South Park Or: “Shitty Boner Bitch, Muff, Pussy, Butthole, Barbara Streisand”: a lit Review

CMC 400

3/3/2011

“Shitty Boner Bitch, Muff, Pussy, Butthole,

Censorship has taken on a completely new meaning in our post 9/11 world. Much like a child dipping toes into water to test the temperature, contemporary comedy tests the atmosphere for politically and racially charged material. Jerry Seinfeld’s discussion of “The Second Spitter” on the television show Seinfeld was one of the first times the John F. Kennedy assassination was publicly and acceptably referenced in a comedic context. This represents a thawing of censorship and embracement of freedom of speech post disaster that allowed people to come to terms with a national tragedy and find some measure of peace in understanding what happened. The difference in time from the Kennedy assassination and the Seinfeld episode was almost thirty years. There was no public outcry when the episode aired; no one attempted to get the episode banned from airing. An episode operating in that context arriving at an earlier time would (arguably) have been censored. As advancements in technology affected our media landscape, censorship has adapted to the changes. The questions remain, what dictates the legal restrictions on freedom of speech? Are there certain situations or persons that can’t be made light of?

After the World Trade Center bombings, America went through a period of shock and thaw. Its effects can be seen in nearly all forms of media, from news to entertainment (in some cases both¹). As we recoiled from the bombings, powerful media interests preyed on our shocked minds. Our connectivity to media increased, as did censorship of what we as a nation were allowed to see.

By observing modern comedy, specifically the television show South Park, we can see how the show used controversial social or political problems in the media spotlight to challenge the preeminent American controversy: censorship. This literature review aims to dissect the topic of censorship through a historical analysis of the “Prophet Muhammad” controversy as well as through a textual analysis of related episodes of the television program South Park. It is through these methodologies that we will see how South Park challenges the hegemony of censorship, and provides the only animated critical discourse on religious respect versus religious submission.

Prior to the events of September 30^th, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten operated as one of Denmark’s most widely circulated newspapers. It has changed much since its founding in 1871, and since 1938 has functioned as an independent liberal newspaper. The newspaper has come under fire numerous times for promoting a xenophobic, often anti-immigrant stance (particularly towards Muslims²). Despite the anti-immigrant claims leveled at Jyllands-Posten, neither the paper nor the country were prepared for the culture war that would follow the fall of 2005.

On September 30^th, 2005, a set of twelve cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad were published in Jyllands-Posten. The cartoons were supplemented with an article dealing with censorship and the complications that arise from censorship in regard to religious figures. Some of the cartoons poke fun of the animating staff and the editorial staff of the newspaper, while others feature Muhammad more prominently. The depictions of Muhammad range from simple portrayals of a man in a robe, to more military influenced themes. One in particular features Muhammad holding a scimitar, standing next to two black veiled women, whose eyes are exposed. There is a black censor bar covering Muhammad’s eyes in this animation. The two most controversial depictions involve bombs, one being used as a turban, the other in the hands of a follower of Muhammad. All of the cartoons promote critical viewpoints on the Muslim faith, whether connecting Islam to terrorism, negative treatment of women, or unveiling the negatives of extremist beliefs.

The cartoons prompted heated discussion locally, followed by worldwide coverage and eventually, riots and protests in various countries. Embassies were burned, civilians were killed, and death /bomb threats were given. The cartoonists went into hiding and some officials, including State Ministers, resigned. The BBC even reported that “A Muslim boycott of Danish goods led to a 15.5% drop in total exports between February and June. Trade to the Middle East fell by half, statistics show.” (BBC News, 2006)

Both sides of the debate have been argued, here a presented defense by Editor Flemming Rose himself: “Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.” (2006, p. 1) Sune Laegaard adds by quoting Waldron, commenting on the (again arguably) similar Rushdie debate: “Free speech should furthermore not be limited out of concern for religious sensibilities or respect for religious views, precisely because religious questions are so important for many people; to restrict expression is to limit people’s attempts to grapple with these questions, as is the imposition of any standard for judging when expressions are proper in this regard, given the fact that people disagree both on the right answer and the right standards (Waldron, 1993).” (2007, p.483)

Unfortunately, the heated debate revolving around the cartoons only offered insight as to “what” the cartoons were portraying, not the “how” of the usefulness of visual image combined with social context, or the “why” of a culmination of a clash of cultures resulting in an editor tasking his staff to come up with controversial depictions of a religious deity. The media framing of the event here in the United States portrayed the offended Muslim groups as extremist, and the Danish cartoonists and editors as irresponsible pricks³. Our news networks were more interested in what the offended parties were doing to show their outrage as opposed to documenting or offering any constructive discourse on the complex cultural ideologies of both the Danes and the Muslim parties.

The essential problems here lie in the conflict between “free speech oriented criticism” and “interpretations of religious doctrine” (Gournelos, 2009). As Andrea Reed writes, “The deliberate choice of the controversial visual elements presents a radical interpretation of Islam, and though the cartoons are culturally bound ideological creations, they transcend the immediate context for which they were created. In this, the images did much more than just comment on perceived self-censorship in the Danish media. They ultimately fomented a much larger public debate on the conflict between differing cultural interpretations of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” (2009, pp.2-3)

Part II. South Park vs. Censorship

From its start as a viral internet short, South Park has blossomed into a Peabody, Emmy and Academy Award winning television and film program. The show has voiced critical opinions of every major religion, lampooned abortion and euthanasia, lambasted animal rights activism and environmentalism, and publicly ridiculed a large majority of celebrities both living and dead. The awards won by the show were garnered due to the show’s oppositional and critical stance on events in popular culture. The show has faced censorship numerous times, with the most infamous incidents revolving around religion. South Park originally criticized Islam alongside Christianity, Hinduism, the Mormon faith⁴, Judaism, and juxtaposed those criticisms against those leveled at Scientology. The episode aired July 4^th, 2001, with a depiction of Muhammad, to little incident. Flash forward five years, to the spring of 2006. South Park again brings Muhammad into the spotlight of an episode directly relating to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Digging into the episode reveals that the true villains of the argument are intimidation, fear and censorship.

Viacom, through Comedy Central, censored depictions of Muhammad after the Jyllands-Posten controversy⁵, but neglected to censor Muhammad’s portrayal on South Park prior to the event. This lends criticism of censorship a strong argument. What prompted Viacom to censor a show praised for its scathing criticisms of nearly everything, including the Islamic faith, when Viacom had allowed the same criticism years earlier? Viacom, in collusion with advocacy groups such as the Parents Television Council, National Association of Broadcasters and the Motion Picture Association of America have longed for the day to be able to censor South Park, and the events surrounding the Jyllands-Posten scandal provided the ideal scapegoat for the censorship. Hiding behind the guise of harm towards cartoonists (Karimova, 2010), the network censored all mentions of the word Muhammad and the entirety of the customary “I Learned Something Today” speech heard at the end of most episodes of the show.

Viacom needed a way to put Matt Stone and Trey Parker in their place, and they used a controversial event in international history (and the concordant deaths of almost 150 people) to do so. They capitalized on media exaggerated fear to supersede rights granted to not just Matt and Trey but to all Americans by our Constitution. Pressure from outside advocacy groups, political and religious interests, and the agenda of a supremely powerful media organization resulted in one of the most profitable and socially constructive television programs in history being FORCED to shut up. The silver lining in the incident is that the censorship seems to have phased Matt Stone and Trey Parker very little. The censorship of the episode also led to a grassroots campaign known as “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”, in support of South Park. Even in defeat, South Park has managed to thrust intimidation and fear into the spotlight and ultimately expose some horrifying elements in our media landscape. The show continues into its (possibly) final season, and I have a feeling the best is yet to come.

-Nate Fulton

"BBC NEWS | Europe | Cartoons Row Hits Danish Exports." BBC News - Home. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. .

Gournelos, Ted. Popular Culture and the Future of Politics: Cultural Studies and the Tao of South Park. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2009. Print.

Karimova, Gulnara. "Interpretive Methodology from Literary Criticism: Carnivalesque Analysis of Popular Culture: Jackass, South Park, and 'Everyday'Culture." Studies in Popular Culture 33.1 (2010): 37-53. Pscasacas.org. Popular Culture Association in the South. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. .

Lægaard, Sune. "The Cartoon Controversy: Offence, Identity, Oppression?" Political Studies 55.3 (2007): 481-98. Print.

Reed, Andrea. "MUHAMMAD AS REPRESENTATIVE FORM: A VISUAL RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DANISH CARTOON CONTROVERSY." Thesis. Wake Forest University, 2009. May 2009. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. .

Rose, Flemmings. "Why I Published Those Cartoons - Washingtonpost.com." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. 19 Feb. 2006. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. .

Wells, Paul. Animation and America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2002. Print.

Wells, Paul. Understanding Animation. London: Routledge, 1998. Print.

Works Read for this Project but Not Cited:

Arp, Robert. South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Print.

Kahn, Robert A., Why There Was No Cartoon Controversy in the United States (2007). U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-28. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008997

David Keane., Cartoon Violence and Freedom of Expression Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 30, Number 4, November 2008, pp. 845-875

"South Park" and Society: Instructional and Curricular Implications of Popular Culture in the Classroom Lisa Patel Stevens Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 44, No. 6 (Mar., 2001), pp. 548-555

Mayer R.E. The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media (2003) Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), pp. 125-139.

Post, R. (2007), Religion and Freedom of Speech: Portraits of Muhammad. Constellations, 14: 72–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8675.2007.00423.x

Starrett, G. (2006), Cartoon Violence and a Clash of Civilization. Anthropology News, 47: 27. doi: 10.1525/an.2006.47.3.27

The Cartoon Society: Using "The Simpsons" to Teach and Learn Sociology Stephen J. Scanlan and Seth L. Feinberg Teaching Sociology Vol. 28, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 127-139 8

Weinstock, Jeffery A., ed. Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: State University of New York, 2008. Print.