Skip to main content

Religio-Moral Heresy: South Park

Growing up and learning about how the United States government functions a common phrase that was constantly mentioned was "the separation between church and state." The phrase is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson who believed that "religion is a private matter, separate from the realm of government" (BCP 9). In 1952 this ideal was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Burstyn v. Williams. Joseph Burstyn had his license to distribute films revoked by the New York State Board of Regents because of his film "The Miracle" which the board considered to be "sacrilegious" (NACA). Burstyn proceeded to bring the matter to the Supreme Court which upheld his right to distribute the movie because it did not violate the 1st Amendment. The exact ruling was "(it is) not the right of the government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures" (Tedford and Herbeck 147). 

Ideas are supposed to be challenged and especially religious beliefs. My thoughts on the issue are congruent with Jefferson's in the regard that religion should be a personal and private matter but too often it becomes a public matter. When religion becomes a public matter and individuals are exposed to religious beliefs there has to be some level of discourse for those individuals to make their own decisions. In order for this to happen we as a nation must have protection to speak freely and in a challenging manner about these topics. I'm also a firm believer that comedy is a fantastic way to make sense of our world because taking a step back to laugh can create perspective that would otherwise be lost in the seriousness of the discussion. 

The most notable and relevant example of this to me is the television show South Park. I have been a fan of this show for years and the biggest reason for that is that they comment (typically in a very offensive fashion) about current events and they leave nothing sacred. A 2010 episode titled "Cartoon Wars" created controversy when it depicted the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which is forbidden by the Koran (Itzkoff). This elicited a veiled threat directed towards the creators of the show Trey Parker and Matt Stone from the religious group Revolution Muslim. The F.B.I was asked about the issue and ascertained that there was no criminal threat towards the creators however a spokesperson was quoted saying "in most cases these are First Amendment issues and the F.B.I vigorously defends people's First Amendment rights." (Itzkoff). Even with the backing of the F.B.I that the episode was within the grounds of the First Amendment, Comedy Central still censored the show further than the South Park Production Office (Itzkoff). 

Through Burstyn and the creation of this episode of South Park over 50 years later we can deeper analyze the freedom of speech. Even though the episode was within the legal rights guaranteed by our country we still saw censorship. The possible concerns and security issues that were brought forth by creating the episode in my opinion should not have been a reasonable reason to censor. It was protected speech and yet a religious group created enough reason to censor and that disparity between the church and state became a grey area. The real question that needs to be raised here is how free is our speech if "it is not the right of the government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures" but our speech can still be swayed and censored by exterior forces? 

Sources

Burstyn v. Williams. 343 U.S. 495 (1952).
     United States Supreme Court. 1952

Itzkoff, Dave. "South Park' Episode Altered After Muslim Group's Warning." The New York Times,
      The New York Times, 22 Apr. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html

"Separation of Church and State." The Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life

"Significance: Burstyn v. Wilson." National Coalition Against Censorship,
       ncac.org/resource/significance-burstyn-v-wilson.

Tedford, Thomas. L, and Herbeck, Dale A. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 
8th Edition., Strata Publishing, 2017. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more