However, maybe the owners of a comedy channel decided, in this case, that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Or maybe they decided that by doing this censorship thing, it heightens the profile of both the show and the network and helps both equally.

 

Right, the owners or powers that be, decided that they didnt want to risk terrorist retribution.

 

Im pretty sure that the profile of the show would be the most heightened if they had actually shown Muhammad and gave the terrorists the bird.

They aren't censoring it because it offends people; that show gets tons of complaints. For example, 'scientology' followers are completely offended and super pissed about the show, the guy that did the voice of 'Chef' left the show because he was a 'scientologist'. Or the episodes about mormons, there were a lot of people offended. There are a whole lot of examples.

 

The reason it isn't airing is not because they don't want to offend people, it is because they are scared of terrorist retribution. so basically, terrorism does work when you empower it by giving into bulls*** demands. they are so terrified that they will censor their shows to accommodate demands from that group.

 

but if that's what they want to do, it's their network. they still suck for doing it.

Or the worst case scenario is they do nothing and nobody notices and they get no press for playing the anti-free speech villains. I think its all ginned up personally.

Or the worst case scenario is they do nothing and nobody notices and they get no press for playing the anti-free speech villains. I think its all ginned up personally.

 

They didnt bleep out Muhammad in the first half of the episode and people noticed.

 

In TV wars (the previous time Muhammad was going to be shown after 9/11) they never showed him and people noticed.

 

If this was the first episode and they edited for no reason perhaps it was for publicity. But the first episode didnt edit Muhammad in the bear suit, it didnt edit his name, and people noticed.

 

 

Hopefully this guy is being watched closely. He's damn near inciting violence.

 

 

Edited April 23, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

They didnt bleep out Muhammad in the first half of the episode and people noticed.

 

In TV wars (the previous time Muhammad was going to be shown after 9/11) they never showed him and people noticed.

 

If this was the first episode and they edited for no reason perhaps it was for publicity. But the first episode didnt edit Muhammad in the bear suit, it didnt edit his name, and people noticed.

 

So they didn't bleep Muhammad out in the first episode and people noticed. They did in the second and people noticed more.

 

Yeah, that doesn't smack of anything like an attention getter.

Oh I totally agree and acknowledge that this was their intent, but that doesn't mean they don't have a really good point - there are certain topics which are supposedly off limits for no good reason. Shift the example from South Park not being able to show Muhammed and replace it with the uproar over the Dutch newspaper. Still a valid argument. We (western society) keep appeasing that crap, and giving into the threats, and guess what, they "win."

On here I also agree with you.

So they didn't bleep Muhammad out in the first episode and people noticed. They did in the second and people noticed more.

 

Yeah, that doesn't smack of anything like an attention getter.

 

How do you evaluate "noticed more".

 

South Park didnt even run the episode as new and didnt run the episode at the normal playback. You had to have watched last weeks episode, to even know that it was going to be on as it was part 2.

 

I disagree completely with your statement that they edited it for attention. Especially because it was done by Comedy Central, against the wishes of Matt and Trey.

So they didn't bleep Muhammad out in the first episode and people noticed. They did in the second and people noticed more.

 

Yeah, that doesn't smack of anything like an attention getter.

 

if they showed muhammad they would get a lot more attention. there would be a big uproar. terrorists threats, leading news type stuff. so the 'censor for publicity' argument doesn't really make sense.

Edited April 23, 201015 yr by mr_genius

Or the worst case scenario is they do nothing and nobody notices and they get no press for playing the anti-free speech villains. I think its all ginned up personally.

 

 

Exactly.

Seriously though I'm getting f***ing tired of people in this country reacting to al-Qaida's playbook.

Seriously though I'm getting f***ing tired of people in this country reacting to al-Qaida's playbook.

 

in this case, it's al-Qaida calling the shots for sure. they seem to have veto rights on what can and can't be shown.

in this case, it's al-Qaida calling the shots for sure. they seem to have veto rights on what can and can't be shown.

Pretty much. I mean practically speaking, who gives a f***? One more thing to add to a long list of grievances of which some are legit political issues, and most are bulls*** that nobody cares about. This would fall into the latter.

Pretty much. I mean practically speaking, who gives a f***? One more thing to add to a long list of grievances of which some are legit political issues, and most are bulls*** that nobody cares about. This would fall into the latter.

 

Nobody, except (a a straw man, and b.) Al Queda.