Afternoon InquisitionReligionSkepticism

AI: Goin’ Down to South Park

Last night Comedy Central aired the second part of a South Park episode that poked fun at censorship.

In the episode, all the celebrities (all the people really) that South Park has ever made fun of attempted to take revenge on the Colorado cartoon town for their “slander”. The only way the boys (and the town) could stop them was to turn over the Muslim Prophet Mohammed to Tom Cruise and Rob Reiner so they could suck all the “You can’t make fun of me” goo out of Mohammed, thereby protecting all the people South Park has ripped on from ever being made fun of again.

As you may know, a few seasons ago, South Park aired an episode in which the image of Mohammed was shown without being censored, along with other religious figures, as part a super hero team. After a Danish cartoonist and others were threatened for showing Mohammed’s image in cartoons, South Park aired another episode featuring an image of the prophet, but Comedy Central refused to allow the image to air. Hence Mohammed’s “You can’t make fun of me” goo.

At any rate, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are now apparently in the crosshairs of some extremist Muslim groups here in the U.S.

Comedy Central censored about 35 seconds worth of dialog at the end of last night’s episode, and many are speculating that Parker and Stone, notorious for turning in episodes at the last minute, had included jabs at groups of extremists that might threaten them.

What do you think? Is Comedy Central spineless? Are they just protecting valuable resources? Are Parker and Stone drawing attention to free speech issues in the right way? Or are they endangering themselves and others needlessly?

The Afternoon Inquisition (or AI) is a question posed to you, the Skepchick community. Look for it to appear Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays at 3pm ET.

Sam Ogden

Sam Ogden is a writer, beach bum, and songwriter living in Houston, Texas, but he may be found scratching himself at many points across the globe. Follow him on Twitter @SamOgden

Related Articles

67 Comments

  1. It wasn’t dangerous until they poked fun at this particularly deity. Now! Oh dear, dangerous!

    Yeah.

    They do us all a service. They clearly know what they are doing. They aren’t stupid.

    We NEED biting satire like this. South Park is still relevent after what, 15+ years? That’s fucking epic.

  2. I’ve seen a number of people say that it was Comedy Central that imposed the censorship … but was it? Having watched both episodes, I thought it was a mostly deliberate act by the show’s creators.

    For example, [spoilers] after Tom Cruise used the goo transfer machine he had the same censorship box around him as Mohammad. I don’t see why Comedy Central would have added this box as well, it looked like a deliberate act by the animators. It wouldn’t have made any sense if the Mohammad box wasn’t there in the first place. Plus the censorship box itself looked overly animated for something thrown in last minute.

    I’m even more convinced that the long-bleep speeches at the end were deliberate. They had the first character (can’t remember who, Stan of Kyle) give a long bleeped out speech, then a second who basically said “Yeah, bleeeeeeeeeep” then they had a gaff character (Santa Clause) also join in. It looked like it was all part of the joke.

    Honestly, the whole thing seemed pretty choreographed to me. It all seemed to fit in with the theme of the show, a little too well to have been thrown in last minute by Comedy Central. Is there any official word out on whether it was actually censored? Or are people just assuming it was?

    The only thing I though was a bit strange was how the name ‘Mohammad’ was bleeped in the second episode but not the first. That may have just been because the audience probably wouldn’t have known who they were talking about in the first though. :P

  3. It was ok for them to poke fun at Catholicism.
    It was ok for them to poke fun at Mormonism.
    It was ok for them to poke fun at Scientology.
    It should be ok for them to poke fun at Islam.
    Islam doesn’t get a free pass just because its followers have been violent in the past.

    I understand why Comedy Central did what they did (CYA), but that still doesn’t make it right. Comedy isn’t supposed to be safe. No target is sacred.

  4. I think they’re spineless. If I were offended by anything that South Park did, I wouldn’t watch it. That’s even happened sometimes with an episode or two (I’m not a fan of Mr. Hanky, for example, and tend to avoid his episodes). I don’t have a problem with turning off what I don’t feel like watching for whatever reason, and that’s fine. That’s normal. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t go ahead and do whatever they want though.

    It doesn’t really help the Muslim community either, when stuff like this happens. I’m certain there’s a lot of facepalming happening today, with a number of perfectly normal people who just happen to be Muslim saying “Great. Just one more reason for Joe-Six-Pack to hate us.”

  5. @Chrissyo: Yes, the censorship was on the part of Comedy Central, which they admitted. You can see a note on southparkstudios.com that says as much, though there are some bits that Trey and Matt probably added after being censored (like bleeping the message at the end).

  6. @Chrissyo: Uh, Comedy Central admits to the censorship. Also, Matt and Trey have on more than one occasion had to go back and add or censor stuff before, for other episodes. Sometimes they are changing stuff until the very last second. Their animation makes it easy to do that. Well, sort of easy.

    And yeah, they probably added the bleeps afterwards. But like I said, it’s not unusual for them to do that. They probably did it because, after the forced censorship, it made sense.

  7. The thing that I find the most amusing is that the season 5 episode (Super Best Friends) is available online at southparkstudios.com right now uncensored.

    I also saw an interview with Matt & Trey saying that the episode is even still broadcast in re-runs uncensored. They even said that it’s like anything that happened before the cartoon controversy is fine, but anything new is forbidden.

  8. @Chrissyo: And really, why was your first instinct to go “Matt and Trey are totally lying and did it on purpose!” Do you not know the history of this show? And further, why did you not actually read the linked articles, including the statement at the main website, before making incorrect assumptions? It’s not like this info is hard to find. Indeed, you can find it in the very post you commented on.

    They have always fought censorship. They’ve ALWAYS pushed the envelope. They really are not afraid to say whatever they want to say, and they are not afraid to offend people. This is how they roll. Besides, they have no need whatsoever to intentionally “censor” themselves; the network does that for them.

    Not all of their shows hit the mark, of course, but we are really, really lucky to have South Park on the air. Just like we are lucky to have Jon Stewart.

    Also, will the networks and those who are offended EVER learn? If they had just let it happen, without saying anything and making it into a big deal, most people wouldn’t have even noticed! Since South Park’s shtick is to offend at least one person in each episode, it would have just been seen as more of the same. But no. Instead, they must make this into a BIG FUCKING DEAL, when it’s not.

  9. @Thespis: Yep! That’s what I eluded to above. They’ve already done it. But NOW it’s a big deal. The episode even runs ON COMEDY CENTERAL and other networks in reruns.

    Know what’s funny though? This will only make this episode more popular, and South Park more famous.

    I bet Matt and Trey are having a blast, danger or not. They love when they offend people. And forced censorship just means more publicity!

  10. Wait…this works!? Ok everyone. Let us join together to form angry mob skeptic voltron! Start sending out death threat letters to get Ghost Hunters, Sarah Palin’s show, and Oprah taken off the air!

  11. Corperate self censorship is what it is when you’re obligated to make a profit for your share holders. It’s also spineless in this situation given their history of messing with any and all comers.

  12. This is a great example of some guys using their medium and their talent to overcome an obstacle, namely censorship. I liked Matt and Trey before (even though I don’t really know which is which), but their stock has gone up even more in my book.

    The episode had a butt of the jokes, just like every other episode. In this case, it was censorship that they were making fun of. And in doing so, they had M’dawg talking from inside a Uhaul, and ostensibly in a bear costume, which I would have to think is more blasphemous than showing an actual image. Effing brilliant.

  13. @Thespis: Looks like they pulled that episode from the archives. They won’t stream it now. What’s next? Are they going to demand people send back their DVDs?

    I think both pulling that episode and making them censor the new one is total crap. If everyone had to respect every religious rule that wasn’t theirs…

    Well, Judaism prohibits graven images so every picture of Jesus, including crucifixes, would have to be destroyed. And things would just get sillier from there.

  14. @Chrissyo:

    As for having bleeps and jokes surrounding the censorship, it’s pretty easy to imagine Comedy Central telling them, “this part needs to be taken out,” and Parker and Stone getting around that by censoring the parts that Comedy Central wanted removed, but making a point of drawing attention to the censorship instead of removing the offending scenes and making it look like they were never there.

    It’s a bit like Valerie Plame’s book, wich had huge portions redacted by the CIA. Instead of rewriting without the censored portions, it was published full of blacked-out passages.

    To me, that’s the best way to do it. It’s a way of pointing out that there was something here that someone didn’t want you to see, instead of going along with the censorship.

  15. @daedalus2u:

    I disagree, it is spineless, even in the face of death threats. Muslims keep making these death threats because people keep caving in to them. The only to stop it is for enough people to stand up, even in the face of death threats, and proclaim that censorship through terrorism will not work. When you give in to terrorists and give them what they want, they’ll only repeat the act and ask for more.

  16. @DiscordianStooge: I disagree with that definition of spineless. If someone wanted to make a point but didn’t when there is little danger of controversy is spineless.

    Hypothetically if you were certainly going to die if you take an action for a cause and didn’t do it is that spineless to you? All I’m saying is that there is a range of danger and what point someone choosing on that range to act and not act is or what is or isn’t spineless is arbitrary.

    And for some people being under the threat of death for years to come may be their point of non-action.

  17. Matt and Trey haven’t been funny for years; South Park’s just been a venue for taking incredibly obvious and hamfisted pokes at incredibly obvious targets. Since they made the episode specifically to piss people off, it’s disingenuous to get het up when those people, predictably, get pissed off in the manner to which we’ve become accustomed.

  18. @MarianLibrarian: Yes! This is what I was thinking. This is what they do every time they get censored. They play it up.

    @ZenMonkey: Did you SEE the Facebook episode? That was hilarious. They miss the mark often nowadays (that puking episode…ugh), but sometimes, an episode is pitch-perfect. And I like them more than Family Guy — I actually like Seth MacFarlane way more than I like his show.

    I also like how they fuck with the networks by basically pointing directly at the censorship and giving a big fuck you to the networks, like MarianLibrarian said. Whatever you think of their comedy, these dudes have balls.

    They essentially get paid to piss a bunch of rich people off. I am okay with this.

  19. Yep… spineless. That’s the word I’d use for a company refusing to put it’s entire employee base and everyone who works in the same buildings as the network at risk of being murdered because people need cartoons!

    I’m not a big fan of censorship… I am a big fan of not putting other people at risk unnecessarily and without their consent for a good laugh at a group known to violently and brutally and senselessly murder people, sometimes by the thousands, indiscriminately to get revenge (sometimes over cartoons, even). Or are we talking about a different type of Muslim extremist here?

    If it’s Matt Stone and Trey Parkin putting only themselves at risk for their art and no one else is involved, that’s one thing… but Comedy Central has a legal and ethical obligation to consider everyone else involved.

    It has nothing to do with Islam being above scrutiny, either. It’s about how certain Muslims respond to that scrutiny.

  20. @marilove: Yeah, I just haven’t really enjoyed South Park since it stopped being about the kids and started being about a bully pulpit. Totally agree it’s much better and more interesting than Family Guy. And Orgazmo is HILARIOUS. (I also enjoyed Cannibal! The Musical.)

  21. Here is the statement from Matt & Trey on their South Park Studios website:
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878

    “Posted on: 04.22.10

    A Statement from Matt and Trey
    In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.”

  22. @Elyse: Disagree completely. What they did was in fact, craven.

    “I am a big fan of not putting other people at risk unnecessarily and without their consent for a good laugh at a group known to violently and brutally and senselessly murder….”

    Who says the risk is unnecessary and the consent unsolicited? I dispute both those points and the point that this is all being done “just for a good laugh”. As soon as someone brings a death threat to the table, the whole game changes instantly.

    It is no longer about simply making some poop jokes, this is now about something much, much bigger than than mere comedy alone. It is about a gravely important fundamental liberty being squelched by superstitious zealots and it is about not not allowing them to dictate the terms of our freedoms in a manner beholden to fatuous and arbitrary concepts of “offense”. So the risk, yes, is necessary.

    Now the consent. Here’s what you do, “Hi everybody, I know this is kind of a late email today, but I thought everyone in X office should know that we’re going ahead with show/cartoon/story/article/movie Z and there may be a real risk of violent reaction to this. See me if you have any problem. Have a good weekend!”. If you get people coming to you complaining that they don’t want to be or can’t be a part of a company doing Z, then they know where the door is. Sorry, that’s life, and that’s how important freedom of speech really is.

  23. @Magnus H.: You’re acting as though the importance of freedom of speech can be objectively measured. It can’t be, it’s a judgement on the person/companies part. I think the risk is necessary but my judgment is not objective.

    I also don’t have too many people to think about when making these decisions and the equation would certainly change if that weren’t the case. I don’t have the gaul to think I can make a decision like that for others. Terrorizing works, like you say; that’s life. But luckily only in the short term.

  24. Rewarding Muslims for being violent thugs…It may not be spineless but it is appeasement. Plus these people kill over cartoons. There is no reasoning with them anymore, we have to give them the finger and let them know this is bullshit. What we are seeing here are moderate Muslims cashing in on the violence of their fundamentalist brothers.

  25. @Ing213: Sure but that’s because we’re far away and Matt and Trey probably have all the protection they need. If I had a gun to my head and was told not to say a particular word, I have no problem with ‘appeasement’ if we really have to look at it that way.

  26. Comedy Central is being understandable. It is easy to talk about cowardice when you aren’t the one who is risking life and limb. In the abstract I’d like to argue for this, but I’m not sure if I were in the position of the Comedy Central executives if I would actually do the right thing here.

    This is however one other data point about the bad aspects of religion. On the other hand, Christianity used to be like this, and has gotten better. If religion isn’t going to get eliminated maybe we should think about what could make the religions more like Christianity (so nasty violent crap happens but it doesn’t happen as frequently). Unfortunately, the Koran is a fundamentally much more pro-violence text than the Bible and most of the violence in the Bible is in the Old Testament so Christians don’t pay that much attention to it (I think the book of my namesake actually has the most total deaths than any other. Hooray for being named after a genocidal tribal warlord). I’m not taking any bets right now.

  27. @Alexrkr7: Really. Wow. You’re really going to attempt to make the case that the simple right to express one’s thoughts without fear of serious punishment is mere subjective opinion, as capricious and variant as ice cream flavor or hair color preference. Interesting…..cuckoo!

    “I don’t have the gaul to think I can make a decision like that for others.”

    Great, because no one’s asking you to. The individuals who are part of the organization making the decision to go ahead and publish something controversial are making the decision for themselves. They can either stand up for what’s right and stay, or they can wuss out and submit their simpering letter of resignation before the shit starts hittin’ it.

    “Terrorizing works, like you say; that’s life. But luckily only in the short term.”

    Short term, right, exactly. I dare you to say that to the face of a gay person in Isfahan, or a journalist in Peshawar, or a woman who dared to decline the high honor of covering herself top to toe in a black cloth bag in 120F weather in Jeddah. I dare you.

  28. @Magnus H.:

    I guess I missed the part where Comedy Central has a huge responsibility to take on Muslim extremists. I also seem to have missed that telling employees to go fuck themselves if they don’t want to get blown up by terrorists is a compassionate and reasonable response.

    Safety and accountability should never EVER be considered when hilarious art is on the line.

    It’s not like Matt and Trey are being denied their right to say shit about Mohammed. Comedy Central is just saying, “No. You can’t say it here.” Free speech doesn’t mean you have the right to use every platform everywhere at any time no matter what to say whatever the hell you want. It just means that the government can’t stop you from saying it.

  29. @Elyse: Uh, so it is ok to be cowed by threats of violence because someone may be hurt by the meanies? Does that mean that social justice workers in the south during de-segregation were reckless idiots? Some did actually die for what they thought was right.

    I think that *anyone* who stands up to radical Islamic BS about being specially immune to satire is a hero for free speech.

    I can be offended by people’s religious expressions, but I don’t then have the right to threaten them with harm. Radical Islamic censorship, whether done by religious groups or self-censorship by the media is not right.

  30. @Elyse: “Free speech doesn’t mean you have the right to use every platform everywhere at any time no matter what to say whatever the hell you want. ”

    Sorry, where did I make the case for that ridiculous strawman argument again? C’mon now.

    “Safety and accountability should never EVER be considered when hilarious art is on the line.”

    I thought we already addressed this. You’re right, it shouldn’t have to be considered and that it DOES have to be considered is not the fault of SP’s creators, it’s the fault of raving religious loons who don’t understand that they don’t have a right not to be offended. That the subject in question here is a form of satire, IN NO WAY diminishes it’s worthiness of protection in the name of freedom of speech. It’s really too bad that you perceive some forms of speech as frivolous and disposable, based merely upon their content and which emotions they seek to excite.

    “I also seem to have missed that telling employees to go fuck themselves if they don’t want to get blown up by terrorists is a compassionate and reasonable response.”

    Sorry, these are the kinds of decisions adults sometimes have to make when they’re confronted with the reality of having to stand up for what’s right. The attendant to the doctor at an abortion clinic has to make this decision today, the paralegal working with the lawyer who takes on the case of a terrorized minority in Jim-Crow Alabama had to make it in the ’60s, the journalist working for a paper that suddenly finds itself in the crosshairs of authorities in 1980’s Czechoslovakia had to make it. The list is endless and while ‘compassion’ for the difficult circumstance of those who are inadvertently caught up in such situations is admirable, it is also secondary.

  31. @Magnus H.: Cuckoo? Really, Come back to me with real arguments and try reading what mine was, you seemed to have misunderstood.

    “Great, because no one’s asking you to. The individuals who are part of the organization making the decision to go ahead and publish something controversial are making the decision for themselves.”

    And the employees who apparently need to get lost if they don’t feel as strongly as you do nor do they feel like putting themselves in danger.

    “I dare you.”

    Are we back in the school yard? And did you think you were going to expose some glaring hypocrisy on my part?

    There’s a fine line between stupidity and bravery Magnus, and your proposed actions seem to be on the wrong side of that line. See I can be needlessly hostile too!

  32. @Alexrkr7:

    “And did you think you were going to expose some glaring hypocrisy on my part?”

    My intent, was to show the utterly laughable absurdity of your proposition that ‘terrorizing only works in the short term’. It often does work, sadly, and it works in the very, VERY long term.

  33. @Magnus H.: I concede that point, it does indeed work in the long term as well, I thought you were making the opposite claim (that it doesn’t work at all). My apologizes.

    I wasn’t saying because it only works in the short term (which now that I think of it isn’t true) we should sit back and wait for it to fail. It’s because it doesn’t fail, that is to say because people are killed that the decision to fight back needs to be well thought out and that not every fight needs to be fought. Especially when others may be in danger because of my actions. That’s all I’m saying.

  34. @marilove: Yes, I am in full agreement with that. CC is an autonomous corporation that has every right to choose what forms of speech it does and does not want to give a mouthpiece to. It’s just that they’ve chosen in this situation, as such corporations usually do, to crumple “spinelessly” in the face of cowardly threats like a shrinking violet in the Sahara. Shame, really.

  35. @Magnus H.:

    I don’t see some forms of art expendable while others are not. I just happen to think that it’s not necessarily Comedy Central’s obligation to stand up and fight. And to respond by calling them cowards for not saying “Fuck it! Let’s put everyone in danger!” is pretty unfair.

    And some poor schmuck working in accounting, who chose to get a job on a basic cable channel dedicated to comedy shouldn’t suddenly be told to become a soldier against radical Muslims or GTFO. That’s pretty ridiculous… ESPECIALLY right now when there’s little chance of finding another job.

    And your examples of the people who put themselves in danger? Those are all people who knew and understood what risks they were taking before filling out the application. The danger was there. The employer was transparent about it. They took the job.

    That’s far different from someone who takes a job with a cable network then being told, “Oh, by the way, we decided we’re going to piss off some terrorists. Be sure to lock the door to the loading dock at the end of your shift – that’s where they’re most likely to try to get the bombs in to kill us all! By the way, it’s Nick’s birthday, the guy in marketing, go help yourself to a cupcake when you have some time.”

  36. Comedy Central is not obligated to stand up and fight. Comedy Central is ALSO spineless. Completely false dichotomy.

    Everything I’ve read about this indicates that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are the ones that have had threats made against them. Not network executives, not Nick in marketing, Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

    Fuck Comedy Central.

  37. I really don’t think that Comedy Central are the ones to blame here. It’s the Islamic extremists who threaten to kill people who don’t agree with them who are the real arseholes.

    Comedy Central are under no obligation to stand up to death threats, nor are they under any obligations to bow to them , they just did what they thought was best in shitty situation that was forced on them, not by Matt and Trey, but by the people making the threats.

    If person A tells person B not to do something or else they’ll kill them, you can’t really blame person B for how they act because it’s person A was is the maniac who is holding a gun to their head. By having a go at Comedy Central, it’s almost as if we’re ignoring the real problem, intolerant nutbags who still consider bullying as a way to achieve their aims.

    I think our response should be more along the lines of: it’s really shitty that Comedy Central were forced into censoring their biggest, most popular show because of intolerant douchebags. If there is to be any public outrage, it should be aimed squarely at the extremists who made the threats in the first place.

  38. @Reverend Kel: From what I understand (and IANARS [I am not a religious scholar]), it’s not in the Koran but was an idea developed as a way to prevent people worshipping an image of Mohammud. Non-asshole Muslims are fine with respectful images and with any images made by non-Muslims.

  39. Well looks like, as a UK resident, I won’t even be able to watch the censored version as comedy central have pulled the episode.

    I can understand why they’re getting nervous about this whole situation but FFS to completely pull the episode really does seem like a chickenshit move, and I was happy to defend the censorship thing – even though I personally don’t agree with it.

    So I guess the only way I’ll be able to watch it if I choose to will be via an illegal internet source.

    Not that I would ever do that.

    Just saying that option is available to people in the UK.

    But don’t because that would be wrong.

    Just so you know.

  40. Comedy Central are spineless but we can’t blame them. Parker and Stone drawing attention to free speech issues in exactly the right way. If it’s their fault for endangering themselves and others then it’s a woman’s fault if she gets raped.

    All this is doing is further marginalizing extremists in their own communities.

  41. @Elyse:

    I do agree that is is within Comedy Central’s rights both to ensure their employees’ safety as well as deem what content is appropriate for publishing. However, their actions have umdermined their long-term interests, by setting a precedent where third parties can establish the channel’s policy, by means of threat and violence. Essentially, they have forfeited their long-term benefit in freedom of speech (and, more specifically, their freedom to select what is appropriate for broadcasting in their channel) for a short-term benefit of safety.

    This discussion, of sacrificing one’s liberty for safety, is a rather old one. Benjamin Franklin points out in 1775 that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. If one is not willing or brave enough to protect his freedom, how is he in any position to claim he has any?

  42. “Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the LORD.” – Romans 12:19, New Living Translation (©2007)
    http://bible.cc/romans/12-19.htm

    …which makes this a Christian belief, rather than Muslim. But it’s the same God, so I think it would apply.

  43. I agree with nearly every point that has been madde so far. I agree that CC are being spineless. I agree that it is their right to be so. I agree that in many ways it is smart for them to be spineless. If I was Nick in marketing, I would be pretty pissed about the CEO of my company getting me involved in a fight I didn’t choose. People should get to consent when their lives are in danger.

    In summary, this issue is not black and white, right or wrong, from the perspective of the network. However, the larger issues of free speech vs. censorship and the appropriate response to perceived insults, are very clear cut. Comedy Central is not the villain here. They are the unfortunate middle man trying to be as fair as they can be to their artists (they didn’t have to air the episode at all) while still protecting both their employees and their profitability (a fair priority for a business). The real bad guys are people who think murder is an appropriate and proportional response to a perceived disrespect.

    All that being said, I find the situation frustrating. Every time a publisher or network or individual gives in to this (like when Yale didn’t publish the Danish cartoons in a book about the danish cartoons), it strengthens the resolve of terrorists. As long as a few individuals are the only ones willing to stand up for free speech, it is easier to make them targets. There is strength in numbers, and the more people willing to stand up and not be ruled by fear, weaker the threats become. As long as people like CC keep backing off in the face of threats, the longer this will go on. So, understandable or not, it’s still frustrating.

  44. @bulletproofheeb:

    @PixelTreason:

    Does the page give an error saying the episode doesn’t exist, or is there a message about it being taken down?

    I ask because after I watched ep. 200, I tried to go back and watch that Season 5 ep., but I got an error that it didn’t exist. The next day I tried it again and it played fine. So, there may be some glitch with the streaming.

    Of course, it may have actually been taken down this time. I can’t check right now because I’m at work and southparkstudios is blocked.

  45. @Joshua Zelinsky:

    If religion isn’t going to get eliminated maybe we should think about what could make the religions more like Christianity (so nasty violent crap happens but it doesn’t happen as frequently).

    You’re not gay, are you?

    @Alexrkr7:

    Terrorizing works, like you say; that’s life. But luckily only in the short term.

    REALLY? Really? Did you just say terrorizing only works int he short term? For reals, reals? Look, regardless if you think Comedy Central was spineless for giving in to a bunch of extremist fucktards, you cannot seriously think that terrorizing only works in the short-term.

    People who say things like this, and what Joshua Zelinsky said above, are obviously privileged and have never had to deal with being a minority.

  46. Basically south park are making the joke that muslims will kill you if you mock their prophet…The Muslims are so angry at that stereotype.. that they are threatening to kill creators of South Park. Hmmmmm

  47. ” If religion isn’t going to get eliminated maybe we should think about what could make the religions more like Christianity (so nasty violent crap happens but it doesn’t happen as frequently).

    You’re not gay, are you?”

    Or female?

  48. @Ing213: Right. Exactly.

    Or the family of Tiller, the late-term abortionist who was assassinated.

    Seriously, people; place yourselves into the shoes of others. And consider that many people have to deal with being terrorized every day. Short-term my ass. I wonder what Tiller’s family would think of that, eh?

  49. Here’s a link to a video where Anderson Cooper talks about this issue and interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She worked on the screenplay for Theo Van Gogh’s Submission. A documentary about the abuse of women at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.

    She brings into focus why there is all this fuss over the cartoon in the first place and why its more important than some of you might think.

    CNN : Anderson Cooper Muslims Threaten To Kill South Park Creators
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPKNyysrDkE

    Keep in mind that Theo Van Gogh was murdered for creating that documentary and Ayaan must now fear for here life, and keep in mind that it won’t just stop at this. The more we give into these hate filled fanatics, the worse things will get. They will never stop until people start to stand up to them in mass. Their goal is to turn the entire world into an Islamic Caliphate. In other words a world wide Islamic theocracy. That will be very bad news for anyone who truly values human liberty, and it will be especially horrible for women and gays.

    I can understand why Comedy Central did what they did, but keep that in mind before you make excuses for them. This will not end here, and the more Islamic Jihadists are able to scare us into submission, the worse things will get for us. This is especially important if Islam is fastest growing religion, as I’ve heard some people claim.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close