Total Freedom of Speech (except THAT)

Alright, I admit it: I love South Park. Yes it is crude and immature at times and no, not all of its episodes are pure comedy gold. It is, in my opinion, one of the best comedy shows that has been produced in recent years. It is funny but can also carry with it some very astute social commentary (seen through the lens of satire, of course). One thing that South Park and its creators (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) should be admired for is their fairness. For them, no one is off limits for ridicule, be they fictional or factual. They have mocked celebrities, politicians (of all political stripes) and religious icons and leaders. Parker and Stone appear to be First Amendment absolutists. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution decrees that Congress may pass no law that limits the freedom of speech or the press. An absolutist (by my definition) would argue that no speech can be censored, regardless of the level of offense caused. This applies to satire, to political activists, to religious zealots. While the things they say may be offensive and degrading, their right to say it must not be compromised. I would argue that I am also a First Amendment absolutist, and would continue to be if/when I am a permanent resident of the United States. With that in mind I applaud Parker and Stone for their willingness to mock anyone or anything. Even when they have gone after people or ideas that I feel strongly about (the episodes mocking atheism being the first that spring to mind) I did not take offense at because it does me no harm to see ideas being mocked and they were very funny.

So it is with disappointment (although sadly not surprise) that I read that Parker and Stone have been threatened by Muslim extremists. Their crime? Depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. It came from a website called RevolutionMuslim.com, which has apparently posted messages in the past in support of Osama bin Laden and a holy war against the west. Now it has posted a message (which it has since taken down) saying that Parker and Stone may meet the same fate as Theo Van Gogh, "[t]he Dutch film-maker [who] was shot and stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamist angered by his film about Muslim women". The author of this post, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, claimed that the two insulted the prophet and that they should not be surprised at retaliation. He claimed that the post was not in fact a threat, but it is hard to believe considering it listed the address of one of the South Park production offices and a link to an article describing a home the creators own. No, not a threat at all, just a warning that violence and death could happen and links to where they live and work.

The episodes in question were episodes 200 and 201 respectively. Considering the milestone of 200 episodes, a number of old characters, themes and issues from previous episodes were reintroduced. One of which being the depiction of Muhammad. In the first of the two episodes Muhammad is mentioned by name but is never directly shown (his muffled voice is heard from the back of a U-Haul truck), and in the second all mentions of his name are censored as well as the character being covered by a big "censored" sign. Despite the fact that Muhammad was expressly not depicted, the threat still came.

Has South Park been criticized before for its depictions of people or religion? Absolutely. Have its creators ever been threatened with death because of their comedy cartoon prior to this? To my knowledge, never. In fact, before the 2005 Danish Cartoon controversy that sparked the initial Muhammad based episode, South Park had depicted him in an episode, as part of the League of Super Best Friends. Want proof? Here it is:

How much controversy was stirred by this episode? None. This was before the Muslim fanatics and fundamentalists decided that their religion was more important than freedom of speech, and would use violence in order to make the point. They are the only religion doing this at the moment. Christians have not threatened Parker and Stone with death for featuring Jesus surfing the internet for pornography and Buddhists have not made any threats of violence for the depiction of Buddha snorting lines of cocaine in front of children.

I will say again that freedom of speech and expression is vital for a healthy society. If we do not have objectionable ideas to argue against then we lose the ability to argue our own points well. The threat of violence should never be used to suppress creativity and speech. Just as I did with the Danish cartoonists in 2005, I fully support Parker and Stone for what they have done and for bringing up this important issue once again. Religion (as with everything else) should not be immune from criticism or ridicule.

Bigotry and Deception.

I do not know how many of you will be aware of a story from Mississippi that has made the news recently. A high school girl wanted to attend her senior prom with a date. Her date just so happened to be a girl. Yes, it was a lesbian date (one of the girls wanted to wear a tuxedo for the event as well). Does any sane person see anything wrong with two girls going to a school dance together? Frankly, if you answered "yes" to that admittedly hypothetical question I no longer value your opinion.

The people who did answer in the affirmative were the people running her school. They banned Constance McMillen and her girlfriend from the prom. A teenage rite of passage denied because she had the strength to be herself. McMillen then, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), brought a lawsuit against the school for discriminatory practices. The school's response was to cancel the prom altogether. Seriously.

This is the point of the story that really infuriates me. After a lot of pressure, they decided to allow the prom to go ahead, and told McMillen she could bring her date and wear a tuxedo. When she turned up to this event there was a grand total of seven people attending. Seven. Two of whom were said to be students with learning disabilities. Seems odd doesn't it? It gets worse. She later discovered that the majority of her senior class had attended a separate, private party (acting as a prom) on the same night, to which she was not invited. This party was organized by the parents. There are several levels on which I am disgusted regarding this story.

Firstly, the initial ban. What was so wrong with the idea of a same sex couple at the prom? I will tell you: nothing. Having a problem with homosexuality is one thing, as long as it is kept private. No public institution should be allowed to discriminate against sexuality at all. Bottom line. Secondly, the pig-headed vindictiveness with which the school responded to the complaint. As I mentioned earlier they chose to ruin the prom for everyone in their senior class before they would allow one same sex couple be treated as an equal. While these factors did irritate me it was the next part of the story that really infuriated me.

The fake prom. This sounds like a cruel prank one would find in a high school movie. Instead of allowing this couple to attend the prom the school told them that's what they were doing and sent them to a separate prom (in case they infected the other kids with 'the gay' perhaps). They segregated these kids. I do not use that word lightly but it is precisely what they did. The other prom attended by the majority of the students would perhaps be less heinous if it was the work solely of cruel, immature teenagers, but it wasn't. It was organized by the school and the parents. Adults, who should know better actually assisted in this cruel piece of bigoted deception.

Finally the last aggravating point is that the fake prom that McMillen and her girlfriend were sent to was also the prom that students with learning difficulties were sent to. The school was not content to humiliate and segregate students for being gay, they thought that students with learning difficulties should be purged from the prom too. The one positive that came from that situation, McMillen said, was that those students "didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."

Constance McMillen appears to be dealing with this awful turn of events in the classiest way possible. I commend her for taking a stand and for staying strong in the face of such discrimination. The school and parents should be utterly ashamed of themselves for this. The amount of callousness displayed at every step of the way is deplorable and I for one think that they should be held accountable for it.