South Park vs. Freedom of Speech
Media Law: Assignment 2: Free speech
Throughout this essay I will focus on how the Right to freedom of speech has put mass pressure upon Western media.
Mass media and Law in Western cultures expresses liberal democratic views and tries to stress tolerance and free speech in society; yet time again it has been compromised when concerning sensitive material. The conflicting boundaries between the liberal values in western society and the predominant religious outlook in the east, has started to hinder the right to free speech.
The Right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human right constitutions. This act offers protection towards the freedom of religion, the protection of health, morals, national security and the protection of the rights and reputations of others.
The right to freedom of speech can be found in the United States Constitution stating the bill of rights and is written under the first amendment. The first Amendment Act was established in 1791 and guaranteed freedom of speech, Religion, writing and publishing. It also stated that no religion should be forced upon an individual against there own will. (1)
The right to Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom can be found under the Human Acts Right, Article 9. This states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. (2)
Defamation is an intentional false statement made about an individual, which subsequently leads to harm towards their reputation. The purpose for the anti-defamation laws is so that there can be a balance between free speech and the protection of peoples’ reputations.
If a defamatory statement is spoken, it is regarded as slander. If the statement is publicized in any permanent form, it is considered libel. For example, a television program, picture, newspaper are all permanent examples of libel.
Any statement that can expose an individual to ridicule, hatred or lower there reputation in society is considered defamation, especially if it’s an individual who is well known in the public eye (for his/her profession would also be discredited). However, it all depends if people in society also see it as a defamatory statement. Members of the parliament are exempt from these charges because they have absolute privilege so that they are able to speak freely without facing libel charges. (3)
A victim of alleged defamation can successfully sue the party who created the material if the defendant cannot prove that the allegations are substantially true. This is called the defense of justification.
If the elements found in the ‘defamatory’ material are based on true facts, then the case can be dismissed on terms of fair comment, providing it hasn’t been taken out of context, or damaging to their reputation or career.
If the defendant can prove on the condition that there was no malicious intent, they can become exempt from the charge through ‘Qualified Privilege’. The only things that are not covered by freedom of speech are cases concerning sexual or racial abuse.
The Anti-Defamation league is an American organization that attempts to stamp out offensive material in the media, especially when it concerns religion, because they believe that all religion and cultures should be tolerant of each other and not attempt to offend people. (4)
The only official rights that protect religion from blasphemy are for Christianity, yet they are still targeted. There are also other American organizations such as Jews against Anti-Christian defamation campaigning against blasphemers. However, the protection of other religions in our media and culture is a grey area and free speech now becomes compromised.
Some countries barely need to use censorship laws yet the British law technically still prohibits blasphemy amongst other things such as ‘promotion of suicide and displays of erect penises.’
In February 2006, the Danish newspaper ‘Jyllands-Posten’, sparked outraged when they published caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Any depictions of the Muslim prophet is forbidden and caused many Muslim communities to protest against the pictures. These pictures were shocking because of the violent undertones that were associated with the prophet that fuels the negative representation of Muslims in the Western world, since the 9/11 speculations. The caricature depicted Mohammed wearing a bomb which runs parallel and fuels the ‘suicide bomber’ stereotype of Muslims, posing as a threat to Western culture.
Even though there were many Muslims protesting against these images. The hypocrisy lies that in their own country, on a daily basis the Islamic newspapers constantly depict defamatory anti-Semitic cartoons. Countless times Jewish communities and the United States have attempted to put a stop to these offensive images. However, each time they took the issue up with leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to appeal against the negative images, the leaders have dismissed the accusations and argue for free speech. (5)
The animated adult television program ‘South Park’ explores the double standards in society and have currently been censored by the A.D.L. The ‘South Park’ creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been involved with numerous libel charges over the past year as more critics attempt to censor their work from religious ‘misrepresentations’. South Park has to be known to criticize religion and centuries since it began, depicting the Buddha, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Scientology and many other religious figures as characters on their show.
In a recent episode, South Park’s network, Comedy Central refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed. A spokesperson from comedy central who remains nameless said that the image of Mohammed was pulled for the concern of public safety and referred to recent world events. This comment suggests that terrorism threats could occur if the image was broadcasted and that the image was offensive.
The following two episodes mirrored the ordeal between Comedy Central and the South Park creators. Matt Stone and Trey Parker tried to convey that if the image was only censored out of fear of terrorism, then it was giving into terrorism and taking away the right to free speech. The episode parodied another American cartoon ‘Family Guy’, trying to air an image of Mohammed in one of the sketches. This subsequently sparks an outbreak of protests all over South Park and the Muslim world, also showing fake terrorist threat tapes. The adults of South Park have a mass panic of terrorist attacks on hearing of the image due to be appearing on television. They decide to literally bury their heads in the sand rather than being blamed for provoking a “Holy War”, the innuendo of ignorance and fear is not lost on the viewers.
The two of the main characters, Kyle and Cartman then propose opposing arguments to whether the image should be allowed to be shown. Kyle argues that because the first amendment states that no religion can be forced upon another person. The South Park creators are not doing anything wrong because only Muslims aren’t allowed to show an image of Mohammed and therefore South Park is still technically protected by the freedom of speech act.
On the opposing side, Cartman is outraged by the cartoon mocking an entire group of people and attempts to censor the cartoon. However this statement parodies Cartman’s usual characteristics of being the most prejudice, insensitive character that constantly shows anti-Semitic attitudes towards Kyle.
However, the prevailing argument that shows the animators true beliefs is that for years, there hasn’t been any big case where we had to defend the right to free speech and people seem to become silenced before they defend it. Also that just because its wrong doesn’t mean it has to be taken off the air. They argued that the censorship would start a chain reaction causing more material to be banned in an alleged ‘tolerant society’ with every piece of sensitive material. If the Mohammed episode was to be taken off the air then a distinction would be made between what is acceptable and what’s not acceptable to make fun of. One of the characters last quote was: ‘It’s either all ok, or none of it is’. The network in the cartoon finally decided to air the episode but with the image censored. It showed the man going to answer the door to Mohammed then a title card appears on screen that reads, ‘ In this shot Mohammed hands a football helmet to family guy…Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network’.
The biggest controversial factor in this episode is that a few moments after the censored image, they depict Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American Flag, yet this section was not called into question even though it was obviously blasphemous and offensive. Mohammed was not portrayed in any negative way throughout the episode; it was just to make a point to the Comedy Central Network that they have allowed terrorism to work.
All the issues raised in this episode surround the first amendment and how it needs to be protected and exercised in a society that claims they practice tolerance.
Because defamation requires a statement of fact, South Park resides outside the definition of defamation by law because it is a work of fiction, there is also a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode that reads that all characters and celebrities and completely fictional. Therefore it isn’t illegal and shouldn’t need to be censored just because some people take offence to it.
South Park is infamous for treading the fine line between parody and satire and it’s only been in recently years they have been noticed for discrediting dominant religious ideologies. As more people are offended, less people are aware of the important themes that run throughout the episodes. Each time a group of people are mocked within South Park, whether it’s because of their age, background, religion or race is always done to make a point. Every negative attitude reflected within South Park reflects the attitudes of society, not the creators’ actual beliefs.
It also seems to have gone unnoticed that Mohammed has already been featured in South Park in series 5 a couple of years ago on an episode entitled ‘Super Best Friends’. This episode depicted all the dominant religious figures, co-existing to fight evil together.
Prior to these complaints, an episode entitled ‘Bloody Mary’ was banned completely by the Catholic league for religious and civil rights criticized ‘Comedy Central’ for airing the episode which showed irrelevant and offensive portrayal of the virgin Mary statue, bleeding from her rear end. It also insulted Pope Benedict XVI. Whilst the subplot stressed that religion is a device that can make people feel powerless over their own lives and problems as the townspeople of South Park mistake the statue as a miracle and visit it to be healed of their faults, rather than taking control of their lives. However the main reason why it was banned was because it was aired on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, therefore the Roman Catholics finally won their battle in civil rights court. Recently William Donohue, who is a member of the anti-defamation group (Catholic league), announces how he pleads for the makers of South Park to resign over the principle of being censored.
In conclusion, if free speech can guarantee protection, it should include a precise description of what negates against it what and to what extent. In this case, I believe the creators of South Park were denied rights to the first amendment just because of the shockwaves from the Danish newspaper caricatures. If something can be censored whenever someone takes offence to it, society will be going backwards where we can only ridicule ourselves and this would also lead to people getting offended. Despite politicians criticizing the contents of the cartoon shows crude toilet humour, South Park recently won a Peabody Award. Horace Newcomb praised South Park because through ‘its offensiveness, the show reminds us for the need for being tolerant.’(6) And because all aspects of society is ridiculed and questioned within South Park, no parts should be allowed to be censored unless the entire program is banned. Especially when the image of Mohammed had no negative stigma associated with it, it was done purely to raise the issue of religious tolerance. Matt Stone and Trey Parker would have every right to battle for fair comment because there was no negative representation of the Muslim prophet and the episode was created to raise the issue of double standards in the media law and reflects attitudes of various members of society. The episode was to shed light on the real issue that lies with the Muslims, the problem between integration and cultural identity. Therefore the image should not have been banned because there was no malicious racial intent within the material.
Throughout this essay I will focus on how the Right to freedom of speech has put mass pressure upon Western media.
Mass media and Law in Western cultures expresses liberal democratic views and tries to stress tolerance and free speech in society; yet time again it has been compromised when concerning sensitive material. The conflicting boundaries between the liberal values in western society and the predominant religious outlook in the east, has started to hinder the right to free speech.
The Right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human right constitutions. This act offers protection towards the freedom of religion, the protection of health, morals, national security and the protection of the rights and reputations of others.
The right to freedom of speech can be found in the United States Constitution stating the bill of rights and is written under the first amendment. The first Amendment Act was established in 1791 and guaranteed freedom of speech, Religion, writing and publishing. It also stated that no religion should be forced upon an individual against there own will. (1)
The right to Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom can be found under the Human Acts Right, Article 9. This states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. (2)
Defamation is an intentional false statement made about an individual, which subsequently leads to harm towards their reputation. The purpose for the anti-defamation laws is so that there can be a balance between free speech and the protection of peoples’ reputations.
If a defamatory statement is spoken, it is regarded as slander. If the statement is publicized in any permanent form, it is considered libel. For example, a television program, picture, newspaper are all permanent examples of libel.
Any statement that can expose an individual to ridicule, hatred or lower there reputation in society is considered defamation, especially if it’s an individual who is well known in the public eye (for his/her profession would also be discredited). However, it all depends if people in society also see it as a defamatory statement. Members of the parliament are exempt from these charges because they have absolute privilege so that they are able to speak freely without facing libel charges. (3)
A victim of alleged defamation can successfully sue the party who created the material if the defendant cannot prove that the allegations are substantially true. This is called the defense of justification.
If the elements found in the ‘defamatory’ material are based on true facts, then the case can be dismissed on terms of fair comment, providing it hasn’t been taken out of context, or damaging to their reputation or career.
If the defendant can prove on the condition that there was no malicious intent, they can become exempt from the charge through ‘Qualified Privilege’. The only things that are not covered by freedom of speech are cases concerning sexual or racial abuse.
The Anti-Defamation league is an American organization that attempts to stamp out offensive material in the media, especially when it concerns religion, because they believe that all religion and cultures should be tolerant of each other and not attempt to offend people. (4)
The only official rights that protect religion from blasphemy are for Christianity, yet they are still targeted. There are also other American organizations such as Jews against Anti-Christian defamation campaigning against blasphemers. However, the protection of other religions in our media and culture is a grey area and free speech now becomes compromised.
Some countries barely need to use censorship laws yet the British law technically still prohibits blasphemy amongst other things such as ‘promotion of suicide and displays of erect penises.’
In February 2006, the Danish newspaper ‘Jyllands-Posten’, sparked outraged when they published caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Any depictions of the Muslim prophet is forbidden and caused many Muslim communities to protest against the pictures. These pictures were shocking because of the violent undertones that were associated with the prophet that fuels the negative representation of Muslims in the Western world, since the 9/11 speculations. The caricature depicted Mohammed wearing a bomb which runs parallel and fuels the ‘suicide bomber’ stereotype of Muslims, posing as a threat to Western culture.
Even though there were many Muslims protesting against these images. The hypocrisy lies that in their own country, on a daily basis the Islamic newspapers constantly depict defamatory anti-Semitic cartoons. Countless times Jewish communities and the United States have attempted to put a stop to these offensive images. However, each time they took the issue up with leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to appeal against the negative images, the leaders have dismissed the accusations and argue for free speech. (5)
The animated adult television program ‘South Park’ explores the double standards in society and have currently been censored by the A.D.L. The ‘South Park’ creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been involved with numerous libel charges over the past year as more critics attempt to censor their work from religious ‘misrepresentations’. South Park has to be known to criticize religion and centuries since it began, depicting the Buddha, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Scientology and many other religious figures as characters on their show.
In a recent episode, South Park’s network, Comedy Central refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed. A spokesperson from comedy central who remains nameless said that the image of Mohammed was pulled for the concern of public safety and referred to recent world events. This comment suggests that terrorism threats could occur if the image was broadcasted and that the image was offensive.
The following two episodes mirrored the ordeal between Comedy Central and the South Park creators. Matt Stone and Trey Parker tried to convey that if the image was only censored out of fear of terrorism, then it was giving into terrorism and taking away the right to free speech. The episode parodied another American cartoon ‘Family Guy’, trying to air an image of Mohammed in one of the sketches. This subsequently sparks an outbreak of protests all over South Park and the Muslim world, also showing fake terrorist threat tapes. The adults of South Park have a mass panic of terrorist attacks on hearing of the image due to be appearing on television. They decide to literally bury their heads in the sand rather than being blamed for provoking a “Holy War”, the innuendo of ignorance and fear is not lost on the viewers.
The two of the main characters, Kyle and Cartman then propose opposing arguments to whether the image should be allowed to be shown. Kyle argues that because the first amendment states that no religion can be forced upon another person. The South Park creators are not doing anything wrong because only Muslims aren’t allowed to show an image of Mohammed and therefore South Park is still technically protected by the freedom of speech act.
On the opposing side, Cartman is outraged by the cartoon mocking an entire group of people and attempts to censor the cartoon. However this statement parodies Cartman’s usual characteristics of being the most prejudice, insensitive character that constantly shows anti-Semitic attitudes towards Kyle.
However, the prevailing argument that shows the animators true beliefs is that for years, there hasn’t been any big case where we had to defend the right to free speech and people seem to become silenced before they defend it. Also that just because its wrong doesn’t mean it has to be taken off the air. They argued that the censorship would start a chain reaction causing more material to be banned in an alleged ‘tolerant society’ with every piece of sensitive material. If the Mohammed episode was to be taken off the air then a distinction would be made between what is acceptable and what’s not acceptable to make fun of. One of the characters last quote was: ‘It’s either all ok, or none of it is’. The network in the cartoon finally decided to air the episode but with the image censored. It showed the man going to answer the door to Mohammed then a title card appears on screen that reads, ‘ In this shot Mohammed hands a football helmet to family guy…Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network’.
The biggest controversial factor in this episode is that a few moments after the censored image, they depict Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American Flag, yet this section was not called into question even though it was obviously blasphemous and offensive. Mohammed was not portrayed in any negative way throughout the episode; it was just to make a point to the Comedy Central Network that they have allowed terrorism to work.
All the issues raised in this episode surround the first amendment and how it needs to be protected and exercised in a society that claims they practice tolerance.
Because defamation requires a statement of fact, South Park resides outside the definition of defamation by law because it is a work of fiction, there is also a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode that reads that all characters and celebrities and completely fictional. Therefore it isn’t illegal and shouldn’t need to be censored just because some people take offence to it.
South Park is infamous for treading the fine line between parody and satire and it’s only been in recently years they have been noticed for discrediting dominant religious ideologies. As more people are offended, less people are aware of the important themes that run throughout the episodes. Each time a group of people are mocked within South Park, whether it’s because of their age, background, religion or race is always done to make a point. Every negative attitude reflected within South Park reflects the attitudes of society, not the creators’ actual beliefs.
It also seems to have gone unnoticed that Mohammed has already been featured in South Park in series 5 a couple of years ago on an episode entitled ‘Super Best Friends’. This episode depicted all the dominant religious figures, co-existing to fight evil together.
Prior to these complaints, an episode entitled ‘Bloody Mary’ was banned completely by the Catholic league for religious and civil rights criticized ‘Comedy Central’ for airing the episode which showed irrelevant and offensive portrayal of the virgin Mary statue, bleeding from her rear end. It also insulted Pope Benedict XVI. Whilst the subplot stressed that religion is a device that can make people feel powerless over their own lives and problems as the townspeople of South Park mistake the statue as a miracle and visit it to be healed of their faults, rather than taking control of their lives. However the main reason why it was banned was because it was aired on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, therefore the Roman Catholics finally won their battle in civil rights court. Recently William Donohue, who is a member of the anti-defamation group (Catholic league), announces how he pleads for the makers of South Park to resign over the principle of being censored.
In conclusion, if free speech can guarantee protection, it should include a precise description of what negates against it what and to what extent. In this case, I believe the creators of South Park were denied rights to the first amendment just because of the shockwaves from the Danish newspaper caricatures. If something can be censored whenever someone takes offence to it, society will be going backwards where we can only ridicule ourselves and this would also lead to people getting offended. Despite politicians criticizing the contents of the cartoon shows crude toilet humour, South Park recently won a Peabody Award. Horace Newcomb praised South Park because through ‘its offensiveness, the show reminds us for the need for being tolerant.’(6) And because all aspects of society is ridiculed and questioned within South Park, no parts should be allowed to be censored unless the entire program is banned. Especially when the image of Mohammed had no negative stigma associated with it, it was done purely to raise the issue of religious tolerance. Matt Stone and Trey Parker would have every right to battle for fair comment because there was no negative representation of the Muslim prophet and the episode was created to raise the issue of double standards in the media law and reflects attitudes of various members of society. The episode was to shed light on the real issue that lies with the Muslims, the problem between integration and cultural identity. Therefore the image should not have been banned because there was no malicious racial intent within the material.
posted by helen d at 4:58 PM
0 comments
