Blog Talkback: The Censorship of South Park and Our Culture's Courage

A truer sentiment has never been expressed. I must patriotically salute GWOtaku for writing this.

The question is: where do we go from here? Will 201 stay banned indefinitely? Since Cartoon Wars mentions Muhammad by name even if they don't show him, will that be pulled next? And will 200-201 be omitted from the DVD?

I fully believe that the internet will break out into a full-scale ideological civil war if that last one happens.
 
A truly inspiring article. I just sent an e-mail to Comedy Central, urging them to put the uncensored episodes back in rotation and reminding them that caving to fear is a victory on behalf of terrorism. I know I'm only one person, but I put the word out to others through my DeviantArt page (providing a link to this article in the process), so hopefully, I won't be alone.
 
Great to see the importance of this issue emphasized. No tv network, newspaper, or citizen should have to hush their right to speak up out of fear from threats of any kind, from anyone. Comedy Central invites a darker world for everyone by giving in.

--Romey
 
...Whoa.

That's amazing. I love this. It sums up everything I ever thought about the whole issue and describes it better. GWOtaku, I salute you, on the behalf of... all those who agree, I guess. I'm not good with words. Just know that I'm amazed, okay?
 
Awesome article. Just awesome. I honestly think that the people siding with Comedy Central on this situation just doesn't understand the big, underlying problem here. If our culture gives into shady threats like this, then our culture is an easy target for manipulation.
 
I didn't actually see either episode 200 or 201, but I sent an e-mail to Comedy Central anyway. I understand wanting to keep their employees safe, but censorship is not cool (especially when it sounds like Mohammed didn't even do anything while Jesus and Buddha did do controversial things, so that's a double standard as well) and the last thing free speech needs is other groups realizing that all they have to do to get episodes pulled is threaten CC with violence. Slippery slope possibilities.
 
The fact that he included the Danish Motoons and the Yale University book more or less solidified that this man has been doing his homework and has something to say. And boy it was something worthwhile.

Could do for a better title, but that's just me. Thankfully that's only a minor quibble.
 
I think it's important to note this is not a case of censorship. Censorship implies government crackdowns, not a company giving into fear- whether it's the threat of physical violence, as here, or loss of market share through boycotts, loss of perceived quality or something like the Poke-epilepsy show (equally PR and safety, although it's gotta be more on the PR side if even screenshots are off-limits). To put it more succinctly, something like Song of the South would make money but the current Disney Company considers the risks of its release outweigh the benefits. So it should be with South Park.

The South Park brand is irreverent, tipping over all sorts of sacred cows. I think we should make it too expensive for them to give any a free pass- through boycotts if need be. Next thing you know, some militia will make threats and Jesus will be off-limits. Ok, religious watchdog groups can whine all they want but do we really want to reward the ones that make threats?
 
My complaint is that it's ISLAM that gets the preferential treatment from the network. Not an eye is batted by them when it's Christians that get bashed, but let a Muslim get upset and everyone rushes to make them happy again.

With apologies to the original:

"Better let him have it, it's not wise to upset a Muslim."

"But sir, NOBODY is a fraid of upsetting a Christian..."

"That's because Christians don't blow up buildings...Muslims have been known to do that..."
 
Well, there is more to say, so I shall get down to it.

First off, check out the latest at the South Park Studios' production blog. Their "special message" to the fans says it all.

Also, in case you missed it, The Simpsons used its chalkboard joke to stand with South Park on Sunday:

simpsonsprotest.jpg




And we must not forget Super Best Friends, of course. South Park shouldn't need DVD to be completely uncensored. I actually think that restoring 201 with the exact same censorship that it had on the air would be a travesty. Not as bad as blacklisting the episode, but pretty damn close. It's not nearly enough, but the absolute bare minimum is uncensoring South Park's dissenting moral of the day at the end. Everyone on this forum--everyone--should be behind that at the very least.

That event would be truly astonishing to me and a "civil war" would prove one-sided in our favor very quickly, of that I am sure. There are more of us than there are of them. The important thing to take away from this, of course, is that by then anger is too late. The time for that is here and now.



You know, I really appreciate your agreement. I have to say, though, that I don't think this took guts. I see the message as an obligatory one to send. It's certainly not gutsy compared to the many, many people out there in the world and throughout history that literally put themselves on the line to stand up for their rights and sometimes for their literal freedom. Compared to that, it's an extremely small thing for me or anyone else to speak the simple idea that we should not mock their sacrifice.



Well done. Thank you. I hope everyone who approves of this editorial intends to do something similar.



Well, we agree on the substance, which is great. I'll dissent with your dissent about the "censorship" term, however. Even if I concede that it's interpreted as a crackdown from big brother more often than not, its literal definition certainly applies. Merriam-Webster online describes it as "a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively." Go to dictionary.com and your definition is simply "the act or practice of censoring." And this issue is about 10,000 times more important than, say, anything 4Kids did with its programming, which has been appropriately described as "censoring" for years.

Edit: In addition the noun "censor" is defined as "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." This does not single out a Government official specifically.



A better title?! Ha! Just listen to this guy. Everybody's a critic! ;) Seriously though: thank you for the very kind words.

And thanks to everyone for the glowing support. Just remember the importance of acting on your agreement. Whatever Comedy Central does, we can speak for ourselves and govern ourselves at the very least.
______________________

Today, I received a book in the mail: Muhammad: The "Banned" Images, which as you know was referenced in the article along with with Professor Klausen's The Cartoons That Shook The World. This book includes an introduction and preface by Professor Gary Hull. The book is short at 48 pages but there is far too much material to quote at length and I'd be here forever talking about everything said in his brief introduction, much less my agreements and disagreements and the reasons behind them all (he gets into some politics & philosophy--very long story). So, I'll be content to focus in on items of interest that relate to the article.

As it turns out, there was a significant incident of book censorship that predates The Jewel of Medina. The book in question is The Satanic Verses--relax, it's a novel by British author Salman Rushdie. Wikipedia says that "The title refers to what are known as the satanic verses, a group of alleged Qur'anic verses that allowed for prayers of intercession to be made to three Pagan Meccan goddesses: Allāt, Uzza, and Manāt." This is what Amazon had to say about it:

This book was first published in 1988 and was apparently banned in India beforehand. The book was attacked. As you can read about here, in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the book. Dr. Hull quotes from it like so (emphasis his):

He goes on to describe scattered attempts to bomb bookstores, including two that actually worked in Berkeley, CA. Dr. Hull claims that some bookstores did not carry the book at all due to the Fatwa. Tragically, there is also the occasional murder: a Japanese translator of the novel in 1991 and a publisher of it in Norway in 1993.

Out of curiosity, I checked the book's availability at Borders stores in my area. Its status was "likely in store" with only the occasional exception.

Here's something odd, by the way. I referenced how The Jewel of Media was not published by Random House. The book was released by another publisher, Beaufort Books, in October 2008. Now, a paperback edition of The Satanic Verses came out in March 2008--from Random House. How does this make any sense whatsoever? I certainly don't know.

Dr. Hull also cites some bad comments made at the time of the original Danish cartoon controversy that I did not come across in the course of my research.

"Unnecessary" cartoons. Hmph.

The meat of the book is the 31 different illustrations portraying different works of art. Between the book's preface that ably discusses the short history of it all and the descriptions of each piece of art, much is said. I will try to be thorough but brief.

The book's collection "includes a variety of examples from the Ilkhanids and Safavids in Persia, the Ottoman Turns, and the Moghuls in India." By the way, in regard to the portrayal of Muhammad in history, Dr. Hull notes that "...in the accounts of his life that were collected in the centuries after his death, Muhammad was often reprsented. The conventions for doing so varied from one Muslim culture to another: sometimes his face is veild, sometimes he is enclosed in a flamelike halo, and sometimes he is simply presented as a normal human being with a normal face."

Anyhow, this post is long. Here's the quick and very abridged list.

1. French, after 1143: "Caricature of Muhammad, from a Latin translation of the Qur'an
2. French, CA. 1264: "Muhammad ascending a ladder." A description of the Night Journey, a very well known event in the prophet's life.
3. Persian (Ilkhanid), CA. 1307: "Newborn Muhammad." Described as "one of the earliest surviving Muslim manuscripts to include illustrations of Muhammad."
4. Persian (Ilkhanid), CA. 1307: "Muhammad Prohibits Interalaction."
5. Italian, CA. 1350-1375: "Virgil and Dante see Muhammad in Hell." From an illustrated manuscript created at the time Dante's Divinia Commedia was written.
6. Italian, CA. 1408-1410: Giovanni da Modena, detail of the Last Judgment.
7. French, CA. 1415-1420: "Muhammad preaching."
8. French, Ca. 1410-1412: Maitre de la Mazarine, "Muhammad lecturing about the Annunciation." An illustration for Mandeville's Travels.
9. Italian, 1480s-1490s: Sandro Boticelli, drawing for Dante's Inferno.
10. German, CA. 1481: "Muhammad Cursing the Vines." Another illustration for Travels.
11. Dutch, 1508: Lucas van Leyden, Mihammad and the Monk Sergius.
12. Persian (Safavid), 16th C.: "The Ascension of Muhammad." A depiction of the Night Journey.
13. Persian (Safavid), 1539-43: "The Ascension of Muhammad." Another depiction of the Night Journey.
14. Persian (Safavid), 1577: "Muhammad with His Companions." From Qisas al-anbiya (History of the Prophet), a collection of tales from the Qur'an.
15. Turkish, CA. 1586-1595: "Muhammad welcoming Jacob to his cave." Appearing in The Zubdet ut Tevarih, a three-volume history of the world.
16. Turkish, 16th C.: "Moses and Muhammad Conversing with the Archangel Gabriel."
17. Turkish, 1594-1595: "Muhammad and the Archangel Gabriel." Created for a "lavishly illustrated copy" of Siyer-i Nebi, described as an epic about Muhammad's life.
18. Turkish, 1594-1595: "The Battle of Badr." For Siyer-i Nebi.
19. Indian (Mughal), 17th C.: Carpet with Muhammad enthroned. Created during the Mughal Dynasty (responsible for a certain wonder called the Taj Mahal).
20. Indian (Mughal), 1686: "Ali reunied with Muhammad"
21. French, 1683: "Muhammad," from Description de l'univers. A woodcut image.
22. French, 18th C.: Zopire and Muhammad in a scene from Voltaire's Ma-homet, ou le Fanatisme.
23. Turkish, 18th C.: "Muhammad presented to the monk Abd al Muttalib and the inhabitants of Mecca."
24. British, 1824-1827: Blake, Sowers of Discord. Another Dante-related work.
25. French, 1857: Gustave Dore, "Muhammad in Hell." One of 70 illustrations created by this artist for Dante's Inferno.
26. Italian, 1860s-1890s: Domenico Morelli, The Sermon of Muhammad.
27. British, 1920: A.C. Michael, "The Flight of Muhammad to Medina." A color lithograph illustrating volume 2 of H.G. Wells' Outline of History.
28. American, CA. 1931-1936: Adolf Weinman, "Muhammad as law-giver." Part of a greater sculpture created for the U.S. Supreme Court building. Muhammad is one of eighteen lawgivers. They "range from the Egyptian Menes to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, with no distinction between religious figures such as Moses and secular figures such as Marshall." Muhammad is between Justinian and Charlemagne holding a Qur'an and a scimitar. The organization CAIR attacked this art in 1997 and failed miserably. Chief Justice Rehnquist supposedly changed some literature in response to its concerns but also said that it was unlawful to to "remove or injure" the court's architecture in Dr. Hull's words. On top of the Muhammad taboo CAIR tried to claim that the scimitar reinforced a bad stereotype; Rehnquist's response was that swords were used in architecture throughout the Supreme Court building as symbols of justice.
29. Spanish, 1951-1954: Salvador DAli, Hell Canto 29, "Les Falsificateurs." One of 101 watercolor drawings created by this artist to illustrate the Divine Comedy.
30. Danish, 2005: Jyllands-Posten, "The Face of Muhammad." This is the newspaper page with the 12 Muhammad cartoons that is all over the net and linked in the editorial. It's noteworthy that the text on the page is translated in this book. I will transcribe it another time.
31. American, 2008: Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out. A cover illustration for this 2008 book.

For many more details and a good chunk of history, you can acquire the book for yourself. It costs $9.50.
 
As promised, here is the text that appears in the middle of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper page that displayed the Danish cartoons. It's a mystery no longer! :)

The passage was written by Flemming Rose, the Culture Editor for Jyllands-Posten.

An interesting note of trivia. In his blurb for the picture of the Danish cartoon newspaper page for Muhammad: The "Banned" Images, Professor Hull notes that the Danish cartoons "...were inspired by Danish author Kare Bluitgen's complaint that he could find no one brave enough to illustrate his forthcoming biography of Muhammad, Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (The Qur'an and the Life of the Prophet Muhammad)."

Ultimately, an artist stepped forward and drew "dozens of illustrations" for the book. He or she remains anonymous to this day.
 
>sigh< Way to remind me how old I am compared to the rest of the readership of this site ;). I remember when The Satanic Verses earned Salman Rushdie his death sentence from the Ayatollah Khomeni because I was in college at the time and it was a pretty big deal. Rushdie had to go into hiding for years afterwards, and wrote a fairy tale in response (and partially to explain to his son what the hubbub was all about) that is one of my favorite books ever and which tops my list of "want to see this animated," though I know nobody will ever touch it because of the association with Rushdie.

The major difference between then and now is that the fatwa was leveled against Rushdie specifically, not his publisher, and that original publisher (I want to say Random House, but don't quote me on that) did not pull the book from shelves or censor it in any way as a result of the threat. This is in comparison to the veiled threat on RevolutionMuslim.com that posted an address for Comedy Central as well as for Parker & Stone. It actually turned into Rushdie's biggest selling book ever, I think, although after reading it I'm convinced that 90% of the people who bought it never got past the first chapter. Rushdie isn't normally easy to read, but The Satanic Verses is nearly impenetrable early on.

Bringing up The Satanic Verses also triggered a memory that I think finally solidified one thing that bugs me about this whole situation. The media covered the fatwa against Rushdie extensively, but very very few outlets ever bothered to explain the reasoning behind it. The only coverage I ever saw was in my college paper, which printed the exact excerpts that triggered the fatwa and attempted to explain their context. Those passages were completely innocuous to our eyes, had nothing at all to do with the verses described in the title, and were definitely not the ones what I thought triggered the fatwa.

At the time, one of the people in our dorm was a fairly devout Muslim who was wondering what the fuss was all about herself, so she read them. The excerpts apparently made her so upset that she shoved everyone else out of her dorm room and spent about a half hour praying. Her explanation afterwards was that the passages felt like reading vicious smears against your parents and your grandparents, multiplied by 100 and with the usual passions that come with religious beliefs, and even that felt like an inadequate description to her. The non-Muslims in the room (which was the rest of us) simply had no idea. Afterwards, none of us really changed our minds about anything, but at least we understood where the other was coming from.

I support the right of people to be insulting in speech, and of the right for people to be insulted by speech. In principle, I support Matt and Trey for their right to Free Speech, and condemn RevolutionMuslim for their threat of violence over a perceived insult and Comedy Central for their censorship. On a more practical level, though, I don't think South Park or the Danish cartoons are doing the Western world any real favors in terms of relations with the Muslim world, and in fact I think they may be actively counter-productive. Rushdie himself was familiar enough with Muslim thought to know that he was writing something that was potentially insulting, though I'm sure he had no idea that it would trigger such a strong reaction. I still don't think many of the people who defended Rushdie had any idea why people were insulted to begin with. I think South Park and the Jyllands-Posten understand that "depiction of Mohammed" is a hot-button issue for Muslims, and that they can hit that hot button to get a strong response, just as they can do it with Jesus or whatever other sacred cow they want to lampoon. South Park and the Mohammed cartoons are essentially one-way communication, and the only message they have is, "You're wrong." The implicit message they're sending is that they hold nothing sacred...but that's one of the major complaints that even many moderates in the Muslim world have about the West. So, they're being openly insulting and borderline condescending, while reinforcing many negative perceptions about us which we don't/can't even recognize as being negative.

I have to question how useful this is as communication with a sector of the world that we can't ignore and kind of have to be able to talk to for a whole bunch of reasons.

I think there are few if any people in positions of power who are as open-minded as my friend in college was and as willing to explain why this sort of thing is so insulting, and the attitudes on display make those people even less inclined to do so. CAIR shut down over South Park entirely, and while they're not calling for Matt & Trey's head on a platter, they're also not bothering to explain to anybody why it's their right to do what they did. In short, South Park lost the moderates, and while I agree with and support everything GWOtaku said, I also think that we might be winning the battle and losing the war because of things like that.
 
Back
Top