Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

I agree. My point is that there is equal treatment under the law.In addition, individuals (Comedy Central or CNN) have the right to make decisions about whether they wish to publish things.Freedom of Speech also includes the freedom to not say something.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Which one would that be? The one in which they originally showed mohammed (Super Best Friends) was aired normally, it is not available on their website, however. Every other episode that had mohammed in it was censored but aired, and can be seen in censored form on their webiste.You know what's really funny? Ever since "Super Best Friends" mohammed was depicted on every single South Park show, he's one of the many characters you see at the ending of the opening theme.Here's a picture (Mohammed is the one with the little red box around it on the right side, under Satan):

Super Best Friends, which you're right, can't even be seen on their website. The ONLY reason they originally aired it was because it was a pre-9/11 and Danish cartoonist time when shit wasn't so tense. But it has since been taken off. source - I'm sure you already know this but for those reading who don't:

quote:

---

...following Islamist death threats over the episode "201", as of April 22, 2010, neither the South Park Studios website nor Netflix streams "Super Best Friends". The episode is replaced on the website with the notice: "We apologize that South Park Studios cannot stream this episode." The episode was also once featured in syndication, but was taken off after the threats as well.

---

Yeah, if you squint real hard and freeze frame the intro to the show, you may actually catch it. - Oni

Freedom of Speech does not preclude reasonable restraint of speech by the speaker.The right to say something does not imply that the subject is worth saying.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It was taken off only after the "200" and "201" episodes, which was in april this year. Before that, it could be seen. So, only after CC became utter pussies did they remove the episode. Not after their first "mohammed controversy", in which they censored South Park showing Mohammed, and to which the Jesus shitting thing was a response (episode "Cartoon Wars Part II"), which was aired in april 2006 after the "cartoon riots" in regards to that Danish fellow.So, even after their first attempt to show mohammed, the original "Super Best Friends" stayed available online for 4 more years.Not wanting to offend muslims my ass! They pussied out.

Thattttssss the fucking episode I was thinking about, "Cartoon Wars!" Thanks for being such a South Park freak, lol.So that was the episode that they weren't allowed to show the image of Mohammed but did show Jesus shitting on Bush and the flag, right? I know, man. Fags- Oni

Yes, it's season 10 episode 4 (episode 3 being the first part), in case you want to look it up on their site.

The thing is though, there are things Comedy Central won't censor. The only word that they censor is fuck and the also don't really censor cartoon sex or the cartoon gore either.So it beats me why Mohammed is offensive but these things are not.After all, haven't they been threatened for showing these things as well?

Of course, there are precious little people who will actually hurt you if you insult them. It's not, they're just afraid, that's all. Which is the entire point the episodes are trying to make. People don't mock mohammed. Not because they respect the beliefs of muslims, or because "he is immune to insults" as Tom Cruise says in the episodes, but because people are afraid that they will get hurt when they do so. Probably, but not on such a massive scale as the muslim fucktards threaten people for showing a picture of a man of which nobody knows what he looked like in the first place anyway.

Not sure if it was discussed, but did anyone say that the planned opening date for the Mosque was supposed to be 9/11/11?As I mentioned before, I am for letting them build a Mosque, but I should also add, that if they are constructing some kind of Shrine to what happened there, then I am obviously not for it.

Why do you think Christians and Jews would fund and oversee a project to construct "a shrine to what happened on 9/11"? (By which I assume you mean a shrine to the hijackers, and not the victims, for which there are like a bazillion shrines all over the place.)Why do you think a major corporate partner to Fox News would fund a shrine to the 9/11 hijackers?Do you think that because racist nativists told you that's what was going to be in the Park51 center?

Hi, rat.I heard that, too.It's obviously anti-Islamic propaganda--no 13-story building goes up in NY in one year, and they haven't even broken ground yet.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

A number of people have said that. There's even a name for these people. They're called "liars". Plans do involve a memorial to the victims. Which is obviously just evil.

Also, the FCC has been overruled just recently:Appeals court overturns FCC indecency rule:

quote:

---

NEW YORK, July 13 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court in New York ruled an FCC ruling on unscripted expletives on live broadcast television and radio violates the First Amendment.

​

The Los Angeles Times said the case stemmed from unscripted expletives entertainers Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie made on U.S. awards shows.

​

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday reversed the FCC's 2004 edict that declared even accidental bad language missed by network censors was a violation subject to fines for the stations that aired it.

​

"Under the current policy, broadcasters must choose between not airing or censoring controversial programs and risking massive fines or possibly even loss of their licenses, and it is not surprising which option they choose," Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote in Tuesday's 3-0 decision. "Indeed, there is ample evidence in the record that the FCC's indecency policy has chilled protected speech."

---

Appeals court overturns FCC indecency rule - UPI.com

And rightly so.