Richard Malloy

Oh really?

My point is that if Comedy Central censored an episode at 9:15pm last night, sometime yesterday morning, midnight last Saturday, or back in February... it's still censorship.

And, more than that, its a very narrow form of censorship applying only to one personage and one religion on behalf of which a climate of fear has been perpetrated causing Viacom to act capriciously in this one case only. I mean, what's so scary about Tom Cruise anyway?

(Oh yeah, and the Muhammad thing's pretty bad, too.)

RoyalTea

true, but I think there's a slight difference between a production company telling the animators of a cartoon "hey, that's a bad idea - don't do that" during a brainstorming session and blacking out a scene from a finished product.

slop101

I disagree and think that there's a huge difference.

If they were allowed to use mohammad, the joke/scene/episode would have been totally different. They worked with what they had and what they actually ended up creating was not edited or compromised in any way.

grunter

"Bleeped" language isn't a compromise? How so?

jas722

I don't understand this, so if comedy central said their not allowed to use a subject and they create another episode on a different subject matter their not being censored. It seems to me that they are not allowed to do what they originally wanted prob something about the cartoons and the riots. They were forced not to do something they wanted, which seems to me is pretty straight forward to censorship.

slop101

They write and create the episode knowing there will be bleeps - huge difference.

grunter

In other words, they're tacitly accepting a form of censorship - an act, that all by itself, undermines their high-n-mighty capital-M Message about being censored themselves.

Trey and Matt set the terms - all or nothing. But of course, that's pure horseshit, since they seem perfectly willing to live with this abridgement of free expression in (nearly) every episode they've written.

pinata242

Exactly. And if the story about Comedy Central vs. M&T is true, then the exact same thing is true here. This story, this 2-parter, was never "censored". It was created in response to the network's previous decision. At no point ever during Cartoon Wars Part 1 & 2 were they expecting to show Muhammad either directly or via their Family Guy spoof. If anything they left the door open at the end of Part 1 for CC to relent and allow them in Part 2 by not "pussing out".

PixyJunket

Yikes. I hope you're still in school for that writing.

Anyway, on both counts: IT IS NOT "CENSORSHIP." Matt and Trey are under contract to deliver a show that Comedy Central will air. They are being paid to deliver what they are being asked of. If I walked up to Paramount today and asked if they would pay me to create a TV show or distribute a movie about somebody raping and killing five-year old girls (in full detail) and they denied THAT IS NOT "CENSORSHIP." That's their free right to decide what they want to pay for their TV stations or movie distribution wings to show. If they had completed the episode and COMEDY CENTRAL (not Matt and Trey) made the changes, yes, that may be considered "censorship." However, their EMPLOYER gave them a simple rule and they followed it. They followed the rule set to them by the people that give them a paycheck. Whether it's not saying "fuck" or not showing a image of Mohammad, those are the rules they've got to follow to keep their fucking jobs and their show. It is NOT "censorship."

PixyJunket

Again.. your own "fairy-tale" definition of "censorship." If it makes you happy..

pinata242

They don't have a choice! The only option they have is to break contract with Viacom and take the show elsewhere. It is up to Comedy Central to make the final call what gets shown and what doesn't. Matt and Trey can make anything they want, but that doesn't mean CC has to show it.

Would you rather they just keep it private or bring it out into the open for discussion like this one going on right now? I think they did the correct thing.

What would be even better is if next week's was a completely sanitary, family-friendly remake of a Full House episode. Just show what it would be to not have this compromise.

Edit: Pixy beat me to it.

grunter

No, pixy, you're the one with the immutable definition of what you think "censorship" means. Look up the damned definition.

"The act of examining a publication or film in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable."

Whether its objection to the Mohammed content or the language content, removing those bits of the show is CENSORING the show.

pinata242

Ahem, actually... In order to examine a publication or film, one must exist, right? Saying no to an idea and actively removing something from a finished work are two different things. As for the language, that's an FCC mandate enforced by fines. They're free to ignore it (as they have), but really there's no point.

PixyJunket

No, because the image of Mohammad nor the language was never there to begin with. They were never "removed" because they were never there. They are simply IMPLYING that these things are there and "some people" are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

grunter

You're still NOT understanding. I - and most of the others you're railing against in your posts - know that the image of Mohammed was never in the episode to begin with. This has NOTHING to do with that. Please step down off your high horse and disavow yourself of the notion that you're the only one who "got" the joke. We got it too. It just wasn't funny . . .

What I'm saying is that Trey & Matt, by not pitching their now standard preachy shit-fit about routinely bleeped, supposedly "offensive" language used on their program, are essentially hypocrites. Whether they put the bleeps in themselves (a/k/a self-censorship) or whether the network put the bleeps in (a/k/a regularl ol' censorship), it's still curbing the expression to appease some non-specific sensibility floating out there in "society" that may or may not actually exist. The expression is still altered. The expression is still changed because someone MIGHT TAKE OFFENSE.

PixyJunket

Self-censorship.

slop101

How could they remove a bit that was never there in the first place?

*edit - pixy beat me to it... again

grunter

Do you not see the humor in what you just said?

FCC fines are somehow more fearsome to free and unfettered communication than are the risk to life and limb from some religious zealot? Why obey the FCC? If free expression is the goal, why submit to the FCC? Because it might cost Matt & Trey money? How friggin' noble.

grunter

Again, you don't get it. At all.

You seem to have this block whereby you think censorship doesn't exist unless some "big bad" is doing the deletion.

Once again, Matt & Trey set the tone: all or nothing. But they're not willing to abide by their own terms. Censoring their language is perfectly fine because its easy to make $$$ from foul-mouthed 9-year olds. But "Mohommed forbid," they censor some stilted joke that tweaks religion. Then they'll scream to the rooftops about being oppressed.

All or nothing is not what they live by.

dick_grayson

I agree. If that had been the case then I doubt Comedy Central would have allowed the airing of ".....Or will Comedy Central puss out." line. Comedy Central would have nipped this in the bud way before airing.

RoyalTea

i'm not sure I understand your point.

there would be massive fine and a complete shitstorm if Matt and Trey somehow spliced raw footage of a child being raped. If they choose not to show that footage, are they hypocrites for agreeing with the FCC and fearful of their fines?

slop101

Okay, but where do you draw the line? Is it censorship because personal attacks are against the rules here? Is it censorship that keeps me from murduring people I don't like? It's not as black&white as you make it out to be.

grunter

I didn't make it out to be "black & white" - Trey and Matt did. Remember what Stan says in the episode: All or nothing.

grunter

If fear of what the FCC might do made Matt & Trey alter the way they might otherwise have told the story, then yes, they are hypocrites. They're still altering the content of their artistic expression to avoid offending some "other."

slop101

I think your taking Kyle's "all or nothing" message far more literally than it was intended.