Posted on 04/26/2010 12:24:24 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
Comedy Central, as we by now are well familiar, censored images and references to Muhammad in the latest episode of South Park. One would think that in our free society, our leaders, media and citizens would collectively stand together and defend South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Unfortunately, the situation is the reverse; the L.A. Times’ coverage of the Muslim death threats made to Parker and Stone perfectly manifests our media’s and culture’s disposition: the report does not back free speech nor denounce the censorship of the show, let alone the death threats or the Islamic theology on which they are based.
In this context, major props have to go out to Jon Stewart for backing Parker and Stone and for standing up for free speech in America. For courageously turning his back on the lib-Left’s agenda of overseeing the West’s surrender to Sharia law, he is a true Patriot.
Meanwhile, none other than Bill O’Reilly has jumped on board with our society’s dhimmis. In a recent episode of his show, he stated South Park was wrong to do the Mohammed shows and he surrendered to the forces who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh, joining those who would rather sacrifice the right to free speech than confront Sharia. His comments included the theme of what bad judgment the creators of South Park showed by engaging in behavior that could get them killed. Imagine during the time of Nazi Germany someone arguing, “Yeh those Nazis are really crazy, don’t piss them off.”
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz is part of the remaining percentage that feel Obama is treating Israel well.
O’Reilly is such a bloody idiot.
We in the Tea party are characterized as dangerous but
I never hear B.O.defend us. Instead he condescends.
He has for years been angling for an anchor job with a MSM outlet. He always lets that affect what he says.
In a nut shell ...
“Is O’Reilly too personally scared to take the right stance? Does he not understand the key issues at stake? Does his career mean more to him than the vital principle of freedom of speech or does he want to please Fox News’ Saudi masters?”
I used to watch him a lot but he became very careful in everything he said like he was some kind of diplomat. I only watch him occasionally - now he’s finito.
South Park is obnoxious.
i am a liberal and i think that comedy central was wrong to censor south park, that free speech is of paramount importance, that the muslim world shouldn’t feel that it’s God is afforded special rights that aren’t afforded the religious beliefs of others, that advocacy of violence over a cartoon is “kookoo”, AND that art that makes people react strongly is probably the most important to protect.
plus, i don’t see anyone trying to silence tea partiers. nor should they.
True.
It's also the only comedy show that puts comedy before partisanship, attacking positions from all over the spectrum--which is what good comedy is supposed to do.
I don't think good comedy is supposed to attack anyone at all.
You'd be demonstrably wrong about that. Comedy is all about attacking, mocking, criticizing or otherwise making fun of someone. Whether it's Bob Hope, George Carlin, Jack Benny, or any other big name, or any comedy movie or TV show, there's aggression at the root of all comedy.
Ever heard of satire?
you mean long-mouthed hack daddy 0’pinhead???
-Gunny G
**********
Yes, and on the other hand, I've also heard of chiding, ridicule, slander, blasphemy, mockery, badgering, personal insults, defamation, and oh... a few other nasty (and immature) things.
Answer honestly--have you EVER considered seeing a comedian or comedy movie by wondering "Is this gonna be MATURE enough for me?"
You don't like South Park--fine. But if it were the same show but aimed entirely at your ideological opposites, you'd be singing a different song.
In DURING the zot. LOL
Yes, indeed. You don't like South Park--fine. But if it were the same show but aimed entirely at your ideological opposites, you'd be singing a different song.
It's not about "like." It's about standards of decency and "good humor" vs. humor as assault and battery -- any or all of those words I just used, for defamation, ridicule, etc. -- the legal word for that qualitative factor is "malice." Malice can either mean intent to harm, or ignorance, disregard or disrespect of another.
Much satire has an absence of malice. Much satire does not. For instance, South Park's sullying the person of Jesus Christ is utterly not in keeping with normal respect for that person. I saw the clip about Mohammed. It sure appeared to me to have intent to mock and ridicule with intent to take pleasure in their defamation. So much so that it didn't even make sense to me. (A bear? Huh.)
Did I see the episode? No. Because South Park is crude and hostile, by its nature. Certainly not mature (virtuous, sensible) enough for me to invest my time in it.
Funny thing is, I'm having a very different discussion about humor in another thread, defending the General who told the story of the Taliban dude and the Jewish Merchant -- and who is unjustly taking heat for discrediting Jews as "greedy," something that joke was just not about. I guess it's humor or not humor day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.