Thursday, April 22, 2010

Comedy Central Backs Down After Islamic Group's Threats Over 'South Park'


A message posted on SouthParkStudios.com
You can watch the full episode on TV Shack
From NYTimes.com:
On Thursday morning, a spokesman for Comedy Central confirmed that the network had added more bleeps to the episode than were in the cut delivered by South Park Studios, and that it was not giving permission for the episode to run on the studio’s Web site.
Matt and Trey's Statement
(via LGF)

18 comments:

  1. They should step-up... I didn't expect much from CC.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Wikipedia page about dhimmitude is interesting. I quote a piece of it (I added the bold face on part of the excerpt.):

    The associations of the word "dhimmitude" vary between users:
    <span>Bat Ye'or</span> defined dhimmitude as the condition and experience of those who are subject to dhimma, and thus not synonymous to, but rather a subset of the dhimma phenomenon: "dhimmitude [...] represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. [...] By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation."

    ReplyDelete
  3. The brouhaha around this situation has pulled far more laughs out of me than the show has. "<span>What the young man (he prefers to remain anonymous) found disgusting was the depiction of Islam’s revered Prophet Mohammed as a bear " </span>

    HAHAHAHAHAHa

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, 201 was the most unbelievable, brilliant episode!
    You can find it here:
    http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1406/201.html

    The producers prove once and again that "offending" isn't an objective, exterior thing (they don't have to show M******...). Not even an external possibility (they don't even have to be "sure" that Mo is there), it is enough that they BELIEVE that Mo is there (even if he's not).

    Here comes the most brilliant scene in the history of the "offensive" SP, offending by "not offending, just letting them to make comlete asses out themselves":

    ReplyDelete
  5. About my 3 duplicate comments above: There were messages for 3 attempts to post and then a message saying the post failed. If I hadn't exited the page to check for sure, there would have been 3 more dupicates. I have a hunch that the software is failing to handle links. Sad, because links used to work very well at this site.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Mel, I will investigate the issue on a test site with the same template.
    Do you use the linking feature in this commenting system or do you type your own html?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe I've been using the linking feature. As I recall, MSNBC recently switched to the linking feature and, before I noticed the change, I tried to use html as usual but it didn't work. Even so, before noticing the new linking feature, just putting in the url worked. I'll be glad to try that here. Here goes:

    Saudi girl 12, divorces 80-year-old husband:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36717454/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok. A workaround,

    Now I'll use the linking feature for Saudi girl 12, divorces 80-year-old husband

    ReplyDelete
  9. David, there seems to be an error in my theory. Ouch. Or, maybe it's the boldface. Anyway, next time I'll note exactly what I did and maybe have something better to report. 

    Sorry to make so much mess to clean up without moving the solution forward.

    ReplyDelete
  10. <span>David, there seems to be an error in my theory. Ouch.  Anyway, next time I'll note exactly what I did and maybe have something better to report.  
     
    Sorry to make so much mess to clean up without moving the solution forward.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  11. R€LIGION $TINKS OF MONE¥April 23, 2010 at 1:56 AM

    Thanks for the links MelM

    ReplyDelete
  12. R€LIGION $TINKS OF MONE¥April 23, 2010 at 2:10 AM

    I really enjoyed Ep.200 + 201, it´s Matt & Trey back to true form. Although the excitement did fizzle out half way through 201.

    Perhaps the best thing about this episode is that Matt and Trey have made it harder for the apologist´s of religion to be taken seriously.

    They can´t complain about the ridiculing of Mohammed when he wasn´t even depicted. He may have been hiding in a bear costume, but he wasn´t shown.

    I thought it was a clever episode, shame on Comedy Central.

    I wonder though what Tom Cruise and $cientology will make of this though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A weak season so far IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In CNN's interview... the leader of the Extremist site says he only wants to terrorize, not actually harm anyone. 

    I'm not sure what to do about this. On the one hand, I want to rub that comment in his face and just produce even more images of their fake, ridiculous, counterfeit god, Allah. Because all they said they'd do is try and scare us. And now that I know that, I don't have to fear any real action.

    But then on the other hand... I've seen what Islamists do when they "terrorize" they bomb the shit out of you or stab you to death in the street.

    But whatever happened to the American mantra "If we don't... the terrorists win."? The terrorists are winning people! We can't allow that!

    I would love a law that allowed us to kill Islamists who "threaten" to "terrorize" us. Because as of now, the use of the word "terrorize" by Islamists has always and only meant "murder" so can't we just admit that, and arrest or kill off any Islamists who terrorizes?

    I don't believe threats from Islamists should be covered under free speech as their speech is always followed by killing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As attila says: '<span>it is enough that they BELIEVE that Mo is there (even if he's not).'</span>
    <span></span>From now they can use the censorsign instead of mohammed.

    Brilliant..

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maybe its time to make a clear distinction between free speech and the random shouting of nonsense. I fail to see how terrorising people with threats has to fall under any type of protection. It isn't helping, it isn't a normal mode of communicaiton, it doesn't solicit conversation or debate, it isn't informative and, worst of al, it isn't opinion. 
    If, by any chance I missed the memo and threats turn out to be opinions indeed, then by all means, I pay a 1000 Euro's for any type of extremists head. On a stick. But that's just my opinion ofcourse...

    ReplyDelete
  17. <span>Enough it's enough it's enough. All </span><span>non believers need to unite their voices and demand a universal (national + UN) law against religion based violence: condoning, inciting to, justifying or exerting violence in the name of religion is a crime against humanity. And making available publicly anyone's personal data without his or her permission, a felony.</span>

    ReplyDelete