of Faye Dunaway’s character in Network. When the shit hits the fan, they bring in the Ned Beatty character, who has a darkened sit-down with Parker and Stone.
I will have to admit: the Peabody Award-winning two-parter was pretty damned unfunny, with the exception of Bart’s unexpected cursing.
P.S. Sorry I only hit .500 on the html links back there.
Part 1 ended with the question “Will Comedy Central Puss Out?” Looks like they did. With this and the aforementioned scientology and Mary episodes I wonder how long Stone and Parker will be willing to stick with the network. And they already lost Chappelle. The network has gotten steadily lamer ever since Viacom bought Time Warner’s stake.
Bill Donohue and his Catholic League are professional victims, seeing anti-Catholicism everywhere. They are totally allergic to the idea that religion and religious belief should ever be subjected to harsh criticism or parody, and that includes Islam.
So, not surprisingly, they endorsed the decisions of Western media oulets not to show the Danish Cartoons. From their press release:
http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter 1/060209_FEAR_GUIDES.htm
It is easy for me to say, but I’d have been impressed with the media if it had risen up as one and plastered those cartoons everywhere. Likely a few heads would have (literally) rolled. But the Muslim theocrats have learned they can control our media, and that is a very bad thing.
It is disgusting that the Catholic League gives them fraternal support. They also attacked one of my favorite films, the Irish movie The Magdalene Sisters, which exposes the truth of how the Catholic Chruch in that nation, until rather recently, incarcerated girls who showed too much interest in boys, or had babies out of wedlock. The Catholic League didn’t deny that this horrible thing happened, it just thought it unseemly and “anti-Catholic” to dwell on it. So no wonder they stick up for their Muslim analogs.
After all that South Park has done to try and get themselves censored or kicked off the air, isn’t it ironic that this is the subject that finally does them in? The very subject which they sought to parody in the episode????
Great job by Matt & Trey to expose our weakness in this battle against intolerant Islam.
Sweet Jesus, Mona, now we have to put up with your bigotry? Mona, the energizer bunny of PW except when the contradictions of your bullshit is exposed.
noah writes:
Um, what? I was raised Irish-Catholic noah; I have a license to object to the things that can mean, especially for females.
Or do you think my belief that the Danish Cartoons should have been widely disseminated constitutes bigotry?
WTF?
LD, I’ve been trying to get people to wake up for quite a while, but it’s tough to make any headway against the “It’s just a few fanatics” thinking. It wasn’t “just a few fanatics” that rioted all over the world, just as it isn’t “a few fanatics” who engage in stonings and honor killings.
I hope it wasn’t lost on people that the NC idiot was the muslim version of “He was a quiet man. Real nice guy.” I work with quite a few muslims, and it’s tough to get yourself to realize that somebody who’s been nice and friendly could one day stick a knife in your back, but they’ve brought it on themselves.
Allah (PBUH) sez:
I’ll bet Parker and Stone intended just that. Good on them.
Kyle is right.
Brian- certainly an interesting question (and as a side note, I think some are overlooking the seriousness South Park paid to the arguement that displaying such things can be dangerous and responsible people must weigh the mayhem they could cause aganist exercising a right [I don’t think Eric’s mendacity undercuts the points he made in the first part of episode 1 and the FOX executive made at the end of episode 2]).
But I would take issue with the idea that they are being asked to be the “last line” of defense. Rather, both would seem to be on the front lines- more or less. Both bookstores and television networks are regularly challenged on issues of censorship versus free expression…so I would agree with you in that I find it hard to blame them for “punting” the issue this time.
The question I would ask, rather, is who represents the next line of defense? And who is the last line of defense?
Yeah, of all the bad actors just brilliantly begging to be condemned, Mona chooses the very worst of the bunch:
THe freaking Catholics.
TW: Ex-Lax, I shit you not.
Brian, Some Guy in Chicago:
The Borders CEO letter was an April Fool’s joke:
<a href=”http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19884&only” target=”_blank”>
You have to look sharp, just like Joe Jackson said.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19884&only
And I can’t work Jeff’s link machine, so we’re all bozos on this bus.
then remove my citing of Borders in my previous post and sub in and number of media outlets who have censored something due to the threat of Islamisism…
I don’t think that example was central to my inqury.
No, no Mona…I reject “raised Irish-Catholic” (me too but you won’t ever hear me claiming special status). I reject that you have a license to speak about anything inparticular. Speak as American citizen, otherwise kiss off.
I’m with Jeff.
If it was a joke, then fine (I don’t read LGF), but the rest of the comment stands. Why is it CC’s job, per the demands of the blogosphere or whatever, to stand against Islamic radicals? It’s a business, and in this case, as business over a few seconds of a cartoon airing on a Viacom-owned channel. Should they be impervious to any and all boycotts/protestations in service of liberal values? Of the press, I’d say they should be, but Comedy Central?
I suppose I’m saturated in the academic’s idea of religion, living in a college town and such–but whatever happened to ‘If I know anything, I know this: humor should be used to keep order in the sphere of the religious’? (Yeah, I can’t go five seconds without quoting Kierkegaard–but what can I say? He’s the go-to guy on the relation between irony and the religious.) Last I checked, K. was fairly well-beloved all around by conservative and pomo Christians alike.
What, what, WHAT is Hewitt afraid of? Does he honestly want the condescending so-called ‘tolerance’ of the postmoderns? Please–give me Bertrand Russell over Foucault any day. Does Hewitt really think religion is such a delicate flower that it must at all costs be defended from being looked at from points of view outside its own internal logic?
When Comedy Central first aired the “Super Best Friends” episode, I am told that the LDS folks were so offended by the portrayal of Joseph Smith that they conducted a huge protest over the disrespect shown their Latter-Day prophet. Regrettably, it was covered in the news as an “Up With People” revival.
No one thinks that Mormons or Catholics or Presbyterians or The Joooooooswill take up arms because of alleged graven images of their various prophets. The book is still out on the Methodists.
But everyone fears that Muslims will.
My personal executive summary: Until such time as Muslims can be depended upon to be able to take a fucking joke from time to time, they should be (forcibly if necessary) removed from society until they grow the fuck up.
And no, I’m not joking about that last paragraph.
It isn’t their job. It isn’t anyone’s job. No one is obligated to tell them to grow up.
Still, somebody ought to.
“Yeah, you can do it, but that don’t make it a good fuckin’ idea!”
— Chris Rock
SB: house
divided
And I can’t work Jeff’s link machine, so we’re all bozos on this bus.
Haaaaaaaaaaaa. “Squeeze the wheeze, go ahead!”
“….follow the rubber yellow line to your seat, deflate your shoes, and…..”
Brian, I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to assume this is roughly your answer to my question.
But didn’t the mainstream media, generally (I know for certain the NYT and Chicago Tribune caved…but my memory is a little fuzzy on the LAT and WaPo), opt not to run the cartoons? Even the ones that were objectively inoffensive?
What line comes after that?
Comedy Central, private company or not, cannot be separated out from the rest of America/the West–it is both a product of and an expression of its culture. We, the consumers of Comedy Central’s product, are unhappy with that product and with the broader implications of that product for the culture that consumes it–so we will bring our demands to bear on the company that serves us. A corporation is not *obliged* to be altruistic–by the government, at least–but it *will* be as ‘moral’ as the market forces it to be. We are the market, let us make use of our power–complain, boycott, hurt the company’s public image.
“What line comes after that?”
Any line that CAIR wishes to draw at any time that it is convenient to their purposes.
And note that the lines keep moving closer to restrictions and restraint on the part of non-muslims, and farther from restraint on the part of muslims.
They’re throwing a war, folks. Are we going to attend?
Not the Catholics; the Catholic League. Very often they go after other Catholics.
I think it was awful that they supported the self-censorship of the Western media vis-a-vis The Cartoons. Awful, but consistent.
It’s everybody’s job to stand up to Islamic radicals. Yours, mine, etc. It’s only natural that when they fail, Comedy Central (and others) will be called stupid losers.
Jeff:
I agree with this to the extent that it is unfortunate that it has come to the point where corporations in America fear for their employees’ safety and the liability that comes from sending Islamists into a murderous rage. But it is not Comedy Central’s job to take a stand against pandering–especially when it would be taking that stand alone, without the support of other institutions of American expression including the federal government.
Well, just fuck Dhimmidy Central. And while I’m at it, fuck the Islam nation as well. Why? Why must we continously bow down to the Muslim’s disapproval? Time is now. I am sick and tired of the egg shell stepping of these people’s beliefs……
As Patton would say, “Make the other dumb bastard die for his country”.
Those who walk on egg shells rarely leave footprints.
Time for some scrambled eggs.
Reason (Tim Cavanaugh) magazine did a good piece called E Pluribus Umbrage a few years ago, looking at the grievance industry. The Catholic League was one of its targets, as was “ The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee budgets “in the area of a million dollars,” according to an official, as does James Zogby’s Arab American Institute. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) describes its budget as between $2 million and $4 million.”
Cavanaugh wrote:
Whole article here: http://www.reason.com/0212/fe.tc.e.shtml
The extremist Muslims have taken things to a much higher and violent level, but they have analogs in other communities who are sympathetic to their “grievances.”
Yes, yes, the Christoban. We KNOW. That’s why we switche dto digital; better picture.
Well, I never employ silly words like “Christoban” and do not equate the Catholic Lesague with the Taliban. But when it comes to screaming about supposedly offensive TV and film, the Catholic League and CAIR operate from the same playbook (and this is in part why the CL says nice things about Muslims who want suppression of The Cartoons). A bunch of groups do; it’s an industry of the perpetually aggrieved and outraged. That’s what Cavanaugh’s excellent piece is about.
The Christoban. QED.
That really is over-stating things, and I think you might want to reconsider calling the Catholic League that. They are similar to CAIR, but they are not theocrats like the Taliban. If we are going to criticize these folks, it is best to avoid excessive rhetorical ploys or others might not listen to our criticisms.
Really, do they also deny their terrorist roots and financing like CAIR?
I wrote “similar,” not identical. Read Cavanaugh’s piece—CAIR, the Catholic Leauge…there are legions out there of the professionally and continually offended. Norbizness above noted the Catholic League’s pressure on Viacom (and s/he is right that Joe Califano is one of the CL’s go-to guys)and linked to instances of their campaigns to change content of TV shows and what not.
Norbizness is spot on.
Yes, we must show prudence. But we should not shy from pointing out the similiarities between the Catholics and the Taliban.
Because that’s really what’s important here. Not, say, the Islamic march of sharia.
Vercingetroix: I don’t think Norbizness was denying the huge problems with Islamic nutjobs when s/he focused on the excesses of the Catholic League. The CL is not the Taliban, but in some places and times Catholics have behaved like the Taliban. This pained, conservative Catholic discusses how hard it is to accept the truth in the film The Magdalene Sisters, a movie that the CL condemned (but it did not deny its essential accuracy):
http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2551
he thinks the movie was too black and white; but it depicts a rancid truth about state religion when it is obsessed with controlling female sexuality. Like the Taliban did.
Don’t you think it is wrong for the CL to support supression of the Mohammed cartoons, and embrace the “need” to respect Muslim religious sensibilities? It is doing that because it wants the ugly side of Catholicism’s history also muted, and to that extent identifies with Muslim opposition to depicting Mohammed “blasphemously.”
But the Catholic League is not the Taliban; it is merely one of the players in the professional, American grievance industry, along with a bunch of Muslims and other “aggrieved” groups.
Now that just sounds too kewl.
Go start a blog, Moaner. Everyone can come visit.
Some Guy In Chicago,
We might go in circles a bit before we find common ground, but if I understand your question correctly, what line comes after the news media if THEY fail to take a stand. Is that correct?
If so, my point is that we are right to put pressure on said news media, and to expect for them to honor freedom of speech vis a vis their freedom of the press. If they can’t take a stand and post the cartoons within the context of the Islamic response to them, then it is unfair to expect it of a channel like Comedy Central. If we are to expend our energies protesting a failure to stand up to Islamists, fundamentalist Christians, the gay community…..whatever pressure group there might be, we should direct it toward a cowardly news media.
Which leads me to Alex’s comment. Think of it this way, if there’s a record company that traffics in gangster rap, but suddenly is confronted with one of their artists wanting to release a new CD collection of songs that champion killing cops, beating gays, and raping “bitches”, and the company refuses to distribute that collection, should our ire be as strong as it is here against CC? Should we collectively display our disgust and contempt for the company’s mere wish to sidestep the criticism that would surely come from those special interest groups (police, women, gays) all because we believe that free speech trumps the company’s business practices?
Believe me, I’m on the side of South Park, Jeff Goldstein, Free Speech, and I would support a guided protest of their network as a counterbalance to whatever negative vibe they received from the Islamic community prior to the broadcast, but this seeming insistence that they should have known better than to cave in, or the display of righteous after-the-fact indignance at a basic business decision, seems a bit heavy handed.
Wait a minute, why are we talking about the Catholic League again?
Sure, you can play CL vs. CAIR… but I’m sure we can all agree that CL vs. rioting Danish Muslims is a NO CONTEST situation.
But, even still, why the vitriol? Note, I’ve been out of the Verc/Mona wars so I’m unaware of the nature of whatever bad blood is here.
The parallel is stretched to its limits here, but no, our ire need not be as strong in the given instance because the depiction of Mohammed is a different beast entirely because the Mohammed censoring, if we may step outside of the vacuum, contributes to the societal disease of submitting to Muslims without any good reason.
Whereas the example of the rapper’s CD? Well, stepping outside of the vacuum, that thing just contributes, in some minor way, to a sort of legitimising of such behaviors, at least on a subconscious level.
Though, to be truly honest, from a libertarian perspective, market forces can dictate both those decisions because we consumers can have different reasons for different censorship. Publishing the rapper’s CD and NOT airing the Mohammed cartoons can cost them business from the likes of us… so…
So…..where is this all leading? An organized boycott? Or just a bunch of hand-wringing that CC didn’t “do the right thing”? The latter seems like a huge waste of time if it goes on, say, beyond today. I’d support the former.
“I’m sure we can all agree that CL vs. rioting Danish Muslims is a NO CONTEST situation.”
All except, say, Mona, who insists on dragging them in to this discussion, despite, you know, the complete absence of riots, murders, death threats, et. al., on their part. I think she’s determined to pick on someone her own size, and Islamic fascism is just too damn big to handle.
Bezuhov astounds with:
**I** did not introduce the Catholic League into the discussion; norbizness elaborated on them several times, and Jeff then agreed with him/her that the CL also merits criticism. I hardly think norbizness and Jeff were meaning to diminish the riots, murders and deaths the Muslim extremists commit just by agreeing that the CL has its own issues, and neither do I intend that diminishment.
I agree with norbizness and Jeff.
The CL approved of supressing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. I knew that and added it to the conversation, as well as a cite from Reason discussing all these various domestic, professional, aggrieved parties.
In any event, I did not “drag” the CL into the discussion; norbizness and Jeff did. I simply added my own knowledge of the CL to that pre-existing conversation.
And added and added and added and added…
OHNOES, I am but a simple goat-farmer, tending my herd of sheeple on the fragrant, grassy knolls.
I have a wife and nine kids, all in their thirties, still living at home. I am a simple man. I divide my time blogging on my Blackberry and staying up to date with the latest country fashions. Brokeback chaps are especially wonderful this spring.
But this plot of shit is my plot of shit. My dog might have three-legs, no tail, blind, and wear a bite collar, but I love Lucky just the same.
So when Mona fires up the Mystery Machine and rolls it onto the range with her anti-Christobanian Power Rangers, who are eyeing my blossoming ewes btw, someone has to evict the hippies.
My name is Verc. I want to be your Sheriff.
So? They threw their name behind the media’s self-censoring of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. I think that is outrageous, and I have some insight into their history and beliefs that would make sense of why they’d do that.
Look, some of you people just won’t accept anything I post becasue I’ve become very critical of several aspects of the Bush Administration. But I have always condemned the West’s effete response to Muslim theocrats who threaten the classically liberal values of the countries they emigrate to. In fact, I got into quite the row with Tristero over the Cartoons over at Digby’s; I don’t give a rat’s ass if some or all of those cartoons constitute “ridicule” or whether they are high art.
They should have been plastered all over the Western media as a sign of solidarity and opposition to Muslim terrorism of journalists, writers and artists.
Some of you folks are a trip. The multi-culti “sensitivity police” think I’m a virtual fascist, but you think I’m “soft on terorists.”
Whatever.
Funny, I thought Ray Walston starred in “My Favorite Martyr.”
I think you know which buttons to push and get off on pushing them. Repeatedly.
Geez, why do I get the feeling that Brian is a descendent of the person who turned in Anne Franks’ family?
Cuz of the threats and all.
That’s a neato attempt at equivalence, but essentially the opposite of the actual case. South Park is not inciting to violence by displaying Mohammed. Islamic extremists are.
And as we do have a taste for music and do protect expression that is subversive at best gloss, incediary at worst, we are not talking about the extreme case here.
The ban on speech in depicting Mohammed is closer to a ban on music entirely, on pain of rioting, violence, murder, arson, and terrorism. Your example might as well mistake cattle for predators, thats as backwards as you’ve got it. *
*For the Extremely obtuse: Another example in demonstration is the difference between speech in complaining/’confessing’ about being a victim of rape, and that of aggressively silencing witnesses.
noah et al,
A couple of weeks ago I was threatened by two of the morons who call Islam the one true way. Before that, I didn’t think that much about it.
I lost five close friends in the Trade Center attacks, and they died simply because they went to breakfast.
I hate to sound so intense, but these infants in adults bodies are very serious about intimidating the rest of the world.
I’ll tell you what. I am about the most peaceful person you could imagine, but after being threatened because of what I think, my attitude has changed. I was too stunned to even reply to the idiots that threatened me, but, believe it, the next time that happens to me, I am not going down like a little wussy.
I have never been in a fight in my life, but that may change the next time some idiot tells me I am not allowed to even THINK the “wrong” thoughts.
Who the fuck do these morons think they are? I think that they are little children who think (with good reason) that a tantrum will get them what they desire. That’s not how it works in my world, and I think people like that need to be “educated” about reality – and I don’t mean the reality that a half formed brain comes up with.
Maybe in a few days I will calm down, but as of this moment, I am PISSED OFF. Anybody who is not concerned about the attacks on speech is probably so stoned that they should be considered mentally ill.
I would rather be light hearted about this, but after my experience with just two Jihadists, I find nothing to laugh at.
Remember when Galileo was threatened with violence by religious cretins, and forced to abandon discussion of the heliocentric model of the solar system?
Do we really want to head back that way?
oh and BECAUSE OF THE SALMON HELMET!!
We need to totally ignore these cretins. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.
Welcome to the new (Parody of America) millenium…
VERC WINS THE THREAD
FLAWLESS VICTORY
America needs the test case to play out. We need a much ballyhooed depiction of old Mo to sort of darken the lines we’ve drawn between acceptable and unacceptable.
It would be helpful to see that America’s Muslims understand where those lines are. Some of them seem so unclear on the concept.
OHNOES, I’m with you – that was wonderous.
Oh, and I’m voting for Vercingetorix for Urban Praetor. That’ll show Rome!
I’m new to Mona’s comments. Why is she getting such a hard time on this? What she’s saying is quite reasonable.
I think we need a Religion Of War. I’m with Lost Dog. Tolerant until messed with, then no guarantees.
I think Muslims in the US should be treated with the same respect that Christians get in Saudi Arabia. Mexican illegals deserve the same rights a US citizen has in Mexico. I want to be fair.
Which is probably why I was never elected to anything.
Mark D
Let the American chickens, pushed around for decades by these nice leftist “folks,” come home to roost in other words.
Love it!
I have to agree with Robert here. I’m a frequent reader, but a not so frequent writer to this blog. I don’t agree with Mona about many of the things she writes, but it looks like to me people are jumping on here because she is Mona, not because of what she is saying. She added to the discussion her opinion and Jeff also agreed. So, are some of you just opposed to Mona in general no matter what? If that’s the case, well say it. Don’t get all freaking high and mighty about what she had to say, because frankly, I don’t even think you paid any attention to it. You saw Monas name on the post and automatically jumped. Poor form if you ask me, but hey, nobody really asked. Just my opinion after all and last time I checked, we were all allowed one.
Now concerning CC. I’m sitting in Bahrain, so I haven’t really had the opportunity to see any of the South Park episodes discussed. However, having said that and knowing this all stems from the cartoon controversy, I say bolox. Sorry, the Brit in me coming out there. I support, literally, the men and women who fight to give us the freedom to freaking say pretty much anything we want, short of fire in a theatre, so I’m all for posting cartoons of Mohammed from the freaking rooftops. Would I do it here in Bahrain? Ah, no. Can’t think of a quicker way to lose a head than being a member of royality during the French revolution. I’ll pass.
We’ve moved way past baby steps as far as allowing the Jihadists to dictate to us what and how we can say things. I don’t know how much farther we have to walk back, but we’re almost at the edge of that cliff. Posting about this and ranting and raving about how feed up we are, although cathartic, really doesn’t do much. What do we do? Seriously, what do we do about this. We have two political parties that are bending over backwards to not offend. Well fuck that. I’m all for offending, especially when another religion/culture attempts to influence how I live my life. What do we do? Is it possible to stop the tide? Seriously, I’m interested in hearing solutions, or hell, even bandaid fixes at this point.
I saw the closing scene with Bush and Jesus as inserted for another reason- Stone and Parker were directly “attacking” the core of the christian movement – american flags, Bush, Christianity. The point being, I think, was to say “SEE ? We’re going out of our way to offend Chrisitians- we’re attacking 3 things they value most, in the most vile way possible and we can do that, WHY ? BECAUSE CHRISTIANS WON’T RIOT AND KILL PEOPLE IF THEY’RE OFFENDED”
I think the Mohammed cartoon issue and the riots really got to Matt and Trey – these guys are watching fellow “comedian” threatened with death over a joke. I think the episode was just as much about drawing attention to the dhimmi demands of muslims as it was about free speech.
Taking offense to every sleight and being overly protective of your religion is a sign of its weakness, not its strength.
And the fact that this episode is now a parody of their original parody is hilarious….. sad, but hilarious.
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
gabriel-
I take this to mean, that in order to avoid violence against CC employees (and a great deal of liability for injuries that would follow a riot), the executives of CC decided to self-censor. That’s just good business sense.
I can just see it… Detroit vs LA Clippers for the 7th game of the NBA Championship.
Detroit’s ownership says to themselves, “You know, if we win this game, there are sure to be riots all over Detroit. Look at the potential liabilities…”
“Play to lose! That’s just good business sense!”
T/w: spirit– as in “Smells like Team”.
Gah, I wish I were one of them brown folk, if only so that I could wield the sort of power an “oppressed minority” has. *Sighs dreamily* Ah, to have been born a Muslim… or a black woman…