Different cultures is not about food that is a bit more spicy or that smells different. There are real differences that, even though they may not be important for you, are important for many people in the world.
We are no longer living in places with closed borders - this stuff is now global. South Park is global entertainment, it's not American entertainment. Respect other cultures, particularly with things that cause no hurt to anyone else.
If you are against FGM as a cultural practise, I can understand that. It causes harm to other people. But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this.
> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this."
I see great actual and potential harm, not to mention you don't know the effect before expressing/airing this to know it can be nothing but negative, such knowledge is impossible for any man to have, thats the point of the first amendment to the US constitution, and last I checked southpark was made there.
You could have made the same argument about "Life of Brian", whats the point of ridiculing jesus after all?
The result of that movie has been harmful?
Thats not the case at all for me, "Life of Brian" is a very important movie for me, and so is southpark.
What about all the muslims who could enjoy poking fun at Mohammed? How is it that their view is any less valid? Arguing for self-censorship legitimizes and treats muslims as a unified group, identified by voices of extremism.
You delegate to them the task of identifying what is harmful and offensive, and once you've done that, it can be anything.
A cartoon in an obscure danish newspaper.
A 15 minute movie made in the netherlands.
What children call a teddy bear in a classroom in Uganda.
What southpark decides to do.
This is a capitulation that erodes freedom of speech.
Is abstaining from calling a person a "nigger" eroding freedom of speech? No, it's simply a sign that you recognize that it will cause another person distress.
Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech, because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed. And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people.
> "Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech"
Actually it absolutely is, specially when these depictions have been accompanied by campaigns of intimidation, violence
and even murder.
> "because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed."
Freedom of speech has existed long before Islam, but precedence has absolutely no currency here.
> "And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people."
Actually thats not the case at all, as I pointed on another post in this thread this is a tenet of Sunni, but not Shi'a muslims, several million of that billion don't see it as sin.
And if they are offended so be it - there are no guarantees you won't be offended in this world, whats unacceptable is bullying and coercion aimed at chilling and eroding freedom of speech.
But surely you understand that making fun of somebody else god is not eroding freedom of speech. Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason.
There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about.
This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion, and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment. The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors.
If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason.
> "Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason."
Actually it doesn't have anything to do with them, if they are offended its because they chose to watch, I did not force them to.
And what are these people you want to protect that they can't take an offensive world. I can, if they can't thats their problem, I won't limit what I say - these campaigns of intimidation also involve mere criticism of people that bare some similarities to Mohammed (see Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which is actually not about Mohammed).
> "There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about."
We're talking about private citizens who chose to make a movie here, this isn't a corporate environment, the southpark creators are not bound by any contract that they willingly signed that states they must curb their offensiveness to particular groups.
[edit: actually they signed something with comedy central surely, but thats an internal affair for them, this has been released to the public now]
> "This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion"
Alternative to what? That doesn't even make sense, you were just mentioning, as if it had any weight, the fact they are 1 billion+
> "and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment."
You don't know that, you're speculating, but you know what, I'll concede that a lot of it can be that.
Theres also a lot of anti-catholic sentiment, a LOT of anti-atheist sentiment, etc.
I believe freedom of speech covers hate speech as well.
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters" - Rosa Luxemburg.
> "The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors."
Actually I will stand up against stupid australian censorship and criticize it. One doesn't preclude the other.
> "If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason."
Actually I think the place that needs freedom of speech the most in the world right now is the muslim world, and we should lead by example, and yes, the example of mocking, and iconoclasm. And I know muslims out there that agree with that position.
What about "hate speech"? This is forbidden by the laws of the U.S.
The U.S is not an "everything goes" place where you can say what you want. The only difference is that some things are culturally inacceptible to say, and so are protected by the law, and some other things are not.
There is a lot of religous fervour behind these anti Islamic-culture movements, and a lot of it has little to do with free speech. A lot of it is mostly just religion.
That's what's so terrible about this - it comes across as a bigoted religous argument, and not as a defense for free speech. Look at the way people vote down anything mildly pro the other side and vote up comments that are just anti-islam. That's not about free speech, it's about intolerance for another religion.
I'm not asking for a law against showing the prophet on TV. I'm asking that this aspect of muslim culture be respected, just as words with slave origins are not used on TV.
All I want is that we all just respect each other and not mock each other.
> "What about "hate speech"? This is forbidden by the laws of the U.S."
I'm not an american citizen, my opinion is that hate laws shouldn't exist. And most certainly not any law protecting against blasphemy of any sort - glad we agree there.
> "There is a lot of religous fervour behind these anti Islamic-culture movements, and a lot of it has little to do with free speech. A lot of it is mostly just religion."
Oh I couldn't agree more, theres a lot of religious bigotry in this world.
I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion, why should matt and trey self-censorship? Are you afraid they might be interpreted as being religious bigots? What if they secretly are? It just doesn't matter.
> "Islamic-culture movements"
Again, not all muslims think portraying the prophet is a sin, as far as I know (which isn't that far, I'm no religious scholar) all Shia sects don't see it as so.
> "Look at the way people vote down anything mildly pro the other side and vote up comments that are just anti-islam."
I'm upvoting anything I see as a defense of freedom of speech, and maybe I'm upvoting comments that have been upvoted by bigots, I can't help if they are on the right side (in my opinion) for the wrong reasons, I won't stop making my argument just because people with horrible intent agree with it for the wrong reasons.
> "I'm asking that this aspect of muslim culture be respected, just as words with slave origins are not used on TV."
Actually they quite frequently are.
Maybe the frequent is there cause I mostly watch HBO.
> "All I want is that we all just respect each other and not mock each other."
I share that sentiment, I truly do.
But I'm not willing to compromise and capitulate my freedom of speech to respect other people's (in my opinion) nonsensical and fetishistic beliefs.
I won't do it for christians, jains, buddhists, jews, muslims. Thats equality - you earlier spoke of double standards, I strive not to have them :)
And if you really think this isn't an erosion of freedom you just aren't following this subject, there are people who are living under death threats for writing novels, and I'm not talking about the countries that have it inscribed under sharia law, I'm talking about western nations, look around the examples are plentiful - and this makes me want to do is show the prophet more, not less, not as a provocation but as a statement of freedom and civilization.
You may think that cultural impact has no borders but certainly one thing has borders: the countries and laws respected inside them.
Your country respects one's life no matter whether he hurt somebody's feelings or not. It is a sane system of values, right? We're so used to these ideas that we assume all people in the world, except of some insane margin, are using the same ideas. But the problem is: they're not. Now those folks are saying publicly that they will take an criminal act by killing somebody who offended them and that act will be ok from the pov of some barbaric ideology. Does it comply with your country's general ideas?
Do you want to life in a country with American-like law or rather Shariat law, which legalizes and encourages killing a woman by her family because they didn't accept her partner?
C'mon people, read some stuff about who you're talking about. Look at what's happening in Europe for instance.
Those are not 'laws'. The people who kill anyone else for whatever reason will face the laws of the land and have to deal with whatever punishment that entails.
Nobody is under an obligation to pay attention to another countries culture. If I am living in the Vatican, I can make a TV show showing 12 year old girls having sex with 40 year old men - it would not be against the law of the land, but it would against American culture and would not be accepted on TV. And the people who watch this would likely be enraged enough that someone may kill one of the producers.
Different cultures should be respected in their differences, particularly where it causes nobody any harm to do so.
I see plenty of harm, mainly because most religions come as a package. There's weird harmless stuff such as hurt feelings about depicting Mohammed, particular dietary practices, fasting, graven idols. And the obvious answer for that is "If you want to believe weird shit, go ahead".
But that's the thin end of the wedge for lots of really insidious nasty behavior like oppressing women or other religons, flogging, FGM, MGM, honour killings, forced marriage, brainwashing, suicide bombers, stonings, stabbing people who criticise you (or stalking them and suing them into oblivion), beating up gay people.
You can't preach respect while that sort of nasty intolerant stuff is going on, and "It's our culture" doesn't hold any weight with me. Violence and oppression are violence and oppression, whether you have a religious excuse or not.
The problem is that if you "show respect" to a culture that threatens to kill you if you do not "show respect" then it's not clear to outsiders whether you are genuinely respectful, or just scared. Sometimes this won't even be clear to you yourself. That's when it's called a "chilling effect".
That's a ridiculous and dangerous argument. We're talking about a group of people threatening violence. Implicit in your concern for said group's feelings is the assumption that religious motives are sufficient grounds for retaliation. I think that notion is to be resisted.
Let's take the context of Islam away and follow the analogy. Suppose me and a bunch of friends of mine were deeply offended by UML diagrams. I think it's obvious you would not grant me the right to physically retaliate against anyone who drew them. Why is it that you would in this case?
No, violence is justified only in extreme circumstances. There are no victims here and freedom of expression should be upheld. It is almost embarrassing to debate it.
I'm not concerned about the group that threatens violence. Obviously they should not do this, and the country that they are in makes this against the law.
I am saying that South Park should have respected the culture initially enough to not show this.
Imagine that you were deeply offended by UML diagrams. If I come into a company you are working at, and then draw a cartoon showing you hand in hand with UML diagrams, then all I am doing is offending you to no gain to myself.
Obviously, I do not advocate you should retaliate. But I should never have done this in the first place - out of respect for you.
If you respect this, it will be an example for more to come. How about prohibiting alcohol production? Since it is forbidden by Islam and its consumption does not have much positive effect on the society.
That argument does not work. What this is equivalent to is the U.S passing a law in the U.S saying that Saudi Arabia should start serving Alcohol.
The prophet comes from Islam. Without Islam, there would be no prophet. If you are going to use this figure, then I believe you should abide by the rules of the movement that created it, otherwise don't use it.
This is an old law that harms nobody. There is no slippery slope here.
I understand you. But there is a slippery slope. Here is an example to support my argument. Koran says that you should leave off your business every Friday for the Jumu'ah prayer:
"O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business." (Koran 62:9)
A half an hour prayer on Fridays practiced by a small group of people would harm nobody, right? I live in Turkey and I can attest that local authorities in Turkey are happy to give their employees that freedom. Besides, what is the odds that an entire brigade of firefighters turns out to be devote Muslims? http://bit.ly/bbQWcB [Google translation of a Turkish news page].
Once you start stretching the laws to hand out privileges to a group of people, more privileges and more groups with different requests will follow.
I'm afraid I have 'negative' respect for any culture (actually, we're talking about some bigoted crazies on a website) that threatens death to those who claim that a historical figure is inside a cartoon representation of a bear suit.
Glib answer: an honest desire to respect other cultures that can unfortunately degenerate into cultural relativism and soft racism.
Actually I hate lots of things in my culture. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the question to be honest.
(btw I came back to delete my original comment, because I thought it didn't contribute that much to the discussion and was verging on a flame. From my experience HN commenters seem more able than others to keep it civilised. But I was too late :))
What I'm trying to show is this: It's easy to see the flaws in another person or another culture, but it's much more difficult to see it in your own.
Everybody has their own weird things that are annoying to other people. But when you're going to criticize others, first look at yourself, and see your own flaws. If you cannot see your own flaws, then do you really think it is because you do not have any?
you are walking down the road. you see a women being raped. do you call him evil out of sheer compassion for the woman or do you sit back and think may that's not wrong. i have sexual thoughts sometimes so may be i ought to correct myself first before i comment on the rightness or wrongness of the rapist. lets face it muhammad is not god's prophet. i will not offer any arguments for it other than the quote "mythology is the disease of language". judged purely from his actions he is NOT an example we ought to follow. i think euler or beethoven are a far better candidates for a role model.
I don't think anyone is trying to convert you to Islam, and whatever your thoughts on other religions, I believe that we should all show respect to the believes of other people.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh"
Statements like this do not demonstrate respect for the beliefs of other people - therefore those who subscribe to them do not engender respect.
Are some Muslims really so insecure that they think other peoples' ideas can shake their faith? Isn't that the point of having faith in something, that you believe in it regardless of what anyone else says or does?
@maxklein Well, thanks for making a snap judgement that I'm being a hypocrite, without having the information to suggest that's the case! No doubt I'm a hypocrite in some way or other, but nonetheless I do believe in freedom of speech. And I don't think certain beliefs should be protected from ridicule because they're religious.
We are no longer living in places with closed borders - this stuff is now global. South Park is global entertainment, it's not American entertainment. Respect other cultures, particularly with things that cause no hurt to anyone else.
If you are against FGM as a cultural practise, I can understand that. It causes harm to other people. But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this.