PeterDavid.net

When the history of this time is writen I hope it is noted that the greatest amount of courage was shown by...cartoonists. Not newspapers and certainly not TV networks.

The biggest laugh I got was the Muslim "response". I wonder if Matt and trey haven't set up Comedy Central for some serious hard questions--it's not ok to show Mohamed standing by a door but it IS ok to show Jesus throwing feces? Explain, please.

Also, wasn't that Katie Holmes playing the part of the pregnent American? Zing!

I love both FAMILY GUY and SOUTH PARK, so I was wondering how Trey and Matt would handle this. The result: a great SP episode! Much as I love FAMILY GUY, I agree with the SP assertion that the jokes are almost all unrelated to the plot (anytime you hear the phrase "...that time when..." you know another unconnected joke is coming) and I could see it being easily written by manitees. That said, many of the FG jokes are laugh-out-loud funny! And SP skewered it brilliantly, from Cartman's sob story (and follow-up that "manitees are the only mammals unaffected by terrorism") to Cartman's selfishness ("it's not like terrorism -- it *is* terrorism!") to the humanized Bart Simpson (harknening back to when Jay Sherman appeared on THE SIMPSONS, asked if they ever wanted to appear on his show, and Bart immediately rejected the idea). Of course, Comedy Central did pull the Scientology episode (at least temporarily) to appease Tom Cruise, so the idea a network exec would stand up for what's right seems a little idealized here. And using actual terrorist footage with translations bashing FAMILY GUY? Brilliant!

After seeing this, I'm glad last week's teaser for this week's episode wasn't just a joke on the fans.

Along with everything already mentioned, I was deeply impressed with a lot of the animation in the episode, most specificly the slap fight. Lots of angels and expressions we don't normally see.

I saw this episode more of Matt and Trey sticking it to CC for pulling the Scientology episode off the air and not standing up for the SP crew and a show on their own network. Instead they (CC) bowed to the pressure put on them by a religion and pulled the episode. I think while they were giving good natured ribbing to not only Family Guy, but the Simpsons as well (and not sure if anyone noticed that there were quite a few Fox plugs in the background - Ice Age 2 for one, and the FG billboard, even if the air date was wrong, not to mention the time they mentioned) but I don't see anyone making that case.

Maybe I missed an earlier blog, but that is just my two cents. Love both shows and would like to know if Trey and Matt know Seth McFarlane and what their relationship is like....

Loved this episode, especially the Terence and Philip fake out in the beginning (BTW, when did Philip get fat? Or were they trying to make him look like Chef now?)

The idea that Family Guy is written by manatees seemed oddly appropriate, although my prediction was that it was going to be the crab people. It was brilliant and they hit all the right marks: giving into terrorism, defending freedom of speech, skewering Comedy Central for "pussing out" (F--k you, Tom Cruise! I will never watch one of your movies again), Family Guy's non-contextual humor, and even there own tendency to get preachy in South Park.

As for the Jesus thing, it's already been well documented that in the muslim world, it's considered okay to portray Jesus in a satirical manner, but no one is allowed to depict Mohammod, ever.

Unless you're a radical Islamic cleric and you want to fabricate additional cartoons that were never run in the Danish paper to further inflame people.

Who'd have thought Bush would be a defender of the first amendment?

(BTW, when did Philip get fat? Or were they trying to make him look like Chef now?)

There was an episode a few seasons ago where Terence and Philip had a falling out, and the boys are trying to reunite them. During that falling out period, Philip got fat. So, he's been that way for awhile now. :)

Earlier yesterday, I posted on my blog what I'd _hoped_ they'd do; run what looked to be an old episode, and after maybe five minutes, have it change gradually into a new one. Sort of like that flashback episode where their memories were different from the actual episodes ("That's what I call a sticky situation.") Would've been a great goof on April Fool's, and a nice commentary on the reported pulling of the Scientology episode.

Oh, well.

My favorite parts:

"At least it's not all preachy and up its own @$$ with messages."

"I'm using fear to get what I want."
"Isn't that like terrorism?"
"No, it is terrorism!"

The Bush administration should take note of that last part.

Boy, did they make Comedy Central look like chumps! CC refused to let them show Mohammad, but Jesus throwing crap at George Bush went on the air?! Is the world upside-down or what?

I agree with the SP assertion that the jokes are almost all unrelated to the plot (anytime you hear the phrase "...that time when..." you know another unconnected joke is coming)

Finally! I thought I was alone in the desert with this point. I love FG and all the pop culture references, but sometimes you see the gears moving.

For example, one episode had Lois on an adreneline rush. I could swear this was a rip of two Simpsons episodes.

Another one is on the commentary to the "southern" episode. They remark about the voice over (Waylon Jennings) ahead of a commercial break. Seth seems so oblivious to the relevance that you wonder if it was the casting director's idea.

Don't get me wrong, I love FG. But maybe if look at the writers, you'll find they're already dead on the inside.

Hehehhehehhehheh....inside

CC refused to let them show Mohammad, but Jesus throwing crap at George Bush went on the air?!

I'm not really sure if CC actually did refuse to let them show Mohammad or if they were just taking a stab at CC for pulling "Trapped in the Closet" out of rotation to appease Tom "World's most overrated actor" Cruise by pretending they were being censored by CC.

I've been rolling it around in my head, and either possibility makes sense to me.

I'm not really sure if CC actually did refuse to let them show Mohammad

According to an AP article up on Yahoo! right now:

"Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity."

From Michelle Malkin's blog I found the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301002.html

Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.

BTW, the censored portions WERE filmed--already people are downloading the full episode from P2P sites.

Boy, do the folks at Comedy Central look like idiots.

Yeah, I found the AP story on CC's decision to censor the episode shortly after I made my last post.

That makes the point of the episode even more ironic, I guess.

So I guess we won't be seeing the "Super Best Friends" episode anytime soon either...

Family Guy and South Park have two very different styles of humor.

South Park tries to weave clever satire into their plotlines. Family Guy is just about delivering sight gags at a machine-gun pace. It's not really trying to be very deep or clever.

If you just want to park your brain for a half hour and laugh, then Family Guy is the best choice. If you rather look at something that's better written, then South Park is probably a better choice.

"BTW, the censored portions WERE filmed--already people are downloading the full episode from P2P sites."

But to put it up on P2P, you'd have to get the original uncensored episode that wasn't aired. Where could they have gotten it from?

Okay, here's what I don't get. Why is it that Bush knew what the first amendment was but the press didn't? I really hope that was supposed to be a joke because it's almost the complete other way around!

But, yeah, CC must have some issues if they allowed Jesus to crap on the American Flag but not show Mohammed doing normal stuff. They pretty much are giving in to terrorism or, in this case, stupid-ignorant-crazyism.

"Why is it that Bush knew what the first amendment was but the press didn't? I really hope that was supposed to be a joke because it's almost the complete other way around!"

Man, I love that. Was that supposed to be a joke because if it wasn't it reveals such ignorance that I can't even begin...

But I will.

The First Amendment is about GOVERNMENT Censorship. Not corporate.

Get it?

Corporate censorship is entirely legal, often stupid and pigheaded, but LEGAL.

As I understand the timing, CC refused to allow them to depict Mohammed and THEN they made the episode as a response. So CC didn't censor that specific scene.

Despite whether or not CC refused to allow SP to show Mohammad (and as people have been saying, it was indeed the case) . . .

I think it would've defeated the purpose of the episode if they had showed Mohammad at all. It would've given the show a happy ending, "Look, American broadcasting isn't giving in to censorship, they're taking a stand and showing whatever they want." By declaring that CC is censoring them, true or not, they're still preaching that it's an ongoing problem that exists outside of the show itself.

I just think the show was much more effective for actually being censored than not.

I like both Family Guy and South Park, though it took a while to warm up to the former. From its very first episode, Family Guy seemed like the ultimate "because we can" show. They made no apologies, and what made it especially difficult to watch was because it had no motives except being subversive and seeing how much they get away with.

South Park started out that way too... and then they made the second episode. Throughout the show they have assaulted the self-important, which I guess includes everyone, especially people who decide that they have a "message" and exploit their position in order to shamelessly promote their own point of view. Now South Park even meta-contextually lampoons themselves. That's pretty f***ed up right there.

But here's the question: Why portray Mohammad in a cartoon if you know it offends people? Deliberately offending people is always asking for trouble. I believe in free speech, and I also believe that words (and especially images) have great power. And what must come with great power? Come on, you know the answer!

Satire is all well and good, because there's usually a point to be made. But I'm not a big fan of the "because we can" philosophy. I think if you're going to offend people, you have to have a better reason than getting the "I can't believe they did that!" reaction. Family Guy is like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, while South Park is more like those cautionary messages before the movie: "Please note the nearest exit. In the event of an emergency walk, do not run, to the nearest exit. This notice required by law."

I think I've just talked myself into hating Family Guy...

"Man, I love that. Was that supposed to be a joke because if it wasn't it reveals such ignorance that I can't even begin..."

No, Jamie, South Park got it right. At that point in the episode, the press asked the President if he could arrest the people at the network for showing Mohammed on the air. That's when the President said no and started talking about the First Amendment.

And what must come with great power? Come on, you know the answer!

Press conferences at which you announce that you don't need a warrant to tap phones, and you can hold people indefinitely without trial or counsel because you said so?

Just a guess...

Wow. Just... wow.

I am surprised by how tepid are many of your reactions to Comedy Central's decision to forbid South Park from portraying Mohammed while allowing the show to depict Jesus shitting like an elephant.

I am not a Christian. I was raised Catholic but as a teenager I began to question, and later, eschew religion. I believe in God, but not in religion. The full details don't belong here, of course. Ain't my blog. But my point is that I was not particularly offended by the image of Jesus pooping. I laughed at it, in fact.

But I am deeply disturbed that the powers that be at Comedy Central would be afraid to show an image of Mohammed giving someone a helmet with a salmon on top, while being comfortable showing what many would consider ragingly blasphemous images of Jesus Christ, in the week leading up to Easter, no less!

The Islamic radicalists, those degraded, uncivilized knuckleheads who believe they have a right to kill anyone who upsets them for any reason, have achieved a devastating victory. Because they have cowed a major media outlet into doing their bidding. Comedy Central has sent a message to the uncivilized Islamic radicalists: your thuggish, animalistic predilection for lashing out at anything that doesn't conform to your narrow, backwards world-view works. We give in. We're waving the white flag. You can tell us not to "blaspheme" Mohammed and we will comply. But we will happily air images patently offensive to many Christians in our country, because they don't riot, burn embassies or otherwise get violent. At least not in such massive numbers.

It makes me sick. I know, I know, I must sound like Michelle Malkin! And me, an acknowledged liberal who thinks Malkin is a reactionary, prone to poor reasoning, and a poor writer to boot. Terrorism makes strange bedfellows.

The South Park episode, as others have said, was brilliant. The animation, the writing, everything hit on all cylinders. Kudos to them for exposing Comedy Central's hypocrisy, and doing it in such a brilliant way. Those guys are geniuses.

And they've ruined Family Guy for me. I used to put my brain in neutral and just enjoy the show. As a wanna-be writer, I'm embarrased by the fact that I couldn't see what was right in front of me: that the show is an endless parade of gags unconnected to the plot, most which begin with "This is just like the time..." Now I can't watch it anymore!

For the last 5 years we have heard BS comments from various people; "if we don't do ____, the terrorist win."

Guess what people, Wednesday night the terrorist won.
We should all be very disturbed by CC's cowardice. Obviously those at CC censored the show without understanding it's message.
We all now live under strict Islamic law. No one can show Mohammad, whether you are Muslim or not.

As for the Jesus thing, it's already been well documented that in the muslim world, it's considered okay to portray Jesus in a satirical manner, but no one is allowed to depict Mohammod, ever.

*****

Jesus is a revered figure in Islam. It's most certainly NOT acceptable to satirize him in Islam.

As to portraying Mohammed, it's not prohibited, though there's a general taboo. There are many, many, many instances throughout history of Mohammmed being portrayed...in Islamic art, as well as on the US Supreme Court.

I am deeply disturbed that the powers that be at Comedy Central would be afraid to show an image of Mohammed giving someone a helmet with a salmon on top, while being comfortable showing what many would consider ragingly blasphemous images of Jesus Christ, in the week leading up to Easter, no less!

*****

And the ironic thing is that showing Jesus in such a manner is just as offensive to Muslims.

And the ironic thing is that showing Jesus in such a manner is just as offensive to Muslims.

But, so far, I haven't heard any Muslims making a stink about it.

Time will tell, of course, but I'm thinking we can all safely guess what the result of this will be in the long run.

Okay, here's what I don't get. Why is it that Bush knew what the first amendment was but the press didn't? I really hope that was supposed to be a joke because it's almost the complete other way around!

It was a joke, because in the real world, reporters generally love to wrap everything they do in the first amendment while Bush, well, I won't quote the uncorroborated net rumor that he's called the constitution a "goddamn piece of paper" (okay, I just did), but his administration's enthusiasm for the bill of rights has been less than ideal to put it mildly.

But, yeah, CC must have some issues if they allowed Jesus to crap on the American Flag but not show Mohammed doing normal stuff. They pretty much are giving in to terrorism or, in this case, stupid-ignorant-crazyism.

It's ironic that they did a show about corporate media giving into fears of terrorism and the corporation that airs the show gave into fears of terrorism for that episode.

As for Jesus crapping on the flag, well, we live in an insane world. Depicting a Christian and/or patriotic symbol in a disrespectful and/or blasphemous manner will get you some nasty letters and possibly hammered by Sean Hannity on Fox "News" (And Hannity will probably find a guest who will suggest that Hillary Clinton secretly wrote the episode), but that's about it.

And let's be honest, it is because we, as the predominantly Judeo-Chritian nations, are living in the 21st century while many predominantly Muslim countries are still in the 15th century. It may be un-PC to say that we are more civilized because we counter what is offensive to us with words instead of riots and threats of violence, but let's admit it just this one time.

And that, however, is the ultimate irony of the episode. That radical Islamists reacted to the depiction of Mohammad by producing their own satirical video while Cartman used to a gun to try and get the episode pulled.

So I guess they're more civilized than Cartman.

I am deeply disturbed that the powers that be at Comedy Central would be afraid to show an image of Mohammed giving someone a helmet with a salmon on top, while being comfortable showing what many would consider ragingly blasphemous images of Jesus Christ, in the week leading up to Easter, no less!

Christians won't blow up Comedy Central.

So what did everyone think of the line, "Either everything is okay to write about, or nothing is"?

Posted by: Scott Iskow at April 14, 2006 12:16 PM

Christians won't blow up Comedy Central.

Actually, I already made that exact point in my prior post. Comedy Central knuckled under to the knucklehead Isalmic extremists because they'll riot, burn down embassies and commit other acts of violence in response to a perceived offense, whereas Christians won't -- at least not in such large numbers.

The other point I made in my post, however, was that knuckling under to the Islamic radicals won't spare us further violence. Capitulating to terrorists sends them the message that their tactics are working. So, naturally, they'll keep at it until they get everything they want.

So what did everyone think of the line, "Either everything is okay to write about, or nothing is"?

I agree with them 100 percent.

But, so far, I haven't heard any Muslims making a stink about it.

*****

For the same reason you didn't hear Muslims make a stink about it the first time Mohammad appeared on South Park. The vast majority of Muslims on this planet know how to check their outrage.

"The First Amendment is about GOVERNMENT Censorship. Not corporate."

Yes, but the corporations should be forced to obey the same limitations, the Constituion is our ultimate legal document....

"So what did everyone think of the line, "Either everything is okay to write about, or nothing is"?"

Agree 100%

"But here's the question: Why portray Mohammad in a cartoon if you know it offends people? Deliberately offending people is always asking for trouble. I believe in free speech, and I also believe that words (and especially images) have great power. And what must come with great power? Come on, you know the answer!"

Sorry, but that is the MOST IGNORANT thing I've seen in tis discussion. EVERYONE is offended by SOMETHING! If you you don't write or do something because it might offend someone, then you are totally comatose with no hope of recovery.

Saying people shouldn't do/say anything that someone might find offensive is stupid. It gives in to the terrorists...

There is no "Freedom from being offended"

For the same reason you didn't hear Muslims make a stink about it the first time Mohammad appeared on South Park. The vast majority of Muslims on this planet know how to check their outrage.

Possibly. Or it could be that most Muslims in the world don't watch Comedy Central. After all, nobody made a big stink about the Danish cartoons until a group of radical clerics took them on tour.

Jesus is a revered figure in Islam. It's most certainly NOT acceptable to satirize him in Islam.

But images of Jesus HAVE been used in Islamic media in a less than respectful way...however it has usually been done in the pursuit of portraying Jews as subhuman blood drinking agents of Satan. So that probably made it acceptable.

"I am surprised by how tepid are many of your reactions to Comedy Central's decision to forbid South Park from portraying Mohammed while allowing the show to depict Jesus shitting like an elephant."

Well, probably because of the context: It was depicted as a deliberately inflammatory sequence designed by Muslim terrorists: The expansion of Musliums announcing they were going to hold a contest challenging people to come up with the most inflammatory anti-semitic, pro-Holocaust cartoons they could. Which naturally prompted Jews all over the world to shrug and say, "And this is different from SOP...how?" Plus, let's face it, "South Park" has depicted Jesus in a death match with Santa Claus, getting the crap kicked out of him by Satan (winning only because Satan took a dive to win all the bets), and being bloodily annihilated by machine gun fire. By "South Park" standards, this was mild.

"But here's the question: Why portray Mohammad in a cartoon if you know it offends people? Deliberately offending people is always asking for trouble."

Yeah, but that's kind of not the point. Editorial cartoons, almost by definition, are going to offend SOMEbody. The point being made both by "South Park" and the "offending" newspapers is, Where does a particular group get off saying, "No. Not allowed. You can offend anyone else and say anything you want about anyone else, except us." To which the reasonable response is, "There's no rule that says WE must abide by YOUR beliefs." The fact is that the attitudes of extremist Muslims are ripe for satire, because they embrace the virtues of violence in the name of an individual who believed in peace.

I'm reminded of the John Adams line in "1776," during which Congress is trying to strike out all possible offensive language from the Declaration, and Adams shouts, "This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"

PAD

After all, nobody made a big stink about the Danish cartoons until a group of radical clerics took them on tour.

*****

And even then, it was only the radicals making the stink.

But images of Jesus HAVE been used in Islamic media in a less than respectful way...however it has usually been done in the pursuit of portraying Jews as subhuman blood drinking agents of Satan. So that probably made it acceptable.

****

I'm not sure I see the connection between the two...

"This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"

You can never go wrong with a 1776 reference.

But seriously folks, either it's okay to offend everyone or it's okay to offend nobody. The alternative is to believe it's okay to offend someone who lacks to power or will to fight back, and that's, as Cartman would say, WROOOOOONG.

And even then, it was only the radicals making the stink.

Well, if it was only radicals, then the world has a much bigger problem on its hands than we think, because tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Muslims protested against the cartoons.

And even then, it was only the radicals making the stink.

Well, at the risk of sounding un-PC again, when you have hundreds, if not thousands of people in one city rioting and setting fire to embassies, you have to have a pretty elastic definition to label them all as "radicals".

And, in other news, let's not forget that this nutbar is not helping matters.

Great, Craig posted the same thing just before I did. I guess that means we're the same person!

Well, if it was only radicals, then the world has a much bigger problem on its hands than we think, because tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Muslims protested against the cartoons.

*****

Well, there's two sides to that. The protests in Europe were relatively small, in terms of the number of people. And clearly they represented a fringe element.

In my opinion, the protests in the Mid East were representative of more than just anger over the cartoons. Not to say that they were at all right or justified in the extent of their indignation.

With all the social and political unrest, coupled with poverty and general lack of education, coupled with the general perception that "The West" is "out to get" them, the cartoons were sort of like dropping a lit match into an oil drum.

Let's just say that they acted exactly the way certain religious fanatics in positions of power hoped they would.

Even with that, the number of people who generally made asses out of themselves during that whole sad, sordid affair represents a small fraction of the number of Muslims on Earth who, while no doubt offended by the cartoons, found more constructive ways of dealing with it.

And, in other news, let's not forget that this nutbar is not helping matters.

****

Sadly, I didn't even need to click on your link to know who you were talking about. Geez, what a loon.

Posted by Peter David at April 14, 2006 01:54 PM

Well, probably because of the context: It was depicted as a deliberately inflammatory sequence designed by Muslim terrorists: The expansion of Musliums announcing they were going to hold a contest challenging people to come up with the most inflammatory anti-semitic, pro-Holocaust cartoons they could. Which naturally prompted Jews all over the world to shrug and say, "And this is different from SOP...how?" Plus, let's face it, "South Park" has depicted Jesus in a death match with Santa Claus, getting the crap kicked out of him by Satan (winning only because Satan took a dive to win all the bets), and being bloodily annihilated by machine gun fire. By "South Park" standards, this was mild.

I think I may have failed to state my intended point clearly. So I hope you don't think I'm insulting your intelligence by clarifying (because I do respect your intelligence, Peter).

I was surprised that more people hadn't expressed outrage at Comedy Central's executives for censoring an image of Mohammed out of fear for what the radical Islamics might do in retaliation. The fact that they were willing to show Jesus pooping like a goose on their network just serves to further drive home the fact that they are capitulating to violent thugs, rather than taking a stand on principle. They were willing to show Jesus taking a crap (actually, lots and lots of craps) because they weren't afraid of how Christians would react.

That kind of cowardice will only serve to encourage further acts of Islamic terrorism. It says, "Threaten us and we will do your bidding."

I think Comedy Central's cowardly decision represents a frightening development: Islamic extremists have begun to affect how we communicate through the mass media. I thought Comedy Central's executives' craven behavior should have provoked more outrage.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating that the portrayal of Jesus should have been censored. I've been watching South Park for years because of its iconoclastic nature. If Christians, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, Buddhists, or any other group is offended, too bad. This is allegedly a free country.

I'm just saying Muslims shouldn't be exempt from that list just because a small group of them are fucking violent extremist thugs.

(That was for you, Bill Mulligan. Figured I owed it to you after all the crap I gave you about dropping an "f-bomb.")

I'm just saying Muslims shouldn't be exempt from that list just because a small group of them are fucking violent extremist thugs.

Which is exactly the point Parker and Stone were trying to make. In some ways, though, the fact that they were censored by CC made their point even funnier.

And that fact that some Christian groups are complaining about the crapping scene also serves to make their point: We're not worried about offending Christians, but we've gotten ourselves so fearful of offending Muslims, that they're already won.

"I think Comedy Central's cowardly decision represents a frightening development: Islamic extremists have begun to affect how we communicate through the mass media. I thought Comedy Central's executives' craven behavior should have provoked more outrage."

Oh, okay. Well, as noted, I'm assuming CC didn't censor the Jesus sequence because of the context. More importantly, SP has a track record of showing Jesus in sacreligious situations, and in all the years of the series, none of those depictions has gotten anyone set on fire or blown up. So insofar as CC being terrified of what might happen, i.e., the terrorists have won, you're quite right.

I will, however, offer you all a scenario to think about:

CC allows "South Park" to run images of Mohammed uncensored, even though they can reasonably expect there may be some sort of retaliation based upon world events.

Three weeks later, three extremists manage to smuggle pipe bombs into a taping of "The Daily Show." They set off the bombs during the taping, killing Jon Stewart and three quarters of the audience.

The reaction from the media will be, "How the hell could Comedy Central have been so stupid as to let those South Park idiots force them into a position where they aired this show KNOWING something like this could happen?"

The reaction from the families will be law suits, claiming negligence because Comedy Central aired a TV episode that "incited dangerous actions from the extremists."

I hate to say this, guys...but if I'm CC's lawyer, I tell them not to air it. If I'm CC's liability insurance company, I tell them not to air it. If I'm the head of Viacom, I listen to the lawyers and the insurance company and tell them not to air it. If I'm the head of CC, I either listen to all of them and not air it, or I decide to air it and am promptly fired before air date and am replaced with someone else who won't.

It's easy to sit on the outside looking in and excoriate people for not taking a principled stand. But if YOU were on the inside, and there were human lives and potentially billions of dollars and possibly the existence of the channel on the line, I suspect you might very well think differently. It seems kind of fruitless to blame a business for acting like a business.

Just a thought.

PAD

What a world we live in where we have to ponder such eventualities. Sick.

Posted by: Peter David at April 14, 2006 03:54 PM

It's easy to sit on the outside looking in and excoriate people for not taking a principled stand. But if YOU were on the inside, and there were human lives and potentially billions of dollars and possibly the existence of the channel on the line, I suspect you might very well think differently. It seems kind of fruitless to blame a business for acting like a business.

You know, it's funny, five minutes after I posted, I turned to my girlfriend all ginned up on anger and said, "I am going to draw a cartoon of Mohammed and post it on my Web site. I'm going to announce that I am waiving all copyright protections and ask everyone to distribute it widely. I am going to stick my thumb in the eyes of these bastard extremists."

My girlfriend smiled.

Then I said, "Huh. Except, you know, it wouldn't be hard to track me down. If it was just me, I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to risk my life for a principle. But you know, honey, I don't think I'd be comfortable putting you, my family, my friends or my co-workers in danger."

And I sat there, stymied. Life is complex. There are no easy answers.

Just a thought.

It was more than "just a thought," Peter, it was an excellent point. Difference between you and me: you thought of it before posting.

It seems kind of fruitless to blame a business for acting like a business.

But it is appropriate to blame the business as part of the reason we're losing the war against Islamic extremists.

SOMEBODY has to take a stand.

Peter's right. Given the craven cowardace shown by so many elements of the media, any who stand up for free speech are easy targets.

I don't know about CC but Borders at least admitted the truth--they banned a magazine because of fear, not because of any belief that satire is inappropriate.

If enough networks and newspapers showed some guts there would be too many targets to hit but s it is...don't do it, Bill. I've just gotten to know you. And if these bastards were as smart as I am that's exactky what they would do; kill off a few regular folks. In the words of one of the great would be terrorists "We'll start with a few murders. Big men, little men - just to show we make no distinction." (The Invisible Man)

Let's not just pick on Muslims--others have learned well how to intimidate based on perceived offenses. Check out this astonishing link: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf

Briefly, a librarian suugests 4 books for a freshmen reading list and is being investigated for sexual harrassment because of it.

One caveat; these stories often turn out to be less than they seem at first. On the other hand, there is no easier place to see what an unholy merging of Mcarthyism and Stalinism would look like than on the campus of far too many colleges these days.

"SOMEBODY has to take a stand."

Somebody did: The newspapers in Denmark. The riots and destruction were the result, and world condemnation seemed to focus less on the radical extremists and more on the newspapers for provoking it. The message sent was clear: Provoke these nutballs at your own risk.

Tell me where my logic about Comedy Central is off, Craig. I'm happy to listen. Convince me that if you were the head of Comedy Central, you would have given Parker and Stone their head and you would have aired unpixeled versions of Mohammed.

Me, I think it's impressive that they haven't recalled the DVD sets with the Super Best Friends. That is out, I assume. I'd buy it now; might become a collector's item.

PAD

One other reason not to post the comics, Bill--you might lose your job.

A blogger posted a dopey cartoon of a stick figure holding a bomb with the caption "Mohammed Blows".

It got reported here- http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/News/Political_Notes/2006/04/13/A_Political_Web/index.shtml

He later came to an, ahem, mutual parting of the ways, with the University that employed him. Chilling.

But not surprising. I'm glad that PAD has a contract with Marvel now, because how easy would it be for some disgruntled member of the left or right to take something he said as offensive and put the screws on them? (If I were you, PAD, I might be especially careful about any criticism of the Palestinians. The anti-Bush stuff won't cost you too many points in New York but looking like a tool of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, well, that can't be allowed.

Please God, let me win the $220 million dollar lottery. I will use it to become an enormous pain in the ass to the people who are doing this crap. And I'll have enough money to build a fortified house complete with moat.

PAD's right, of course.

I think one of the things I have trouble wrapping my brain around is the difference between pulling a show because it offends someone, and pulling a show because you're afraid to get blowed up. But aside from the fact that a show is involved, they couldn't be more unrelated. As long as a show has the audience's support, they can offend just about anyone... But when blowing stuff up enters into the picture, no amount of audience support will make the difference. It offends our sensibilities as Americans, and we perceive the further decaying of our freedoms, but, well, can anyone deny a certain logic behind the decision to pull a show?

In a blog entry, I made an incendiary post directed at Christians, with a link to a Penny Arcade comic in which Jesus is playing (I think) Quake 3, picking off "chatty b!tches." I was trying to make a point, but the moment I got a response that upset me, I pulled the darn thing down. So far be it from me to hold Comedy Central or anyone else up to a standard that I can't maintain for myself.

Should I be ashamed of my cowardice? That depends on how shameful it is to want to live to see old age.

Humans will do everything in their power to avert danger, as long as they anticipate it. It's one of those miracles of evolution called "survival."

The anti-Bush stuff won't cost you too many points in New York but looking like a tool of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, well, that can't be allowed.

Actually, in New York City, it's pretty much the opposite. You can never show too much support for Israel.

Now if PAD lived in Paris, it'd be a different story.

Editorial cartoons, almost by definition, are going to offend SOMEbody.

I'm not sure Family Guy falls into the category of "editorial cartoon," although they have had their moments of social commentary. If they did use Jesus or Mohammad, it probably wouldn't be too far off from South Park's parody.

I think we can all agree on how things should be. People should feel like they can make a point without worrying about offending anyone, and if they offend someone then they should at least not have to be afraid of violent reprisals.

For that matter, there shouldn't be any violence at all. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. (And let's face it, it's not entertainment without a healthy dose of violence.)

Actually, Jesus has made multiple appearances in Family Guy, as well as God Himself, and Vishnu (if I'm not mistaken) in one episode.

-Rex Hondo-

The riots and destruction were the result, and world condemnation seemed to focus less on the radical extremists and more on the newspapers for provoking it.

Which just goes to show how far off the deep end that we, as a species, have gone.

Bush keeps going on and on about having to fight terrorism at every turn, but everybody else seems to be more than willing to appease the fanatical bastards out there.

Tell me where my logic about Comedy Central is off, Craig. I'm happy to listen.

If you want to call it logic, be my guest.

I call it total hypocracy on their part.

They allowed the Super Friends episode to air but not this, when this episode is no different in the portrayal of Mohammed?

Thank you, CC, for letting the terrorists win.

I'm sure I'll sleep well tonight knowing that they've helped contribute to the erosion of both my liberty and my safety.

Because, in the end, I sure as hell don't feel any safer because CC has no balls to speak of.

Craig? I'd be more impressed with your being offended and everything if you hadn't kind of skipped over the following:

"Convince me that if you were the head of Comedy Central, you would have given Parker and Stone their head and you would have aired unpixeled versions of Mohammed."

That's really the $64,000 question, isn't it. I put together a logical argument as to why they did what they did. My challenge is simple: If you disagree with the logic, then explain where it's faulty and how you would have handled it differently. Your response was "If you want to call that logic, be my guest." Well, I believe it IS logic, and technically, you're MY guest, what with this being...y'know...my website. But now I'm waiting for the counterargument that undercuts my logic, and I'm afraid moral outrage doesn't quite get it done.

Slap them around all you want. But your silence in response to the other matter doesn't convince me that you'd do it any differently if you were in charge. And if you would do the exact same thing...how do you justify calling them hypocrites?

PAD

Mulligan, don't worry: I've decided against posting any Mohammed cartoons on my Web site.

On the one hand, I'm a small fry. Hell, I'm a speck on a dust mote. I'm not sure that my cartoons would even be noticed by anyone. As I've said, my Web site has only 7.3 readers, two of whom are actually dead, but are in denial about it. But, I certainly can't rule out the risk that I could get noticed, however small that risk may be.

If my life were the only one I'd be putting at risk, I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to risk it for a principle like this. But what if my cartoon attracted enough attention that some Islamic extremists somewhere rioted and killed someone? Or if some terrorist group in the U.S. decided to send me a pipe bomb at work, which killed not only me but some of my co-workers? Or at home, killing my girlfriend and neighbors?

I can't bring myself to put other people at risk.
I had no right to call the executives of Comedy Central "cowards," because when faced with the same choice I couldn't bring myself to act any differently.

What a perfectly vicious little trap the terrorists have put us in. It's not easy for those with a conscience to fight those without one.

Actually, based on Craig's posts, I think it's quite clear he would have let it air, as would have I too.

Thanks for helping the terrorists win again PAD...

Posted by Bladestar at April 15, 2006 05:53 AM

Actually, based on Craig's posts, I think it's quite clear he would have let it air, as would have I too.

It's really easy to say what you "would have done" in a hypothetical situation. And really worthless.

I had a real opportunity to do what Comedy Central's executives wouldn't do. I have a Web site. I don't get thousands of visitors, but I get enough strangers coming by from time to time that a swipe at Mohammed might have attracted a small amount of attention.

I also had a choice to make. Could I risk someone else's safety to prove my point? I decided I couldn't.

Bladestar, if you're so bad-ass, tell me what you're going to do to prove how bad-ass you are. Otherwise, I suggest you step off the high horse.

Thanks for helping the terrorists win again PAD...

How did Peter help the terrorists win? By pointing out how unfair it is to accuse Comedy Central's executives of cowardice? I'm afraid you're not making any sense, now.

And if you would do the exact same thing...how do you justify calling them hypocrites?

As I said, somebody has to take a stand.

So, that should tell you what I think of the situation. Comedy Central should've run with it.

We, as a country, do things that piss people off every day. It just happens to be in some quarters of the Muslim world, they get pissed off more than others.

Did you know what the first response was by some Muslim groups in Indonesia was over the printing of a sans-nudity version of Playboy?

Violence.

They threatened to go after the people who published it.

There's no sense bowing down to that, because if it's not Mohammed, or Playboy, it'll just be something else.

Do I think Comedy Central would've caused riots? Maybe, maybe not. I just don't know. But it doesn't matter, because they'll riot if they want to, they'll kill if they want to, regardless of what we do.

The Danish cartoons were around 6 months before some extremists went and created a couple of REALLY offensive cartoons that actually got their panties in a knot.

But it's funny how our media here never really mentioned that. They just talked about the one with the bomb for a turban; of course, the Muslims then obliged to prove the point.

Here, let me give you a link: Mohammed Image Archive.

You can even read some emails he's received from people. Yep, Islam is really coming across as a religion of love and peace.

But from what I can tell, the site founder hasn't been executed yet. Nobody's rioting because he/she's posting art that has existed for centuries and some of which was created by Muslims.

In the end, yes, your logic is good, PAD. I probably should've said that from the start. I just don't agree with CC's decision at all.

A couple of things which crossed my mind during watching the episode:

1) I got the impression the different takes on FAMILY GUY during the show might've represented a difference of opinion on the part of Parker and Stone. One likes FG, the other doesn't.

2) I'm wondering, when this season makes it to DVD, if they'll show Mohammed on it instead of the disclaimer.

Okay. I'm dense. When I first saw the episode, I thought that the CC censorship was a brilliantly ironic coda for the whole story.

And then my eyes were opened.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. I think that the "censorship" makes it a more powerful statement. (It certainly inspired a lot more debate than the actual visual of a guy handing off a salmon helmet would have.)

Sometimes, Art can come from Commerce.

Isn't the Muhammad from the Super Best Friends episode in the crowd at the end of the intro sequence, and hence hasn't Muhammad been in every episode of the last few seasons anyway?

Isn't the Muhammad from the Super Best Friends episode in the crowd at the end of the intro sequence

That's what I figured was the case when Luigi said that Mohammed can be spotted in the opening to South Park - he's somewhere in the crowd shot.

Since I don't have the Super Best Friends episode on hand, I had to go hunt for a pic of Mohammed from that episode (which was/is still pretty easy to find... found one on a tv show blog talking about the Cartoon Wars episodes), just to make sure I knew which character I was looking for.

With the video I'm working with (on my computer, even at full screen) I just can't pick him out. It's like playing Where's Waldo with a grainy image. :)

The fact is that the attitudes of extremist Muslims are ripe for satire, because they embrace the virtues of violence in the name of an individual who believed in peace.

Actually, the true bit of ripeness is that the prohibition exists to prevent Mohammed from becoming an idol (in the sense of idolatry). That Mohammed is held in such grace that even a totally innocent potrayal of him is reason to riot shows that how much some Muslims have become idolators.

I hate to say this, guys...but if I'm CC's lawyer, I tell them not to air it. If I'm CC's liability insurance company, I tell them not to air it. If I'm the head of Viacom, I listen to the lawyers and the insurance company and tell them not to air it. If I'm the head of CC, I either listen to all of them and not air it, or I decide to air it and am promptly fired before air date and am replaced with someone else who won't.

Or you can always do it the Marvel way by trumpeting your progessiveness, then firing everyone behind it, putting a general chill on every product you have.

(I'm thinking of the infamous Northstar "I am gay" bit.)

My favourite part of the episode was just a quick little bit when Cartman pulled the gun on the Network president:

Cartman: "Pull the Mohammed episode. NOW!"
Network President: "Okay, I'll listen to you."
Kyle: "No! Wait! You can't listen to him! He's a lying monster who only wants Family Guy off the air!"
Network President: "But he has a gun."
Kyle: "You can't do what he wants just because he's the one threatening you with violence."
Network President: "I can't be responsible for people getting hurt. Especially me!"