1. First, to put the issue in perspective: over the run of the series there have been 5 South Park episodes to deal with images of Muhammad (saaws). The first came out before the Danish cartoon controversy and was irreverent but still basically positive. (Muhammad along with other major religious figures were part of a superhero team called the Super Best Friends which fought against the suicide cult of Blainetology.)
2. The other 4 episodes (two 2-part stories) were written after the Danish cartoon controversy. And even though controversies around depicting the prophet Muhammad formed a central element of both plots, neither story actually showed Muhammad on-screen.
3. Let me emphasize: The recent South Park episode (both as originally intended by the South Park creators and after Comedy Central chose to modify the episode) never included images of Muhammad in the first place. If Comedy Central was purely concerned for the safety of their employees they could have emphasized this fact in some kind of disclaimer and pointed out that they actually didn't break the taboo regarding images of the prophet. Instead they decided to draw attention to the episode by bleeping out every mention of the name of Muhammad and then extensively censoring an entire speech (on free speech no less) which didn't even include Muhammad's name.
4. The New York-based Revolution Muslim (the "radical" Islamic group serving as catalyst for the current controversy) never actually threatened the creators of South Park or the staff at Comedy Central.
Their actual message reads:
5. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR has apparently suggested that Revolution Muslim is part of a conspiracy to make Muslims look bad. I wouldn't necessarily go that far but I have noticed that the only members/spokespeople from the group which I've seen on tv or online have been young white converts (mostly Jewish) and I can imagine how they might feel extra pressure to prove their Islam by adopting radical positions.
6. It is also important to view this issue in a larger context. There is not a simple dichotomy between a "free" Western world and a non-free Muslim world. We should note the "sacred cows" which exist in the West and the constraints on speech.
7. In previous posts I've already mentioned how Comcast quietly censors some of the content it provides to subscribers or how the corporate media in general doesn't always give important stories the attention they deserve.
8. And in Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, Chomsky actually argues that in the US full freedom of speech isn't really achieved until the late 1960s or the early 1970s. Before then, laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Smith Act put limits on even peaceful speech. For example, Eugene V. Debs spent 10 years in jail for speaking out against the Wilson administration.
Even the famous "clear and present danger" test was really more a matter of the glass being half-empty. The test comes from the case Schenck v. United States. The ruling from this case is also the origin of the statement "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." But what most people (myself included) don't always realize about this case is that in it, the Supreme Court actually upholds the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing leaflets against the draft. In other words, merely expressing the political opinion "Hey, maybe the government shouldn't draft its citizens" was viewed as the clear and present danger.
It wasn't until 1964 that the Alien and Sedition Acts were explicitly ruled as unconstitutional. And it wasn't until 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. (btw, this is a line that Revolution Muslim is careful not to cross.)
9. In Europe, of course, one of the sacred cows is the Holocaust and so many European countries make compromises with freedom of speech through laws against Holocaust denial.
10. My point with the last few items is just that every society (including the West) is struggling with free speech and its limits and in no society is the right to free speech pure and absolute. Even in the West, we are moving along a continuum and the most we can say is "this is where we are".
Alt.Muslim: South Park and the freedom to blaspheme By Aziz Poonawalla
TAM: South Park Cartoon and the Muslim Lunatic Fringe by Sheila Musaji
No freak-out over South Park by Zahed Amanullah
On the Danish cartoons from a while back: the dirty dozen
2. The other 4 episodes (two 2-part stories) were written after the Danish cartoon controversy. And even though controversies around depicting the prophet Muhammad formed a central element of both plots, neither story actually showed Muhammad on-screen.
3. Let me emphasize: The recent South Park episode (both as originally intended by the South Park creators and after Comedy Central chose to modify the episode) never included images of Muhammad in the first place. If Comedy Central was purely concerned for the safety of their employees they could have emphasized this fact in some kind of disclaimer and pointed out that they actually didn't break the taboo regarding images of the prophet. Instead they decided to draw attention to the episode by bleeping out every mention of the name of Muhammad and then extensively censoring an entire speech (on free speech no less) which didn't even include Muhammad's name.
4. The New York-based Revolution Muslim (the "radical" Islamic group serving as catalyst for the current controversy) never actually threatened the creators of South Park or the staff at Comedy Central.
Their actual message reads:
We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.
5. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR has apparently suggested that Revolution Muslim is part of a conspiracy to make Muslims look bad. I wouldn't necessarily go that far but I have noticed that the only members/spokespeople from the group which I've seen on tv or online have been young white converts (mostly Jewish) and I can imagine how they might feel extra pressure to prove their Islam by adopting radical positions.
6. It is also important to view this issue in a larger context. There is not a simple dichotomy between a "free" Western world and a non-free Muslim world. We should note the "sacred cows" which exist in the West and the constraints on speech.
7. In previous posts I've already mentioned how Comcast quietly censors some of the content it provides to subscribers or how the corporate media in general doesn't always give important stories the attention they deserve.
8. And in Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, Chomsky actually argues that in the US full freedom of speech isn't really achieved until the late 1960s or the early 1970s. Before then, laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Smith Act put limits on even peaceful speech. For example, Eugene V. Debs spent 10 years in jail for speaking out against the Wilson administration.
Even the famous "clear and present danger" test was really more a matter of the glass being half-empty. The test comes from the case Schenck v. United States. The ruling from this case is also the origin of the statement "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." But what most people (myself included) don't always realize about this case is that in it, the Supreme Court actually upholds the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing leaflets against the draft. In other words, merely expressing the political opinion "Hey, maybe the government shouldn't draft its citizens" was viewed as the clear and present danger.
It wasn't until 1964 that the Alien and Sedition Acts were explicitly ruled as unconstitutional. And it wasn't until 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. (btw, this is a line that Revolution Muslim is careful not to cross.)
9. In Europe, of course, one of the sacred cows is the Holocaust and so many European countries make compromises with freedom of speech through laws against Holocaust denial.
10. My point with the last few items is just that every society (including the West) is struggling with free speech and its limits and in no society is the right to free speech pure and absolute. Even in the West, we are moving along a continuum and the most we can say is "this is where we are".
Alt.Muslim: South Park and the freedom to blaspheme By Aziz Poonawalla
TAM: South Park Cartoon and the Muslim Lunatic Fringe by Sheila Musaji
No freak-out over South Park by Zahed Amanullah
On the Danish cartoons from a while back: the dirty dozen
No comments:
Post a Comment