Below are excerpts from the discussion on Pinyadda around this NY Daily News article. On Pinyadda you can follow breaking news from thousands of sites & blogs across the web about:
Chase Garbarino: So, do people think this is cowardly to back down to those threatening violence against them? Considering they make fun of just about everyone equally (scientology episode about travolta and cruise, and the episode where the priests had the boys on leashes), how’s everyone feel? I can see why they are concerned for sure, but I personally find it to be a bit cowardly to back down at this point.
Taylor Sauer: haha, i dont they really backed down. the episode still showed, but just with the blacked out and beep sounds. i think it was more like a “huh? you want to censor us?…here you go”
Remi Gendron: i agree. i actually pinned an article about how they were threatened by several groups after the first ep, so last night seemed to be even more of a “fuck you” to everyone else. i think the bleeps and censorings were right up their alley, and fit into their shows humor.
Linda Smith: I think it’s smart vs. cowardly, and hopefully longevity preserving. Holding your ground on principle is admirable, but it depends on who’s doing the threatening. It’s not the same as fighting the FCC on a censorship charge. Terrorists don’t seem to feel particularly constrained by “rules”, particularly when they consider it a point of honor to commit suicide in the process. How do you fight the good fight against that mentality? Also, if you have a family/children/etc. you’re not only jeopardizing your own safety.
Kristin Maguire: I don’t think it’s cowardly because the threat of violence is REAL. I’m not sure if they have families, but I’m sure if they do, the risk was seen as unnecessary.
I do not know too much about Islam, but I think it’s safe to say that horribly mocking priests (servants of the church) or the followers of a (fairly new) religion is nowhere near messing with the founder and prophet of an ancient religion.
Disclaimer: I’ve only seen the Tom Cruise episode (and loved it) from the list you mention above, so perhaps they have cruelly mocked Jesus or a figure on par with Muhammad.
Lucy Barnard: I agree with the other posts. Listen, I’m all for the 1st amendment and creative freedom, and even though I don’t always “get” SP’s sense of humor, I think the show is very good at what it does. I also think shows like SP are necessary drivers of social commentary, albeit a little extreme in many (/most) cases. However, at some point, you have to pick your battles and cut your losses. Sure, the creators of SP are champs at mockery, but the last time I checked, Tom Cruise isn’t planning on deploying full-force Suri as a terroristic rebute (although the full fury of the scientology aliens may be soon realized).
Chase Garbarino: I’ve read a decent amount about Islam, and I understand why the stuff is offensive (I did not actually watch the video, so if the censoring was more of an F you than good).
I can understand the riff people have with the South Parks/Family guys of TV, but I have typically found South Park to be more balanced in going after everyone which is why this disappointed me at first glance. Seth McFarlane on the other hand typically goes after the right and then hides behind “its a comedy show and we’re joking if you are offended don’t watch/your a bad parent if your kid comes across my show”. I enjoy FG but Mcfarlane has a political agenda and is too much of a sissy to just admit it when people bitch, and hides behind the comedy vale – drives me nuts.
Daniel Colangelo: I have always liked South Park because they are usually pretty up to date with current happenings and definitely do not spare anyone. As soon I saw the 200th ep. I figured there was going to be some backlash.
I do agree with Kristin in the sense that the treat is a very real one. Point in case being what happened in Denmark over a printed cartoon, not something on a major cable televison network.
I do appreciate SP for what it is though. Always going over the top and throwing topics in your face that other shows won’t touch. At this point though I think SP can still get their shock factor out there on a number of other issues.
I don’t really think they backed down. It’s them taking the whole censorship debate to another level. Can’t expect anything else from SP.
Phil Arscott: True Garbs, south park has always made fun of everyone (think president heist episode). You just have to be smart. Remember the Danish comics? extremists targeted the entire country, not just the individual. chances are, the groups who threatened violence went beyond the writers, and prob went to comedy central itself, where the president prob said “F*** that”
Remi Gendron: to be honest, i really dont think they backed down at all. the outlines for all their episodes are written in advance, and i’m assuming that they had this planned for a while. i dont think it was ever their intention to actually show pictures of, or slander mohammed on tv, but i think they just wanted to see how far they could push this situation.
Bill McBain: I think that you have to take everything that Matt Stone and Trey Parker do with a grain of salt. If you like their content you’ll like it and if it’s not your style feel free to watch something else. If you watch South Park you should expect a certain degree of boundary-pushing cultural insensitivity with a rightward-leaning libertarian viewpoint. It’s like going to the bleachers in Fenway in a Yankees Jersey and complaining that people made rude comments to you.
I have taken a view religion classes and studied Islam, but I’m certainly not competent to debate how great an offense it is to portray an image of Mohammad (Bear suit or not). However, the reason it is funny is because of the taboo nature about it. Nobody makes an “OJ loaned me these winter gloves” joke because OJ Simpson used to endorse Isotoners. It’s the ‘did they really just do that?’ gut reaction that gives the zing and makes the cultural reference worthy of inclusion. In the grand scheme of things I’d put this on the same level as the Family Guy references to Anne Frank or Jesus’s crucifixion.
I am not a fan of censorship in any regard. I feel like Matt and Trey are, in a way, mocking those that are protesting their work by running it with the blacked-out box and the bleeps. Perhaps it’s even funnier this way and will drive increased ratings due to the buzz created. I offer this hilarious video that sometimes censored versions can be far funnier than the original content…Sesame Street Censored: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwS1tGLB0vc
Bradford Reynolds: trey parker and matt stone do one thing. they mock the world as we know it. they mock everyone and everything.
this is exactly what they wanted. backlash. by showing the prophet mu—– in a uhaul truck, a bear suit, etc. people are outraged! this should be seen as mission accomplished for the episode. they didnt even show him in the first episode and people freaked out.
im sure a lot of people disagree, but in the politically correct world we live in, a world where the same person who says that depicting a religious character should equal a death sentence because of its offensive nature, can also say that 9/11 was justified and should be praised….we need people like parker and stone to illuminate the hypocrisy and ignorance and force people to witness the ridiculousness of the world.
and spare no one in their crusade. (crusade a poor choice of word? is their a word for non-jihad? an unholy war?)
Join the full conversation on Pinyadda.
Follow breaking news from thousands of sites & blogs across the web in one place on:
Follow breaking news from the source of this article:
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……