Is South Park Faking the Censorship?

PZ Myers thinks that Comedy Central and South Park cooked up this fake censorship story to get media attention. Is that possible? Certainly. But he doesn't have any actual evidence for this claim, which doesn't stop him from bluntly declaring, "If you think this episode is significant, you've been played." Of course, a rational person would recognize that just because he thinks this is true and it's possible that it's true doesn't mean it's true. And contrary to his assertion, it's not only "right-wing nutjobs" who are upset about. There are a lot of more liberal-minded people like me who are upset about it as well.

And if indeed they cooked the whole thing up, they're going to a fair bit of trouble to defend it. Below the fold, I'll post the full text of an email I received from Comedy Central after I sent them a message criticizing them for censoring the episode.

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the "South Park" episodes
entitled "Cartoon Wars." We appreciate your concerns about censorship
and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media,
entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.

To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment
right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and
religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to
make people laugh and perhaps, if we're lucky, even make them think in
the process.

Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite
our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not
to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion
over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public
safety in light of recent world events.

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the
obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it
weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense
and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions
cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have
on innocent individuals around the globe.

It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a
decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet
across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it
was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the
controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in
the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The
American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the
safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.

As a viewer of "South Park," you know that over the course of ten
seasons and almost 150 episodes the series has addressed all types of
sensitive, hot-button issues, religious and political, and has done so
with Comedy Central's full support in every instance, including this
one. "Cartoon Wars" contained a very important message, one that Trey
and Matt felt strongly about, as did we at the network, which is why we
gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a
portrayal of Muhammad.

In that regard, did we censor the show? Yes, we did. But if you hold
Comedy Central's 15-year track record up against any other network out
there, you'll find that we afford our talent the most creative freedom
and provide a nurturing atmosphere that challenges them to be bold and
daring and places them in a position to constantly break barriers and
push the envelope. The result has been some of the most provocative
television ever produced.

We would like nothing more than to be able to look back at this in a few
years and think that perhaps we overreacted. Unfortunately, to have
made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely
underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing
to take.

Our pledge to you, our loyal viewers, is that Comedy Central will
continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and we will
continue to push it right to the edge, using and defending the First
Amendment in the most responsible way we know how.

Sincerely,
Comedy Central Viewer Services

All a load of crap, but there you have it.

More like this

There was actually 2 times it was censored. The first time was clearly part of the story because they talked about it in the show. The second time there was just a black screen that said Comedy Central refused to air it, and then the show continued on as they the image had been placed there. It would be very odd if it had been fake. I don't think a show like South Park, which goes out of its way to push the boundaries and take the extreme positions on current event issues, would need to do that for media attention.

By the way, Myers certainly does not assert that only right-wing nutjobs who are upset about it.

Comedy Central:
" Unfortunately, to have made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing
to take."

Ben Franklin:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Maybe the end does justify the means.

By dogscratcher (not verified) on 15 Apr 2006 #permalink

RPM wrote:

You got a form letter. Afarensis posted the same thing.

Of course it was a form letter. I never imagined it was anything other than that.

Matthew wrote:

By the way, Myers certainly does not assert that only right-wing nutjobs who are upset about it.

Well, kinda sorta. He doesn't actually say that "only" right wing nutjobs are upset about it, but those are the only ones he mentions as being those he thinks have been "played". The fact that Michelle Malkin is upset about it and is a "right wing nutjob" (which I would agree is generally a fair characterization of her) doesn't mean that she's necessarily wrong on this issue. This is just a subtle version of the argumentum ad labelum, whereby one implies that if "right wing nutjobs" take position X, position X must be wrong. It's a form of poisoning the well (though I admit that I could fairly be accused of doing the same thing at times).

I think both you and PZ have some decent points. Would it have been cool if CC had not censored the ep? Sure. But, it's like, not the end of the world. There are always going to be people who chicken out. They are a private company that can control and do what they want, and while it's cool to disappointed with them for not doing it, I don't think it goes much farther than that. PZ is right that Parker and Stone live to create controversy. And in a way, the ep is even better and more interesting GIVEN that CC not only censored it, but even allowed the ep to declare them pussies for doing so. A shitting Jesus is okay, but a perfectly normal Mohammed is blocked out. THAT'S funny, and influential.

Welcome to Sharia law.

To celebrate, I'm having a nice pork dinner tomorrow night.

By Miguelito (not verified) on 15 Apr 2006 #permalink

"All a load of crap, but there you have it."

Indeed. All of the self-praise about how often Comedy Central has allowed South Park to be controversial just illustrates the hypocrisy of their self-censorship. Comedy Central has no problem insulting groups as long as they aren't fanatical terrorists. But if you torch foreign embassies and issue death threats on entire nationalities, they will become sensitive to your concerns real fast.

If anyone was ever in doubt as to whether terrorism worked, Comedy Central has just provided the answer.

My guess is that Parker and Stone proposed a much worse episode that was the one actually rejected, and then made the episode that aired. Without the appearance of censorship, the episode that aired would not be as good.

Honestly, I like much of what PZ writes, however, his opinion on the Mohammed-cartoon issue is very ingratiating.

If Christianity had some silly rule that made any image of Jesus blashphemous, he would probably be publishing images of him out of spite and the need to express free speech. It would be provocative, yes, but that's the free world we live in.

Why should Islam be treated any different?

By Miguelito (not verified) on 15 Apr 2006 #permalink

Frankly, I think PZ Myers simply doesn't take this matter as seriously as the rest of you. He presents speculation as assertion because the topic doesn't warrant the effort of making a distinction.

If you're seriously preoccupied with this childish, manufactured controversy - regardless of who was involved in manufacturing it - you're being played. It's not an underground comic, and Parker and Stone will never be allowed to do anything that doesn't promise a positive effect on the corporate bottom line.

There may have been a time when it took courage to be controversial in our society, but that was a long time ago. Controversy is just another business model now.

Udargo:

Have you seen the episode in question? Near the end, they make a pretty good and well-reasoned case for "all of it" or "none" with respect to what can be considered fair game in humour. Also, they make a great point about how Comedy Central is letting terrorists win by conceding to threats of violence.

And the Jesus-shitting-on-the-flag joke, while extremely childish and probably very offensive to the Christian right, didn't get censored. It shows complete hypocrisy on the part of Comedy Central. Some religious images need to be censored while other don't. They brilliantly made their point crystal clear on that one without having to say a word.

It may have a childish form, but its messages are usually bang-on social and political commentary.

By Miguelito (not verified) on 15 Apr 2006 #permalink

Miguelito, in the first place, this is not a censorship issue. It's not the government trying to silence a voice, it's a media corporation making a business decision about what they are going to broadcast on the channel they own - something they ultimately have every legal right to do. And you are naive if you think any decision they've made about South Park and what will be shown on South Park was ever based on anything but anticipated impact on shareholder equity. Nothing has ever appeared on South Park that a bunch of middle-aged men in suits sitting around a big table didn't approve of first, based solely on their fiduciary responsibilities to the company's shareholders.

Will the First Amendment survive if Parker and Stone are not allowed to offend Muslims with adolescent, scatological jabs at Mohammed? Oh, probably. Of all the issues surrounding free speech in this country today, isn't it sad this dorky cartoon and it's childish jokes becomes the focus of the debate?

Monty Python's Life of Brian was one of the greatest satires on religion ever. Smart, insightful, effective, ruthless and courageous. Everything I've seen on South Park "satirizing" religion rarely rises about the level of "let's depict religion and religious icons in a way that is stupid, insulting, and gross just for the fun of seeing how upset people get when we tweak their deepest beliefs."

I think it's important to recognize the difference between what Monty Python did and what South Park does. One is the reason we value freedom of speech, the other is the price we pay for freedom of speech.

I am not going to join those who insist that the key to our freedoms is defending the right of media corporations to use low-brow, lowest-common-denominator humor to attract an audience for advertisers.

Freedom of Speech requires a burden on the speaker: His intent. A person who is allowed to do any action, speak any word, without any form of check on his person or mouth, becomes an anarchist by nature of the lack of any person to stop him. Such would be extended to the principle of creating chaos and disorder in a system just to do so. Without the implicit or applied morality, no checks leads to destruction.

On the other hand, a moral can be applied by the self based on how one wishes to be treated. To act otherwise, to insist one can be a bigot or an inciter, but be angry because someone else has, is to be a hypocrite. But also, to take a hypocrite's path is to be a hypocrite to your own. If you value the aspect of free speech, and you think each person can say anything anywhere any time, you have no right to feel offended if I insulted your mother's prowess with her children. (As an example.) Some people can get offensive indeed, just to see a reaction, or how one reacts. But a person who reacts to incendiary comments with noncomments, or nonviolence, is he not "better" than the one who tries to incite? That person would control how he says, be respectful of the ideals of the other, and try in the conversation to show that one can relate without insults. Instead, one pushes free speech like a brick to the face.

BTW, PZ denies his scientist credentials by trying to make a conclusion then attempt to support it with assumption and shoehorn facts to correspond. It doesn't follow by base logic without making some blase assumptions. This is not scientific, but is in fact what creationism-advoctes do when countering evolutionary claims.

By Jaime Headden (not verified) on 15 Apr 2006 #permalink

Udargo: This is fundamentally a censorship issue, whether it's internally or externally forced. They didn't like the content of the scene for geopolitical reasons, so they forced them to change it. There were no financial motivations. Read the letter Ed posted above if you aren't so sure.

The problem is that South Park also makes valid statements. I repeat, did you watch the cartoon in question? It made very coherent, well-reasoned arguments amongst its crude animations.

And, finally, whether it's a crude cartoon or a major newspaper, they all have the right to make political and social commentary in the way they see fit. Indeed, South Park will often go where others are afraid to in pointing out the absurdities in religious faith, and in this way contributes to discussion. Their Scientology episode is a great example.

By Miguelito (not verified) on 16 Apr 2006 #permalink

My favorite part is that South Park has protrayed Mohammed in the past with no problem. In the "Super-Best-Friends" episode, he was part of Justice League type team with Jesus, Moses and others. He had flame powers to boot!

South Park uses the vulgar humor as the sweet sugar coating over the 'message pill' they usually deliver. In the Mohammed episode Cartman even admonishes - "No gay speeches Kyle" during the climatic argument with the TV executive. (Who is at one point addressed as Doug - the first name of the President of Comedy Central.)

South Park dramatizes political/social commentary with a plot, usually absurd, that carries the more serious theme underneath. Which is why they also criticize Family Guy for stringing together a series of interchangeable jokes. The whole thing is amazing.

TW

udargo wrote:

Frankly, I think PZ Myers simply doesn't take this matter as seriously as the rest of you. He presents speculation as assertion because the topic doesn't warrant the effort of making a distinction.

So it warrants the effort to make an unsupported assertion but not a supported one? Sorry, that's ridiculous.

If you're seriously preoccupied with this childish, manufactured controversy - regardless of who was involved in manufacturing it - you're being played. It's not an underground comic, and Parker and Stone will never be allowed to do anything that doesn't promise a positive effect on the corporate bottom line.

As if the distinction between an "underground" comic and a popular one has anything to do with this discussion. This is one of those irrelevant distinctions that only matter to those who need to strike a hipper-than-thou pose.

Udargo: This is fundamentally a censorship issue, whether it's internally or externally forced. They didn't like the content of the scene for geopolitical reasons, so they forced them to change it. There were no financial motivations. Read the letter Ed posted above if you aren't so sure.

You guys sure are impressed with corporate press releases. They are apparently the ultimate authority for you.

Look, I can imagine defending the Flatulence Twins as First Amendment heroes is a psychologically precarious position that would make you very defensive and rigid. So I'm not going to try to take that away from you. Yeah, South Park is at the bleeding edge of political discourse, testing the boundaries in a meaningful and important way. Sure. Whatever sells you to yourself.

There may have been a time when it took courage to be controversial in our society, but that was a long time ago. Controversy is just another business model now.

But the -freedom- to create controversy is the entire point of the episode. 'Controversy as just another business model' only exists in modern, mostly western, liberal societies. And even that is under attack by the likes of William Donohue:

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18798,00.html?rsslatest

TW

As if the distinction between an "underground" comic and a popular one has anything to do with this discussion. This is one of those irrelevant distinctions that only matter to those who need to strike a hipper-than-thou pose.

Really. Do I seem hipper than you? Hip is not even something I've aspire to be since my hairline went south. But I'll take it. I mean, that's great. I knew there was still some hip in these old bones.

Still, the point is that nothing Parker or Stone have ever done on South Park has ever taken courage or required them to take a stand against their bosses. These weekly controversies are so hackneyed and predictable it's kind of hard to see how anybody could get excited about them.

But when you're done watching Comedy Central, you might look around and realize there are some real, serious First Amendment issues confronting us today, not to mention a plethora of attacks on a variety of Constitutional rights and guarantees. It's not all about Matt and Trey and Jesus' poop.

But the -freedom- to create controversy is the entire point of the episode. 'Controversy as just another business model' only exists in modern, mostly western, liberal societies. And even that is under attack by the likes of William Donohue.

Okay.

udargo, your entire "argument" - and I'm using that term loosely - is basically this: "South Park sucks, it's not cuttinge edge and therefore none of this matters". Have you ever heard of a non sequitur? Well, you're soaking in it. I couldn't possibly care any less whether you like South Park or not, or whether you think the creators are brave (or trustworthy or thrifty for that matter). None of that has anything at all to do with the argument I've made here. You're not making an argument, you're just sneering as you haughtily sniff, "Geez, you guys laugh at South Park? How gauche." I have no patience for poseurs; go away.

I have no patience for poseurs; go away.

No, it's not a pose. I think my sense of humor really is superior to yours.

But don't let it get you down. It's going to be okay.

I just realized this is your blog. So I guess I should respect your request that I go away. I will.

Sissy.

I think someone needs to get udargo an empty wine glass...

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way.

Say, isn't that a line from the Spiderman movie?

By Troy Britain (not verified) on 16 Apr 2006 #permalink

T-shirthell.com had a perfect tshirt for you, udargo. It said:

"I used to listen to N'Sync when they were underground"

Strike a pose, there's nothing to it. Goodbye, asshole.

Surely there's a way to discuss this without having a hair trigger temper and calling people names. Sheesh.

Maybe udargo's got a point. You've got two factors working against South Park acting as some kind of fundamental testing ground for freedom of speech. First, it was not censored by the U.S. government but rather by the network who owns it (Comedy Central). Seecond, it is not satire in any historically respectable sense. South Park's only real purpose is to be offensive-- to anybody.

I don't think this is anything approaching a hair trigger. He's posted multiple comments that all amount to the same thing - "I'm so much cooler than you lame people who like South Park". I have zero patience for that kind of juvenile bullshit. I couldn't possibly care less if he doesn't like South Park, but if that's his only argument on this issue, he's gonna have to express it somewhere else. The point of this post has nothing to do with whether South Park is good or bad satire, it has to do with whether they did or did not fake the censorship of the last episode. The answer is "possibly, but there's no evidence for it." That has nothing to do with whether South Park is funny or unfunny, whether it's better or worse than Monty Python, whether it's corporate-owned or "underground", or whether it's a "fundamental testing ground" for freedom of speech (whatever that means).

Look at his last post and it's smarminess and tell me that he's here to have a discussion and not just to strike a pose. Sorry, he's just here to take his ego for a walk and get haughty with people based solely on matters of taste. He's being an asshole; I called him an asshole. It really is that simple.

Well, you know, once it has been established that we're not actually talking about promoting freedom of speech in the sense specified in the first amendment-- that is, speech protected from government censorship-- then in my opinion at least the level of importance goes way down. When we're talking about "censorship" by a private entity, it only really becomes an interesting issue if we're talking about some kind of important and effective message that needs to be heard. And I think udargo's point is that in this case, it's not. That certainly doesn't mean he thinks he's cooler than anybody else.

The point of this post has nothing to do with whether South Park is good or bad satire, it has to do with whether they did or did not fake the censorship of the last episode. The answer is "possibly, but there's no evidence for it."

Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an obligation that comments in response to a post were required to discuss only the specific point made in that post, and nothing else related to it.

Gretchen wrote:

Well, you know, once it has been established that we're not actually talking about promoting freedom of speech in the sense specified in the first amendment-- that is, speech protected from government censorship-- then in my opinion at least the level of importance goes way down. When we're talking about "censorship" by a private entity, it only really becomes an interesting issue if we're talking about some kind of important and effective message that needs to be heard. And I think udargo's point is that in this case, it's not. That certainly doesn't mean he thinks he's cooler than anybody else.

For crying out loud, read his comments. If he had just said what you said, I would never have given it a thought. I said in my post that it's not government censorship, but it's still worth condemning the network for doing and that's what I did. But that isn't what he said. He spilled paragraph after paragraph of bullshit about how lame someone else is for liking South Park and caring about it at all. That absolutely is striking a haughty pose, and his last comment bluntly admits that. Thus, he's being an asshole. And thus, he now has to be an asshole somewhere else because I simply have no patience for it.

He spilled paragraph after paragraph of bullshit about how lame someone else is for liking South Park and caring about it at all.

No, he didn't. He made the point that this is a "childish, manufactured controversy." You're confusing slamming someone for caring about South Park with slamming someone who thinks that South Park being "censored" by Comedy Central is a big deal in terms of free speech. It's one thing to appreciate a show on TV, but quite another to get your hackles raised when that show (and/or the network which runs it) are intentionally playing on your convictions about justice and free speech in order to attract attention. Is South Park doing that? It's hard to tell, but they might well be. The question is worth consideration...much more than calling someone an asshole for bringing it up, that is.

You can't possibly be reading his posts if you don't see the incredibly obvious haughty posing in it.

The fundamental problem were having here is that free speech has different levels of importance depending on who's attacking it or defending it. Thus if South Park is defending free speech and Comedy Central is attacking it, then depending on your view of either of those entities, your view of the importance of free speech is thus effected.

The question then remains: Is the free speech of those you don't respect equal to that of those you do? Or does free speech always hold the same weight? If it's importance is always the same, then a censored South Park should arouse our anger as much as the patriot act.

The issue isn't technically about free speech, at least not in a legal sense. Comedy Central is a private company and can decide what it does and doesn't put on the air. The first amendment only prevents government censorship. But there are still two primary issues that the situation raises. The first is the hypocrisy of showing things that are extremely offensive to those of one religion while suddenly becoming reticent when it offends another religion. The second is the larger context of liberty and the reality that allowing those who use threats of violence to lead us to self-censor out of fear can still have a very real effect on our freedom. My argument, in part, is that we should be consistent in our reaction to such situations. If we're going to be upset that threats of violence toward abortion clinics has caused many of them to shut down out of fear (and that may well be true), then we ought to also be upset when threats of violence cause media outlets to censor themselves to avoid offending such thugs. The other part of my argument, of course, is that just because Comedy Central has the legal right to do what they did doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. And that's what I've done, criticize them for their hypocrisy and their cowardice in this situation.

The other part of my argument, of course, is that just because Comedy Central has the legal right to do what they did doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. And that's what I've done, criticize them for their hypocrisy and their cowardice in this situation.

Tigerhawk arrived at the same conclusion:

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/04/comedy-central-and-violence-veto…

Money quote:

So I don't blame Comedy Central, or Border's Books, or the world's media organizations, for refusing to depict Mohammed out of fear of retaliation. Their job is not to defend freedom of speech, but to earn profits for their stockholders. Acting as a fiduciary, I would make the same decision. But let us not tolerate these same organizations claiming that they also support freedom of speech. They are lying when they say they do, because in order to defend freedom of speech, you have to be willing to protect speech against the inevitable threat of violence.

But I think the focus on freedom of speech is missing the larger threat. Islam is an economic/political system operating under the guise and authority of a religion. The clerics have accumulated centuries of political power and they aren't interested in sharing that now with democratic processes that have a good chance of installing secular dictators. As with communism, the clash of cultures is more about ecomomics than anything else. Or so it seems to me...

TW

But there are still two primary issues that the situation raises. The first is the hypocrisy of showing things that are extremely offensive to those of one religion while suddenly becoming reticent when it offends another religion.The second is the larger context of liberty and the reality that allowing those who use threats of violence to lead us to self-censor out of fear can still have a very real effect on our freedom. My argument, in part, is that we should be consistent in our reaction to such situations.

Regarding the second part of your argument, I would like to ask: is there no possibiliy of balance in our reaction to such situations? Instead of a hard-line "always ignore threats of violence" or "always give into threats of violence", is there no room for an analysis of the costs and benefits? I'm sure that you don't mean that threats of violence should never have an effect upon our actions; otherwise, we would be locked into the uncomfortable position of ignoring bomb threats in an effort to be consistent in our reaction to "threats of violence", or failing to take precautions if a terrorist group should claim that some group is to be their next target. (Lest someone say that a bomb threat is a more concrete threat than the possible reaction to the depiction of Muhammed, I would suggest that the response to the publication of the Danish cartoons is sufficient evidence to base an evaluation of the likely response upon).

This argument seems to be (at least, to my eyes), more about the relative cost and benefit to the self-censorship they exercised. In their letter, Comedy Central appears to argue that they believe that the potential loss of life outweighed the benefit to allowing the depiction to go forward; your comments seem to say that the potential loss of life does not ouweight the benefit of allowing the episode to be shown. Assuming I've interpreted what you've written properly, can I ask if there is a point at which you would censor the episode? Is there a potential risk that would be too great for you, personally, or is the ideal of liberty worth any cost?

Winawer wrote:

Regarding the second part of your argument, I would like to ask: is there no possibiliy of balance in our reaction to such situations? Instead of a hard-line "always ignore threats of violence" or "always give into threats of violence", is there no room for an analysis of the costs and benefits? I'm sure that you don't mean that threats of violence should never have an effect upon our actions; otherwise, we would be locked into the uncomfortable position of ignoring bomb threats in an effort to be consistent in our reaction to "threats of violence", or failing to take precautions if a terrorist group should claim that some group is to be their next target.

My argument is not that we should ignore threats of violence, it's that we cannot allow threats of violence to change our way of life or we will have rewarded the violence and, as a result, bought ourselves more threats of violence as a result. That doesn't mean you don't take precautions - you beef up your security, for example, if there's a genuine threat. But you simply cannot give up your freedom to buy security because, by giving in to threats, you only guarantee that you will get more threats.

My argument is not that we should ignore threats of violence, it's that we cannot allow threats of violence to change our way of life or we will have rewarded the violence and, as a result, bought ourselves more threats of violence as a result. That doesn't mean you don't take precautions - you beef up your security, for example, if there's a genuine threat. But you simply cannot give up your freedom to buy security because, by giving in to threats, you only guarantee that you will get more threats.

I'm sorry; I don't think that I made my argument clearly enough, so please allow me just one more attempt. Do I agree that freedom of speech / liberty / etc. is something to be valued and defended? Yes, certainly. However, the question remains, is it your assertion that loss of life that might have resulted from the depiction of Muhammed in the episode of South Park is an acceptable risk? Or if you prefer, I can rephrase the question: do you believe that the damage to our freedom is so great in this specific instance that the potential death of innocents is justified?

It's hard to think of a way to ask the question without making it sound inflammatory, but I'm genuinely interested in your response; if it's "yes", I'd appreciate it if you could explain why. Particularly, I'm having trouble understanding the way in which we permanently "give up freedom" in this case, unless the argument is a slippery slope one. I'm generally leery of slippery slope arguments, but I'll address that if it turns out to be the case.

Winawer wrote:

However, the question remains, is it your assertion that loss of life that might have resulted from the depiction of Muhammed in the episode of South Park is an acceptable risk? Or if you prefer, I can rephrase the question: do you believe that the damage to our freedom is so great in this specific instance that the potential death of innocents is justified?

It's hard to think of a way to ask the question without making it sound inflammatory, but I'm genuinely interested in your response; if it's "yes", I'd appreciate it if you could explain why. Particularly, I'm having trouble understanding the way in which we permanently "give up freedom" in this case, unless the argument is a slippery slope one. I'm generally leery of slippery slope arguments, but I'll address that if it turns out to be the case.

I'm making both a principled argument and a pragmatic one. The principled argument is simply that we should not allow ourselves to be silenced by violent thugs. The pragmatic argument is that by doing so, we will only insure that we get more threats of violence because we will have shown them that such threats will achieve their goals. The problem I have with the idea of trying to balance out the costs and benefits in each specific circumstance is that the risk of having one's headquarters blown up will always seem far more serious than the benefits. Indeed, part of the rationale that Comedy Central offered for their decision was that it was the same decision made by "virtually every single media outlet across the country." By any measure, then, the threats of violence have succeeded in intimidating most media outlets into silence even in a nation without a sizable population of Islamic radicals, a nation where freedom of speech and the press are (allegedly) considered sacrosanct. And the one thing that cowardice guarantees is that we will continue to get more threats - because they work. The other problem is that by having the majority give in on the matter, it makes those who don't easier to target. I would argue that we must present a unified front simply because it leaves the nuts without a target. Call it the "I am Spartacus" strategy.

Comedy Central's lame justification of their decision proves their utter ignorance of what's really causing all the hatred and threats against Westerners who criticize militant Islam. That willful ignorance, which seems to be shared by a large segment of US media, makes me wonder what other information they're hiding under the rug. And that question frightens me far more than the blacking-out of a small part of a juvenile cartoon show. If our media can't provide an informed discussion of world affairs -- particularly those involving indiscriminate threats against us -- then "South Park's" freedom to show Muhammed will make no difference to anyone at all.

PS: I got the same lame form-letter. I plan to fisk it on my own blog sometime today. (Admit it -- the suspense is killing you...)

The pragmatic argument is that by doing so, we will only insure that we get more threats of violence because we will have shown them that such threats will achieve their goals. The problem I have with the idea of trying to balance out the costs and benefits in each specific circumstance is that the risk of having one's headquarters blown up will always seem far more serious than the benefits. Indeed, part of the rationale that Comedy Central offered for their decision was that it was the same decision made by "virtually every single media outlet across the country." By any measure, then, the threats of violence have succeeded in intimidating most media outlets into silence even in a nation without a sizable population of Islamic radicals, a nation where freedom of speech and the press are (allegedly) considered sacrosanct.

Thank you for clarifying. I still disagree with you, for two reasons:

1). It does not follow that a choice to refrain from performing an action that may lead to violence in one instance means that we will always choose to refrain from acting, especially as the threats or actions of the "thugs" are targeted in such a way that we have no choice but to respond.

To restate your argument, as I understand it:

A. If we give in to threats of violence in this specific case, then
B. The chance of us giving in to subsequent threats of violence increases every time someone else threatens us.

It is the link between A and B that I dispute. This is indeed a slippery-slope argument, and I believe it is fallacious. It may be that this occurs a few times, but I think that historical evidence favours the belief that if the cost of giving in becomes too great, almost every individual or nation will choose to stand up and defend itself. The difficulty, of course, is in where we draw this line. We obviously disagree on that matter, which is fine to me. (Neville Chamberlain was criticized for not drawing the line sooner; George W. Bush is being criticized for continually drawing it too soon. That's the unfortunate reality of a world drawn in shades of grey).

2). The second reason is a little simpler: the United States is not the only nation affected by the actions that we are discussing. None of the violence that I'm aware of in response to the Danish cartoons took place on US soil (unless you count US airbases), and most of the people who died were not, in fact, US citizens. For that matter, most of the violence didn't even take place on Danish soil, despite the controversy's origin there. There is no reason to believe that the same would not happen if a similar sort of violence were to erupt again. If the United States and its citizens wish to be world leaders, they must take responsibility for their actions and the repercussions of those actions as they affect the entire world.

The other problem is that by having the majority give in on the matter, it makes those who don't easier to target. I would argue that we must present a unified front simply because it leaves the nuts without a target. Call it the "I am Spartacus" strategy.

Interesting idea. However, I do have to point out that most of the nobility in the "I am Spartacus" scene comes from the fact that the slaves willingly chose to offer themselves up; the scene would have been a little less stirring if Spartacus had simply shoved people out in front to die. Your strategy of presenting a united front would, I bet, seem cold comfort to someone in another country whose family member died when they were caught up in violence caused by some corporation in the US that had decided to present a "united front" that they had no wish to be a part of.

Winawer wrote:

To restate your argument, as I understand it:

A. If we give in to threats of violence in this specific case, then
B. The chance of us giving in to subsequent threats of violence increases every time someone else threatens us.

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that if we give int to threats of violence we'll get more threats of violence. It's just like a child who throws a fit in a store because you won't give him what he wants. If you reward the behavior, you guarantee that you will get more of it. If threats of violence are effective at silencing people, then we're only going to get more threats of violence whenever they want to silence us.

The second reason is a little simpler: the United States is not the only nation affected by the actions that we are discussing. None of the violence that I'm aware of in response to the Danish cartoons took place on US soil (unless you count US airbases), and most of the people who died were not, in fact, US citizens. For that matter, most of the violence didn't even take place on Danish soil, despite the controversy's origin there. There is no reason to believe that the same would not happen if a similar sort of violence were to erupt again. If the United States and its citizens wish to be world leaders, they must take responsibility for their actions and the repercussions of those actions as they affect the entire world.

This is where we completely part company. The fault for the violence that has killed people in the wake of the publishing of the Danish caricatures lies with one and only one group - the people who are committing that violence. The blame lies with the (quite literally) insane ideologues who believe that they have the right to slaughter people who offend them that are to blame, and they are the only ones who are to blame. I would no more blame the Danish newspaper, or any other media outlet who publishes them, for the brutality of those who object to them than I would blame a gay person for the insane and hateful ideology that makes Fred Phelps endorse their murder.

Your strategy of presenting a united front would, I bet, seem cold comfort to someone in another country whose family member died when they were caught up in violence caused by some corporation in the US that had decided to present a "united front" that they had no wish to be a part of.

Again, the blame lies solely with the person who commits the violence. In the wake of Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses, a fatwa was issued calling for Rushdie's death and the death of anyone who helped distribute his book. In at least one instance, a bookstore was bombed and innocent people hurt. Would you blame Rushdie for that? I would certainly hope not. The fault lies with the person brutal and evil enough to set off a bomb because they feel offended. Blame the perpetrator, not the victim.

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that if we give int to threats of violence we'll get more threats of violence. It's just like a child who throws a fit in a store because you won't give him what he wants. If you reward the behavior, you guarantee that you will get more of it. If threats of violence are effective at silencing people, then we're only going to get more threats of violence whenever they want to silence us.

Ah, I see what you mean. My apologies; I took the drift of your argument, but when I wrote it down I phrased it poorly. However, I believe the rest of my commentary on your argument in that paragraph still stands on its own: just because we rewarded the behaviour once doesn't mean that we will always reward it. If the cost of rewarding it relative to the benefit we derive from doing so becomes too great, we may choose to stop at whatever point we wish to pay the price of doing so.

You may take this and argue that we can stop the child from throwing a tantrum if we never give into it by rewarding the behaviour. You are absolutely correct. And in this case, the only cost to ignoring the tantrum is that we have to endure the screaming of the child until they realize that their behaviour is fruitless. But here the analogy grows thin, because the result of ignoring the response to the Danish cartoons was loss of life and damage to property, a cost that some (including myself) think is too high. However, I address this more below...

This is where we completely part company. The fault for the violence that has killed people in the wake of the publishing of the Danish caricatures lies with one and only one group - the people who are committing that violence. The blame lies with the (quite literally) insane ideologues who believe that they have the right to slaughter people who offend them that are to blame, and they are the only ones who are to blame. I would no more blame the Danish newspaper, or any other media outlet who publishes them, for the brutality of those who object to them than I would blame a gay person for the insane and hateful ideology that makes Fred Phelps endorse their murder.

...

The fault lies with the person brutal and evil enough to set off a bomb because they feel offended. Blame the perpetrator, not the victim.

You misunderstand me. I in no way endorse the actions of those who committed violence in response to the Danish cartoons, and I would in no way endorse the actions of those who would commit violence if Comedy Central were to depict Muhammed. Such actions are despicable, and I fully agree with you on that point. But if I have in any way led you to believe that I blame the Danish newspaper for the reaction to their cartoons, or that I would similarly blame Comedy Central, I have failed to make my point.

Let me attempt to draw an analogy to make my point a little more clear. If you are walking down the street, and you are murdered by someone, it is clearly not your fault. You are not to blame. The person who murdered you is to blame. However, should you walk up to a known murderer on the street, slap them in the face, and declare that "I refuse to give into your threats of violence", you should not be surprised when you end up in a pool of your own blood. You're still not to blame, but you performed an action that could indeed be termed "unwise".

Let's extend it a little further. Perhaps you're a fairly large, beefy fellow, and the known murderer isn't going to tangle with you. However, as a direct result of the insult that you've just delivered to him, the murderer wanders down the street and drastically shortens the life expectancy of the next 98 pound weakling he happens to stumble across. Again, you are not to blame for the murderer's actions, but your own actions might still reasonably be questioned.

You raise the example of Salman Rushdie. I see that the Wikipedia entry on Rushdie notes that he was underground for years, and still has the watchful eye of the British Secret Services as well as constant protection by bodyguards. You're right - he is not to blame for the actions of those who would attack him. But his actions have had consequences that he cannot ignore. Unfortunately, the people who might be affected in the next wave of violence instigated by something like the South Park episode do not have the luxury of the British Secret Services or the protection of bodyguards, and we cannot ignore the consequences that our actions might hold for them.

Now, these are of course just examples, drawn to illustrate a point. But I hope that the point remains: just because Comedy Central would not be to blame for the lunatics who would commit the violence does not mean that they should blindly commit themselves to the moral high ground, trumpet out a hearty "Tally ho, freedom of speech!", and damn the torpedoes. It might be that they should, but what I'm saying is that this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis: is the cost worth it? Even though we are not to blame, are we willing to accept the price that might be paid, especially if it is not to be paid by us?

If we are, then full speed ahead. But Comedy Central - if you take their words at face value, and I have seen no evidence not to - has apparently decided that the cost is indeed not worth the benefit and in this case I agree. You may disagree about their conclusion, but I defend their right to make the decision, as I believe that anyone who upholds the ideals of freedom of speech should. Freedom of speech does not mean that we must be forced to speak; with the right to exercise that freedom comes the right to not exercise it.

(Incidentally, I'm enjoying the opportunity to converse with you immensely, but if you've grown tired of the conversation just let me know. I'm wary of abusing the hospitality of your blog by overstaying my welcome).

But his actions have had consequences that he cannot ignore. Unfortunately, the people who might be affected in the next wave of violence instigated by something like the South Park episode do not have the luxury of the British Secret Services or the protection of bodyguards, and we cannot ignore the consequences that our actions might hold for them.

This paragraph shows how easily the logic of the pacifist becomes the logic of the bully: "If I kill innocent people because you wouldn't jump through my hoops, it will all be your fault, because I wouldn't have killed anyone if you had done everything I demanded." It is indeed a "slippery-slope" argument, and centuries of experience, both personal and political, show that it is valid: each time someone caves in to bullying, it makes it harder for others to resist it. Each capitulation serves to further divide those who would resist it, and isolate anyone who tries to resist. The logic of the above-quoted paragraph can be -- and, in fact, has been -- used to silence and intimidate victims of everything from sexual harassment to rape to child sexual abuse to ordinary schoolyard bullying to organized crime. Are you sure you want to be seen in such company, Winawer? Your perfunctory condemnation of violent fanatics was more convincing than others I've seen; but you're still, in effect, taking their side -- and rewarding their bullying -- by blaming their victims and critics for their actions.

You seem to think that capitulation always makes others safer; but experience and common sense show that capitulation makes bullying profitable, which means there will be more bullying, not less, which in turn means that innocent people will be more endangered, not less. Remember one of Murphy's Laws of Combat: "Anything you do can get you shot -- including doing nothing."

One more thing: Winawer's reference to "The Satanic Verses" reminds us of something many in the Western "news" media fail to mention: the violent fanatics who claim to be acting in the name of Islam are not reacting only to a handful of tasteless and rather bigoted cartoons; they are consistently trying to silence ALL critics, ALL alternative beliefs, ALL differing interpretations of their religion, and ALL forms of expression that don't unswervingly idolize them as the saints they imagine themselves to be. Remember Theo van Gogh? He was murdered for making a movie that criticized the treatment of women under Islamic law -- NOT for drawing stupid and insulting cartoons.

Oh, and van Gogh was murdered in EUROPE, not in an Islamic state. These fanatics are attacking our laws, our rights, and our ability to govern ourselves according to our values. Whose fault is that, Winawer?

Winawer wrote:

However, I believe the rest of my commentary on your argument in that paragraph still stands on its own: just because we rewarded the behaviour once doesn't mean that we will always reward it. If the cost of rewarding it relative to the benefit we derive from doing so becomes too great, we may choose to stop at whatever point we wish to pay the price of doing so.

You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we'll continue to give in, it only matters that by giving in the first time, we guarantee that there will be a second time. And a third time. And a fourth time. Giving in to violence intended to silence us guarantees that there will be more violence in the future whenever they want to silence us.

I'd like to know what your alternative is. You keep saying we should evaluate this on a case by case basis, but you've provided no standards by which to do so other than that you seem to think that if there's any possibility of an innocent person being killed by these madmen, it's not worth the risk. Should Salman Rushdie's publisher have pulled his book so that there was no risk of innocent people dying? Should magazines and newspapers around the world refuse to publish anything that might offend radical Muslims because of that risk? If it's not worth defending the right of South Park to satirize the subject, why is it worth defending a Danish newspaper's right to do so? And if it's not worth that, then why is it worth defending Salman Rushdie's right to publish his thoughts? There is no distinction between the three that is either principled or practical, so of what use is a case by case analysis if there is no way to distinguish between them? The one indisputable fact in the situation is that once you allow violence to succeed in shutting down our right to speak our minds, you are guaranteeing that you will get more violence in the future. So I would argue that even by a standard of avoiding unnecessary loss of innocent life, you are better off taking a stand right up front that you will not bow to terrorism because bowing to it means more of it. Unless, of course, you are willing to give up our freedom completely and allow them to make the world, through sheer violent will, into a place where no one may speak freely. You really can't get a little bit pregnant here. You either stand up for freedom and refuse to bow to this insane ideology, or you invite more of it.

If we are, then full speed ahead. But Comedy Central - if you take their words at face value, and I have seen no evidence not to - has apparently decided that the cost is indeed not worth the benefit and in this case I agree.

But the cost and the benefit are always the same in every situation. So all this means is that it's not worth the cost to them. But by caving in to violence, they are feeding that violence by allowing it to succeed.

You may disagree about their conclusion, but I defend their right to make the decision, as I believe that anyone who upholds the ideals of freedom of speech should. Freedom of speech does not mean that we must be forced to speak; with the right to exercise that freedom comes the right to not exercise it.

Completely irrelevant. Of course they have the right to make the decision; I also have the right to criticize their decision. I said this right up front. I haven't said anything at all about whether they have the legal right to censor the program.

Winawer writes:

If we are, then full speed ahead. But Comedy Central - if you take their words at face value, and I have seen no evidence not to - has apparently decided that the cost is indeed not worth the benefit and in this case I agree. You may disagree about their conclusion, but I defend their right to make the decision, as I believe that anyone who upholds the ideals of freedom of speech should. Freedom of speech does not mean that we must be forced to speak; with the right to exercise that freedom comes the right to not exercise it.

But they did not make the decision freely in that case. They made it only because of perceived threats of what may happen if they didn't. That's not free speech, that's censorship. Self-censorship perhaps, but still censorship. Indeed, that's the best kind of censorship from the would-be censors point of view.

If I held a pistol at my side and asked you politely if you'd please give me all your money, is it a free decision on your part to do so? The policy of appeasement only leads to further erosion of rights.

You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we'll continue to give in, it only matters that by giving in the first time, we guarantee that there will be a second time. And a third time. And a fourth time. Giving in to violence intended to silence us guarantees that there will be more violence in the future whenever they want to silence us.

As you've pointed out, these are lunatics that we are discussing. There will be violence in the future whether we give in or not. But perhaps a bit of a change of tack is required here on my part. Yes, you are right that that there will be violence in the future if we give in. But then, we accept this all the time. I suggest that you walk down the street and throw out a racial slur to the first person of an ethnic minority that you see, or tell the first woman you see that she belongs in the kitchen and not in the workplace. The threat in this case is not physical, but it is there: you'll be punished if choose to exercise free speech here. You still have the right to free speech, but would you defend someone spewing racial hatred on the street, or defend some Christian nut calling for gays to die?

There are some battles that we choose not to fight, because we don't want to or because we think the party in question is wrong. But if things go too far, we can and will choose to draw a line and fight back, so it does matter whether we continue to give in or not.

I'd like to know what your alternative is. You keep saying we should evaluate this on a case by case basis, but you've provided no standards by which to do so other than that you seem to think that if there's any possibility of an innocent person being killed by these madmen, it's not worth the risk. Should Salman Rushdie's publisher have pulled his book so that there was no risk of innocent people dying? Should magazines and newspapers around the world refuse to publish anything that might offend radical Muslims because of that risk? If it's not worth defending the right of South Park to satirize the subject, why is it worth defending a Danish newspaper's right to do so? And if it's not worth that, then why is it worth defending Salman Rushdie's right to publish his thoughts? There is no distinction between the three that is either principled or practical, so of what use is a case by case analysis if there is no way to distinguish between them?

Ed, I'm not saying that South Park shouldn't have the right to satirize them. I'm not saying that the Danish newspaper shouldn't have the right to do the same. What I'm saying is that knowing what happened to the Danish newspaper, a decision by South Park to proceed would likely lead to the death of innocents, and that they should think about what they're doing. What is it about this that you disagree with?

My alternative is easy. Everyone has the right to free speech; I just suggest that anyone who exercises it takes responsibility for their actions instead of hiding behind "Free speech! Free speech!". Even US law makes some note of this; though a person who yells "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre is not to blame for the trampling deaths that result (the people who did the trampling are technically to blame), the responsibility for what they knew would happen is still laid at their feet. If people died because South Park depicted Muhammed, I would lay the responsibility for that at their feet. But I'm not blaming them for the deaths - the blame is still attached to the people who did the killing.

And as for Salman Rushdie, given what I know about him and the book - which actually isn't much, and mostly second hand at that - I respect his actions. He wrote the book and took the consequences for it, knowing that it could possibly mean his death. I mourn for the violence that occurred around incident, but I believe that in this case it was worth it (though I would respect the families of those dead who disagreed with me).

What's the difference between Rushdie and South Park? I believe that there is one, but this is admittedly the most difficult part of my argument to make, and I don't have an easy answer as to what it is. My personal opinion is that Rushdie and others like him make a good faith effort to address problems in Islam through while South Park was just looking to make a juvenile attempt to provoke controversy for its own sake. People should not have to die because South Park felt like giving someone the finger. But this is where I argue that the reason we live in democracies is so that we as a whole can address this question.

Let me turn this around on you a bit, Ed, and demand an answer to a question similar to the ones I asked earlier: what would be justifiable, to you, for a member of your own family to die? I'm not talking about whether you would mourn them or not, obviously, because any death of someone you cared about would be terrible. And I'm not talking about blaming the madman who killed them, because I would never suggest that their murder would be all right. But what would it take for you to say "this should not have happened in the first place?" What would it take for you to say "You should have thought about your actions before you took them?" as opposed to "This was a terrible thing, but I still believe that what you did was right." Personally, I would say that South Park is not worth it, but maybe the Satanic Verses would have been. I would accept the justice of it to defend gay rights, or the rights of women, or the for our children to be taught science and not creationist nonsense, or a thousand other things. But what would you say?

If your answer is that anything it worth it, that any exercise in free speech, no matter how trivial, is a justifiable reason for someone you cared about to die, then I think that the conversation is over as that is simply not something that I will accept. But if there is a line, somewhere, for you then perhaps there's a common ground that we can meet on.

Dave S. wrote:

But they did not make the decision freely in that case. They made it only because of perceived threats of what may happen if they didn't. That's not free speech, that's censorship. Self-censorship perhaps, but still censorship. Indeed, that's the best kind of censorship from the would-be censors point of view.

Dave, take a look at what I wrote in response to Ed's comments. We self-censor all the time in response to perceived threats of what may happen if we don't. If that can be called an erosion of rights, perhaps it's a good one. Your rights end where mine begin, after all - the idea of everyone having "unlimited rights" is an impossibility.

If I held a pistol at my side and asked you politely if you'd please give me all your money, is it a free decision on your part to do so? The policy of appeasement only leads to further erosion of rights.

Your question is veering dangerously into a philosophical argument on free will, which I definitely do not want to get into here. Having to post three times in response to three different people is enough for me. :-) But I would just reiterate what I've said elsewhere - your decision to hand over the money is based on your assessment of the consequences of your actions and what those consequences mean to you and others. Are you seriously telling me that you would attack someone with a gun if they mugged you for your wallet? If you're going to respond to this post, please answer that question.

I would hand over the money to the mugger because it's not worth my life. If the choice was between allowing someone I loved to die or taking the bullet myself, I'd take the bullet and count it a fair trade. (At least, I certainly hope I would!). There are some things that I am willing to fight for, and others which I am not. I just ask that we think, collectively, about where to draw the line.

Raging Bee wrote:

The logic of the above-quoted paragraph can be -- and, in fact, has been -- used to silence and intimidate victims of everything from sexual harassment to rape to child sexual abuse to ordinary schoolyard bullying to organized crime. Are you sure you want to be seen in such company, Winawer? Your perfunctory condemnation of violent fanatics was more convincing than others I've seen; but you're still, in effect, taking their side -- and rewarding their bullying -- by blaming their victims and critics for their actions.

I'm trying to remain calm in the face of your accusations, Raging Bee, but I take offense to your implication that I would condone the sexual abuse of a child, someone's sexual harrassment or rape, or organized crime, as well as the other things you laid at my feet in your other posts. You have grossly misrepresented my arguments, and I question whether you actually read them.

I'll reiterate a couple of key points to save you the trouble of jousting with straw men.

1). I do not blame the victims. I blame the person that attacks them. I cannot state this any clearer.

2). What I am arguing for is an examination of the consequences of our actions, and the idea that we should choose our fights. People will die as a result of what we do, and I simply ask that we make sure that what they are dying for is worth what we are supposedly getting out of it. From my question over whether the freedom of speech "protected" by South Park depicting Muhammed is worth another wave of global violence, you take that I wish to see children raped in the streets.

Your "slippery slope" is another misrepresentation.

This paragraph shows how easily the logic of the pacifist becomes the logic of the bully: "If I kill innocent people because you wouldn't jump through my hoops, it will all be your fault, because I wouldn't have killed anyone if you had done everything I demanded." It is indeed a "slippery-slope" argument, and centuries of experience, both personal and political, show that it is valid: each time someone caves in to bullying, it makes it harder for others to resist it.

I have never said anything about listening to the bully. Perhaps if I rephrase your own words, you'll understand, because the logic is more like this: "I know what the bully says will happen if I don't jump through the hoops. Is what I lose by jumping worth standing still?" In the majority of cases, I would say that the answer is *yes*, it is worth standing still. I am not a pacifist; indeed, I have supported many of the military campaigns that have gone on around the world since I was born, just as I have not supported others. But I argue that battles should be fought after rational thought, not because of blind obedience to some principle or another. In the case of the Comedy Central issue, I just do not see the loss of even a single life as being justifiable so that the South Park creators can make a point, especially not one that they could make another way.

The slippery slope does not follow. Answering "no" in one case does not mean that we always have to answer "no".

Incidentally, you'll notice that it was Ed who originally brought up the Satanic Verses, not I. Please read my posts in the future before responding to them.

Winawer wrote:

I suggest that you walk down the street and throw out a racial slur to the first person of an ethnic minority that you see, or tell the first woman you see that she belongs in the kitchen and not in the workplace. The threat in this case is not physical, but it is there: you'll be punished if choose to exercise free speech here. You still have the right to free speech, but would you defend someone spewing racial hatred on the street, or defend some Christian nut calling for gays to die?

This is a terrible analogy, since the criticism of radical Islam's violent tendencies is true and justified while racial slurs are not. But even with that, yes I absolutely will defend a Christian nut for making anti-gay statements; I do so all the time no this blog. I am absolutely opposed to "hate speech" codes of all kinds, regardless of how much I may despise what someone says. Now, if they call on a specific person to die, or advocate actual murder, then that crosses the line into direct incitement of violence, a narrowly tailored exception in the law. But I'm absolutely willing to allow free speech out to the furthest limits of feasibility.

Ed, I'm not saying that South Park shouldn't have the right to satirize them. I'm not saying that the Danish newspaper shouldn't have the right to do the same. What I'm saying is that knowing what happened to the Danish newspaper, a decision by South Park to proceed would likely lead to the death of innocents, and that they should think about what they're doing. What is it about this that you disagree with?

But you don't just think they should "think about what they're doing", you've explicitly said that you agree with their decision. Which means that the only criteria you can be applying is one that says if there is a risk that the nuts will react to something by killing innocent people, then we must censor ourselves to make sure we don't upset the nuts. But by that criteria, we will have to give up our freedom completely because there is, quite literally, no limit to the things that might inflame them. Would you make the same argument if it was Christians going it? If we had roving gangs of Christians going around blowing things up whenever a skeptical book is published, would you be advocating that we stop publishing skeptical books so as not to risk innocent lives? I know you keep saying you don't advocate that, but the logical conclusion of your arguments doesn't support that claim. The only criteria you're using to argue for Comedy Central's decision is that it might have provoked the loss of innocent life and therefore they did the right thing - but that would defend each and every decision to censor on the very same basis. You can't make a universally applicable argument, but then claim only to apply it once in a while.

My alternative is easy. Everyone has the right to free speech; I just suggest that anyone who exercises it takes responsibility for their actions instead of hiding behind "Free speech! Free speech!". Even US law makes some note of this; though a person who yells "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre is not to blame for the trampling deaths that result (the people who did the trampling are technically to blame), the responsibility for what they knew would happen is still laid at their feet. If people died because South Park depicted Muhammed, I would lay the responsibility for that at their feet. But I'm not blaming them for the deaths - the blame is still attached to the people who did the killing.

This strikes me as semantic nonsense - you "lay the responsibility at their feet" but you're "not blaming them" - that's ridiculous. Of course you're blaming them. That's what laying the responsibility at their feet means. It can't possibly mean anything else. And the firehouse analogy is terrible because any violence that results would not be intentional. In this case, we've got people intentionally killing people because someone offends them and you're advocating that we stop offending them. These same people, by the way, will threaten violence on anyone who converts away from their religion. Should we have just let the Afghanis kill Abdul Rahman for apostasy so as not to inflame them and risk innocent lives? After all, it fits your criteria for a case by case analysis.

Let me turn this around on you a bit, Ed, and demand an answer to a question similar to the ones I asked earlier: what would be justifiable, to you, for a member of your own family to die? I'm not talking about whether you would mourn them or not, obviously, because any death of someone you cared about would be terrible. And I'm not talking about blaming the madman who killed them, because I would never suggest that their murder would be all right. But what would it take for you to say "this should not have happened in the first place?" What would it take for you to say "You should have thought about your actions before you took them?" as opposed to "This was a terrible thing, but I still believe that what you did was right." Personally, I would say that South Park is not worth it, but maybe the Satanic Verses would have been. I would accept the justice of it to defend gay rights, or the rights of women, or the for our children to be taught science and not creationist nonsense, or a thousand other things. But what would you say?

I would say that, again, this is a terrible analogy. This isn't a situation in which a specific person is targeted. It's not a decision that one person has to make to save the life of their own daughter and it shouldn't be made on such a highly emotional basis. Any individual person is going to do what it takes to spare the life of someone they love. But if we made political decisions based on that highly emotional criteria, we would find oursleves easily blackmailed by anyone with a gun and the nerve to use it.

What's the difference between Rushdie and South Park? I believe that there is one, but this is admittedly the most difficult part of my argument to make, and I don't have an easy answer as to what it is. My personal opinion is that Rushdie and others like him make a good faith effort to address problems in Islam through while South Park was just looking to make a juvenile attempt to provoke controversy for its own sake. People should not have to die because South Park felt like giving someone the finger.

But South Park was nowhere near as controversial or insulting as Rushdie's book. They didn't have Muhammed doing something vile. They didn't portray him as an evil person, they didn't mock him. They had him handing a helmet to someone in a football game. Totally non-controversial. Rushdie, on the other hand, included imagery of Muhammed doing all manner of vile things. And again, your only criteria for why South Park was wrong is that it might lead to the deaths of innocent people. But the Rushdie situation actually did lead to the deaths of innocent people, yet you're okay with that. This just doesn't make any sense. It isn't in any way consistent.

But this is where I argue that the reason we live in democracies is so that we as a whole can address this question.

I don't know what this means. A democracy just means a system of government where we get to vote, but not on everything. We do not get to take a vote on whether South Park gets to include a picture of Muhammed in their cartoon, nor should we be able to take such a vote.

Winawer: Ed pretty much debunked all of your arguments to my satisfaction, so I'll just address this one of yours:

We self-censor all the time in response to perceived threats of what may happen if we don't.

Wrong: we self-censor in order to avoid offending paying customers, which generally means not publishing anything that causes needless offense. In ordinary circumstances, for example, no mainstream publication would have printed those infamous Mohammed cartoons because they implicitly blamed Islam in general for the violent acts of some so-called Muslims -- in other words, they were a bit on the racist side. (Those cartoons, in fact, only appeared in right-wing-Christian rags before Jyllands-Posten reprinted them as part of a discussion of depictions of Mohammed and Islamic strictures against same.)

The "South Park" images of Mohammed were not "needless" offense: they were part of a message (satirical, of course) about an important political issue.

I do not blame the victims. I blame the person that attacks them. I cannot state this any clearer.

When you demand that we all take responsibility for how these attackers respond to our words, you flatly contradict the above statement: if I'm to blame for a terrorist's response to my words, then the terrorist is, by definition, not to blame. Your waffling about who's to blame for the killing of innocent people is, in effect, condoning the killers through faint condemnation. I'm sure the killers are grateful for your excuses -- but don't expect them to show their gratitude.

This is a terrible analogy, since the criticism of radical Islam's violent tendencies is true and justified while racial slurs are not. But even with that, yes I absolutely will defend a Christian nut for making anti-gay statements; I do so all the time no this blog. I am absolutely opposed to "hate speech" codes of all kinds, regardless of how much I may despise what someone says. Now, if they call on a specific person to die, or advocate actual murder, then that crosses the line into direct incitement of violence, a narrowly tailored exception in the law. But I'm absolutely willing to allow free speech out to the furthest limits of feasibility.

Well, I think we're pretty much done on this point, then. I live in Canada, where we have a hate speech code, and I support that code fully.

But you don't just think they should "think about what they're doing", you've explicitly said that you agree with their decision. Which means that the only criteria you can be applying is one that says if there is a risk that the nuts will react to something by killing innocent people, then we must censor ourselves to make sure we don't upset the nuts. But by that criteria, we will have to give up our freedom completely because there is, quite literally, no limit to the things that might inflame them. Would you make the same argument if it was Christians going it? If we had roving gangs of Christians going around blowing things up whenever a skeptical book is published, would you be advocating that we stop publishing skeptical books so as not to risk innocent lives? I know you keep saying you don't advocate that, but the logical conclusion of your arguments doesn't support that claim. The only criteria you're using to argue for Comedy Central's decision is that it might have provoked the loss of innocent life and therefore they did the right thing - but that would defend each and every decision to censor on the very same basis. You can't make a universally applicable argument, but then claim only to apply it once in a while.

Your analogy is terrible as well. Either the roving bands of Christians are in one of our countries, wherein they should be hunted down and arrested for murder, or they're in another country where the same argument applies as to the Islamic radicals. And if there was a group of Christian countries somewhere in the world, wherein an episode of South Park would set of a wave of violence, then yes, I would argue exactly the same thing!

And the argument about giving up our freedom entirely is nonsensical. I've made it clear that we can choose about where we draw the line. Voluntary self-censorship in some cases does not mean that we have to give up all freedoms for all time.

This strikes me as semantic nonsense - you "lay the responsibility at their feet" but you're "not blaming them" - that's ridiculous. Of course you're blaming them. That's what laying the responsibility at their feet means. It can't possibly mean anything else. And the firehouse analogy is terrible because any violence that results would not be intentional. In this case, we've got people intentionally killing people because someone offends them and you're advocating that we stop offending them.

Ed, this is not semantic nonsense. I'll re-use the example I used before: someone whose house is broken into is not to blame for that, the criminal is. But that's not a case for not installing locks on your doors. Similarly, the Danish newspaper is not to blame for the violence over its cartoons. But just because they are not to blame for the violence is not an excuse for blindly repeating the same action. The responsibility for further violence if they did it again is still theirs, because they could foresee the violence, even though they're not to blame for actual violence committed by others as a result of their actions.

Incidentally, I don't understand what's wrong with the example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie house. The US law in question (as I understand it) states that you can't yell "Fire" in a movie theatre unless you actually believe there's a fire; any deaths resulting from this would be foreseeable.

And as for your statement: "In this case, we've got people intentionally killing people because someone offends them and you're advocating that we stop offending them." Yes! I advocate that we stop offending them unless we believe that the price of offending them is worth it! I ask you, what is the alternative? Offending them just because we can, and forget about the people who will die? If you believe that the statement you made above is incorrect, that I'm wrong for saying that, then what is your belief? Do you believe the reverse, that "We've got people intentionally killing people because someone offends them, and you're advocating that we ignore that and continue offending them?"

These same people, by the way, will threaten violence on anyone who converts away from their religion. Should we have just let the Afghanis kill Abdul Rahman for apostasy so as not to inflame them and risk innocent lives? After all, it fits your criteria for a case by case analysis.

I fear we're breaking down here. What does Abdul Rahman have to do with this at all? Our governments placing pressure on Afghanistan and voicing opinions on Rahman came *after* the controversy had already begun, it didn't start the controversy! If the US government had been ignorant enough to incite Rahman to apostasy, then the example would fit and we could discuss it. But it doesn't work the other way around.

But South Park was nowhere near as controversial or insulting as Rushdie's book. They didn't have Muhammed doing something vile. They didn't portray him as an evil person, they didn't mock him. They had him handing a helmet to someone in a football game. Totally non-controversial. Rushdie, on the other hand, included imagery of Muhammed doing all manner of vile things. And again, your only criteria for why South Park was wrong is that it might lead to the deaths of innocent people. But the Rushdie situation actually did lead to the deaths of innocent people, yet you're okay with that. This just doesn't make any sense. It isn't in any way consistent.

I concede this. As I said before, most of what I know about Rushdie was from second hand sources and I never read the book, so apparently I've been misinformed. If the book was truly as insulting as you say it was, then I change my opinion - Rushdie wasn't justifiable either, then. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

As a final point, Ed, I'm afraid that this conversation is growing a little heated (besides which, this is starting to take up a bit too much of the time I should be spending on other things). So while I welcome any final thoughts you have on this matter, I don't think that I'll reply again. I've enjoyed the conversation, and I wouldn't wish to ruin that. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue!

Raging Bee wrote:

Winawer: Ed pretty much debunked all of your arguments to my satisfaction, so I'll just address this one of yours

I'm not going to bother going over again what I've already discussed, more productively, with Ed. All three people who commented on my remarks in this thread have given me plenty to think about, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. However, I would still appreciate an apology from you for your offensive implication that I condone harming a child, raping or harassing women, or would support organized crime before I leave off on this conversation.

Your analogy is terrible as well. Either the roving bands of Christians are in one of our countries, wherein they should be hunted down and arrested for murder, or they're in another country where the same argument applies as to the Islamic radicals...

Have you any clue what you're talikng about? Excuse me, but the Islamic radicals in question are most certianly NOT being hunted down -- in fact, they're being incited by some of their own governments, and are getting away with threatining, and sometimes killing, moderates who question their tantrums. The violence and threats we're seeing today predate the Mohammed cartoons by DECADES, they're internally generated, and no amount of hate-speech codes or Neville-Chamberlain-style self-censorship from the West will appease the perpetrators.

Winawer: I cannot apologize for what I have not said or done. It is you who should apologize for misrepresenting my statements. I never said that you "condone harming a child, raping or harassing women, or would support organized crime;" I said that the logic you were using to hold the 'South Park' crew and Cowardly Central responsible for someone else's (unspecified, anticipated) violent response to their cartoon, could just as easily be used to blame the victims of the other crimes I mentioned, and absolve the perpetrators of responsibility.

The logic of the above-quoted paragraph can be -- and, in fact, has been -- used to silence and intimidate victims of everything from sexual harassment to rape to child sexual abuse to ordinary schoolyard bullying to organized crime. Are you sure you want to be seen in such company, Winawer?

Perhaps you can explain, then, how I misrepresented this statement of yours.

Winawer: I've already explained the difference between what I said and what you claim I said. I admit that the line is a bit fuzzy in places, but I still believe I can stand by my statememts. The only thing for which I have to apologize, is not having a post up on my blog on Monday as I had promised. It's almost done, really, trust me...)

By the way, is anything I've said here a violation of your country's hate-speech codes? Just curious...