You know, with so many people angered over the perceived corporate cowardice of Comedy Central, and the assertion that being worried over violent response is having a chilling effect on free expression, and how terrible it all is, and how someone should do something…
Here’s a thought. If you want to make a point about rights of free expression and standing firm in the face of potential negative reaction, here’s what you can do:
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 “ņìggër.” Say it loud. Say it proud. This was an Oscar-nominated winner of the Cannes Film Festival. Hit the word “ņìggër” particularly hard. Be firece. Be convincing.
See how that works out for you.
If you’re black, then you be the organizer. Find a white guy to be the guinea pig (how difficult could that be), and then try to convince bystanders that he’s just exercising free speech in the interest of political commentary.
What’s that, you say? You’re afraid you’ll get the crap kicked out of you? Your face bloodied? Your car destroyed? Well…yes. That’s a valid concern. And as the doctor is putting you back together or the mechanic is surveying the damage, they’ll ask you what happened, and you tell them, and if they say anything other than “Were you OUT of your MIND?” then what’s left of you can call the experiment a success. 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.
While everyone’s busy sneering at newspapers or TV stations for being gutless, let’s remember that it is considered completely standard, acceptable and even–dare I say it–racially sensitive in every positive sense for people to say “the n-word” rather than “ņìggër.” Be honest: I’m saying it here, and your reaction, whoever you are, is to flinch or get angry. I’m using it to make a point, but it won’t surprise me if it gets angry letters to my publishers declaring, “Peter David wrote something that upset me! I’m never going to buy any of his books again, and you shouldn’t publish him!”
Because reprisals comes in all shapes and all sizes.
PAD
• 
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 dûmbášš 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 dámņëd 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 hëll 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 šhìŧ. 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 “šhìŧ” episode had words that weren’t “šhìŧ” 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 dámņ 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 šhìŧ. 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 šhìŧ was okey dokey. You example would only apply if, say, they ALLOWED all profanity but bleeped out “gøddámņ” 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 šhìŧ 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 šhìŧ 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 šhìŧ 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 pìššëd øff 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 pìššëd øff 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 šhìŧ. 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 pìšš øff 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 pìššëš øff 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 SHÍT 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 hëll 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 jáçkášš 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 bášŧárdš 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 šhìŧ 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 dámņ 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.