Fact x Importance = News

[Cube]

This is just the beginning of this stupid data economy bill. If they can do this, what else can they remove?

 

It has nothing to do with the economy bill. YouTube have been removing content at the request of the copyright owners for years.

[nightwolf]

But there is lots of film spoofs on youtube, why haven't they removed those too?

 

There's a fuck load of harry potter ones for instance..

[Gizmo]

Well thats up to the makers of Harry Potter to make an infringement claim.

 

Also Youtube have some sort of system where the copyright holders can make a claim for a portion of the advertising revenue gained from the hits on any video containing their material (as opposed to having the videos removed)

[Ashley]

Isn't this specifically the makers of the film complaining, rather than YouTube thinking "hmm this is a spoof, let's remove it"?

 

Although if that is the case and as its happened, I wonder if more companies will jump on board.

[Emasher]

You can't actually claim something for copyright violation just because its a spoof. It actually has to have some copy written material in it, which is the issue here.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Jewish organizations have also complained about the tastefulness of the clips

[Ashley]

I just assumed Nightwolf was referring to something using clips from Harry Potter for spoofing purposes, akin to the Hitler meme.

[Emasher]

 

I wonder how many of them support what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I wasn't actually making a serious comment on anything, just pointing out a funny miswording.

[Goafer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad]South Park Censored

 

They have depicted the Queen blowing her brains out after a failed attempt by the British army to reinvade America, Saddam Hussein as Satan's gay lover, and Jesus as a trigger-happy superhero. Mormons, Scientologists, Catholics, Jews, politicians and film stars have all been skewered on the razor-sharp wit of South Park.

 

Now the caustic animated satire appears to have reached its limits within the confines of mainstream US television. Fans and pundits alike were taken aback last night when an episode featuring the prophet Muhammad purportedly dressed in a bear costume had bleeps and "Censored" blocks slapped liberally throughout to remove all audio and visual reference to the prophet.

 

 

The censorship followed a warning from a New York-based group of extremist Muslim converts that could be construed as a death threat. The group, through its website Revolutionmuslim.com, had reacted to last week's episode of South Park which first depicted Muhammad dressed as a bear by saying its originators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh".

 

 

To underline the point, the website carried a picture of Van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker killed in 2004 after he made a documentary on the abuse of women in Muslim countries, with his throat cut and a knife in his chest. They also listed the New York headquarters of Comedy Central, the cable television channel that broadcasts the show, and South Park's production company, adding: "You can pay them a visit at these addresses."

[Emasher]

I've been reading through and participating in quite a good discussion about that very episode on the Gametrailers forums over the last few days. I just finished typing this all out there, and I really don't feel like writing up a version of my opinions on the matter specifically for this thread. Just remember this is in response to a post made by someone else, and it was written mid discussion, but I think it summarizes up my opinions on the whole thing:

 

I don't know if you actually saw the episode, but it wasn't actually trying to be offensive towards muslims. They were trying to point out that some people just can't take even the smallest amount of criticism or parody without getting incredibly offended. This is the point that the episode was trying to get across. The creators of South Park weren't trying to offend anyone this time, they were trying to show how important it is that we are able talk about things and criticize things that we don't agree with. They were trying to show people that we should stop worrying about offending someone for doing or saying something that in a free society shouldn't matter. The bottom line is, not showing Muhammad is a muslim rule. We're not muslims. The muslims have a right to practice their religion if they want to. But at the same time, just because they believe something, and believe in certain rules, doesn't mean they are exempt from criticism, and it certainly doesn't mean they have the right to force others to follow those rules. What you have done in the spoiler box in your post was purposely try to be offensive, which is not what we're defending. let me give an example of what I'm talking about.

 

Lets say there's a group of people who believe that Albert Einstein was a god (please note that I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison between this and islam. I also want to point out that I'm purposely making this sound ridiculous.). Lets say they decide that in their group they cannot call him just Einstein, but have to also use his first name as well, and always refer to him as Albert Einstein. Nobody has a problem with this. They just see it as another cult, and something they can ignore. Then lets say, one day some random sit com makes a reference to this cult. Maybe one of the characters says something like "So I heard about this cult where people worship einstein". Now imagine if all of a sudden the cult members got up in arms and said that they are deeply offended by the way that Einstein was discussed on the show and that they want the media from now on to only refer to him as Albert Einstein. Obviously, people don't care, as they shouldn't. Then one day another show making a reference to Einstein comes out. All of a sudden the cult members get up in arms and tell everyone that people shouldn't be allowed to call him just "Einstein" as it offends them, and that if people don't start making sure they use his first name, they're going to kill every actor who says the name on a television show.

 

My point is, we should have to play by the rules of organizations when we talk about them, or make reference to them. We shouldn't be stopped from talking about something, or making reference to it just because someone else says they take offense to it. Many jewish people are offended by things like the use of the swastika in movies, ect. But regardless of what it symbolizes to some people, it was an important detail of the 2nd world war, and we shouldn't have to censor it and make movies less realistic because people are offended. Its the same as being told off for saying the word "nigger" when you are only using the word to make reference to its use, and not yourself using it in the context of hate. The same goes for not discussing things like rape because rape victims might be reminded of what happened to them, and get upset by it. They don't have to listen to the discussion.

 

You should also take into account the reason why Muslims have a rule against showing an image of Muhammad. From what I understand, they don't like it because they believe showing an image of Muhammad will cause them to worship him to much instead of worshiping their god. The Ironic thing is, its clear the reason he made this rule was because he didn't want people to make such a big deal about him, but by putting so much emphasis on not showing him, they are making a big deal about him.

 

Another thing I'll say though, is that I'm getting a little bit annoyed by this censorship. Both Comedy Central, and The Comedy Network (Canadian network with the rights to the show) have pulled the episode from season 5 that had Muhammad in it from their online libraries. What's even worse is that the new episode that was censored might not actually get put on any of the online libraries because the networks are afraid of attacks. It wasn't put up on the American online library, and The Comedy network hasn't put up a preview ahead of time like they usually do before the episodes are put online on sunday. Apparently 201 is a very important episode as it ties up a lot of the mysteries that the show has presented over the years (they finally tell us who Cartman's real father is), but the episode might never be shown again, and even if it is, the episode that was shown on comedy central last night was so censored that you apparently couldn't even tell what was happening. At first everyone thought the censorship was done on purpose to make a point, but the creators revealed today that it was Comedy Central's doing.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Emasher

[Jonnas]

South%20Park%20Censored"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad]South Park Censored

 

A bit off-topic here, but I love how they seem to group politicians and film stars alongside religious groups

 

Other than that, Emasher took the words right out of my mouth. People who attack anything they find remotely offensive regardless of context, anger me beyond words.

[EEVILMURRAY]

They can't not show the second part! They take the piss out of all these religions, showing them as weird things which probably pisses off said religions. Then when they do something which agrees with one religion they have a bitchfit!

 

Maybe they just don't like bear costumes.

[Emasher]

I just noticed "Super Best Friends" is still available on iTunes. I decided I'd buy it before they try and replace it with a censored version.

 

Edit: I was right, the episode wasn't aired in Canada.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Emasher

[EEVILMURRAY]

Man slams his gran:

http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/real-life/article/-/7124792/im-in-love-with-my-grandson-were-having-a-baby/

[Cube]

But their child's son will be born with a delta-wave deficiency, which is just plain cruel on the kid.

[Eenuh]

But their child's son will be born with a delta-wave deficiency, which is just plain cruel on the kid.

 

They're using a donor egg cell though. I think at 72 you probably won't have any working eggs anymore.

 

But yeah, this is just... urgh.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Eenuh

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The grandmother had already passed monopause, so they used a surrogate mother and an egg that they bought. The child won't be/is not biologically related to the grandmother.

 

While the idea itself really creeps me out, I also can't help but think: If they're happy together, who am I to judge? Apart from the genetic issues when it comes to having a child (which are irrelevant to this case), the only other practical problem with incestuous relationships is the potential psychological implications of having a sexual-emotional relationship to a family member with whom one shares other emtional bonds. But since these two have never actually had a grandmother-grandson relationship, that wouldn't seem to be a problem, either.

[Cube]

I would just like to point out that I do know that the Grandmother can't product eggs and isn't the biological mother. I just wanted to make a Futurama reference.

[Daft]

Haha! That's fantastically gross.

 

Now this is what you call 'WINcest'.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Now this is what you call 'WINcest'.

[Ashley]

Haha! That's fantastically gross.

 

Now this is what you call 'WINcest'.

 

I thought that was when Dean and Sam had sex...

[The fish]

Oklahoma decides women must be forced to have invasive ultrasounds and told in detail how much of like a person the foetus is if they want an abortion, even rape victims.

 

Fuck you, Oklahoma, fuck you.

 

Here's a more "fair and balanced" article.

Edited April 30, 2010 by The fish

[Daft]

When did ultrasounds become invasive?

[The fish]

When did ultrasounds become invasive?

 

Vaginal ones give a clearer picture, so, if available, they have to be used.