Mike Warren

Muhammad. Or Mohammed, if you prefer. Whichever way you spell or say the name of the prophet of Allah, know you are getting away with what Comedy Central believes should be censored.

The April 14 episode of South Park featured the prophet Muhammad, who is never actually seen since he spends the episode either hidden in a U-Haul or disguised in a bear costume. The depiction references a 2006 episode censored by Comedy Central. Ironically, that episode was satirizing the violent reaction from Muslims to a cartoon depicting Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. Even more ironically, a 2001 episode of South Park actually did depict Muhammad in a parody of “The Super Friends.”

After the airing of the episode with Muhammad in a bear costume, radical Islamist group Revolution Muslim posted on its website that the creators of South Park will “probably end up like Theo van Gogh,” the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by a radical Islamist for his film, which was critical of Islam.

As a result, Comedy Central heavily censored the April 21 follow-up episode. The network bleeped out every verbal reference to Muhammad as well as the last two minutes or so of dialogue, presumably for its criticism of Comedy Central-esque censorship. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone later posted on their studio’s website, which streams every South Park episode, that they did not have approval to stream this episode.

Comedy Central’s actions were disgraceful and cowardly. The network has every right to determine what it does and doesn’t show on its broadcast, but it certainly doesn’t shy away from letting other religious figures get far worse South Park treatments. Parker and Stone deftly pointed this out last week by showing Krishna snorting cocaine and Jesus Christ surfing Internet porn. Hear that? That’s the sound of Hindus and Christians not responding to criticism or mockery with threats of violence.

Muslims worldwide have a problem because their religion is swiftly becoming free from criticism. We aren’t arguing the merits of, say, the treatment of women or gays in Islamic republics; instead, we are stuck in a discussion about whether allowing the criticism of Islam is right, or even more crudely, whether doing so is worth it against the threat of terrorism and violence. Do we only criticize those who won’t threaten to kill us?

Moderate Islam needs to speak louder in opposition to its radical ideologies (medieval in practice but 20th century in origin), but we in the West ought to be standing up for our values. Not doing so is not only wrong, but it leaves people like van Gogh, Parker and Stone more vulnerable to violence.

In a creative and funny way, South Park, Parker and Stone have taken their stand on the side of the freedom of expression. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a 2008 IMPACT speaker who wrote the film for which van Gogh was killed, said on CNN last week, this is a freedom we have to “defend tooth and nail” against these enemies of freedom. But with friends like Comedy Central, who needs enemies?

—Mike Warren is a senior in the College of Arts and Science. He can be reached at .

Submitted by Nashstu on Tue, 04/27/:04.

Heard you on WRVU yesterday morning

A correction: Buddah was the one doing the booger sugar

And, while watching I assumed Parker and the South Park writers were simply being ironic when censoring the "moral lesson" about what we can only assume was censorship. From my perspective, I didn't see that last scene as cowering to Comedy Central, it was satire.

Submitted by Bparang on Mon, 04/26/:36.

Uninformed Columnist

Mr. Warren, you decry the radical Muslims who have lashed out at the South Park creators without providing any insight into the subject. I imagine it felt good to criticize a group of zealots everyone dislikes. It's easy, isn't it? You would have been of more value to yourself and your community if you had researched the matter and aimed to provide information to your readers. For example, in your column you write: "Muslims worldwide have a problem because their religion is swiftly becoming free from criticism. We aren’t arguing the merits of, say, the treatment of women or gays in Islamic republics; instead, we are stuck in a discussion about whether allowing the criticism of Islam is right, or even more crudely, whether doing so is worth it against the threat of terrorism and violence. Do we only criticize those who won’t threaten to kill us?" I wonder who you refer to when you say "we." There are plenty of activists and champions of women's and gay's rights who not only openly criticize Islamic countries, but also organize help efforts in those countries. Indeed, many, many people are arguing the "merits of the treatment of women or gays" in countries from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. It is your job as a columnist to inform your readers that a discussion is happening not only in this country, but in the world. And more importantly, to notify your readers they can get involved if they would like to, either by donation or activism. Two writers who come to mind. Reza Aslan, a moderate Muslim, writes about reform in Islam. And Katha Pollitt, a writer for The Nation, frequently argues for women's rights in developing countries, usually in response to religious oppression. One of her columns about President Obama's speech in Cairo last year and what it means for women's rights can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/doc//pollitt It is very easy to attack a radical group everyone agrees is a radical group with empty, stale statements. It is more difficult, and more nobler a cause, to provide insight into a complex problem and raise awareness of the discussion. I encourage you to do so. All the best, Bobak Parang

Submitted by Amwidkle on Mon, 04/26/:25.

South Park, my new favorite show

I started watching South Park again just recently, and I almost wrote on the same topic (I'm glad I didn't, you said it better than I could have). It's a really socially smart show, but Comedy Central let us down on this one. Can you believe they not only censored all references to Mohammed, but also an entire speech about fear and intimidation? We should be as uncompromising in our defense of free speech as Muslims are in defense of defamation of the prophet. Heads will roll, as they always have, but freedom isn't free. Ross Douthat wrote an interesting column in the NYT today on the same topic http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html

Login or Register to leave comments.

'South Park' censorship: Free speech fight

Heard you on WRVU yesterday morning

Uninformed Columnist

South Park, my new favorite show

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content