Censored? I think not.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:58 pm

So I was watching southpark on youtube. Cartoon wars part 2. season 10 episode 4.

It was uploaded in three parts. Part one and two are still up, but part three.. pulled. why? TOS violation.

Now, you'd think they'd pull the whole episode because of a copyright violation. nope. Only part three was pulled. Why?

Because they did a Jesus joke.

While I was watching the uncut episode, I remembered a question i asked a while back.

What would happen if someone did a jesus joke? say Jesus was getting a blowjob from a ten year old kid.. what would happen? I got my answer when I visited youtube. People would get offended and have it pulled.

So those who say that muslims should have thicker skin, but can't tolerate a jesus joke? They should grow a thicker skin too, because as it stands now.. they are total hypocrites.

Sure, they're not rioting in the streets, but the end result is the same.

So clean your own crap up first before complaining about someone else's.

rijruna1 · Post by **rijruna1** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:08 am

absoferkinlutely corrct there ferno, the end of a free thinking & expressing world is here. But that wont stop me giving ★■◆● to any god-botherers that decide to show up at my door.
cheers
rij

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:23 am

Sure, they're not rioting in the streets, but the end result is the same.

PRIVATE companies have every right to have \"Terms Of Service\", and PRIVATE companies have every right to pull material that doesn't comply with those TOS, and PRIVATE citizens have every right to complain when they find material they don't approve of. To not only complain, but explain to managment that if policy doesn't change, they have no intention of doing any more business with said company.

That's called \"Free Market\", and it's what America is all about. I don't care if the \"Offensive\" material is a Jesus joke, someone wearing fur, Pornography, or Someone saying something politically incorrect. Left or Right, makes no difference, if you want to influence business decisions by threatening not to do business with that company anymore, go for it, it's your right, and perhaps even your duty.

AND this is the critical and important DIFFERENCE in the two events. If the Muslim world had issued a demand for a worldwide boycott of newspapers that published the offensive cartoons, I would have had no gripe with them. It's their right to do business (or not do business) with whom they please. What I object to is the use of FORCE, by EITHER side.

So please, lets stick with a free market economy and with the America that lets you do business where you wish, but will put your behind in jail the moment you try to express your frustration by burning someone elses property down or killing random people who may or may not agree with you.

Now then, to be fair, I freely admit that the conservitive side of America would LOVE to start enforcing their wants and desires by force of law. Just like the LEFT would love to do. Both sides have achieved some success in this arena, but thank goodness enough of the founding fathers vision remains in this country that the success has been SOMEWHAT limited up to this point. But our sins in this area are VERY minor compared to living in a Moslem country under Sharia law. We do some wrong things here, but we have yet to reach the point where publishing something offensive results in execution. So saying \"the results are the same\" is stretching things a LOT. If you want to see south park in America, you can. You can purchase the full uncensored dvd. You can probably find other download sites that are happy to distribute and couldn't care less if a bunch of conservatives are mad at them. If the police find that you own South Park, nothing bad will happen to you. The results are not perfect in America, but they are VERY different.

Saying youtube should HAVE to carry the SouthPark episode is EXACTLY the same as implying you should HAVE to have a Bible in your house, or that you couldn't open a bookstore and refuse to sell the Bible. If you find the Bible offensive, you don't have to have one, you don't have to sell it. if youtube decided, for whatever reason, that they don't want to have this southpark episode on their site, that is their right. What can you do about it? The same thing that the conservatives did. Write to management and explain that you will no longer be doing business with them. If there are enough people with the same opinion, yourtube will flipflop really fast on their position. Welcome to America, where you have just as much right to try and influence business as anyone else.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:27 pm

i'm not saying they should have to carry it. I'm saying they were wrong to censor it.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:33 pm

The world would be a better place without prgrams like South Park

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:58 pm

I disagree...South Park is one of the ONLY programs that uses free speech. Comedy Central should be commended for allowing a program to continue while every other network is scared to death of profanity or sex, the extreme violence is ok, just as long as everyone talks nice and there is no nudity.

Ferno, Christians are typically hypocrites. You wont' see a single complaint when South Park makes fun of Muslims (which they do quite a bit) but they raise hell when it's christianity's turn. Oh well.

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:59 pm

Duper wrote:The world would be a better place without prgrams like South Park

Yes, and if Chupathingy would stop quoting it on TS would even be better.... oh my ears. That said, I still find humor in the show but I don't watch it very much... no time.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:42 pm

That was a pretty funny episode.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:00 pm

Ferno wrote:i'm not saying they should have to carry it. I'm saying they were wrong to censor it.

Then vote with your wallet. Do business elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with refusing to give your money to people who do things you disapprove of. That works for both sides.

And that's why I'm very uncomfortable with the word "Censor" here. I feel that "Censorship" is when the government attempts to forbid the transmission of certain ideas. When Right or Left or ANY wingers try to get it enacted in LAW that certain writings, shows, pictures, whatever, can never be published anywhere by anybody. That's censorship.

But if a bookstore says, "We don't sell pornography", or if a record store says, "we don't sell gansta rap", or if an art dealer says, "We don't sell pictures of people wearing fur", or if a TV station says, "We won't air shows that aren't environmentally sensitive"... None of these are "Censorship". You are free to get the material elsewhere. They aren't attempting to STOP you from getting the material. They have just refused to carry it themselves. Nothing wrong with them running their business the way they choose, AND nothing wrong with you choosing to patronize that business or not based upon the decisions they make.

Zuruck wrote:South Park is one of the ONLY programs that uses free speech.

Offensive<>Free

Zuruck wrote:You wont' see a single complaint when South Park makes fun of Muslims (which they do quite a bit) but they raise hell when it's christianity's turn.

You won't see me complain because I have not, and never will, watch the show. I won't watch part 3 where they are insulting Jesus, and I won't watch parts 1 and 2 either. I won't watch when they are insulting Mohamed, or Buddah, or anyone else. I won't watch any episode, I won't watch the movie, I don't even want to see the ads. It was absolutely clear to me after a brief description that absolutely NOTHING in this show would appeal to me. So I vote with my wallet.

This is ALSO one reason you won't find me spending much time criticizing the show. You can't do any reasonable criticism of a program you've never watched.

Now then, its clear I don't like the show. I think the world would be better off without south park. AND, if I were running a book store, video store, or an internet download site, I wouldn't be offering any southpark material. That's my right.

BUT, I have no intention of trying to forbid any one else from making, selling, or promoting south park. If south park can flourish in the free marketplace of ideas, well, I think it says something sad about our world, but I'm not going to try and use the law to stop it. Because *I* have ideas that many OTHERS consider offensive. Many people would like to censor the Bible, or forbid stories or artwork that *I* approve of. If I give in to my disgust and attempt to FORBID south park, then what goes around comes around, and sooner or later, the same principles will be applied back upon ME to censor the things I love.

When the government of China forces google to block certain results, that's censorship.
When Muslim nations put out death warrants for Salman Rushdie, that's censorship.
When the "Comic Code Authority" forbids the publication of certain topics or themes, that's censorship.
But when yourtube refuses to distribute a particular south park, thats just the free market.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:07 pm

Main Entry: cen·sor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

they didn't just refuse to carry it. they deleted something that was already on their webserver. that act, in itself, is censorship.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:56 pm

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

~U.S Supreme Court.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:22 pm

Ferno wrote:Sure, they're not rioting in the streets, but the end result is the same.

So clean your own crap up first before complaining about someone else's.

No, actually, it's not the same result at all!
Just ask the dead people who were killed by the rioting muslims and ask them if they feel they suffered as much or more than the people who had to listen to complaints from pissed off christians.
Bullet in the head........obnoxious customer service complaint.....hmmmm.....better get a scale in here it's almost too close to call.

You see it's not the knee jerk reaction that we condemn, it's taking your displeasure to the extreme of actual kidnapping and murder that marks the difference between pissed off christians and pissed off muslims! It's that whole lagging behind by centuries in social evolution thang...so far behind that they are trying to inflict their backwards tribal culture punishments on us! That's what we complain about! So tell them to bring their crap up to the level of our crap first THEN we'll talk mmmkay?

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:19 pm

Will Robinson wrote:You see it's not the knee jerk reaction that we condemn, it's taking your displeasure to the extreme of actual kidnapping and murder that marks the difference between pissed off christians and pissed off muslims! It's that whole lagging behind by centuries in social evolution thang...so far behind that they are trying to inflict their backwards tribal culture punishments on us! That's what we complain about! So tell them to bring their crap up to the level of our crap first THEN we'll talk mmmkay?

Unfortunately, this isn't entirely true. True Muslims don't want to destroy us, although they are as pleased with our sulture as your average Christian or Jew is, Radical fascists running the Middle East want to kill us in order to retain their own power, and are pulling the name of Islam through the mud to do it. The same thing happened for the same reason about 600 years ago to Christianity. Islam is just currently in the "Inquisition" stage.
Also, the other problem, which started in the 11th century, is that the Turks, who were already a race of conquering tribalistic barbarians, found Islam and abused it to justify their conquests. The Arabic Muslims had been inhabiting the Holy Land peacefully with the Christians and Jews currently residing for almost 4 centuries before then. This is something of a continuation of the Turkish philosophy.*

*The last sentence may be a bit off, feel free to ocrrect me if I am wrong.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:51 pm

Interestingly, seems like they were going to have Mohammed in there, but that got censored by Comedy Central, so they did Jesus instead. And, what do you know, it aired.

At least, that's what this seems to indicate... I haven't seen it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/1 ... index.html

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:01 pm

First, there was a part three to Cartoon Wars?

Second, they have banned two episodes off of Comedy Central.

The first was the Scientology one. Tom Cruise called for it to be pulled, and threatened to not promote his Mission Impossible 3 Movie. Since Viacom owns both Paramount Pictures, and Comedy Central, they had to. I also heard it was going to be pulled off of the DVD as well.

The second was the Bloody Mary. Sort of like what Ferno said, a really bad joke, but about the Virgin Mary. The Christian something Website forced them to pull it.

I love South Park. I love the humor, and I love it for free speech. To tell you the truth, the show has pissed me off. I love Family Guy, and they made fun of it. BUT the point of the show IS to piss people off. It isn't if they will piss you off, but when.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:50 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:Sure, they're not rioting in the streets, but the end result is the same.

So clean your own crap up first before complaining about someone else's.
No, actually, it's not the same result at all!
[muddy waters cut out for clarity's sake]

let's try that again WITHOUT the appeal to emotion and distaste towards muslims.

Ok, a group complains about something offensive and gets it pulled. in the one case, it would be the cartoon image of muhammed.

in this case, someone complained and gets the third part pulled. in this case it would be a cartoon image of jesus.

Please don't let this topic turn into yet ANOTHER 'msulims are bad, mmkay?' thread. frankly, it's become quite boring the way all threads end up on that same subject.

I'll remind you people again, that the point of this thread is about youtube pulling one part of a southpark episode and about censorship in particular. NOT about muslims.

If you want to discuss muslims (again), do it in another thread. not here.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:39 pm

Comedy Central censors image of Mohammed standing there talking with Peter Griffin, but allows the image of Jesus being shat upon and shitting on other people and the American flag to air. When the whole point of the episode was the overreaction on the part of Muslims to a cartoon.

And Ferno blames Christians? WTF?

It's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:01 pm

Wow, I didn't know that You Tube represented christianity! Thanks for the enlightenment!

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:02 pm

Ferno wrote:Main Entry: cen·sor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

they didn't just refuse to carry it. they deleted something that was already on their webserver. that act, in itself, is censorship.

Except that... by crying foul on this kind of censorship, you are limiting someone else's freedom of speech. It's a privately owned business. As Kilarin said, you are free to look for this elsewhere. They can decide what and what not to show on their own page. The only complaining that should ever happen about censorship is when the government bans things, but that's rarely what "I'm being censored!" whores are crying about.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:20 pm

Nirvana wrote:
Except that... by crying foul on this kind of censorship, you are limiting someone else's freedom of speech. It's a privately owned business. As Kilarin said, you are free to look for this elsewhere. They can decide what and what not to show on their own page. The only complaining that should ever happen about censorship is when the government bans things, but that's rarely what "I'm being censored!" whores are crying about.

tell that to Tom Cruise who had CC pull a scientology episode.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:55 pm

Ferno, I've been wanting to say this for a very, very long time and have refrained... but, here goes.

I think you're an pretty okay guy, but you're unbelievably naive.. like, off the charts.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:16 am

Fusion pimp wrote:Ferno, I've been wanting to say this for a very, very long time and have refrained... but, here goes.

I think you're an pretty okay guy, but you're unbelievably naive.. like, off the charts.

LOL. harsh criticism coming from a follower..

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:42 am

Ferno wrote:
Nirvana wrote:
Except that... by crying foul on this kind of censorship, you are limiting someone else's freedom of speech. It's a privately owned business. As Kilarin said, you are free to look for this elsewhere. They can decide what and what not to show on their own page. The only complaining that should ever happen about censorship is when the government bans things, but that's rarely what "I'm being censored!" whores are crying about.
tell that to Tom Cruise who had CC pull a scientology episode.

Way to deflect the statement... it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Tom Cruise.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:25 am

Everything has to do with Tom Cruise.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:48 am

Ferno wrote: let's try that again WITHOUT the appeal to emotion and distaste towards muslims.

Ok, a group complains about something offensive and gets it pulled. in the one case, it would be the cartoon image of muhammed.

in this case, someone complained and gets the third part pulled. in this case it would be a cartoon image of jesus.

Ferno, you are the one who equated the reaction of the muslims rioting (which included kidnapping and murder) to the reaction of christians demanding a stoppage to the offensive display by threatening to boycot the product and media outlets which broadcast the offensive product.

The christians are merely threatening to stop watching the network that airs the offensive material and boycot the sponsors...the islamo fascists are kidnapping and murdering citizens of the countries that allow the offensive cartoon to be published.
If you want to pretend there isn't a big difference between those two reactions go ahead.

I didn't bother to address your silly censorship claim because as many here have already pointed out it is not censorship, it is a commercial entity reacting to customer demands.

PS: I'm not appealing to emotion or exploiting distaste toward anyone. I'm flat out telling you that murderers and kidnappers are scum and not to be put on the same level as outraged consumers who are trying to peacefully change something by refusing to purchase a product! If having that simple fact pointed out stirs emotion or hatred instead of simply being recognized as common sense then please take it up with anyone who shares your over reaction to hearing the simple truth.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:50 am

Ferno wrote:tell that to Tom Cruise who had CC pull a scientology episode.

Tom Cruise is exercising his free speech rights. He's doing exactly what Kil is talking about- protesting with his wallet. His wallet just happens to be really stinkin big (In this case, the company had a vested interest in Tom's actions), thus he has the ability to make a bigger impact on the company than any old joe out there. Tom isn't doing anything to force the South Park episode to be pulled, he's just in a position that he can make it very financially lucritive for them to pull the episode, so they did. Point being, the company is still free to do whatever they want.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:21 pm

snoopy, nirv, the reason cruise had that episode pulled was because he was offended by south park making digs on scientology. and since CC is also owned by Viacom (who also owns Paramount, which is producing MI:3), he threatened to not promote MI:3 if that episode wasn't pulled. by doing so, he used his financial muscle to limit someone else's free speech.

will, I was drawing a parallel from the RESULT. not the method. both are 'means to an end' one is violent, and one is not. One is abhorrent, and one is merely annoying.

Also, the christians didn't just threaten to stop watching it. they actively had a part pulled.

While the company is free to do what they want, it doesn't mean they can do anything without some kind of reaction.

If they pull a part that has a jesus joke, they're gonna have to start pulling more and more jesus jokes to appease whoever complained about it. and once that happens, there won't be any kind of religious jokes there. yes. the slippery slope.

I also read their TOS (while talking to DC about this) to see exactly where this joke would fall under. The part that i was looking at included a passage about 'including but not limited to defamatory, pornographic, or obscene' material. And a jesus joke doesn't seem to fall under any of those categories.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:53 pm

Paul wrote:Interestingly, seems like they were going to have Mohammed in there, but that got censored by Comedy Central, so they did Jesus instead. And, what do you know, it aired.

At least, that's what this seems to indicate... I haven't seen it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/1 ... index.html

Not quite. For everyone that didn't see the episode, this was the rough episode premise:

An episode of "Family Guy" (inside of the South Park universe) was going to air with a picture of Muhammed in one of FG's random-style jokes. The exact joke was something like, "That was like the time Muhammed handed me a fish helmet" (and then a flashback to Muhammed handing Peter a fish helmet). (SP was also mocking FG's style of comedy.) But the Muslim world inside of the south park universe protested and promised swift retaliation if the episode were to air because it showed Muhammed. Most of the two parts were engaging in the different viewpoints as to whether or not free speech is worth human lives, etc. Ultimately, the FG episode on South Park was shown uncensored in the show, but then Cartoon Network, in real life, censored the image. Later in the episode, the Muslims, as part of their swift retaliation, broadcast an anti-American/Jesus joke, where Jesus and other Americans are crapping all over each other. This was uncensored by Cartoon Network. It was supposed to be a happy ending, because the Muslim world inside the SP universe was participating in free speech instead of resorting to violence.

Unfortunately, things are seldom so ideal in real life.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:55 pm

Ferno wrote:by doing so, he used his financial muscle to limit someone else's free speech.

Only to limit the avenues in which they could distribute that speech. I don't really approve of Tom's actions here, but he is within his rights to not support an organization that is doing something he considers offensive.

Ferno wrote:Also, the christians didn't just threaten to stop watching it. they actively had a part pulled.

Yes, Christians said that they would not give financial support to a company that distributed material they found offensive. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ferno wrote:While the company is free to do what they want, it doesn't mean they can do anything without some kind of reaction.

And unless I am misunderstanding you, you are here stating that you plan on using the same technique. Pulling the South Park scene offended you, so you aren't going to support that company anymore. Good on you. AND, considering the popularity of South Park, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there are enough people on your side to win this economic argument.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:22 pm

Ferno wrote:will, I was drawing a parallel from the RESULT. not the method. both are 'means to an end'....

Well, I would call the dead and kidnapped victims of the islamo-fascists method a result also...a very distinguishable result that shouldn't be ignored just so you can try to equate the reactions of two different groups!
You basically said the christians should clean up their act before complaining about the islamo-facsists. That flawed analogy may have been a minor component to your point but I think it is indicative of a much bigger problem we face than consumers using their buying power to get vendors to drop a product they find offensive!

Your misunderstanding of the difference between censorship and a group of consumers withholding support for a product is nothing compared to your willingness to equate the two drastically different forms of behavior.
It's like saying one group refused to buy the fruit at the fruit stand because he told jokes about their god and the other group decided to cut off the head of the fruit vendor and set him on fire because he told jokes about their god.... that is not the same result! Yes both caused the fruit vendor to stop selling his fruit but the sudden stoppage of fruit sales suddenly becomes a very small story in the light of the burning corpse of the murdered fruit vendor!
Two protests, two very different results in my book.
And a distinction that shouldn't be brushed off so easily.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:11 pm

Will, are you capable of reading? He said the END RESULT. He didn't ask you to go into another bigoted rant.

Furthermore, do you really think that the other extremeist groups arne't just as bad? I suppose you never heard of the Phelps family, or the KKK?

They are just as bad, if not worse, so please spare us your bigoted garbage.

Far as I can see here, Kilarin is the only one that actually put some kind of effort into refuting Ferno's points. Why don't you try doing the same.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:21 pm

\"And unless I am misunderstanding you, you are here stating that you plan on using the same technique. Pulling the South Park scene offended you, so you aren't going to support that company anymore.\"

correct. I will vote with my wallet, and get my southpark fix elsewhere. no boycotts involved here. just a simple change of avenue.

BTW, did you know that the american family association threatened to boycott Ford for advertising in gay/bi magazines? 3 million members in that orginization. yet, Ford was able to sell 28 times that in just the f150 in one year. so their boycott would have been a little more than a joke.

now the reason I am not quoting the rest of your statement is because I agree with it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:45 pm

MD-2389 wrote:Will, are you capable of reading? He said the END RESULT. He didn't ask you to go into another bigoted rant.

Furthermore, do you really think that the other extremeist groups arne't just as bad? I suppose you never heard of the Phelps family, or the KKK? They are just as bad, if not worse, so please spare us your bigoted garbage.

Far as I can see here, Kilarin is the only one that actually put some kind of effort into refuting Ferno's points. Why don't you try doing the same.

Yes I can read.
I read this:
"So those who say that muslims should have thicker skin, but can't tolerate a jesus joke? They should grow a thicker skin too, because as it stands now.. they are total hypocrites.

Sure, they're not rioting in the streets, but the end result is the same.

So clean your own crap up first before complaining about someone else's." -Ferno

It seems pretty clear he equated the two reactions, totally dismissing the glaring difference between the two groups which is, one faction makes the market for the bad joke suffer through peaceful methods and the other kills people to make the consumers of the bad joke dead!

And you think I'm a bigot for pointing that out?!?
Is there some kind of unwritten rule of equal protection that says we shouldn't point out the murderous tactics of islamo-fascists and at the same time we can equate their murderous tactics to peacful protests?!?! WTF?!?

If not being afraid to mention that the islamo-fascist's are murderous in their protests is a bigot in your world then please continue to call me by that name!
And yes I'm aware of the totally sicko Westboro baptist church members, they remind me of bin Laddin and his followers and yet even those totally whacko christian protestors have managed to refrain from murder and kidnapping and I'll bet you don't think of yourself as a bigot for pointing out that whacko faction do you?!?

Grow up, get a clue, and learn to accept reality.
Ferno's point about censorship was off base and his equating murderous whackos with christians protesting peacefully was even more off base. Your attempt to rationalize and explain away the stark contrast between the the two groups is laughable and yet sad.
As for refuting his lame point, I did that too...can't you read?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:14 pm

Ferno wrote:did you know that the american family association threatened to boycott Ford for advertising in gay/bi magazines? 3 million members in that orginization. yet, Ford was able to sell 28 times that in just the f150 in one year. so their boycott would have been a little more than a joke.

And this is one reason I REALLY like boycots as a method of protest. The really radical groups generally don't have large enough numbers to make a big dent into a companies pockets. Unless the company has managed to offend, and I mean REALLY offend, a significant percentage of their customers, they will probably not feel too much pressure from the boycott.

And yet, it still lets the protesters feel like they have actually gotten a message through. If Ford lost a few percentage points of profit, they can probably swallow it down without much difficulty, BUT, they WILL notice it. Unlike the pile of protest "letters" that get thrown away. A boycott lets a company know that they have stepped on peoples toes, without necessarily forcing that company to take action.

AND, boycotts allow wonderful marketplace wars. Some radicals on the right start protesting Ford because they advertised in gay magazines. So the word gets out, and radical groups on the left start buying Ford preferentially. Ford MIGHT end up doing BETTER. Who knows?

All MUCH better than getting the government involved. And much better than burning down buildings or shooting at people.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:43 pm

\"one is violent, and one is not. One is abhorrent, and one is merely annoying.\" miss this part, will?

\"All MUCH better than getting the government involved. And much better than burning down buildings or shooting at people.\" most definitely. I can't stand violent protests. but peaceful ones, as long as they're not for a whacko reason, more power to ya.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:09 pm

Ferno wrote:"one is violent, and one is not. One is abhorrent, and one is merely annoying." miss this part, will?

No, I saw that, but I also saw the constant attempt to equate kidnapping and murder with peaceful protest and was pointing out the fallacy in the "same result" argument you were making...

Using ones purchasing power to remove support from a commercial entity that is directly responsible for publishing or promoting an offensive product.....and kidnapping and murdering random citizens simply because their nationality or religion matches a person who published an offensive product is far from producing the "same result".

It was a silly attempt on your part to portray peaceful, legal protest as the equivalent of terroristic, murderous behavior, but other than than that minor mistake you were just confused about the meaning of censorship

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:50 am

Since when did \"free speech\" extend to the airways?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:48 pm

MD, since when has the Phelps family killed anyone? They might be bigoted, greedy losers... but they're not violent, bigoted, greedy losers.

The KKK and Muslim extremists are the same sort of people. And the KKK is widely denounced, criticized, and looked down upon by society as a whole. Where are the widespread criticisms and denunciations of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Where are the Muslims showing up to protest that comedy central *should* be allowed to post offensive material without threat of violence?

It's time for them to step up and stop letting their own religion be used for violence.

-----

Now, if you think youtube / the AFA / etc. should be compared to the KKK or Muslim extremists because they pulled a South Park episode or objected to ads in gay magazines, you've got a seriously warped sense of perspective.

By the way, I'm currently involved in an anti-boycott of Danish goods. After the Mohammed cartoons ran in the Danish newspaper (whose name I forget), certain Muslim groups exercised their free-speech and free-market rights by calling for a boycott of Danish products. And I'm exercising my free-speech rights by buying Danish products to counteract them. This is how it *should* go. No threats of violence, just spending my money where I want to spend it.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:34 pm

I have to agree. The end result, being whether something is published or not, really isn't what matters here. What matters is how that point was reached. I think your arguments are exactly opposite Ferno. The right to free speech isn't about if something is actually communicated or not, it's about an individual (or corporation) having the freedom to communicate it if they so desire. Obviously, that freedom ends (at a fuzzy line) when other's personal rights are violated. So, I can hate Joe down the street, and I can express it in some ways, but I can't express it by shooting him. Violence is not covered under free speech because it violate's other's personal rights. Writing nasty letters may or may not be covered under free speech depending on exactly how threatening they may be. Choosing to buy (or not to buy) something is a perfect example of one exercising their right to free speech.

The point is that by complaining about something, and providing motivation for one to do as you like (while not physically forcing them) is simply an example of you exercising your freedom of speech. You are not violating that person's right to free speech, you are simply exercising your own. Rioting violently does violate their freedom of speech, because you are physically forcing them to stop. The government censoring everything before it is published is violating a freedom of speech. Fox (I think it was Fox) getting fined because of a super bowl nip slip is the government (representing the people) providing motivation for it not to be repeated. It can be a bit of a slippery slope with the representation issue, because the people can be misrepresented, but that's a whole different issue. As far as I know, the issue with the South Park episode wasn't touched by the government, so it's kinda a side issue.