XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > Barry Margolin  wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> So it's worth risking people's lives to air a cartoon?   
   >> >   
   >> > No, it's worth risking people's lives to thwart the ability of a bunch   
   >> > of psychopathic barbarians to dictate our culture to us.   
   >>   
   >> Very few people in America would say that South Park is 'our culture'   
   >> except   
   >> perhaps within the phrase 'South Park is an unfortunate result of our   
   >> culture'....kinda like dog fighting videos.   
   >   
   > Whether one likes the show or not (and since it's been a hit for over a   
   > decade and still going strong, I'd dispute your characterization of it)   
      
   The show has a few million viewers out of the hundreds of millions of people   
   in the USA.  it is not representative of US culture.   
      
   > hardly determines whether it's part of the culture or not.   
      
   Same goes for dog fighting videos, as I stated.   
      
   >> ...but again, the issue isn't about Comedy Central denying these   
   >> cartoonists the ability for 'free speech' (which as you have   
   >> pointed out numerous times in the past does not apply to private   
   >> companies controlling what their  eployees are allowed to say).   
   >   
   > Only in a legalistic sense. Certainly CC can censor the show all they   
   > want. Not once in this thread have I suggested that Parker and Stone   
   > have a valid 1st Amendment censorship cause of action against CC.   
      
   So then, I am glad to see that you acknowledge that no 'censorship' exists   
   here.   
      
   > It's   
   > not about what they *can* do, but rather what they *should* do. Free   
   > speech isn't just a legal term of art.   
      
   What they *should* do is keep people from dying and keep this macho posing   
   from getting any more out of control to where it costs the company lots of   
   money.  What they *should not* do is make this a line in the sand that they   
   are all willing to die over.   
      
   > What I (and several others) are   
   > saying is that when given the choice to back the freedoms of their   
   > talent or cave to a group of bloodthirsty psychopaths, perhaps the   
   > former would be the more morally righteous group to pick.   
      
   ...and yet you don't have the balls to dress up as Muhammed and take to the   
   streets in front of the radical mosque.  As such, you really have no   
   business asking others to do the same for you even when they don't believe   
   in your 'cause'.   
      
   >> For Comedy Central, the issue is about protecting their financial   
   >> investment and their employees lives...a far more   
   >> worthy/legitimate reason to 'give in' than when they give in   
   >> to groups setting up sponsor boycotts.   
   >   
   > Neither one is worthy at all.   
      
   The fact that you think people's lives are not worthy of protection is mind   
   boggling.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)