PeterDavid.net

I think the phrase "n-word" is far more offensive than the word "nigger". Why did you have to offend me like that?

At least our hypothetical Harlem residents will take out their anger on the actual person who caused their distress, as opposed to just setting whatever is nearby on fire.

But I agree with you that Comedy Central has valid concerns about portraying Mohammed. However, I think in large part it is the fault of the West's reactions to the Danish cartoon row. Had they shown the slightest bit of guts in the beginning it would have been far more difficult for the crazies to target individuals now...but that ship has sailed. At least CC is now admitting that they did it out of fear, which I respect a lot more than, say, the New York Times pretending that they give a rat's ass about being insensitive to religious beliefs.

I will be utterly unamazed if elements of the extreme in Christianity , Judaism, hell, there may be some violent Quakers for all I know, if all of them don't get the message loud and clear--threats work. These guys will back down. You CAN control the message.

Jeeze, if White Guys, corrupt businessmen, and neo-nazis start organized marches who the hell will we be able to portray as villians? Visogoths? Hessions? Lumerians?

Bullshit.

Most in the media have NO PROBLEM skewering every other religious icon EXCEPT Mohammed. That makes them hypocrites, regardless of whether they are afraid of violence or not. It also makes them bullies, knowing that the people who have faith in those OTHER icons generally won't be trying to kill them.

Comparing that to someone shouting "nigger" in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging.

Comparing that to someone shouting "nigger" in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging.

I'd have to agree.

There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Mohammed.

It's just that too many Muslims have their heads up their collective asses that everybody must do what they want.

This is America. It is not Iraq, or Iran. We are not under Islamic law. We do not live the medieval, ass-back lifestyle that too many of them live.

Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless Islamic law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn't want to piss those people off now would we?

I can't wait to see what these guys demand of us next.

"Comparing that to someone shouting "nigger" in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging."

Not really, especially since that isn't what I did. First, I framed it in a way that it wasn't simply shouting racial epithets, but doing a dramatic rendition of an established critically acclaimed work. And second, I simply pointed out that not only was exhibiting self-censorship because of fears of reprisals for certain types of expressions nothing new, but if it's around long enough, it becomes accepted as being "sensitive" and "respectful" rather than knuckling under to fear.

Which I find, if nothing else, interesting.

PAD

"There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Mohammed. It's just that too many Muslims have their heads up their collective asses that everybody must do what they want."

And why would that be? Because they find it inherently offensive.

What you mean is that there's nothing inherently offensive TO YOU about it. Nor to me. Nor, dare I say, to the majority of Muslims.

But then there's the other guys...

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 15, 2006 01:04 AM

I'd have to agree.

There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Jesus.

It's just that too many Christians have their heads up their collective asses that everybody must do what they want.

This is America. It is not the Vatican, or Medieval Europe. We are not under Biblical law. We do not live the medieval, ass-back lifestyle that too many of them live.

Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless biblical law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn't want to piss those people off now would we?

I can't wait to see what these guys demand of us next.

=================

Muslums aren't the only ones who throw tantrums when they don't get their way.

There's nothing inherently offensive about cutting a hole in a piece of cloth and wearing it as a poncho. But when Kid Rock did it with a US flag, a few people were offended.

But cutting a hole in a flag is different than cutting a hole in cloth...we view flags differently.

Muslims view portrayals of Muhammed differently than other religions view portrayals of their religious leaders.

Riots aren't the answer -- but is provoking riots the question?

Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless biblical law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn't want to piss those people off now would we?

No need to amend anything. As long as Congress doesn't forbid portrayal of religious figures, then the first amendment isn't violated.

Any corporation or individual is allowed to censor speech. Only the US Government is prohibited from doing so by the first amendment.

Send pornography to Highlights Magazine for Children. They will not publish it. That does make them censorers. They are censoring what their readers will read. But that is their right.

Comedy Central is not required by law to air anything that is submitted to them for airing. And when they choose to show restraint, that is not a violation of free speech.

Matt and Trey do have an option. They can take their show elsewhere. They can air it elsewhere. Their free speech rights have not been violated.

"Matt and Trey do have an option. They can take their show elsewhere. They can air it elsewhere. Their free speech rights have not been violated."

Here's an interesting thought: Let's say they announce the DVD set will have the pixilation gone. They're unexpurgated.

And immediately Blockbuster and Best Buy and Hollywood Video all refuse to carry it. You just KNOW it's possible. Even likely.

So which is better? To have the DVD set feature the show as aired so it can go out to more people? Or to have it be unexpurgated and corporately shunned?

Lots of questions. Lots to think about.

PAD

Peter David: Go to Harlem, or to Watts, or any area with a heavily black population. Go at night. Go to a busy bar, or where you see a large group of residents congregating, and at the top of your lungs, start doing some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from "Pulp Fiction" where every other word is "nigger." Say it loud. Say it proud. This was an Oscar-nominated winner of the Cannes Film Festival. Hit the word "nigger" particularly hard. Be firece. Be convincing. See how that works out for you....Or at least that's what you can tell your lawyer after you've been arrested for inciting a riot and engaging in hate crimes.
Luigi Novi: Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else's property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose. If one wants, they should do this in public, and indeed, white supremacists have gone to New York City to do this, which the courts ruled they have the right to do.

Peter's example is very good. While that would be an expression of free speech, it would also be idiotic.

The idiocy isn't even free speech related. We *should* be able to go anywhere in the country safely. However, if someone goes down a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood just to prove that he can, he's an idiot. Whether he has a right to safety or not, we all know that going down that alley was a bad idea.

Should South Park be able to show Muhammad? Yes. Was CC decision correct in not to letting them? Yes. Even though Matt and Trey were right that in that they should be able to do it, CC was right in not letting them do it. The world is just that complex.

Just imagine me standing up and applauding you, Michael - much better said than anything I was going to.

This is sort of related to the controversy at large, so I thought I'd say it here, just to give another example of the censorship thing in practice--or not, depending on your point of view. In the university I go to, a few months ago, the university paper published a cartoon strip that basically showed Jesus giving a blow job to a cartoon pig, named Capitalist Pig. While there were no riots, there were massive demonstrations, media attention, and complaints until the editor of the paper had to resign to make things go away--despite the fact that he had been ill during the week the cartoon went out, and never saw the thing until it was in print. Personally, I thought the cartoon was in bad taste, and, more importantly, not remotely funny or thought provoking, just bad taste. Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?

Thank goodness OUR religious fanatics won't blow you up, they'll just destroy your career and your life. Ain't living in a more civilized society grand?

-Rex Hondo-

Basically, the Jesus/pig cartoon is just a smaller scale example of the same thing. Free speech isn't the issue, that was just stupid.

Posted by: John at April 15, 2006 01:43 AM

But cutting a hole in a flag is different than cutting a hole in cloth...we view flags differently.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Who's "we"?

I'm a Brit, so we don't have that pesky First Amendment to worry about (although I fervently wish we did)... but the idea of raising a flag to that level of respect that the flag itself becomes more important that what it represents.. yeah, that's one I can't get my head around.

This whole line of argument sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of the legitimacy of the heckler's veto.

J.

Don't feel bad, Budgie. Some of us on this side of the pond have trouble with it, too.

-Rex Hondo-

Once more PAD misses the point.

Comedy Central wasn't going to a Muslim neighborhood to broadcast South Park, they were doing it right here in the USA, where the first amendment is pretty meaningless if even writers don't actually support it...

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Who's "we"?

I'm a Brit, so we don't have that pesky First Amendment to worry about (although I fervently wish we did)... but the idea of raising a flag to that level of respect that the flag itself becomes more important that what it represents.. yeah, that's one I can't get my head around.

Indeed. Another Brit here and the whole idea of people getting upset over someone burning a flag seems ridiculous to me too. You could publically wipe your arse with a Union Flag in front of me and I'd care not one jot.

I guess it's a cultural difference that seems ridiculous to me, but is something to get upset about to you.

A bit like, say, someone drawing a picture of the Prophet.

It's important to be able to tell the difference between something done selfishly and something done truly as a matter of principle.

If there are rumblings about a new anti-flag-burning amendment, you can rush out and burn a flag in front of the Capitol Building. But what are you doing, really? You're not sending the message "This is a terrible proposal with potentially chilling effects on political free speech." You're saying "Ha! You can't stop _me_ from burning a flag!" You would have done far more good for Society by donating that $30 to a group fighting the amendment, instead of using it to buy a flag and a thing of lighter fluid at Wal*Mart.

Similarly, intentionally putting out a cartoon of the Prophet at a specific time in recent history when this is known to send a certain category of religious whackjobs right over the edge isn't a celebration of Free Expression. To a certain extent, it's a celebration of ego. What have you accomplished, really, apart from re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-confirming that yes, there are indeed a lot of religious whackjobs out there?

I've already expressed my change of heart in the "Cowboy Pete Follow-Up to South Park--Cartoon Wars" thread, so I won't write much more here. I'll only say that I contemplated posting a cartoon of Mohammed on my Web site, and trying to draw as much attention to it as possible, to say "screw you" to the terrorists.

Then I contemplated the possiblity that someone besides me could be hurt by something like that. And I couldn't go through with it.

It's real easy to condemn other people as cowards until you put yourself in their shoes. Trust me, I know. Because I was one of the loudest voices of condemnation, but I've quieted down since I've tried on the footwear.

Clarification: When I say "someone besides me could be hurt by something like that," I refer to the possibility that posting a cartoon image of Mohammed on my Web site could provoke further violence on the part of Muslim extremists.

Maybe that was obvious, but I hate it when I leave things unintentionally vague!

Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else's property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose. If one wants, they should do this in public, and indeed, white supremacists have gone to New York City to do this, which the courts ruled they have the right to do.

White people have publicly reenacted Sam Jackson scenes from Pulp Fiction in NYC?

This reminds me of what Greg Josefowicz allegedly wrote when people were complaining about Borders not stocking copies of Free Inquiry which reprinted the Mohammed cartoons: " run a bookstore. A book store. I run a big bookstore. I've got 34,000 people, real people, working for me every day in lots of places around the US and in other countries too. Those people owe Borders, every day, one good day's work. Borders owes the people who work for it a safe day's work... At Borders we make a 'business' out of Free Speech and Free Expression. It's a core value. Three other not-so-obvious and possibly competing core values at Borders are 1) Make a profit, 2) No riots in the store, ever, especially not in the Children's section, and 3) All employees and patrons get to home at the end of the day without a side trip to a hospital."

"Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else's property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose."

Someone else's property? A public bar? A public sidewalk? A street? Luigi, what are you talking about?

As for why I was doing it...what difference should THAT make? Motivation shouldn't be the issue; rights should be the issue. Equal protection should be the issue. (Which, by the way, is probably why I dislike the entire notion of "hate crimes." The question of determining motivation of a crime should be if the person HAD motivation or not. Not what TYPE of motivation they had. I'm not a big believer in punishing someone for what they're thinking.)

"This whole line of argument sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of the legitimacy of the heckler's veto."

I can see how it would, except I didn't "endorse" anything. Do you see me saying I think newspapers tiptoeing around and saying "the n-word" is a good thing? If a newspaper is covering an inflammatory speech, they should feel free to write, "The Grand High Wizard went on to say, "Let's kill all the niggers!" whereupon a riot broke out," not "The Grand High Wizard went on to encourage the murder of African-Americans, and included use of the n-word." But I will venture to say that there are many people, including some on this board, who would contend that the latter is the preferred method of reportage.

I simply said it's nothing new, and furthermore, in some instances, what is today's anger towards self-censorship becomes tomorrow's "sensitivity toward racial and religious harmony."

"Once more PAD misses the point. Comedy Central wasn't going to a Muslim neighborhood to broadcast South Park, they were doing it right here in the USA, where the first amendment is pretty meaningless if even writers don't actually support it..."

And once more Bladestar misses the point, which is that right here in the good old US of A, people always have the option of switching to another channel or even (gasp) turning off the TV if something offensive is going to air. But when I complained how various groups pushed the Ronald Reagan biopic off network or screwed over "The Book of Daniel," conservatives were quick to jump on me and say, Oh heavens no, the networks were just being sensitive to the needs of Reagan's family or devout religious folks, and by the way, the movie and/or show in question was really pretty terrible anyway.

So now a network does pretty much the same thing except it's for people NOT in this country, and you condemn Comedy Central. So please: Spare me the bullshit, especially when not one person here has yet to step up and say that they would have risked the "Daily Show" death scenario I described further down were they in charge of Comedy Central. The first amendment means that Parker and Stone had the right to write what they desired without interference from Congress. And that's exactly what happened. If the show hadn't aired because Congress stepped in and forbade Comedy Central to air it, that's a different story. But that's not what happened. So again...spare me the bullshit, especially since I happen to think my first amendment credentials are pretty solid, what with...y'know...my allowing you to post here.

PAD

PAD

You are really off track here Peter.
In fact you wrote the word "nigger" in your post. As in fact, I just did. Nigger, nigger, nigger...
Did I just offend anyone? probably. But I have the right to write that.
Would I go to Harlem and shout "nigger"? No way. I'm not stupid. But if I did and was then beaten to a pulp, it would be those that beat me who would be wrong.
Neither would I go to a Muslim country with a banner portraying Mohammed. But to know say the world at large should no longer show his image is also wrong.
CC had every right not to show Mohammed on SP. They were just cowardly to do it.

Posted by edhopper at April 15, 2006 10:23 AM

They were just cowardly to do it.

Ed, put up a Web site if you don't already have one (it's an inexpensive thing to do these days), put up an image of Mohammed and publicize it. Let people know you did it. Then you can accuse others of being cowards. Otherwise, your outrage rings hollow. As did mine.

This is exactly why I publicly reversed my stance. It was easy to accuse Comedy Central of cowardice before I walked in their shoes. But then I was faced with the very real choice of whether or not to post an image of Mohammed on my Web site and make a big stink about it to attract attention. I decided I couldn't live with the risk, however small, that my choice could provoke some kind of violence resulting in injury or death for someone else.

In these web discussions, I stay ananomous. And not because I shy away from my statements. It's an indentity and fraud thing.
That said, in my real life I am an artist and illustrator and I have done illustrations of Mohammed and Islamic symbols that were published.
So yes I have, put it out there.

Ed, I got the illo you e-mailed. Very nice work. You're extremely talented, far moreso than I am. I hate you.

Anyway, I called you out and your hand was better than mine. I concede. Kudos to you for putting your money where your mouth is, and shame on me for assuming you hadn't.

Have you gotten any flak over this? If so, what kind of flak? Any regrets? Just curious.

To be fair, though, Ed, I don't know enough about what you've done to know if it's comparable to the South Park/Comedy Central situation (and I respect your desire for anonymity so I understand if you don't want to delve into this subject). South Park is a super-high-visibility target and that may have made the choice more difficult for Comedy Central's decision-makers.

(By the way, that's not a slam on your work. I don't know how widely it's been seen or how easy it is to trace to you. I'm just floating a thought out there, not trying to slam you.)

John -
Riots aren't the answer -- but is provoking riots the question?

These are people who get pissed off by EVERYTHING we do.

bin Laden caused 9/11 because we won't get out of the Middle East - so, should we be leaving the Middle East and cowering in fear?

It's what bin Laden wants, so apparently we should.

Btw, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter of depictions of Mohammed:

"Depictions of Muhammad usually refer to drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and can be a contentious matter.

Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, while Muslims differ as to whether or not visual depictions of Muhammad are permissible: Some Muslims believe that to prevent idolatry and shirk, or ascribing partners to God, visual depictions of Muhammad and other prophets of Islam should be prohibited. Other Muslims believe respectful depictions should be allowed. Both sides have produced great Islamic art — the aniconists through calligraphy and arabesque, the pictorialists through book illustration and architectural decoration.

The vast majority of Muslims are hurt or shocked by negative portrayals of Muhammad, whether spoken, written, drawn, or filmed, see Muslim veneration for Muhammad."

Note the specific wording used: Not all Muslims think images of Mohammed are offensive.

But, not surprisingly, negative portrayals piss them off. Well, that's a pretty fair view of things.

But the fact remains we're letting extremists win. After the riots, some Muslims came out saying "well, we don't like it, but it's not worth getting pissed off about". Which is, on the whole, how Christians are going to react to the use of Jesus in this South Park episode.

Bowing down to the pressure of the fringe groups is NOT the way to go.

Hmm, I just decided to give the entire link to the Wikipedia article instead:

Depiction of Muhammed.

And, call me surprised, there's even a Gary Larson The Far Side cartoon there.

At least it has nothing to do with Summer Redstone (Chairman of VIACOM) having been in the Gulf Region working out a transmission deal with many of the countries there.

Peter David: Someone else's property? A public bar? A public sidewalk? A street? Luigi, what are you talking about?
Luigi Novi: I was referring to the "busy bar" suggestion you brought up.

Peter David: As for why I was doing it...what difference should THAT make?
Luigi Novi: It determines largely whether you'd do it. If a filmmaker or other artist finds himself/herself being denied his or her voice regarding a work that he or she really believes in, he/she will fight for it. But the scenario you describe doesn't really have anything to do with that, as it seems to depict some schmuck just antagonizing a crowd of blacks for the hell of it. It's like telling a hunter or a zoologist that if he/she really believes in what he/she does, then he should be willing to risk death by going up to a lion unarmed and poking it in the ass with a stick. Should I go to a bar to do what you suggest? I don't think so. But if I have a TV show and wish to write an episode with a strong message, even if it risks violence, I should be able to tell that message, which I would want to do, and without being unduly edited or censored.

Peter David: So now a network does pretty much the same thing except it's for people NOT in this country, and you condemn Comedy Central. So please: Spare me the bullshit, especially when not one person here has yet to step up and say that they would have risked the "Daily Show" death scenario I described further down were they in charge of Comedy Central.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Here goes..........

I would've risked it.

And as far as the Reagan movie, I don't believe, for my part, that I ever took the position that the networks were just being sensitive, nor did I watch The Book of Daniel.

The analogy doesn't hold up. Comedy Central wasn't forcing anyone to watch the episode. Your hypothetical involved taking a scene for Pulp Fiction and acting it out in front of bar patrons in Harlem, Watts, or any other place white folks like to imagine unruly black folks spending their time. These hypothetical black people didn't enter the bar to watch scenes from movies be acted out. They just wanted to have a beer and do some socializing. People that watch South Park want to be entertained with rude cartoon children that say and do rude things. At least that is why I watch it. Having the episode censored because it might outrage people that don't even watch it is wrong. Your analogy would be more true if instead of white people acting out a scene from Pulp Fiction, Miramax where to pull the movie and not let anyone watch it in it's present form. That is after all what Comedy Central did.

Btw, PAD, for the record, if the scene with Jesus crapping on everybody had been Mohammed, instead of Jesus, then I might actually be agreeing with you.

That scene illustrates one of the most important points in all of this: it's ok to insult Christians because they're generally not going to threaten violence against you over it.

And when you get down to it, it really shouldn't be ok to use Jesus in such a manner if you can't use Mohammed, regardless of who it insults and how. It's still an insult.

Maybe the Muslims have it right - they don't like idoltry of Mohammed, where as I, personally, think too many Christians get too hung up on Jesus, rather than what he represented (kind of like flag burning stuff, too).

Well, at least this has made the people who try to draw broad analogies between the Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian ones look pretty foolish. Jesus is shown crapping on the flag and the response has been....

No riots, no army, no fighting, no slogans.

Face it, our crazies are just in fewer number and a BIT less crazy than theirs.

Anyway, let me add to Luigi's statement; I would have run the cartoon as well, unedited. But PAD is right that it would be risky; my argument is that in giving in they may have INCREASED the liklihood of other things becoming risks of violence.

Excatly!

Giving in to the terrorists when they didn't even make a threat this time (how many teorrorists have even heard of Comedy Central?) just teaches them that terrorism DOES work.

Grats on being part of the problem PAD...

0 - Mohammed says: Quit being terrorists
-+- my followers, you're
| making me look bad!
/ \

Posted by: Bladestar at April 15, 2006 04:21 PM

Grats on being part of the problem PAD...

Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?

The "nobody can depict Mohammed" is a very recent development. It's being used as a way of certain militant Muslims to see how far they can throw their weight around. They are demanding that all the world obey their particular religious beliefs, regardless of where in the world we might be or what faith (or no faith) we might have. And they are backing up these demands with violence. Not even threats of violence -- just talk to Theo Van Gogh. You'll have to shout, though; he's got a pretty bad case of Stabbed To Death In The Street By Muslim Whackjob, and odds of recovery are pretty slim. Or perhaps you can ask Salman Rushdie; last I heard, he was working as a Rockette.

The question is simple: do we have the right to not obey their laws in our own lands? And to what lengths will we go to defend that right?

To Comedy Central, to Borders Books, to most of the mainstream media, the answer is "kinda yes, in theory, but we won't push it."

The logical followup is for other groups tired of getting dumped on by the media (metaphor inspired by Comedy Central) to simply start issuing their own threats of violence. How long do you think Piss Christ will remain on public display once the Pope declares the museum and its staff fair game for killing? Or, if I may hit a little closer to home, how about if a bunch of Kahanists threatened to burn any library or bookstore that carried "Imzadi" for its disrespect for Passover?

J.

"To be fair, though, Ed, I don't know enough about what you've done to know if it's comparable to the South Park/Comedy Central situation (and I respect your desire for anonymity so I understand if you don't want to delve into this subject). South Park is a super-high-visibility target and that may have made the choice more difficult for Comedy Central's decision-makers.'

The illustration you saw was in a small circulation (but national) magazine called Free Inquiry. Not national TV. But that is where I was doing the work.
And just to illustrate some one doing the right thing they re-published the actuall Danish cartoons that started all this.

I do think this is a matter of two understandable sides. There was a danger for CC to show Muhammed. Most time I'm in agreement with PAD. This time I'm not.
I just think there are times to stand for what is right. Usually PAD does too. This time, he doesn't think so.

"Grats on being part of the problem PAD..."

"Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?"

Yeah, that's pretty staggering, I know. I mean, in addition to being on the board for the CBLDF, and writing a column that's donated tens of thousands of dollars to the funds, and maintaining a blog with a free speech policy, as it so happens I also run Comedy Central and am thus part of the "problem." Would that I knew what the "problem" was, exactly. I think it's pretty amusing that people so craven they post from anonymity sit in judgment of others and accuse THEM of cowardice.

As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode...mm hmm. So you're willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the "Daily Show" to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?

And while you're pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want...Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don't.

PAD

Terrorism works...'nuff said.

Hell, anyone who watches the Daily Show regularly or has seen ANY of Carlos Mencia knows that Comedy Central isn's afraid to skewer anybody, Muslims included. In just this one instance, however, they decided to edit something deliberately and blatantly inflammatory.

So, don't fret TOO much PAD. Most of the complaining is pretty much a geek version of macho armchair-quarterback horseshit. I doubt very highly that most of these "defenders of free speech" say everything they're thinking at all times in the interest of asserting their rights.

Caring enough about your family, friends, and coworkers to not needlessly endanger them is not cowardice.

-Rex Hondo-

As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode...mm hmm. So you're willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the "Daily Show" to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?

Um, no. I'm pretty sure Marvel doesn't run every story by every emplyee to see if there is any chance of someone objecting. I can't imagine anyone doing that.

In large part Comedy central created the problem for themselves. Had they told Matt and Trey they had the same right to lampoon Islam as they do any other religion I think those two episodes would have been very different.

And while you're pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want...Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don't.

Absolutely. In my opinion, the desision they made was short sighted and could very well lead to greater controversies and thus even more danger to the employees you expressed such concern for in the very near future. I wonder if they consulted them?

PAD -
Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want...Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don't.

And I have the right to call them for being hypocrits against what they've done in the past.

Rex Hondo -
So, don't fret TOO much PAD. Most of the complaining is pretty much a geek version of macho armchair-quarterback horseshit.

Go find a mirror and look in it, Rex.

This isn't horseshit by any stretch of the imagination.

For a guy like PAD who does what he does in the name of free speech, I guess I'd have to say I'm shocked that he's approving of what CC did.

What's complete horseshit is to constantly drag out the thought that showing Mohammed is going to put the lives of everybody who ever has, does, or ever will work at CC or Viacom in danger.

We live with danger every fucking day already because we're in the Middle East, among other things.

Yet I'm supposed to worry about an image of Mohammed?

Yeah, I'll remember that the next time we invade another Islamic-majority country.

And, in case you find fault with this post, PAD, I'm NOT posting in anonymity.

Go find a mirror and look in it, Rex.

Sure, I've got no problem with what I see. I'm not the one passing self righteous judgement on people doing their jobs.

I'm seeing a whole lot of "If it were me..." Well guess what. It's NOT you. You aren't the one who has to answer to a board of directors, and through them, answer to a group of stockholders. It wasn't your decision to make, and to pretend that you are somehow wiser or more qualified to make that decision than people under pressures and influences you don't and can't understand IS pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Sure, if they had aired it, nothing may have happened. However, if you're cut off in traffic by a car full of, shall we say, inner city teens, do you give them the bird, maybe shout a few obscenities? They probably aren't gang bangers. Or do you grit your teeth and keep your mouth shut. How about if you have your wife and kids in the car? Are you a coward for not exercising your right to free speech then?

-Rex Hondo-

Bill Myers: Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?
Luigi Novi: I dunno, how do find the time to train those legs of yours to make those amazing leaps in logic, like the one you just did, which says that anyone who takes a position you disagree with or don't undertand is an operative in a terrorist organization, even he's Jewish and that organization is among other things, anti-Semitic?

Peter David: I think it's pretty amusing that people so craven they post from anonymity sit in judgment of others and accuse THEM of cowardice.
Luigi Novi: Not that I condone Bill Myers' ad hominem vitriol, but how do you know that that's not his real name?

Peter David: As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode...mm hmm. So you're willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the "Daily Show" to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?
Luigi Novi: No, because there is no such "risk". Who in the Muslim world even heard of South Park? A depiction of Mohammed has been present in the opening title sequence since the beginning of the 10th season, and in an episode, and no one said anything. And even if they did, they don't bomb tv show sets, certainly not for something like this. They problems with us are due to their perception of our foreign policy, not our TV programs. Establish that there would be such a risk, and then we'll talk.

As for the employees, this may be my preconceptions, but if I had to guess (since we're talking about hypothetical scenarios anyway), I'd say that those guys have enough of a sense of humor, and enough of a disdain for censorship, that they'd laugh off my concerns. Just my hypothesis. Your individual hypothetical mileage may vary. :-)

Peter David: And while you're pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want...Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don't.
Luigi Novi: I seem to recall, in a previous thread about not buying Dixie Chicks music in particular, and not patronizing the work of an artist you don't like for personal reasons in general, you asserting that just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't make it right. Does that principle not apply here?

Yeah, they can air whatever they want. That doesn't mean that they're not hypocrites, or that they're not caving into terrorist threats that haven't even been made.

and to pretend that you are somehow wiser or more qualified to make that decision than people under pressures and influences you don't and can't understand IS pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Right... and it's horseshit on your part merely because you agree with their decision and think you have the moral high horse to tell the rest of us that we're wrong for thinking the way we do.

However, if you're cut off in traffic by a car full of, shall we say, inner city teens, do you give them the bird, maybe shout a few obscenities?

It's funny you should use this example.

Just last night, my wife and I were on our way home from an indoor lacrosse game. We caught the bus part of the way, and walked the rest of the way home.

On our walk, we had to stop to cross a street. This car turns past us with a dumbass kid with his head hanging out the window like a dog.

As they're turning, he calls me a pussy and my wife a skank.

Unfortunately, I don't think he saw me flipping him off as they drove off.

Guess that blows a hole in your theory about how much of a coward you think I am, doesn't it?

Hmm. Luigi, I'd have to think Bill Myers was being humorous, and PAD was referring to Bladestar (although this wouldn't be the first time Bladestar has been targetted by people here for his anonymous username). :)

Also, I'm looking over the opening for an episode of the 10th season of South Park, but I'm not seeing Mohammed anywhere.

I'm seeing a whole lot of "If it were me..." Well guess what. It's NOT you. You aren't the one who has to answer to a board of directors, and through them, answer to a group of stockholders. It wasn't your decision to make, and to pretend that you are somehow wiser or more qualified to make that decision than people under pressures and influences you don't and can't understand IS pure, unadulterated horseshit.

In fairness you must admit that we were ASKED to do so by Peter himself. ("My challenge is simple: If you disagree with the logic, then explain where it's faulty and how you would have handled it differently.") Yes, we all understand that this is a hypothetical. Comedy Central is not expected to be knocking in my door and I don't pretend otherwise.

Luigi, I think...actually, I KNOW you totally missread what Bill Myers was saying. He was being sarcastic, his statement was in reply to that of Bladestar saying that PAD was part of the problem.

I'm also pretty sure that PAD knew this and was being sarcastic when he agreed with Bill.

Bill Myers has always been in my experience an upstanding guy.

Sorry if I misunderstood the exchange above, guys.

However I couldn't see how he was talking to Bladestar, Craig, since the comment he was answering was Bill's.

As for good o' Mo, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park#Censorship and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southparkseason10opening.png.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at April 16, 2006 01:07 AM

Luigi Novi: I dunno, how do find the time to train those legs of yours to make those amazing leaps in logic, like the one you just did, which says that anyone who takes a position you disagree with or don't undertand is an operative in a terrorist organization, even he's Jewish and that organization is among other things, anti-Semitic?

I was being sarcastic. I had thought about making a parenthetical remark to that effect, but discarded the idea because I didn't want to come off as condescending.

Luigi, I can absolutely understand why you misread my intent; it wasn't hard to misread. On the other hand, I've written posts on this subject in two threads in this blog that very clearly indicate that, while I initially disagreed with Peter, I've come around to agreeing with his point of view. So his is not a "a position you disagree with or don't undertand." I agree with it fully and understand it completely.

I mean, I am an artist and really wanted to post some nasty cartoons of Muhammed on my Web site in order to take a stand. But, I realized that in so doing, there was a chance, however remote, that doing so could put others in danger. So I chose not to draw or post any such cartoons. So when I say I understand Peter's point of view, I ain't just whistling Dixie.

Luigi Novi: Not that I condone Bill Myers' ad hominem vitriol, but how do you know that that's not his real name?

You don't. But it is. And it's a damned boring name at that.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 16, 2006 01:24 AM

Luigi, I think...actually, I KNOW you totally missread what Bill Myers was saying. He was being sarcastic, his statement was in reply to that of Bladestar saying that PAD was part of the problem.

I'm also pretty sure that PAD knew this and was being sarcastic when he agreed with Bill.

That was my reading of Peter's response. I hope I'm correct. Because Peter's First Amendment street creds are unimpeachable, and only an idiot would accuse him of siding with terrorists. Or running Comedy Central.

Bill Myers has always been in my experience an upstanding guy.

Thanks for having my back, my friend. But, I was the one who challenged edhopper to put his money where his mouth is and circulate some cartoons of Muhammed, only to find out that, y'know, that's exactly what he had done.

So, me, "upstanding?" I thank you for the compliment but I'm not sure I deserve it.

Jeeze, if White Guys, corrupt businessmen, and neo-nazis start organized marches who the hell will we be able to portray as villians? Visogoths? Hessions? Lumerians?

I'd vote for Lumanians. Barnes and Barnes have gotten away scot-free for entirely too long.

As for the more serious point ... assuming that the depiction was relatively benign (i.e. not of the bomb-for-a-turban variety), I'd have aired it. I wouldn't have consulted with CC's employees, but I'd have notified them -- and would've made sure anything with a live audience such as TDS had stepped-up security for a while.

That's the best way I can think of to reconcile my desire for the staff's safety with my desire to air the episode.

It's not an easy question, but I think that's what I'd have done.

TWL

"For a guy like PAD who does what he does in the name of free speech, I guess I'd have to say I'm shocked that he's approving of what CC did."

I never said I approved it. I said I understood it. I don't know if I "approve" it or not. I haven't made up my mind, probably because I'm not big into knee-jerk condemnation. I'm perfectly willing to say it's a difficult issue and if I were in the position of the CC exec, with my back against the wall, I might make the same decision. And personally, I think most of you might very well also. I'm just honest about it.

Actually, I just had a flash of realization: Every single person excoriating CC for hypocrisy is, in fact, full of shit. Here's why:

Comedy Central has been censoring "South Park" every single week since the first week it aired.

They bleep out the profanity.

That, according to the thinking hereabouts, is censorship. To quote Kyle: Either it's all free to talk about, or none of it is. Well, in terms of everyday use of profanity, it's not (even the famed "shit" episode had words that weren't "shit" bleeped out). So by their own terms, none of it is, and it hasn't been since the day Cartman got an anal probe.

They bleep out the profanity to avoid trouble. They bleep it out to avoid complaints. They bleep it out for business reasons since it's basic cable. Perhaps they bleep it out to avoid hassle with the FCC...which, since it is a government agency, makes an extremely reasonable argument for true first amendment violation. At the very least, they bleep it out because that brings the show within their comfort level for reasons of far less weight than concern over public safety, employee safety, possible deaths, and massive lawsuits.

And I have yet to see a single complaint about that. I don't see Parker and Stone complaining. I don't see you guys complaining. It's accepted. It's a cost of doing business.

You guys really don't give a damn if censorship happens. You only care if it happens for reasons you don't agree with.

PAD

"That's the best way I can think of to reconcile my desire for the staff's safety with my desire to air the episode. It's not an easy question, but I think that's what I'd have done."

And if the head of Viacom had given you a direct order not to air it, and your wife had asked you not to throw away your career and your family's security over it?

PAD

Once again PAD--

[Peterdavid.net refuses to allow the rest of Bladestar's posting to be shown.]

Actually, I just had a flash of realization: Every single person excoriating CC for hypocrisy is, in fact, full of shit. Here's why:

Comedy Central has been censoring "South Park" every single week since the first week it aired.

I don't follow the logic here. excoriating CC for hypocrisy and for censorship are two different things.

The hypocrisy is that they decided a benign picture of Mohammed is innapropriate but Jesus throwing shit was okey dokey. You example would only apply if, say, they ALLOWED all profanity but bleeped out "goddamn" or something because the Southern Baptists complained.

I'm a good deal more sympathetic to CC now that it is clear that they acted out of fear, not the usual "we want to be sensitive to the feelings of others" crap that the media has previously peddled.

My argument, again, is that this position, while understandable, runs the serious risk of inviting ever more violence and threats of violence, as more groups realize how easy it is to get their way and as the Islamic fanatics continue to build on their success by expanding their demands.

Very well, Bladestar. If you feel that I'm pro-censorship, and nothing I say or do can convince you otherwise, then I've no reason not to do what I just did to your post.

PAD

"I don't follow the logic here. excoriating CC for hypocrisy and for censorship are two different things."

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. I should have said that everyone excoriating CC for censorship is full of shit since they've been doing it for years and there's no protests over it. Except, apparently, Bladestar claims he did, so I should also have amended it to say no protests from anyone who matters.

As for the matter of the defecating Jesus, I've said this several times, but I guess I have to say it again: I suspect it was because of the context that it was acceptable. That it was depicted as outraged Musliums trying to portray images that they figured would infuriate Americans. So rather than the notion that it was a commentary on Jesus, it was instead correctly seen--both by CC and, even more importantly, the viewers--as a commentary on Muslims trying to strike back at Christianity, just as they decided to "stirke back" at Jews by creating anti-semitic political cartoons in response to the Denmark editorials.

PAD

And if the head of Viacom had given you a direct order not to air it, and your wife had asked you not to throw away your career and your family's security over it?

As to the former -- I'd probably have obeyed that direct order, since the alternative would be to be fired and replaced by someone who'd carry out the order anyway. If I were the head of Viacom, or whatever position is sufficiently high up that a superior wouldn't overrule me, then my original answer stands.

As to the latter -- you don't know Lisa very well. :-) (More seriously, I assumed in advance that this would be something that had been discussed in advance. Those sorts of conversations typically precede any major decision.)

I'm not one of the ones trying to go on the attack here -- I can readily understand your position and the point you made at the start of the thread, and I'm not taking a position of "you're full of shit and I'm calling you on it," unlike someone else posting in the thread. But you did explicitly ask anyone who would have aired the show despite the concerns you raised to speak up, so I did.

We're drawing the lines in slightly different places, that's all.

TWL

"I'm not one of the ones trying to go on the attack here -- I can readily understand your position and the point you made at the start of the thread, and I'm not taking a position of "you're full of shit and I'm calling you on it," unlike someone else posting in the thread. But you did explicitly ask anyone who would have aired the show despite the concerns you raised to speak up, so I did."

Yes, I totally get that. All I'm saying is that even saying, "Yes, I would have aired it unedited" is subject to scrutiny, since none of us have any REAL idea of what sort of pressures the head of CC might have been under. Discussing what you'd do if you were the head of Viacom is just changing the parameters too much; if you're the head of corporate, you're in that position of power that you can not only make the call, but you can institute all manner of safety measures to try and counteract possible retaliation.

Oh, and...uhm...just in case you ever DO get to be the head of Viacom, I have a script I'd like to show you...

PAD

Luigi Novi: No, because there is no such "risk". Who in the Muslim world even heard of South Park?

Prior to September of last year, who in the Muslim world ever heard of Jyllands-Posten (The original publisher of the cartoons)?

===================

Here's a challenge for everyone who says "I would have shown Mohammad:, "I would have stood for free speech", etc:

1) Print out the cartoons, or make some of your own
2) Make a sign "In the name & defense of free speech"
3) Hang the sign & cartoons in the front window of your house / apartment
4) No matter how many complaints, challenges, threats, et al, you receive, leave them there.

If you don't do this, explain why you aren't as 'cowardly' as Comedy Central for not showing the images.

Show the rest of us that you're as brave in real life as you are online.

Any takers?

Anyone?

Bueller?

As for the matter of the defecating Jesus, I've said this several times, but I guess I have to say it again: I suspect it was because of the context that it was acceptable. That it was depicted as outraged Muslims trying to portray images that they figured would infuriate Americans. So rather than the notion that it was a commentary on Jesus, it was instead correctly seen--both by CC and, even more importantly, the viewers--as a commentary on Muslims trying to strike back at Christianity, just as they decided to "strike back" at Jews by creating anti-semitic political cartoons in response to the Denmark editorials.

I understood your opinion on this the first time. Everyone understands that this was in no way shape or form a commentary on Jesus. But do you really think that Matt and Trey didn't do this to exactly and precisely point out the double standard of Mohammed standing at a door and doing NOTHING being unacceptable while out and out blasphemy involving Jesus being allowable?

I guess the only way they could have made it more obvious would have been for the network to buckle under pressure and agree not to show Mohammed but still maintain their cutting edge street cred by substituting an over the top scene with Jesus. Just to show they haven't lost it. But then again, that IS what happened.

Michael,

Not sure that's the correct analogy. I don't want to FORCE people to have to deal with offensive material. I live in front of a bust street and I don't think it's appropriate to demonstrate a commitment to free speech by making a life size diorama of the climactic scene from BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR 2: THE QUICKENING or whatever.

A better analogy would be to challenge me to put the cartoons on my website. Acceptable?

"Bill Myers has always been in my experience an upstanding guy.

Thanks for having my back, my friend. But, I was the one who challenged edhopper to put his money where his mouth is and circulate some cartoons of Muhammed, only to find out that, y'know, that's exactly what he had done.

So, me, "upstanding?" I thank you for the compliment but I'm not sure I deserve it."

This right here is another example that you ARE an upstanding guy, Bill Myers, to judge by your conduct 'round here. Your willingness to so completely and humbly apologize when you feel you've been wrong is just another reflection of your admirable social behavior, and I'm sure that all of us who've posted to clear up this misinterpretation of your post defending PAD (which I always realized was your intent, and I was glad at reading it) will be happy to continue to testify to your "upstanditude" if needed. :)

All I'm saying is that even saying, "Yes, I would have aired it unedited" is subject to scrutiny, since none of us have any REAL idea of what sort of pressures the head of CC might have been under. Discussing what you'd do if you were the head of Viacom is just changing the parameters too much; if you're the head of corporate, you're in that position of power that you can not only make the call, but you can institute all manner of safety measures to try and counteract possible retaliation.

There I've got to disagree -- if the hypothetical person in question isn't "allowed" to make the call because the superiors could or will overrule him/her/it, then "what call would you make?" in that situation is not really a meaningful question. If the odds are good that the head of corporate will overrule you, then it's trivial to say "yes, I'd allow it through", because in reality you wouldn't be allowed to do so.

The question, as I see it, is "would you allow it to go through even knowing possible or likely consequences?" -- and for that to be a meaningful question, the person in question has to be allowed to make the decision and not have it taken away from them.

Oh, and...uhm...just in case you ever DO get to be the head of Viacom, I have a script I'd like to show you...

Sorry, we're not accepting unsolicited scripts at this time. I would, however, like to announce my idea for a new sitcom, "Sir Not Relevant To Much" -- it should be a smash hit.

TWL

Here is another analogy.
You run a clinic that provides abortion. There are those in our society who are so offenede that they will bomb the clinc and kill the employees.
I guess you must make the decision to stop offering abortions for the saftey of your workers.

My biggest problem here with PAD is that he understands that free speech can be offensive. But if those offended react violently enough, then it is allright to give in.

"Here's a challenge for everyone who says "I would have shown Mohammad:, "I would have stood for free speech", etc:

1) Print out the cartoons, or make some of your own
2) Make a sign "In the name & defense of free speech"
3) Hang the sign & cartoons in the front window of your house / apartment
4) No matter how many complaints, challenges, threats, et al, you receive, leave them there.

If you don't do this, explain why you aren't as 'cowardly' as Comedy Central for not showing the images."

Please read my response to Bill Meyers.
I'm ananomous here, but I do sign my illustrations.

A better analogy would be to challenge me to put the cartoons on my website. Acceptable?

I'm willing to compromise. But you have to at least supply the web address here, so people know where the website is & that you've got the cartoons(s) there.

===============
But if those offended react violently enough, then it is allright to give in.

Not allright, but understandable, I think is the point PAD's making.

I'm not weighing in on one side or the other, but I caught this episode in TiVo last night. I've never had an episode of South Park make me cry. When the offending scene was censored, I actually wept in shame because it seemed that we let the Islamist break what makes America unique. They've won.
-Jeff

Michael Brunner: Prior to September of last year, who in the Muslim world ever heard of Jyllands-Posten (The original publisher of the cartoons)?
Luigi Novi: Good point.

Bill Myers -
I mean, I am an artist and really wanted to post some nasty cartoons of Muhammed on my Web site in order to take a stand.

See, this is where you're getting completely sketchy on the issue, imo.

What South Park was doing was not "nasty". What I would do, if I could draw anything more than stick figures, would not be "nasty".

I would never feel the need to post "nasty cartoons" of Mohammed, because there just isn't any point to it, period, regardless of whether the Muslims would get pissed off or not.

Even the most offensive of the Danish cartoons (the bomb for a turban) is no worse than the political commentary you'd find here. It just happened to be that some people like to get pissed off about that sort of thing.

I doubt anybody would've been saying anything had it been, say, the president of Iran with a mushroom cloud over his head replacing the turban.

In the end, the commentary provided by bomb/turban cartoon was spot-on. So, I find it difficult to find fault with it now and I certainly wouldn't consider it "nasty".

PAD -
Every single person excoriating CC for hypocrisy is, in fact, full of shit. Here's why

No, we aren't, because CC has been consistent on profanity from the start.

On the issue of Mohammed, CC has NOT been consistent. They allowed it in an earlier episode but not now.

PAD -
Perhaps they bleep it out to avoid hassle with the FCC.

Except, the FCC has no say beyond network television.

Michael Brunner -
Here's a challenge for everyone who says "I would have shown Mohammad:

So, if somebody goes through with this challenge, what steaming pile of crap are you going to come up with next because our answers are never good enough for you?

PAD challenged us to say what we would do. Some of us obliged.

Now your challenge.

What's next, do we have to hold up signs saying "F*CK ISLAM!" to appease you? What's after that, hmm?

[i]"But if those offended react violently enough, then it is allright to give in.

Not allright, but understandable, I think is the point PAD's making. "[/i]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

So, if somebody goes through with this challenge, what steaming pile of crap are you going to come up with next because our answers are never good enough for you?

Bascially, what I'm saying with the challenge is, many people are condemning Comedy Central for not running the image of Mohammad. What I'm saying to them is, "What's stopping you from showing images of Mohammad?" It's easy to say the other person is wrong for doing something, but not so easy for that person to do it themselves.

Or as the American Indians would say, 'do not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his moccassins'

It's easy to say the other person is wrong for doing something, but not so easy for that person to do it themselves.

Well, to take a more extreme example that compares with PAD's earlier in the thread:

I am pro-choice.

Does this mean I need to personally perform an abortion on a woman to prove it?

Does my word (and the words of others here) mean so little that you can't take what we say at face value? Because, unfortunately, that's the impression I'm getting.

Either way, we do it all the time: we say we think somebody else is wrong and why. But I don't see the need to dump challenges on people just to make sure they're going to support their POV. :)

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I agree. And while I don't approve, I realize that fear is a powerful emotion, wether it's being used by a religion, a corrupt government, or even a schoolyard bully.

==================
The one thing being overlooked here is that CC is, first & foremost, a business. And if the content of a show is going to interfere with it being run in foreign markets, that's a loss of profit, which is contrary to the reason for CC to exist.

Does this mean I need to personally perform an abortion on a woman to prove it?

No, because you're not saying 'if I were in a position to perform an abortion, I would, so why doesn't that doctor / hospital / clinic do it?'

I have to be honest. I thought the censorship part at the end was part of the show. I thought it made it funnier than if they actually did show Mohammed.

But to be honest. I support them for not choosing to show the image of Mohammed. Yes, this is America home of Free Speech. But just because you can speak freely, doesn't mean to have to. Why should Comedy Central intentionally piss off a large group of people? When your girlfriend asks you if that dress makes her fat.. do you say Yes or do you spare her feelings?

I support Free Speech, but like I said.. just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

Michael Brunner -
No, because you're not saying 'if I were in a position to perform an abortion, I would, so why doesn't that doctor / hospital / clinic do it?'

I'm not sure I really see the difference between your challenge and my example.

Either way, it's asking if I'm willing to do something others aren't.

Eric Recla -
When your girlfriend asks you if that dress makes her fat.. do you say Yes or do you spare her feelings?

You know, that's the ultimate Catch-22 question. :)

The problem with your argument remains that South Park routinely pisses off groups of people.

It's just that in this case it happens to be a group of people who MAY become violent (which is a large assumption in of itself).

It still means we're making exceptions on our free speech based on fear of reprisal of violence.

I obviously don't want a response of violence from these radicals, but I see no reason whatsoever to accede to their demands and that we should live under their law. And I think that means we have to avoid self-censorship, whether with the government, corporate America (who's as much in control of our government as anybody these days), or in every day lives.

I'm willing to compromise. But you have to at least supply the web address here, so people know where the website is & that you've got the cartoons(s) there.

Fair enough. My webpage is at http://www.myspace.com/kaijuzombie

It may be a few days before I can update it though--I'm spending spring break in Upstate NY with my daughters, hopefully taking advantage of the cool weather to check out some isolated fossil sites I've been told about (If my bleached bear-eaten bones show up a year later...hey guys, it's been fun). (oh and THAT would just be great--"He was going to mock the Prophet and Allah sent out a bear to devour him!" Comedy Central won't do SHIT after word of that gets out...

"But do you really think that Matt and Trey didn't do this to exactly and precisely point out the double standard of Mohammed standing at a door and doing NOTHING being unacceptable while out and out blasphemy involving Jesus being allowable?"

Well...no. Once AGAIN...I thought they did it exactly and precisely to have a parallel to the Muslim response of "We're gonna do anti-semitic cartoons, see how you like it" development in the real world. Once AGAIN...in terms of blasphemous events involving Jesus, and God for that matter, SP has been doing that for seven years, so certainly that "point" has been made to such a degree that it's, well, pointless.

"There I've got to disagree -- if the hypothetical person in question isn't "allowed" to make the call because the superiors could or will overrule him/her/it, then "what call would you make?" in that situation is not really a meaningful question."

It's VERY meaningful. It's a very simple concept: Would you, over a matter of principle, fly in the face of your boss' order, knowing full well that it would cost you your job? If you believed with all your heart and all your soul that you shouldn't tell Parker and Stone that they couldn't visualize Mohammed (again), and said to your boss, "I will not give that order," then you'd be unemployed but your conscience would be clear. So how important is having that clear conscience to you?

I remember some years back that the then-president of Marvel became angry over something one of Marvel's distributors had said (back in the days when Marvel had more than one) and ordered the head of direct sales to inform the distributor that he was being dropped as a client. Once upon a time, I was head of direct sales. If I hadn't become a full time writer, that could well have been me being given that order. I would have refused to do it and tendered my resignation. I know this beyond question. So my question to you was, if you were in that same situation vis a vis Comedy Central, would YOU have resigned over this matter of principle. And you already answered: No.

PAD

"No, we aren't, because CC has been consistent on profanity from the start. On the issue of Mohammed, CC has NOT been consistent. They allowed it in an earlier episode but not now."

Absolutely, one hundred percent doesn't matter. Times change, situations change. This is nothing new. Sometimes they become more liberal. In the days of "I Love Lucy," they couldn't even say "pregnant." Sometimes they become more conservative. The general wisdom nowadays is that if Norman Lear tried to launch "All in the Family" in today's more restrictive environment, there's no way he would even get it onto air. And if it got on air, it would be shouted off by...well, probably by some people on this board who would angrily declare it's designed to make conservatives look bad.

I'm reminded of the famous incident attributed to George Bernard Shaw, in which he asked a society woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She said, "I suppose so." He then asked her if she'd sleep with him for five pounds. Outraged, she said, "Mr. Shaw, what do you think I am!" He replied, "Madame, we've already established what you are; the rest is just haggling."

Understand, I admire the hell out of Parker and Stone. I think "South Park" is brilliant, timely and incisive. By the same token, to be candid, I also admire Comedy Central for putting the thing on, allowing Parker and Stone as much rope as they have to this point, and even allowing themselves to be portrayed in a bad light (they didn't HAVE to allow the episode to air at all). That said, the simple fact is that the South Park guys have demonstrably and unquestionably had their material regularly "censored," if you will, week in, week out, for seven years, all the while getting rich and famous while doing it. I have zero problem with that. They're happy. Comedy Central is happy. The viewers are happy. And now Comedy Central has chosen to be more aggressive in their censorship, and NOW "South Park" is saying that it's an either/or situation? Sorry. We've already established the price of having "South Park" on the air. Now it's just a matter of haggling.

That's all I'm saying.

PAD

"When the offending scene was censored, I actually wept in shame because it seemed that we let the Islamist break what makes America unique. They've won."

Well, now you know exactly how I feel every time American political pressure groups or religious pressure groups drive a TV series off the air with relentless complaints, boycotts and threats.

Right now the Catholic church is endeavoring to prevent a new animated series, "Popeville" (I think that's the name) from airing on MTV in Germany. Angry because it parodies the church, they're applying every bit of muscle they can to make sure it never gets a viewing. One can assume the exact same thing will happen if MTV even THINKS about airing it here.

I'm not really impressed by histrionic "the terrorists have won" statements. I'd be more impressed by acknowledgment that "accepted" religious and political pressure groups have done far more damage to the concept of free speech than all the Muslim extremists combined.

PAD

"There I've got to disagree -- if the hypothetical person in question isn't "allowed" to make the call because the superiors could or will overrule him/her/it, then "what call would you make?" in that situation is not really a meaningful question."

It's VERY meaningful. It's a very simple concept: Would you, over a matter of principle, fly in the face of your boss' order, knowing full well that it would cost you your job? If you believed with all your heart and all your soul that you shouldn't tell Parker and Stone that they couldn't visualize Mohammed (again), and said to your boss, "I will not give that order," then you'd be unemployed but your conscience would be clear. So how important is having that clear conscience to you?

Okay, I will certainly admit that the above question is meaningful.

But, with all due respect, it's not the question you originally phrased in your hypothetical situation. You wrote, at the end of your "death scenario"...

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.

That case was a question of considering heavy-duty POSSIBLE consequences. The question you're posing now is one of considering smaller-scale DEFINITE consequences, and that is a qualitatively different question. I'm fine with that, but it's a different hypothetical and a different principle being tested.

My answer to the specific question you're now raising is not a definite "no." It's a definite "depends on the circumstances." If I am able to get the episode to air and then resign/be fired, then I'd like to think I'd do it -- that's what I meant earlier by saying that I'd have to be "allowed to make the decision". If my resignation serves no purpose other than to get me fired (i.e. someone else spikes the show before it gets anywhere and I've accomplished nothing of real consequence), then I don't. I prefer to save my noble sacrifices, even in hypotheticals, to actions which will get something concrete accomplished. (That's not to say that there's anything wrong with resigning out of principle under other circumstances ... just that it's not how I see myself operating.)

If the above all makes me an unprincipled weasel in anyone's eyes, I suppose I'll have to live with that.

Oh, and one other point to toss out there -- I also tend to think that this depends a lot on what the original creators feel and/or want. For example, there are a few times when I've very clearly violated copyright law, but it's at times when the creators have expressly made it clear that they'd like material disseminated. That sort of thing, in my mind, carries a lot of weight, so some of this question might also come down to how Trey and Matt feel about the whole mess.

I hope that clarifies things, at any rate.

TWL

The general wisdom nowadays is that if Norman Lear tried to launch "All in the Family" in today's more restrictive environment, there's no way he would even get it onto air. And if it got on air, it would be shouted off by...well, probably by some people on this board who would angrily declare it's designed to make conservatives look bad.

Oh I have no doubt that "All in the Family" would have a hard time getting on now but it wouldn't be the conservatives who would kill it. Too politically incorrect to pass muster with some of the less tolerant left I fear. Carol O'Conner did too good a job of humanizing Archie for their tastes. (the original character, Alf Garnett, would have proved far more pleasing to them, though I doubt the show would have lasted).

Of course, it is debatable whether or not the show would have the same impact today as it did then anyway, even if the scripts were changed not a jot.

I'm also a bit hesitant to agree that shows today are actually in a "more restrictive" environment. Maybe it's just the stuff I watch but even the network comedies get away with stuff that would have been unimaginable back then and the Hospital and Cop dramas make the once groundbreaking "Hill Street Blues" look like "Adam 12". "Boston Legal" takes on the Bush administration to a degree that Norman Lear could only have dreamed of when "All in the Family" took its relatively gentle pokes at Nixon. Gay issues? AITF may have been first but any episode of "Will and Grace" takes it further than they ever could have.

That's not to say it wasn't a great show; it was. But except for some of the "heavy" episodes (the Edith rape episode is still disturbing), there is little in it that isn't routinely topped today, in this "restrictive" environment.

Freedom of speech != free speech.

Please stop using the terms interchangably.

Interesting that so many people seem to believe that the first amendment somehow has anything to do with corporate censorship...

With any "right" comes the responsibility to not let any negative consequences of your actions spill over onto bystanders. If radical clerics can get their hands on a danish newspaper, I'm sure they can get a copy of a SP episode.

Granted, Comedy Central might not get attacked directly. But, as newspaper reporters, truck drivers, and all other manner of American civilians in Iraq have discovered, the extremists are more than willing to cut John's throat for Jim's display of intestinal fortitude (or any other thing Jim has done or might be coerced into doing).

What if CC had aired an uncensored show. What if an insurgent group devastated a city block and claimed it was out of retaliation for the SP episode? Whether or not the possible media backlash cost CC anything, imagine the burden on the conscience of the person that made the decision.

"Guess that blows a hole in your theory about how much of a coward you think I am, doesn't it?"

He wasn't suggesting you were a coward, he was asking if you thought that course of action would make a person a coward.

A coward wouldn't flip them off because he was too afraid to. A responsible person wouldn't flip them off because the risk of the car turning around isn't worth the reward of whatever satisfaction could be gained. Especially not when your wife (or anyone else that could have been walking beside you) inherits the possible consequences of:

* a vehicle slamming into them
* a bullet slamming into them
* a vicious beating and/or death
* the not as bad, but not very fun and probably very scary for the wife, 20 minutes of pushing, shoving, and verbal harassment by 2 furious teenagers.

Is inaction because of fear really any worse than action because of lack of thought?

I've just come back from a nice Easter dinner with my parents, my sister, and my niece and nephew, only to see that the battle still rages on.

Look, I was one of the first posters, if not the first, to declare that the executives at Comedy Central acted out of cowardice, only to realize I'd likely have done exactly what they did. I challenged someone who disagreed to put his money where his mouth is, and ended up with egg all over my face when I found out he'd already done so. Now I'm seeing a very reasonable person -- Bill Mulligan -- accept a challenge.

Bill, we've already corresponded about this via personal e-mails and I'm not going to belabor a dead horse by continuing to try to dissuade you. Because you are, after all, a very intelligent adult who is capable of making his own decisions.

Still, I think it's worth noting that I don't recall you labeling anyone a "coward" or a "hypocrite." Instead, you said you understood Comedy Central's decision, but felt the long-term ramifications would be more of the violence they hoped to prevent in the short term.

I therefore believe you have nothing to prove to anyone.

Look, folks, I was calling Comedy Central's executives "cowards." Then, after I reversed my stance, I tried to "call out" those people who were still accusing CC's execs of being craven. Why? Because I have a tendency to get emotional and to see things in very stark terms when I get emotional. So, I understand very well the urge to call people names and to challenge them. But that's what it is, in my view. An urge. Not a fully-formed thought.

When I stepped back from my initial emotional reactions, things started to look a lot less simple. I mean, look at the myriad of valid ideas that have been brought to light by this discussion. Can anyone read all of this and come away thinking this isn't a complex and difficult issue? If so, I'd assert you're not looking at the issues deeply enough. It's a multifaceted problem with no easy solution and no clear villains (aside from the terrorists and rioters).

I had initially called Comedy Central's decision a loss in the war against the terrorists. If that's the case -- and I'm no longer sure it is -- there is a principle that applies to both war and to life in general: choose your battles wisely. As others have shown, there is a good argument to be made that Comedy Central did just that -- chose not to fight this battle because doing so might have been unwise.

But, y'know, one battle alone does not necessarily decide a war. So, just because Comedy Central and other media outlets have made decisions that seem to have been influenced by the possible threat of violence from terrorists doesn't necessarily mean we've flushed our entire culture down the toilet.

On the other hand, I'd also like to suggest that it's just not productive to "call out" those who are condemning Comedy Central's execs. Yeah, I did just that very thing earlier. And I feel like a jackass for having done it. If any of you think that makes me wishy-washy or a flip-flopper, allow me to paraphrase Mohandas Ghandi: I'm not seeking to be consistent, I'm seeking to be right, and sometimes that means I have to reverse myself.

Well, Bill, that's probably because you are wiser than many of the rest of us. I mean it.

I've come to see the position of the folks at Comedy Central in a kinder light, even though I still disagree with it. It's inappropriate to leap to name calling and in as much as I did so, I take it back.

But this fight isn't going away and we WILL have to fight it and it might be better to do it now. It would have been better to do it when the first shot was fired across the bow (when Salmon Rushdie was condemned to a life sentence of fear). The stakes seem to rise ever higher.

To Luke K. Walsh and Bill Mulligan: thank you both for your kind words.

Although whenever someone praises me as you two have, I always find myself wondering if I truly live up to that praise.

How about this: I'll try my best.

Thanks again.

Michael Brunner: Bascially, what I'm saying with the challenge is, many people are condemning Comedy Central for not running the image of Mohammad. What I'm saying to them is, "What's stopping you from showing images of Mohammad?"
Luigi Novi: The fact that it’s not my PURVIEW. I work for a market research company, not for South Park or Comedy Central. Granted, I’m an aspiring illustrator, but even then, I have no opinion on Mohammed. But someone who DOES should be allowed to express it, especially if the proprietors of the forum have already allowed that someone to do so in the past, or with other religious figures.

Oh, one more thing before I finally go to bed: it's the act of daring someone to actually post cartoons of Muhammed on their own Web site or something that I find unproductive. Peter's hypothetical challenge, for example, didn't require anyone to, y'know, get in a time machine and work really hard to become the executive at Comedy Central who would be faced with the decision about whether or not to censor the image of Muhammed on South Park. Peter challenged people to think, not to act rashly, and has provoked a very interesting discussion.

My dare, on the other hand, was chest-beating and nothing more. I believe similar dares made by others in this thread amount to the same thing. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone, but sometimes you gotta call it like you see it.

With any "right" comes the responsibility to not let any negative consequences of your actions spill over onto bystanders.

We've been over this several times already, so I'm not even going to bother again.

He wasn't suggesting you were a coward, he was asking if you thought that course of action would make a person a coward.

Regardless of my response to those kids, I'm sure somebody here would've faulted me for it, as you are doing now.

Not only that, you merely play your own "what if" games without answering the others thrown out there (such as whether we should run screaming from the Middle East if it'll really make us safer).

So, right back at you:

What if they had saw me, stopped their car, only the police car that was a block away (which then passed us 30 seconds later) had saw what was going on and hauled the little bastards off?

What if I hadn't responded and they decided to pull a gun on me anyways? What if I hadn't responded and they decided to stop their car and try and beat the shit out of me anyways?

Maybe you should stop asking "what ifs" and deal with "what actually happened".

Actually, I like this What If scenario:

What if the CC headquarters is blown up tomorrow, with the note from the extremists saying "You know, we decided we don't like it when you even mention Mohammed, too."

Or should the folks at CC have forseen this possibility, too?

I suppose the ultimate irony would be if Pat Robertson personally blew up the CC building over the depiction of Jesus in that episode...

All you're saying is that hindsight is 20/20. Good thing for you (and your wife) that all ended well.

A responsible decision is one that has thought leading into it, not rationalization for it after the fact. You made an irresponsible decision and got a good roll of the dice, that's all.

Craig, your "what if" questions are just more rationalization. Just because they are possibilities doesn't mean you have to invite them to happen.

"I suppose the ultimate irony would be if Pat Robertson personally blew up the CC building over the depiction of Jesus in that episode.."

Now that I've gotta give to you. Pat's a psycho.

You made an irresponsible decision and got a good roll of the dice, that's all.

*chuckle* We were walking around at 10pm at night. Some would say that alone is not a good decision considering the crap that tends to occur in large cities.

Craig, your "what if" questions are just more rationalization.

And PAD's aren't?

I'm not the one who started the "what if" stuff as rationalization for what I believe - that distinction belongs to PAD and others who think that showing Mohammed would lead to violence on the part of extremists.

But apparently nobody wants to imagine "what if not a damn thing happens?". Or "what if the extremists now demand something else?".

As I said, maybe it's time we deal with "what actually happened" if you can't handle the fact that I can throw out as many "what if" scenarios to rationalize things as PAD and others can.

And since we're on the issue of terrorism as a tool, this article just popped up on Yahoo!:

Potential for domestic-based terrorist attack rising

I really think they should be keeping an eye out on ol' Pat. ;)

Oh, crap... I typoed the html. :P

Potential for domestic-based terrorist attack rising

Right... and it's horseshit on your part merely because you agree with their decision and think you have the moral high horse to tell the rest of us that we're wrong for thinking the way we do.

*BUZZ* Wrong answer! At no point have I EVER said that I either agree or disagree with CC's decision in regards to the Mohammed image. I don't give a crap one way of the other. I just grow weary of people self-righteously complaining that they could do the job better than the people that actually HAVE the training and expreience.

Guess that blows a hole in your theory about how much of a coward you think I am, doesn't it?

You're really having a problem with reading comprehension, aren't you? Especially considering my statement not two posts before that declaring that caring more about the safety of one's loved one's than one's own ego and making a point does NOT, indeed, make one a coward.

Hell, why are people even talking about Comedy Central as if they were the New York Times of the Washington fucking Post anyway? It's not as if CC has some obligation to show everything Parker and Stone animate. They have one obligation, and one obligation only, to make people laugh.

Oh, and just as a side note, making comments about the terrorists winning is like whipping out the nazi comparisons. It just makes the speaker look like an idiot.

PAD... What are the names of your publishers? I would like to write to them and say that I'll be pre-buying any of your works sight un-seen. From my little corner of the world you are absolutely right and your comments demonstrate how hyprocritical (broad sense) we can be at times.

One more observation before I most likely bow out before I REALLY rile somebody up. It occurred to me that this is hardly the first time something like this has happened. It's the most recent most publicized, but a few years ago, when the VHS version of Disney's Aladdin was released, they changed a line of the opening song when some Arab American group raised a stink.

Admittedly, I was upset at the time, feeling a lot of the indignation I see here. But, then I realized that it didn't upset me enough to keep me from buying the tape anyway and enjoying the movie despite the very obvious edit. (I still wonder if Disney did that on purpose as a sort of protest) So I shut up about it, realizing that if I was going to watch it anyway, my initial moral indignation didn't amount to a hill of beans.

So, one final (non-confrontational hopefully, actually curious) question: Are the people here who are upset by the edit actually upset enough to stop watching either South Park or Comedy Central in general?

-Rex Hondo-

I just grow weary of people self-righteously complaining that they could do the job better than the people that actually HAVE the training and expreience.

I'm sorry, then why does PAD even post to this blog then?

Because, when one gets right down to it, some of his posts are often self-righteous complaints in the same vein as the very thing you're complaining about.

President Bush would be a prime example.

Granted, some would say that Bush has neither the experience or the training, but he has now been president far longer than any of the rest of us, and was also a state governor, another position I'm sure none of us have held.

Try holding us all up to the same standard, will you?

Oh, and just as a side note, making comments about the terrorists winning is like whipping out the nazi comparisons.

*roflmao*

I guess it's my turn for a "*BUZZ* Wrong answer!".

To even THINK that this compares to the ol' Godwin's Law just makes me think that, well, Godwin's Law probably actually applies and YOU have just lost the argument, Rex.

Well, for starters, raising a stink over a perceived derogatory lyric isn't quite on the same level as threatening to kill people.

If I had been Disney I might have changed the lyric from "they cut off your hand" to "they line up homosexuals against a wall and pull the wall down on them" but that's me and that's why nobody puts me in charge of stuff.

Hey, it occurs to me that the makers of Family Guy can have the last laugh; all they have to do is have the doorbell ring and have a guy in a tubin deliver a pizza or fish helmet or whatever it was. No big deal, no announcement ahead of time.

It also occurs to me that South Park can keep this going in a few waysthey can go out of their way to have scenes in front of the Supreme Court and either show the fresco with Mohammed or, alternately, have his section of the wall blatently covered in a black box. They can have Mohammed Ali on and pixilate his face. They can introduce a new character, Chef Mohammed and continuosly bleep out his name, Beatrix Kiddo like. Lots of possibilities.

Hey, it occurs to me that the makers of Family Guy can have the last laugh

Actually, I'm surprised nobody has brought up the fact that, if showing Mohammed is going to get CC attacked by extremists, what is FOX supposed to think about this?

I don't think there's anything that FOX can do about parodies of both Family Guy and The Simpsons, but the whole use of Mohammed was in direct relation to Family Guy, and any pissed off extremists who sees this are just as likely to focus on the use of Family Guy, not caring that it wasn't from Family Guy itself.

Lots of possibilities.

Nothing that Parker & Stone would do as a result of this would surprise me.

But then, they've certainly succeeded at getting people to talk about these two episodes and the issues surrounding them.

Caldfyr wrote, "What if CC had aired an uncensored show. What if an insurgent group devastated a city block and claimed it was out of retaliation for the SP episode? Whether or not the possible media backlash cost CC anything, imagine the burden on the conscience of the person that made the decision."

Comedy Central DID air an uncensored show with an appearance by Mohammed, as part of a SUPER FRIENDS parody (along with Jesus and Buddha). How much backlash was there? None whatsoever. Anyway, are we supposed to spend every waking moment worrying about everything we say and write within our own "free and open society"? Who the hell wants to live that way?!

>>Well, now you know exactly how I feel every time American political pressure groups or religious pressure groups drive a TV series off the air with relentless complaints, boycotts and threats.

Like, say, The Book of Daniel? Here's the difference: that show, offending aspects intact, still aired. A number of affiliates declined to run the show, but it aired in much of the country, and with a little bit of initiative, people who were unable to see the show could obtain copies of the program and view it for themselves.

On the other hand, the Muhammed episode of South Park in its intended form could not be seen by anyone in any part of the country. You could not exercise an option to do so, since no such option existed.

Also, I'm not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of? There are apples and there are oranges, and then there are bloodthirsty oranges with a rather expansive view of the word 'infidel' and no shortage of violent rage to spend on what surrounds it.

-Dave O'Connell

TWL Said: "If the above all makes me an unprincipled weasel in anyone's eyes, I suppose I'll have to live with that. "

It doesn't Tim, because in that scenario, it's no longer you decision to make technically. It's switched from YOU truly making the choice, to your boss. At that point, your responisibilty is technically out of your hands. You are supposed to obey your "superiors" at work, and if they say you aren't allowed to run it, then you aren't a weasel for not doing so. and that's is when you leak the uneditted version to the internet :)

Posted by: Bladestar at April 17, 2006 02:00 PM

You are supposed to obey your "superiors" at work, and if they say you aren't allowed to run it, then you aren't a weasel for not doing so. and that's is when you leak the uneditted version to the internet :)

Facetiousness aside, leaking the unedited version would make one an unprincipled weasel. Facilitating the theft of your company's intellectual property is unethical and illegal.

Civil disobedience has its place. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was a textbook example of how to use civil disobedience to combat injustice. Their acts of lawbreaking were meaningful because the laws they were violating were inherently unjust.

But, I don't think there's anything unjust about Comedy Central censoring an image of Muhammed. In fact, I'd guess it's well within the parameters of their contract with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There is an argument to be made that Comedy Central's decision was unwise, because it may embolden the terrorist fruit loops. But "unwise" is not tantamount to "unjust."

So anyone who would agree to censor the episode and then leak the unedited version would be abandoning the moral high ground. In the scenario we're discussing now, the only principled actions one could take would be to agree to censor the episode, or refuse to do so and then clean out your desk.

"Also, I'm not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of?"

Depends. If they're both wearing hoods and waving torches, and the only distinguishing between the two is that one of them is shouting "Kill the bastards!" and I understand them whereas the other is shouting and I don't understand them, then I'm not seeing a lot of difference.

PAD

PAD

But really, how many shows get canceled due merely to protests from religious conservatives? I can think of more shows that survived assaults from religious/family groups than were successfully taken down by the them (the fact is Book of Daniel would have been canceled even if the right wing religious community had been silent).

Only saw this today, but might as well comment.

So if you see the scenario you so lavishly describe in your original posting as the one-to-one equivalent of showing the prophet Mohammed on the South Park episode, does that mean you believe the makers of SP and the heads of Comedy Central would have been arrested for hate crimes had they allowed to air it? No, of course you don't. BTW, I found the use of the word "nigger" was probably less offensive than your playing towards white fears of big brawny blacks. And isn't it telling that even in that hypothetical example you had to add further variables that have no equivalent in airing the SP episode as originally planned? It has to be done at night, in the big brawny blacks' hang-out, the "agent provocateur" has to be white and a stranger to the neighborhood and he has to act in a most provoactive way.

Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2006 04:19 PM

BTW, I found the use of the word "nigger" was probably less offensive than your playing towards white fears of big brawny blacks.

Menshevik, you accuse Peter of "playing towards white fears," but in the scenario at issue he never once described any of the physical characterstics of these hypothetical black people. I don't know your ethnicity, but I think the fact that you associate "big and brawny" with "a group of black people" says more about you than it does about Peter.

I won't presume to speak for Peter, but I think it was logical to use Harlem or Watts as examples because of the large numbers of black people living there. If you walked into a bar in Harlem or Watts you'd have a good chance of running into a large group of black people. Shouting "nigger" in a bar where almost everyone is white might not have the same effect.

Oh, and I have black friends, all of whom would tell me that if I walked into a bar with mostly black patrons and began shouting "nigger," I'd get my ass kicked. I mean, it's a word that's been used to dehumanize black people to make it easier to deny them basic human rights. And you don't think it's logical to assume shouting it in the middle of bar with mostly black patrons would be incendiary????

You know, it's funny. I've disagreed with Peter in the past and not been shy about saying so. You can see the evidence in other threads in his blog.

Nevertheless, I'm just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter's ass now because I am in almost complete agreement with him on this issue. You know, regardless of the fact that I have had differences of opinion with him before.

I mean, c'mon, it's the Internet. You know it just has to happen.

Nevertheless, I'm just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter's ass

You damn...

No, wait, I can't do it. :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 17, 2006 05:59 PM

"Nevertheless, I'm just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter's ass"

You damn...

No, wait, I can't do it. :)

:)

Bill Myers -
I would think it is not implausible that if we are talking about the white fears of black people, it is not implausible to assume that whites would be more afraid of big brawny ones than small scrawny ones (especially if the white guy was big and brawny enough himself to think he could hold his own against a fair-sized group of people provided they were small enough). But actually the reason why I chose that particular wording was the alliteration of the three b's.

In any case, Peter David clearly described a situation where the guinea pig would clearly be outmatched physically and where the net result would be his being beaten to a pulp. I think that can be seen as playing towards white fears irrespective of the size and strength of the individuals in the busy bar(after all, he specified that notional black "organizer" should find a *white* guinea pig).

Don't know where you got the idea that I thought it illogical that a white person going into a crowded bar in Harlem and shouting "nigger!" (oh dear, now I have to think of that sketch in The Kentucky Fried Movie) could end up with his teeth kicked in. What I questioned was whether this scenario really is as comparable to the situation with the caricatures of Mohammed. (Not unimportant differences: There had already been a South Park episode featuring Mohammed before, as far as I know with no problems, the riots about the Danish cartoons had to be orchestrated over a matter of weeks and months, not least by disseminating disinformation (including offensive cartoons which had never appeared in the Jyllandse Posten). So maybe a better equivalent would be a scenario where the black "organizer" went to the crowded bar and then tell the patrons that this white guy just passing outside the front window had just called them all niggers?

PAD: Once upon a time, I was head of direct sales. If I hadn't become a full time writer, that could well have been me being given that order. I would have refused to do it and tendered my resignation. I know this beyond question.

I'm curious. It is sometimes difficult to say, truly, what we would do in a particular situation if it ever came up. If someone pointed a gun at me and demanded my wallet would I really be as calm as I always picture myself being when I'm in the comfort of my home imagining it?

Is it possible that, being as you were no longer head of direct sales but had moved on to other things, that the backward view is slightly rose-tinted? It's the certainty of the "I know this beyond question." that caught my eye.

If you were the head of direct sales, had three (3?) children to support and did not have a developing career as a writer to turn to, would your stand on principal be as beyond question?

- Sean

Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2006 07:16 PM

Bill Myers -
I would think it is not implausible that if we are talking about the white fears of black people, it is not implausible to assume that whites would be more afraid of big brawny ones than small scrawny ones (especially if the white guy was big and brawny enough himself to think he could hold his own against a fair-sized group of people provided they were small enough). But actually the reason why I chose that particular wording was the alliteration of the three b's.

It is equally plausible to believe that people of unremarkable physical strength could present a very real threat, if they outnumber you ten-to-one. The fact remains that you chose to focus on only one of many plausible permutations, and then tried to project that onto Peter. It still says more about you than it says about him.

If it makes you feel any better, I can be bigoted. I think it's part of the human condition. The key is to acknowledge one's own instinctive bigotries and counteract them with rational thought. And I think, unless you're black and just haven't mentioned it, that you may have unwittingly exposed a bigotry of your own.

What I questioned was whether this scenario really is as comparable to the situation with the caricatures of Mohammed. (Not unimportant differences: There had already been a South Park episode featuring Mohammed before, as far as I know with no problems, the riots about the Danish cartoons had to be orchestrated over a matter of weeks and months, not least by disseminating disinformation (including offensive cartoons which had never appeared in the Jyllandse Posten). So maybe a better equivalent would be a scenario where the black "organizer" went to the crowded bar and then tell the patrons that this white guy just passing outside the front window had just called them all niggers?

The fact that Muhammed had been portrayed in South Park without incident in the past is in fact an unimportant difference when comparing "Cartoon Wars" to Peter's Harlem/Watts scenario. Regardless of the fact that the rioters, thugs and terrorists didn't jump on the bandwagon until awhile after the Danish cartoons first ran doesn't matter, because they're whipped up now. The danger inherent in portraying Muhammed NOW is somewhat analogous to going into a bar full of black patrons and hurling the grandaddy of all racial epithets at them.

Your attempts to label me as a bigot are beginning to sound desperate. Like you said, it is one of several possible permutations, but unlike you seem to think, it does not exclude other ones. Whether Peter David intended to or not, his original piece played on existing fears (let's face it, many white Americans are afraid to go into a Harlem bar, period), and that is what I found more offensive than the use of the word "nigger" in a context that made it clear that he was not condoning its use.

The analogy between the "cartoon wars" and PAD's Harlem/Watts scenario is wrong and inappropriate in many ways. The SP thing is not like walking into a bar in Harlem and recklessly provoking a riot, it is more akin to giving a show in a public place and before a mixed audience but scratching that routine satirizing homophobia for fear of reprisals from a violent and homicidal gay-bashers who could be in the audience or who might hear about the joke from a friend later on. Such behaviour might be understandable, but would it be commendable? While I guess you could debate if Comedy Central were cowardly or just doing what was good for business, not showing that episode in its original form certainly was not an act of bravery or a blow for free speech. To use an analogy that is every bit as appropriate to the situation as Peter David's Harlem/Watts scenario, it is like refusing to testify against a mobster about a crime you witnessed and then someone congratulates you for doing this and says that the witness who did come forward but was later beaten up or killed had only brought it on himself.

What really annoys me about PAD's analogy is that he portrays those who did have the courage to either reprint the cartoons from the Jyllandse Posten or to commission new caricatures squarely into the role of villains and fools. Shouting out the word "nigger" in a bar in Harlem is seen as unacceptable behaviour irrespective of whether or not you are in danger of being beaten up. The details of the scenario - included to make it certain that the provocateur ends up beaten up - make as much sense as saying "you can't call someone a coward unless you are prepared to jump from a 4th-floor window into a crowded street" (which would also make it almost certain that you are killed or at least heavily injured and would also make you liable for criminal prosecution for the reckless endangerment of other people's lives).

The "cartoon war" at South Park does not exist in isolation. Those criticizing this act of (self-)censorship will have measured South Park and Comedy Central both against their own self-image (irreverent! daring! pushing the envelope!) and against others who did defy the rioters e.g. by printing certain cartoons. So why get so worked up about criticizing Comedy Central for being less brave than Charlie Hebdo? They made a decision motivated by a sense of self-preservation and financial self-interest. It is sad that we live in a world where they apparently feel it is unsafe for them to let the makers of South Park express themselves on this one particular subject, and I can understand why they felt that way, but I do not feel the need to congratulate them on this choice or, in mounting a soapbox to speechify in its defense, to malign those who chose differently.

Posted by: Menshevik at April 18, 2006 04:26 AM

Your attempts to label me as a bigot are beginning to sound desperate.

Actually, I said you may have unwittingly exposed a bigotry within yourself. The word may is critical to understanding that sentence. I acknowledge that I cannot read minds.

Nevertheless, the fact that a scenario involving a bar full of black patrons led you to assume that they would be "big brawny black men," and then led you to project that onto Peter and accuse him of "playing on white fears" is in my view noteworthy. And thus I stand by my assertion that your attempt to project your stereotypical thinking onto Peter is a sign of possible bigotry on your part.

Like you said, it is one of several possible permutations, but unlike you seem to think, it does not exclude other ones.

Huh? I never excluded anything. You're the one who who assumed a bar full of black patrons meant a bar full of "big brawny" black guys. I'm the one who pointed out that there were other permutations.

Whether Peter David intended to or not, his original piece played on existing fears (let's face it, many white Americans are afraid to go into a Harlem bar, period), and that is what I found more offensive than the use of the word "nigger" in a context that made it clear that he was not condoning its use.

No, his scenario was very reasonable. As I've said, I've got black friends who would discourage me from enacting Peter's scenario in real life. Does that make them racist?

You're the one who stereotyped blacks with the "big brawny" reference, not Peter. The idea that black patrons of a bar would not take kindly to a white person shouting the word "nigger" at them isn't racist.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you in circles, and this will be my last response to you. I'm comfortable that what I've written to you is logical and reasonable, and I don't believe your responses have been equally logical and reasonable. I can agree to disagree when someone uses logic to arrive at a different conclusion than I. But I can't "agree to disagree" when someone's argument amounts to nothing but paralogisms, as yours have.

Other posters here can attest to the fact that I can be, and have been, persuaded by others' arguments. And when I really put my foot in it and say something stupid, I admit it flat-out. But I'm afraid your arguments to this point have been far too faulty to be persuasive. Sorry.

Menshevik, your understanding of PAD's argument is flawed.

This is not a matter of going into Harlem/Watts/South Central and shouting "NIGGER!" at the top of your lungs. This is a matter of performing a dramatic reading of a piece of art, written by someone else, made famous by a black actor for crying out loud. The only factor that makes it incendiary is the content of the speech - content loudly and proudly declaimed by Sam Jackson's undeniably black character.

The point being, by deciding not to do this (assuming you would decide not to do this), you're censoring your own artistic expression in the service of continuing to do business as you always have - in this case, with all limbs and internal organs intact. Wouldn't this make you (generic you, here) as hypocritical as Comedy Central, which censored the Mohammed images from South Park in the interest of continued safety of business.

Now, mind you, I wouldn't do it - but then, I never called CC hypocrites, either. They didn't air it for the same reason they won't show Matt and Trey's work on "Orgazmo", or "Cannibal" - because they don't want to risk affronting a large group for no reason, when that group can take all their purchasing power and go back the companies that advertise on some other channel at that hour...

Something that's been itching the back of my head for a while now is this. Now, we all know that the cartoon of Mohammed had a bomb in his turban. Were I a Muslim, that would kinda get under my skin, too. You think there would be the same fervor from MOST of them if Mohammed were seen helping little old ladies across the street and rescuing kitties from trees and handing out ice cream? Sure, some of the more, how do I put it delicately, fanatical Muslims would still get annoyed, but hey, Christians have their own groups that get pissy whenever a picture of Christ is shown or it's suggested that someone born in that area 2000 years ago wouldn't have blond hair and blue eyes or look like a displaced stereotype of a cab driver.

Please stop comparing groups who are guilty of whining and pissing on TV with groups that burn down buildings and assault people.

Yeah, I find it annoying when some of the religious conservatives who freak out about media (God knows I want to stick a fork in my ear every time I see that guy from the Catholic League on some talk show)...but they are in the same category as any of the minority groups who go on TV or write op eds decrying how "my group is portrayed in the movies/TV/papers"...they have far more in common with the talking heads from groups griping about how gays/African Americans/Italian Americans/overweight Americans/etc are portrayed than they do with the *extremists* in the Muslim community who are willing to stone people who offend them.

Bill Myers -

The word "may" as used by you was not critical to the understanding of that sentence, it frequently is used (and may have been used here) just to cover the speaker's ass. It clearly was an ad personam attack where you conveniently seized upon one phrase (which I had chosen to a large part because of the alliteration, just as I might have said "burly blond Bavarians" had Peter David's scenario involved a German bar, even though I am fully aware that not all Bavarians are burly or blond) in order not to adress the rest of my argument, which would not have been significantly different had I omitted the words "big" and "brawny".

And by the way, assuming you were correct and I was prejudiced in the way you say, how does it logically follow that my suspicion that he used this particular example for a certain reason was wrong?

Whether or not you consider it racist to state that blacks will always react in one way without, apparently being able to exert any measure of control on their impulses, I'll leave up to you. I would imagine that in some cases the patrons might be hesitant, e.g. if they weren't sure that the agent provocateur wasn't packing an uzi or a pump-gun under his bulky raincoat (you'd have to be insane to enact Peter David's scenario anyway, so why exclude the possibility of a deranged killer?). (Oh dear, now I've done it, now I'm engaging in anti-white bigotry).

But that was not my point. I never claimed that an (unarmed) white person going into a crowded Harlem bar would not in all likelihood be beaten up if he behaved in the way Peter stipulated. What you consistently failed to address was that for a whole slew of reasons the Harlem/Watts scenario is not an appropriate analogy to the situation with that South Park episode. "Somewhat analogous" just does not cut it. If anything the comparison is an insult to the patrons of that bar, because their human reaction to an act of verbal aggression forced upon them whether they want to or not is being equated with a systematic campaign of terror exerted by thugs looking all over for pretexts for violence and hijacking a religion in the process.

Jonathan -
Nope. The scenario really to a large extent depends on the facts that a) "nigger" spoken by a white person is (in most cases rightly) perceived as more offensive than "nigger" spoken by a black person (whereas in the case of the prophet Mohammed, an insult perpetrated by a Muslim would be considered a more serious matter than one perpetrated by an infidel) and b) that it is not immediately apparent to everyone that PAD's agent provocateur is quoting from a work of art (I know I wouldn't because, and this is probably my greatest fault, I've never seen "Pulp Fiction"), that at least some people will think that he is actually going off on an unscripted rant. The situation with that South Park episode is more akin to a white impressionist doing a parody of Samuel Jackson as part of his stage act.

Thom -
the question some people have asked is why Muslim moderates take offense at something like a caricature of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban but not at the extremists who proclaim that throwing bombs etc. is doing God's and Mohammed's work (and seen as a comment on that kind of attitude, the offending cartoon actually can be said to make a valid point, rather like the "Republican Jesus" cartoons you can see on the internet). But that is not just a problem with Islam, in other religions too the extremists who use their religion as a justification for their prejudices and for violence are generally accepted as sincere believers and few dare call them presumptuous.

Sorry, my comment addressed to Thom was actually intended for Rat.

Posted by Thom at April 18, 2006 08:39 AM

Sorry Thom, but Christianity has it's share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn't it gets lumped together with the others.

Posted by: Menshevik at April 18, 2006 08:51 AM

Bill Myers -

The word "may" as used by you was not critical to the understanding of that sentence, it frequently is used (and may have been used here) just to cover the speaker's ass.

Menshevik, I know I said I wasn't going to respond. And it would probably be wiser not to do so. But, you have twisted my words and I feel honor-bound to set you straight.

One definition of the word "may," according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, is "indicates possibility." So if you subract the word "may" from the sentence in question, you change its meaning completely. It goes from being an assertion that something is possibly true to an assertion that something is unquestionably true. Therefore, the word "may" is indeed critical to understanding the sentence. QED. Nothing you say will change this fact.

By the way, why do you feel the need to criticize me for acknowledging a degree of uncertainty? Admitting that I don't know everything isn't "covering my ass," it's just an acknowledgement of reality: I am one imperfect being amongst billions. I'm not omniscient. I'm not special. I don't know everything.

At the same time, I can't discount the undeniable fact that you accused Peter of playing on "white people's fears" of "big" and "brawny" black men, even though he never described the physical characteristics of the hypothetical black people in his scenario. Has it occurred to you that the honorable thing to do would be to simply cede the point, and say, "Yes, you're right, I mischaracterized what Peter said. My bad."

I mean, I stepped in it by challenging edhopper to put his money where his mouth is by circulating some cartoons that might anger radical Islamists only to find out that, y'know, that's precisely what he had already done. So I publicly apologized for my shameful behavior. It doesn't make one any less of a person to admit when one is wrong.

It clearly was an ad personam attack where you conveniently seized upon one phrase (which I had chosen to a large part because of the alliteration, just as I might have said "burly blond Bavarians" had Peter David's scenario involved a German bar, even though I am fully aware that not all Bavarians are burly or blond) in order not to adress the rest of my argument, which would not have been significantly different had I omitted the words "big" and "brawny".

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. A significant part of your argument was that Peter was playing on white fears about "big" and "brawny" black men. It's too late to back out of it now. You said it, and the evidence is right here in your first post on this board.

And by the way, assuming you were correct and I was prejudiced in the way you say, how does it logically follow that my suspicion that he used this particular example for a certain reason was wrong?

Because, as I've stated repeatedly, you accused Peter of playing on people's fears of "big" and "brawny" black men even though he never described the physical characteristics of the hypothetical black people in his scenario. You're the one whose mind conjured up a stereotype in response to a scenario about hypothetical black people. That's not an "ad personam" attack, it's a fact that is evident in this very thread.

May I suggest that it isn't helping you to keep denying that you accused Peter of playing on "white fears" based on a stereotype conjured up by you and not him? It's been my experience that if you just own up to something you've done and take your medicine, people respect that. And you can, y'know, move on.

Whether or not you consider it racist to state that blacks will always react in one way without, apparently being able to exert any measure of control on their impulses, I'll leave up to you. I would imagine that in some cases the patrons might be hesitant, e.g. if they weren't sure that the agent provocateur wasn't packing an uzi or a pump-gun under his bulky raincoat (you'd have to be insane to enact Peter David's scenario anyway, so why exclude the possibility of a deranged killer?). (Oh dear, now I've done it, now I'm engaging in anti-white bigotry).

And maybe if I did what Peter suggested and everyone in the bar did want to beat me up, cybernetic monkey space-aliens wearing jet-packs might swoop down and carry me off to safety. And then maybe offer me a banana, which I'd have to politely decline because I don't like bananas.

Peter's scenario dealt with the most likely outcome of hurling incendiary racial epithets at patrons of a bar, okay? You're stomping on the minutae at the periphery because you're losing the core argument.

But that was not my point. I never claimed that an (unarmed) white person going into a crowded Harlem bar would not in all likelihood be beaten up if he behaved in the way Peter stipulated.

Uhm, yes, you just did above. You can't have it both ways.

What you consistently failed to address was that for a whole slew of reasons the Harlem/Watts scenario is not an appropriate analogy to the situation with that South Park episode.

No, I addressed it quite well. I said that the danger inherent in airing a depiction of Muhammed given today's environment is somewhat analogous to the danger inherent in going to a bar in Harlem or Watts and delivering some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from "Pulp Fiction" where every other word is "nigger."

"Somewhat analogous" just does not cut it.

Prove it.

If anything the comparison is an insult to the patrons of that bar, because their human reaction to an act of verbal aggression forced upon them whether they want to or not is being equated with a systematic campaign of terror exerted by thugs looking all over for pretexts for violence and hijacking a religion in the process.

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. Peter never conflated the hypothetical reactions of the hypothetical black people to the very real threat of terrorist actions from radical Islamic extremists looking for an excuse to be violent. You did that.

You're deliberately ignoring the core of Peter's analogy: in both the "Cartoon Wars" situation and Peter's scenario, there is a danger that engaging in protected speech could result in physical harm to you and/or others. You haven't done anything to address that.

Look, Menshevik, I'm sorry. It's not my intent to belittle you, and I apologize for letting my irritation come through. But, y'know, you keep changing your argument to avoid the logical consequences of your own words, and that grates on people, y'know? The fact is, you did indeed accuse Peter of playing on white fears about "big" and "brawny" black men even though Peter never evoked such an image. And the fact is, I did address your argument about Peter's analogy. Twice, now.

I don't mind an argument, Menshevik. I find the process useful in helping me sharpen my own thinking, and I often learn things from engaging in civil debates. But, y'know, don't twist my words or try to deny those things you actually said in order to "win," okay? Maybe it's a conceit on my part, but that stuff makes me a bit... cross.

"To use an analogy that is every bit as appropriate to the situation as Peter David's Harlem/Watts scenario, it is like refusing to testify against a mobster about a crime you witnessed and then someone congratulates you for doing this and says that the witness who did come forward but was later beaten up or killed had only brought it on himself."

I don't know that it's something one would congratulate you for. But certainly if you were asked to testify and you said, "No, because I'm afraid I'll be beaten up and killed, and I'm afraid for my family's life as well," one would have to be pretty cold not to be able to at least *understand the reasons and not make judgments.* Which is exactly and precisely what I've been saying about Comedy Central. So, y'know, thanks for proving my point.

As for the rest of your complaint, you have completely and utterly missed the point. I was endeavoring to illustrate my example with something that would ignite the same quick-fire fury as images of Mohammed in a different group. And so I chose the word "nigger," a word so deplored that even daily newspapers don't run it for fear of reprisals. Now...are you going to try and tell me that blacks would NOT be the ones who would then react the most strongly? Because I'm thinking they are.

It has nothing to do with trying to paint blacks in a negative light and nothing to do with playing upon fears or preconceptions. If I could have thought of a different word that newspapers or the media conspicuously go out of their way not to utilize, and yet had been actively used in an acclaimed work of art, I would have done so. You find me a well-known movie with frequent use of the word "kike" and newspapers that say "the K-word" and I'll transpose the example into a crowded Purim festival without batting an eye. But I don't think you're going to be able to do that.

PAD

"Please stop comparing groups who are guilty of whining and pissing on TV with groups that burn down buildings and assault people."

I don't think I will, no. Pressure is pressure and fear is fear. Whether it's fear of economic sanctions, huge picket groups, or being blown up, it's still fear and pressure tactics being applied because of a single-minded determination to make everyone else abide by one's own beliefs and not show or disseminate things that someone finds personally upsetting. It's just a matter of degree.

PAD

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel this way about any group that does the same? he groups that tried to suppress the release of the Passion of the Christ (using the same tactics as those that tried to stop the release of the Last Temptation no less)? Gay activists have attempted to have shows they disagree with pulled, musicians performances cancelled...am I understanding correctly that you feel all these groups are in the wrong, so to speak, the minute they go from challenging to actually attempting to stop the release of a movie/show?

Michael...
"Sorry Michael, but Evironmentalists have their share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn't it gets lumped together with the others."

BTW, Peter,

If the above comes off as some attempt at a trap (I started to think it looked like it could be me attempting to set you up) I did not intend it that fashion at all. Just trying to make sure I am understanding your approach to all of this.

Michael...
"Sorry Michael, but Evironmentalists have their share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn't it gets lumped together with the others."

Exactly. Every large group has it's fringe loonies who are willing to resort to violence to get their way. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of what they call themselves, be it Islamic, Christian, or Environmentalist.

Mr. Ries: Are you saying that the only people who can legitimately criticize President Bush are former presidents. Hardly. One need not be a chickent to judge the quality of an egg!!

Peace out. The Rev

"So, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel this way about any group that does the same? he groups that tried to suppress the release of the Passion of the Christ (using the same tactics as those that tried to stop the release of the Last Temptation no less)? Gay activists have attempted to have shows they disagree with pulled, musicians performances cancelled...am I understanding correctly that you feel all these groups are in the wrong, so to speak, the minute they go from challenging to actually attempting to stop the release of a movie/show?"

Yup.

Jewish organizations (for instance) who tried to shut down "Passion of the Christ" were no more in the right than those who tried to shut down "Last Temptation." (Although actually the latter's actions were more egregious since, from my understanding, "Temptation" was actually a good film.)

I have said repeatedly on this blog that liberals and liberal organizations are some of the most aggressive censors of material there is. More often than not, though, they differ from conservatives in the following manner: Conservatives lobby for censorship because they say the material upsets them. Liberals lobby for censorship because they say the material is going to offend someone else.

PAD

Mr. Ries: Are you saying that the only people who can legitimately criticize President Bush are former presidents.

I think you need to read all the posts in this thread.

Conservatives lobby for censorship because they say the material upsets them. Liberals lobby for censorship because they say the material is going to offend someone else.

True enough, which makes them more dangerous. For what is there that does not offend SOME goddamnedbody? Ultimately we would end up in some kind of artistic Nerfworld, like those stories Ray Bradbury used to write about (besides Farenheit 451; he had a number of short stories based in the premise that any story that could offend some segment of the population was banned).

the latter's actions were more egregious since, from my understanding, "Temptation" was actually a good film.

Different strokes and all. Having seen both I'd rate PASSION as the superior of the two, though TEMPTATION is a very good movie. Perhaps the controversy raised expectations that the movie couldn't deliver, which of course is not Scorsese's fault. On the other hand, the dismissals of PASSION as just a gore porn film actually helped it when it turned out to be something considerably more. Also, there are a few performances in TEMPTATION that totally bring me out of the movie--Gibson's decision to use Aramic was probably a good one for several reasons, not the least of which was to eliminate the campy elements that seem to show up in every other biblical picture.

But mileage varies.

Some thoughts...

**I'm starting to think CC didn't decide to censor South Park. I'm thinking this was the big plan.
Trey & Matt say it takes 6 days to make a South Park episode. Even the Jesus/Bush/flag scene would take time...time they wouldn't of really had to put it together if this was a last minute descision.
And really, how would the episode of ended anyway?

Why would they do this? Hello...this is South Park and Comedy Central. They're getting lots of press because of all of this.

**The Edhopper/Bill Myers exchanges WAY up on the page are really facsinating.

**For you Christians getting your panties in a bunch over this...I imagine you'll be right there to stop the Christian protests over the DaVinci Code movie? Opus Dei ("The work of G-d") is right now planning who knows what because they don't like that Dan Brown portrays them as psycholoons with a martyr complex. In Rome on Sunday, a Cardnial in his sermon before the Pope condemened the book and movie...it's a lousy murder mystery people with a made up historical conspiracy that's ripped off from another work....where was I....oh yeah.

**I'm thinking I may agree with PAD...I'm not sure I agree with CC (assuming it's not a big plot, see above), but I kind of understand it....

"True enough, which makes them more dangerous. For what is there that does not offend SOME goddamnedbody?"

Well, true, but liberals rarely jump to the defense of conservative concerns, so that eliminates a whole bunch of people right there.

I don't know that I'd say "dangerous" so much as I would "annoying" or perhaps "self-righteous." What really gets me is when liberal-types protest on behalf of groups that take no issue with the material in question. For instance, when I was writing "Supergirl," I got tons of letters from outraged heterosexuals demanding that the "hackneyed, stereotyped" lesbian character of Andy be dropped from the book because she was an insult to lesbians everywhere. I didn't get letters from gays, mind you; just straight people on behalf of gays who apparently couldn't be trusted to drop me a line. This kept up right up until the following year when "Supergirl" received an award from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), citing Andy as a "sensitive and uplifting portrayal of gays in comics."

PAD

Peter, Bill, also worthy of notes is an unholy intersection between liberals and conservatives: the quest to ban pornography. Some liberals, particularly liberal feminists, object to pornography because they believe that exposure to images of objectified females leads men to be more likely to physically and sexually assault women. Many conservatives object to pornography because of a broader social agenda driven by religious beliefs.

The funny thing is that the liberal feminists are being hoodwinked. Because liberal feminists are generally interested in stopping pornography, whereas religious conservatives would use that as a stepping stone to further curtail freedoms -- including some freedoms liberal feminists hold dear.

I really don't know how you can label one group more dangerous than the other. Extremist liberals and extremist conservatives are very much alike in that both groups want to engage in social engineering (although the extreme conservatives often deny it, which may make the extreme liberals a bit more honest). Regardless of the underpinning philosophy, both extemes emphasize the collective over the individual. Whereas I see collectivism as a necessary evil (I mean, anarchy's no good, unless you want people to be able to rape and pillage and pee all over your garage door with impunity); it has its place but must be properly controlled. It's like fire: it's useful but dangerous.

Oh yeah, there's no doubt you're correct, Bill. I'm not a huge porno fan--the movies are thinly plotted and often poorly lit and it amazes me that one can be so bad an actor as to make the line "Sexual favors in return for delivering a pizza? Oh boy!" sound unconvincing--but I hate the fact that these do-gooders are so determined to stop it. Or lie about it. Or think that Playboy causes sexual desire when it is clearly the other way around.

It may be that my being in education has slanted me toward thinking that the liberal cesors are the most dangerous and effective since they are the ones who hold so much power in academia. I don't like it any better when it comes from the right.

PAD, what amazes me is that anyone could be so dense that they could possibly see any hint of anti-gay prejudice in your writing. I'm curious, does the fact that people can do this make you at all hesitant to include gay characters? I think I would think twice beofre creating a gay character of any importance to a series, both because of the idiots who would be looking for any perceived slight and the fact that I would feel hamstrung with what I could do with him or her. I would want to reserve the right to have any character I write be capable of behaving in a less than positive manner if it's true to the story but the idea that I'll be hit with hundreds of protesting letters might give me pause. It's probably why so many gay characters in movies and TV are left to the boring "best friend" role.

Bill, I seem to remember something that bolsters your argument; feminists in Canada helped pass fairly harsh anti-porn laws and one of the first persecutions was of a radical lesbian magazine. D'oh!

As regards the hypothetical situation waaaaaay up at the top, I checked with my wife, who, being a) from Atlanta and b) black, is a little closer to the situation than my white butt, and she tells me that in such a neighborhood on the East Coast, they would not only recognize the speech, there's about a 50% chance that one or more of the people you're addressing would join in. Here on the left coast, of course, you wouldn't even get started - in South Central, they'd kick your tail just for being a honky, before you could begin on the speech. Assuming you did manage to get started, of course, they'd still know what you were citing - it's Samuel L. Jackson, for crying out loud - but you'd still get stomped for being white.

"Yup."

Ahhh, thanks for the confirmation. I can get on board with that. :)

Your hypothetical really doesn't work, as there's no rhyme or reason to do what you're suggesting. You're just suggesting we provoke for the sake of being provocative.

However, if one were to suggest staging a play in an actual theatre of Pulp Fiction or another work that uses the N-word througout, then I would have no problem doing it, even it it was satire along the lines of South Park.

PAD: Jewish organizations (for instance) who tried to shut down "Passion of the Christ" were no more in the right than those who tried to shut down "Last Temptation." (Although actually the latter's actions were more egregious since, from my understanding, "Temptation" was actually a good film.)

So if two groups were to exhibit exactly the same behavior their actions would not be equally egregious? It would depend not no what they were doing, but what they were opposing?

Sounds like you stared of saying one group was no more in the right than the other (I'm interpreting that as both being equally wrong) and end with one being more egregious because of what it was the opposed.

in an unrelated note. check this out. this is in fucking Ommaha, Nebraska.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/14/omaha.schools.ap/

Joe V

re the above article, let the lawsuits begin, although being only 3 hours away from omaha & having friends in the area, the people voted for this and this is what they want.

Joe V.

Perhaps, but just because they voted for it doesn't make it right or legal.

Imagine if they held a vote to re-instate slavery or to segregate all schols across the country and if it won, would it still be constitutional? (Slavery is already addressed by the constitution, but just because something is voted in still doesn't make truly legal until its been constitutionally challenged.)

On the Omaha thing, it seems like they have more complex intentions. The law wouldn't go into effect for 3 years. I think they're trying to get people to look at the issues, and fix some of the problems, rather than implement this law. The article even mentions this...

"But its backers said that at the very least, its passage will force policymakers to negotiate seriously about the future of schools in the Omaha area."

I think, if I was a minority, living in a neighborhood populated primarily by minority, but was attending a school that was largly white, and said school did not take the minority needs into account, I'd be willing to have a school created in my neighborhood, where we could have more control, and ensure the school met our needs. The better solution, of course, would be that the current schools adjusted to better serve the needs of all students, not just the majority. Maybe by fighting for the former, they can end up with the latter?

This issue reminds me of the Gerrymandering debate. I've noticed that politicians can do no right on this. If they apportion districts to be representative of the larger whole, they get crucified, and if they apportion them to group together similar groups (group the republicans in one district, the democrats in the other, etc) they get accused of segregating the voters.

Sean Martin said, "Sounds like you stared of saying one group was no more in the right than the other (I'm interpreting that as both being equally wrong) and end with one being more egregious because of what it was the opposed."

Actually, I think it's worse than that as, I gather from what PAD said, he's seen neither of the films. So, the label of "more egregious" is hung on one group based not on one's informed opinion of the relative worth of the two works but on what one "understands" about their relative worth.

If I'm wrong then I apologize in advance. However, the phrase "from my understanding" certainly implies a lack of first hand knowledge of the two films' artistic merit.

Setting aside the entire idea of someone's opinion of a work of expression being a guiding principle in judging those who would protest it, I can't help but be reminded of the criticism leveled at Christian groups who protested, "The Last Temptation of Christ" - "Have you seen it??? Well, if you haven't seen it, you can't judge it, can you???"

Ok, totally off topic but go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YveSHqhOkdo

It's a short film about the Secret Wars Re-Enactment Society. Hysterical. The guy dressed as Mr Fantastic with one big floppy arm kills me.

Oh that is too funny, Bill. I especially loved the ending with the Crisis reenactors wanting the field and the "Supergirl" turning out to be a guy.

And here's today's free speech irony - Bush adomishes China to be more open about free speech, then watches as a protester is hauled off and arrested.

And yes, before anyone brings it up, hecklers and protesters were also arrested when Clinton was in office. That didn't make it right then and it doesn't make it right now.

I don't see anything in the article about her being arrested. Just removed from the press conference (and the camera stand she was standing on).

All that being said, it would have been a breath of fresh air if, when the secret service approached the lady, the President stood up, said "Hold on a second, let her speak", and used that as an example to China. Of course, then the internet would be filled with cries that we're trying to provoke China into a war (for oil of course).

From Reuters"

"The Secret Service was interviewing the woman and a source said she would be charged with disorderly conduct."

All that being said, it would have been a breath of fresh air if, when the secret service approached the lady, the President stood up, said "Hold on a second, let her speak", and used that as an example to China. Of course, then the internet would be filled with cries that we're trying to provoke China into a war (for oil of course).

Well, that would be a stretch considering China's demand for oil imports is rapidly poised to overtake ours in the coming years. Most likely, it would be calls that Bush was being disrespectful to yet another head of state. Which is of course also ridiculous. Bush is only rude to Europeans.

Well...as loath as I am to defend anything that comforts the tyrants in China, it has to be expected that we don't allow people to disrupt official diplomatic evnts. Otherwise we will get the same and worse and it will be one more obstacle to negotiations.

I'm a bit concerned that people are still able to get so close to world leaders like this. I'll assume taht she was checked for guns and/or explosives before she got in.

Anyway, my hat's off to her for her bravery. But, Den, I don't put heckling in the same category of free speech that I would put, say, looking up "Tibet" on Google. Of course, it's a tricky line to draw.

Well...as loath as I am to defend anything that comforts the tyrants in China, it has to be expected that we don't allow people to disrupt official diplomatic evnts. Otherwise we will get the same and worse and it will be one more obstacle to negotiations.

But it's a no-win situation. If you let them disrupt the event, they get the attention they want. But you have them arrested, the hecklers still win because now you look like you don't support free speech. It would have been better if she had just been ejected from the grounds without saying she would be charged with disorderly conduct, but it's still an embarrassment to Bush no matter what. Still, you really have to appreciate the irony of a protester being hauled off and arrested just after Bush takes about promoting free speech in another country.

I'm a bit concerned that people are still able to get so close to world leaders like this. I'll assume taht she was checked for guns and/or explosives before she got in.

But apparently not Falan Gong flags. I'm almost positive that events like this require people to walk through metal detectors and is patroled by bomb-sniffing dogs and the like. But no one has invented anything that can detect the intent to heckle or express an dissenting opinion in the presense of Bush. But I'm sure Cheney has people working on it.

That would prevent Bush from being exposed to people who disagree with him at those fake townhall meetings even better than a loyalty oath.

Anyway, my hat's off to her for her bravery. But, Den, I don't put heckling in the same category of free speech that I would put, say, looking up "Tibet" on Google. Of course, it's a tricky line to draw.

Not me. Free speech is still free speech, whether it's on the internet or the White House lawn.

Not me. Free speech is still free speech, whether it's on the internet or the White House lawn.

But heckling, designed to prevent others from speaking freely, seems to me to be exempt from protections, the same way that a religion that has as its basic tenent the right to prevent others from practicing freely could hardly get away with evoking first amendment rights.

Where one goes from legal protest to harassment designed to deny others free speech is the line I find difficult to draw. But there has to be a line or we get free speech only when the mob allows it.

Heh heh heh - SECRET Wars re-enactors! Thanks, Bill. Some nice costumes, really (some of them). They need some female enactors to be more accurate, though - for Rouge, She-Hulk, Storm, the Enchantress... and a REALLY tall guy for Galactus ;)

I have not heard of this heckling event, but it sounds to me that it falls under the category of non-violent civil disobedience. By disturbing the order the person in question went beyond what is protected by freedom of speech, but the action was not violent, and did not actually infringe on the other side's freedom of speech. It was a conscious decision to break the rules, but without actually harming or threatening others, but rather willing to place herself in harm's way in order to make a point.

But apparently not Falan Gong flags.

I've actually been reading The Epoch Times lately, which is the news source the 'heckler' had a press credential from.

For their part, The Epoch Times has an apology on their front page about this incident, saying that they had no idea the woman would protest like this.

The apology was for Bush and the White House - not the Chinese; but then, you probably wouldn't read this paper if you wanted an unbiased opinion of Communist China anyways.

The Epoch Times have had a lot of news about the persecution of Falon Gong followers in China lately, but this is also the first time I've seen not only The Epoch Times reference by another news agency, but that any US news agency has acknowledged the recent problems for Falon Gong followers in China.

Where one goes from legal protest to harassment designed to deny others free speech is the line I find difficult to draw. But there has to be a line or we get free speech only when the mob allows it.

That's a good point, but I don't think her actions quite crossed that line. Sure, she disrupted the event, but only for a few minutes and if opens up a dialogue on China's treatment on the followers of Falan Gong, then it's a positive, IMHO.

Like I said, I have no problem with having her ejected from the event, but I think charging her with disorderly conduct was a bit too far.

I'll agree with that...maybe the disorderly conduct thing is legit but I've heard that she is also getting nailed on something along the lines of "threatening a diplomat" or some such foolishness. She did tell Hu his days were numbered but that could just be an accurate observation of the fate of Chinese dictators.

Speaking of which, boy do the Chinese have the world's least interesting tyrants or what? They look like file clerks. Say what you want about Iran's leader, at least he plays the part of the wildeyed insane Hitler wannabe well.

Though wouldn't it have been really cool/scary if Hu had leaned over to the microphone and done his best Jet Li in Lethal Weapon 4 impression; "In China you would already be dead."

She did tell Hu his days were numbered but that could just be an accurate observation of the fate of Chinese dictators.

I'd say that it's likely an observation of the fate of Communisty China - many Chinese now believe the end of the Community Chinese Party will be sooner rather than later.

I'd normally chalk it up as possibly nothing more than propoganda on the part of those that oppose the Chinese government (including The Epoch times), but I was flipping stations late last night and came across a discussion on Charlie Rose on PBS.

One of the people on that show mentioned that it seems like the Chinese government is in turmoil, and another of the experts said that even the Chinese don't seem to know where they're really headed right now, but that political reform seems to be on the horizon.

We can only hope.

Say what you want about Iran's leader, at least he plays the part of the wildeyed insane Hitler wannabe well.

Which of course plays right into the hands of the people who feel the US doesn't already have enough wars on our hands right now.

Though wouldn't it have been really cool/scary if Hu had leaned over to the microphone and done his best Jet Li in Lethal Weapon 4 impression; "In China you would already be dead."

That would have been freaky.

China is in a weird state now. While the government is still officially communist, they've courted so much business investment that they're in practice a pseudo-capitalist society, albeit one with none of the individual liberties that most other capitalist societies enjoy. The shear size of their population coupled with the rapid clip they are modernizing their economy means that they are going to be a major force on the world stage for the forseeable future.

What is clear is that if things get tense between us and China, there is no way we can beat them the way beat the Soviets, ie, outspend them until they go bankrupt. Not only are they years ahead of the Russians in economic development now, our economy now is so intertwined with theirs (guess who owns the paper on about half of Bush's deficit?) that we can't afford to have them go bankrupt.

The hope is that as the population sees more of the economic advantages that more freedom guarantees, they'll pressure the government for more democratic reforms.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 21, 2006 10:07 AM

Though wouldn't it have been really cool/scary if Hu had leaned over to the microphone and done his best Jet Li in Lethal Weapon 4 impression; "In China you would already be dead."

I would've loved to see her hit Hu in the face with a pie. And then maybe squirt him with seltzer and tell a joke that begins with, "Two Chinese communists, a rabbi, and an alligator walk into a gay bar..."

I have no idea what kind of punchline you could come up with to complete that joke. I dreamed up the set-up one day but can't think of a punch-line that would make sense.

Huh. Maybe the punchline could be something about Muhammed. I should give that some thought...

Does it bother anyone else that you assume that if you shout "nigger" to a group of black people they are going to instantly resort of violence? Perhaps they would dismiss you as a crazy person who should (for their own safety) be left alone. It's an interesting comparison but imperfect: the use of a word that connotes generations of opression, indifference, and marginalization versus the secular use of a sacred figure (although I think that many of those individuals who are rioting are doing because they feel as if they and their way of life are under attack so you may have a point). I think the anger that is provoked in either situation is apples and oranges or at least apples and pears.

Y’know, I think there’d be a big difference in potential danger and bodily harm in standing on the corner in Harlem and yelling, "Nigger!" at the top of your lungs vs. an image of Mohammed handing a football helmet to Peter Griffin.

Den: What is clear is that if things get tense between us and China, there is no way we can beat them the way beat the Soviets, ie, outspend them until they go bankrupt.
Luigi Novi: Actually, wasn't the Soviet Union's economy going bankrupt before the defense spendign of Reagan's administration? I've read that John Chancellor, in his book, Peril and Promise: A Commentary on America, argued that the Cold War itself was only necessary until the end of the Cuban Missle Crisis, and was only kept going by its own momentum, "until it was stopped by the internal contradictions of the communist system." Peter McWilliams, in his book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, states that even U.S. intelligence knew that the Soviet Union was bankrupt.

Luigi Novi: Actually, wasn't the Soviet Union'sreliant economy going bankrupt before the defense spendign of Reagan's administration?

I've always held the view that the fall of Communist Russia was just a matter of time... Reagan just helped speed up the process.

But yes, the Russians were more or less bankrupt from their efforts to keep up with us militarily.

The same could've happened to Communist China by now if not for the fact that we're so reliant up them (and they in turn upon us) economically. As it stands, their military is a good 10-15 years behind ours, if not farther back.

Two Chinese communists, a rabbi, and an alligator walk into a gay bar.

The bartender yells out..."No one gets a drink without telling us the name of your penis"

The Rabbi yells out "Mine is called "Timex"...for it gets a licking and keeps on ticking"

The alligator yells out "Mine is called "Pepsi"...a choice for a new generation.

The one Communist looks at the other and stated "I don't know about you, but I guess Chairman Mao was right...free speech is given to idiots with no regard for their mind".

The other replies..."Mine is called "Secret"...strong enough for a man, but made for a woman."

There's your joke...but I should add in the Mohammed would probably LAUGH HIS ASS off...

But then again, what do I know?

Try this for a agenda for you smart asses in the free speech conflicts....go to Washington...talk to your senator/congressmen/presidential advisor/hooker (I'm guessing you want the hooker - she may be screwing you, but at least you'll know what your paying your money for...) to have the Constitution of the US changed into toilet paper, and flush it in the Pontamac River as more toxic waste. After that, you don't need to elect a NEW president. Keep in that retarded one in there now as your next King, or Emporer, or even lets see...Prime Minister...sorry Canadian joke here.

Oh, I can't speak my mind...that's OK. I have a brain tumor, and I have a medical excuse for my tourette's syndrom ($&(@#* $(#&*#@( $(#*&#@$(*...is that better now you whiny self complaining biatches...or does free speech come at a cost of free expression? How about this...everytime you say something offensive to someone whether it's via sexism, racism, or even GOD FORBID for religious reasons...you put in a dollar for that organizations. So I imagine that I would be donating alot to the Paris Hilton Antibashing organization...either that or the Redneck Antibashing organization..if they would stop interbreeding with one another..

Peace upon your kind souls, and may your bitter disputes be disuaded through a sweet smile, and a kind word.

PS...a message for PAD....I LOVE YOUR BOOKS, your writings in Incredible Hulk, Captain Marvel, and yes even with your writings in the TV series of Spacecases, and the Little Mermaid (didn't think I knew did you?) Bye the way PAD, Happy Belated Birthday for you and your family members, Merry Belated Christmas, and New Years, and even Happy Belated Kwanzaa, and Happy Belated Haunaukah...etc. etc...

Thanks for letting the nut cases speak...now just to cream them together and make a new batch of peanut butter...JIF, or Kraft...Chunky, or Smooth... I dunno...the CHOICES we make...

Posted by: Robert Forsberg at April 22, 2006 05:52 PM

Two Chinese communists, a rabbi, and an alligator walk into a gay bar.

The bartender yells out..."No one gets a drink without telling us the name of your penis"

The Rabbi yells out "Mine is called "Timex"...for it gets a licking and keeps on ticking"

The alligator yells out "Mine is called "Pepsi"...a choice for a new generation.

The one Communist looks at the other and stated "I don't know about you, but I guess Chairman Mao was right...free speech is given to idiots with no regard for their mind".

The other replies..."Mine is called "Secret"...strong enough for a man, but made for a woman."

There's your joke...but I should add in the Mohammed would probably LAUGH HIS ASS off...

I thank you for the valiant try, but I don't think it works. Because the joke you've told doesn't require a rabbi, an alligator and two Chinese communists. It would work just as well with, say, three nondescript guys who walk into bar.

My Holy Grail would be to find a joke where the rabbi, the alligator and the two Chinese communists are absolutely integral to the punchline. Thus, my quest continues.

Although, y'know, I don't hold out much hope because I'm not really spending any time looking. Too much other stuff to do.

Try this for a agenda for you smart asses in the free speech conflicts....go to Washington...talk to your senator/congressmen/presidential advisor/hooker (I'm guessing you want the hooker - she may be screwing you, but at least you'll know what your paying your money for...) to have the Constitution of the US changed into toilet paper, and flush it in the Pontamac River as more toxic waste. After that, you don't need to elect a NEW president. Keep in that retarded one in there now as your next King, or Emporer, or even lets see...Prime Minister...sorry Canadian joke here.

Uh, no. A lotta people have fought and bled and died to protect the freedoms we take for granted. Are our freedoms under assault? Yes. Both from without and within. Does that mean we should raise the white flag? Hell, no. Our freedoms are worth fighting for.

By the way, this isn't the first time we've had a president curtail freedoms in the name of national security. Don't think it'll be the last. As long as there are people who give a damn about liberty, though, I'm confident the pendulum will swing in the other direction again. And there are still people who give a damn. Just read this thread.

Oh, I can't speak my mind...that's OK. I have a brain tumor, and I have a medical excuse for my tourette's syndrom ($&(@#* $(#&*#@( $(#*&#@$(*...is that better now you whiny self complaining biatches...or does free speech come at a cost of free expression? How about this...everytime you say something offensive to someone whether it's via sexism, racism, or even GOD FORBID for religious reasons...you put in a dollar for that organizations. So I imagine that I would be donating alot to the Paris Hilton Antibashing organization...either that or the Redneck Antibashing organization..if they would stop interbreeding with one another..

Actually, Peter is on the board of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. And I'm not just going bald -- I'm a card-carrying member. (Actually, I'm not going bald. Yet.)

When you're talking about free speech, I think it makes sense to donate money to those organizations that, y'know, protect free speech.

Peace upon your kind souls, and may your bitter disputes be disuaded through a sweet smile, and a kind word.

Have you actually read this thread? The bulk of it has been a passionate, but civil, exchange of ideas. In fact, some of the ideas presented here have opened my mind to the complexity of the issue of Comedy Central's censorship of Muhammed. Bitter? Disagreement isn't synonymous with bitter. And other than the few people in this thread who were bitter, most of us have just been, y'know, debating. There's a difference.

PS...a message for PAD....I LOVE YOUR BOOKS, your writings in Incredible Hulk, Captain Marvel, and yes even with your writings in the TV series of Spacecases, and the Little Mermaid (didn't think I knew did you?) Bye the way PAD, Happy Belated Birthday for you and your family members, Merry Belated Christmas, and New Years, and even Happy Belated Kwanzaa, and Happy Belated Haunaukah...etc. etc...

Peter, I second the nomination. Your writing rocks. It also rocks that you open up this board to, like, everyone. You don't just talk about free speech, you put the principles into action.

Thanks for letting the nut cases speak...now just to cream them together and make a new batch of peanut butter...JIF, or Kraft...Chunky, or Smooth... I dunno...the CHOICES we make...

Yeah, I like most of the people in this board, but I don't want to be slathered with peanut butter and "creamed" together with any of them. So, no thanks.

Now, if Sarah Michelle Gellar were participating in this thread, I might feel differently.

Y'know, Luigi misinterpreting my sarcasm earlier has made me all paranoid. For those of you who didn't get it, the "I'm not just going bald" thing was a reference to the hair club for men ads where the president would reveal that he's "also a member."

The point is, I've donated to the CBLDF. And when I say I'm a card-carrying member, I really am. They sent me a card and I carry it in my wallet.

Also, I forgot to mention that in addition to being on the board of the CBLDF, and opening up this blog to everyone, Peter's also donated ass-loads of money to the CBLDF.

I know you already mentioned that earlier, Peter, but I think you can't mention something like that too often. I believe free speech is our most important freedom, and is the foundation upon which all of our other freedoms are built. The fact that you're on the front lines protecting it speaks volumes about you, all of it good.

Two Chinese communists, a rabbi, and an alligator walk into a gay bar.

The bartender says "Hey what is this, some kind of joke?"

Ok, it isn't funny or original but, sadly, it's the best I've got.

Bill Myers: Also, I forgot to mention that in addition to being on the board of the CBLDF, and opening up this blog to everyone, Peter's also donated ass-loads of money to the CBLDF.
Luigi Novi: For my part, I want to make clear that I never couched my disagreement with this blog entry of Peter's in terms of any accusation that he is anything but a fierce proponent of free speech. Anyone who's read his BID's would have to be a few French Fries shy of a Happy Meal to argue otherwise. :-)

Interesting story: the ambasadors of Thailand and Sri=Lanka complained to the Israeli Foreign ministry about a place called the budha Bar in Tel Aviv that has a statue of Budha which they find offensive because it is used for commercial purposes.

The foreign ministry said they can't do anything about it. The bar owner said that the Budha is used for commercial purposes.

Interesting, Micha. Of course, I can't remember the last time hordes of angry Buddhists starting fires at embassies and McDonald's over an image of Buddha.

I've always wondered how they felt about all the bars in the US that serve drinks in glasses shaped like mini-Buddhas.

Incidentally, if you want to read more about how full of sh!t the Bush administration as been, read here,.

Of course, since this interview of a retire high level CIA official aired on CBS, I'm sure it's just part of the evil Dan Rather conspiracy.