Fatwas just ain’t what they used to be. When one was issued after the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, he was in genuine fear for his life (and at least one of his translators was murdered). It was only after years in hiding that Rushdie could gradually reemerge in public life and engage in the simple pleasures that so many of us take for granted, like attending U2 concerts or boning Padma Lakshmi. Now South Park‘s waded into similarly forbidden territory, with an outcome likely less dramatic and even more tragic.

South Park originally featured the Prophet Muhammad on TV in a pre-9/11 episode, but their 2006 attempt to repeat the feat after the Danish cartoon riots was undermined by Comedy Central censoring the episode (though it still worked as a very effective assault on Family Guy). Comedy Central did so again with what was to be Muhammad’s third “appearance” on the show last week. Since South Park has been allowed to attack pretty much everyone else on the planet (this is the show that featured JFK Jr. in hell), it seemed weird that the network would all of a sudden develop such sensitivity. Understandably, many people have rushed to the defense of its creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, such as in this piece.

Incredibly, however, there now seems to be something of a backlash to the defense of South Park. This article, for instance, helpfully points out…eh, I can’t be bothered, except to note that unless Eric Cartman was somehow behind the invasion of Iraq this may be the stupidest thing I have ever read and I skimmed a James Patterson novel. For me, this isn’t even a free speech issue, so much a case of a network announcing to the world: “We will resist any pressure…except the threat of violence. Then we’ll fold like a Lehman Brother.” Can they see why this is a really, really horrifically bad precedent for them and society as a whole? It reminds me of reading about a baseball game in the early 1900s, when one team realized that the umpire would make calls their way if they threatened him so they did, and in response the other team began to shove him until he reversed his decision, and finally both teams just beat the man who so let things slip away from his control. And you can’t you blame them for doing it: it was working!

To summarize, yes, it would be luverly if everyone only used their right of free speech to discuss nice, socially responsible things in an even tone like a frickin’ NPR Fresh Air segment…but that’s not how it works. I hope Parker and Stone aren’t in any danger (at the minimum, they’re rich enough to afford new deadbolts). And I very much hope Comedy Central starts to air these episodes uncensored. Muslims are often unfairly treated in this nation — when a presidential candidate needs to spend much of his time establishing he isn’t one of you, it’s a sign the glass ceiling is still intact — but has there ever been a problem where the solution was less open dialogue? In 1995 Salman Rushdie reemerged in public. It’s comforting to know that today he never would have needed to go into hiding; he just wouldn’t have been able to get his book published in the first place.

• Author Bio
• Latest Posts

Sean Cunningham

Latest posts by Sean Cunningham (Posts)

• Why Trump is so very Trump: a step-by-step analysis - May 30, 2017
• Grimly plausible question of the day: is the President showing early signs of dementia? - March 24, 2017
• The U.S. President most like Trump is… - November 7, 2016
• Garry Marshall was the most avant-garde filmmaker ever - July 20, 2016
• Trump-Cruz wedding rocks presidential race - April 1, 2016

Tags: art & entertainment // 1 Comment »