lamphorn

Grunter's misunderstanding of the show's message is of epic proportions.

The episode wasn't railing against all conventions that might curb expression. The episode's message was about the stifling of our expression out of the fear of VIOLENCE.

The cable rules that curb curse words are a voluntary agreement between advertisers and the networks, and between the networks and the shows. The reason mohammed's image was not shown on Comedy Central, virtually ALL American television, virtually ALL American newspapers and magazines, and why Borders will not stock a magazine that has them, IS FEAR OF VIOLENCE.

The show's message, Grunter, is that we must be "all or nothing" in our stance against letting TERRORISTS dictate what we can and can't say.

The agreements we make amongst ourselves about profanity are cool.. Letting clerics in Syria and Pakistan scare us into self-censorship is not.

That was the point. They are not hypocrits.

Big Boy Laroux

and the rest, paraphrasing:

Bart: "I'm pretty Bad."
Cartman: "Really, what's the worst thing you've ever done?"
Bart: "I stole the head off a statue once"
Cartman: "Wow, that IS bad. That reminds me of this one time, when I ground up a kid's parents into chili, and fed it to him."


great exchange.

grunter

Whatever.

Again, you can hairsplit the cause, but the end result is the same. Whether you cave in to fear of terrorists or fear of network reprisals, it's still a reaction to fear. The message has still changed.

That was my point.

Jimmy James

Sure it could have been. Beyond that, though -- it's certainly possible that M&T raised the idea of doing it precisely because they knew CC would object and insist on them not showing Mohammad. You can't say it didn't happen that way.

Bandoman

I can't not respond to this (how's that for a double negative?).

That's like saying that refraining from criticizing Islam out of fear of violence is the same as refraining from threatening to kill the President out of fear of prosecution. Hey, you censored yourself out of fear. Same thing, right?

BigDan

I'm sure it is easier, but I doubt that's the main reason behind Comedy Central's (and other cable networks') deciding not to allow many swear words on the air on their network (except on rare occassions).

PixyJunket

Wow, this is ridiculous to the highest level.

By grunter's "reasoning" (I use quotes as I can't help but compare his persistence to his "vision" reminds me of religious extremists) if I don't tell my boss to fuck off for fear of losing my job (also know as: COMMON SENSE) that I'm "self-censoring" myself.. because my message was "compromised." This is highly entertaining.. you can't PAY to get this kind of entertainment. Only on "the internet."

grunter

Christ, no, bando.

Again, apples and oranges.

In an artistic work, if fear of anything causes the one creating the work to change the message he hopes to impart, then the message has been compromised.

Is threatening to kill the President an artistic work? No, it's not. The comparison doesn't hold water.

Bandoman

Okay, I was trying an extreme example to make my point and the analogy didn't really hold. But where have Matt and Trey ever said that they wanted to use foul language to make a point, but had to change the message for fear of reprisal for using that language?

lotsofdvds

grunter

pixy, is it just that you doubt censorship exists at all? Why do you add the laugh smiley after each instance of use of the word? Your perception of the concept is laughably narrow. I suppose that must be it.

Again, is you're telling the boss to "fuck off" an artistic act? No.

LurkerDan

I'm self-quoting myself (with a small edit), as gauche as it is, because I still don't get this debate. These are the options, right? At least more or less? And I still don't see a single valid explanation, one that is grounded in the real world and not some pie in the sky idealism, why "a" is the wrong, or even a hypocritical, action.

lamphorn

Actually, you're comparing apples and oranges.

A network says: "We want a show that doesn't cross this line."
The producer says: "We want to give you a show, so we won't cross that line".
No fear there.

This episode was a scathing critique of America's response to the whole Danish cartoon mess. Instead of saying "Hey, those rioters are crazy. We support the Danish people's right to free expression." we said "The rioters are right! We had nothing to do with it! In fact, we won't even reprint the cartoons because of how much we agree with the rioters! Please don't blow us up or burn our embassies!! We won't offend you, oh mighty jihadists!!"

The episode was a plea for us to not give away our entire way of life to Islamic totalitarians.

Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

grunter

How am I supposed to respond to that? Do I have transcripts of ever word that's ever escaped from Matt and Trey's lips? Do I have "proof" that they ever said exactly "that they wanted to use foul language to make a point?" C'mon. You know the answer to that.

The closest anyone can get to that issue is here:

Season 5, Episode #66. "It Hits the Fan" - the episode where "shit" is uttered like 127 times in 22 minutes. If that's not a comment on the restraints imposed on language or free expression, then what is?

lamphorn

It's more of a comment on our society's hangup about profanity. But still, that wasn't the point of Cartoon Wars. Apples and oranges.

PixyJunket

Why do I add the laugh? Because some people on this forum have made the word a joke. A flat out laughable mockery of what it should mean. The wide variety and extremities of some people's "idea" of "censorship" has got to be the single most ridiculous thing ever in the history of these forums.. and I've been through The Top Bunk Saga, the guy selling anal plugs and crayons on eBay, two presidential elections and all three Star Wars prequels.

Your "vision" of the term going as far to say that writing a show using implied "censorship" for comedic effect (either by PURPOSEFULLY adding a bleep or PURPOSEFULLY covering an image) is, de facto "censorship" is certainly not the worst case.. but your adherence to it is admirable.

Basically.. if they write a line in the show as "what the BLEEP?" that is "censorship" to you but if they write "what the fudge?" it would not be? What's the difference? Neither case was the line written as "what the fuck?" yet because they made a sly implication that the word may have been there and you FALL for the trick thinking that you're having something "protected" from you.. is THAT what's driving you so batty? Where do you stop? What they write in the show, goes in the show. That's really the bottom line and if you still think there's some kind of "censorship" in there, well, nobody is going to change your mind on it. It is your "jihad," essentially.

lotsofdvds

From that episode, and the point of the whole thing:

Stan: And besides, too much use of a dirty word takes away from its... impact. We believe in free speech and all that, but... keeping a few words taboo just adds to the fun of English.

LurkerDan

And you just assume that some fear of reprisal caused Matt and Trey to change the message that they wished to impart. Upon what do you base that assumption? How do you know that the limitations placed upon them in any way shape or form changed the message they wished to impart? You know that the show was changed from what it might have been if there was no network, but you then assume that because the show was changed, the message they wished to impart was changed. Seems like a mighty big leap.

jas722

Very intresting article here: http://volokh.com/posts/1144984968.shtml

From the article it seems it wasn't written the way it appeared. They were forced to change it or Comedy Central would censor it.

I was really hoping that this was all a big joke and that next week their would be an episode featuring Mohammed.

lotsofdvds

Fox News just went apeshit over the episode, saying it was an attack on Christians.

lamphorn

P.S. the line Kyle says in the episode is "If you don't show Mohammed, then you've made a distinction between what is OK to make fun of and what isn't. Either it's all OK or none of it is. Do the right thing."

He doesn't say that all means of expression (including profanity, porn, etc) are ok or none are. He says either all SUBJECTS are ok to MAKE FUN OF, or none are.

Grunter did not even get the quote right, and totally didn't get the point of the show.

HistoryProf

uhm, perhaps it's funnier that way? Is to me anyway.....furthermore, do expect TV Guide to print "shit"?

I agree with Dan....I just don't see how anyone can call them hypocritical....they are the least hypocritical tv writers on earth.

lamphorn

Of course they don't see that this episode was a huge attack on terrorists and their totalitarian dogma and a huge PRO AMERICAN statement. Here in America, we CAN show offensive images of Jesus and Bush shitting all over each other without Christians and Bush fans rioting and burning things down and beheading people.

They also don't seem to even know what the context is. Those images were from a film by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was so consumed by cartoons they launched a cartoon attack on us.

Of course, religious kooks are religious kooks. And we've got our share here.

Red Dog

HistoryProf

which show? i'd love to see this