Abusing Free Speech: Response to the South Park TV Episode Featuring Prophet Mohammad

• Tweet
• Email

• Tweet
• Email

Edward Mitchell, writing for the Georgetown Law Weekly, responds to recent controversy surrounding South Park and their insistence on
pictorializing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and subsequently a website’s veiled threats to South Park creators:

Abusing Free Speech
Edward Mitchell
Georgetown Law Weekly Newspaper
Published 4/28/10

Freedom of speech is undoubtedly one of our country’s most distinguishing characteristics.

It easily sets us apart from fellow powerhouses China and Russia, where the baton or the bullet often greets those who “doth protest too much.” Our reverence for free speech even distinguishes us from some Western countries like Germany. There, it’s a crime to deny the Holocaust. Here, uniformed Neo-Nazis can spew their madness on a city street in broad daylight.

Such is the extent to which we revere the right to generally say what you want, when you want, where you want (short of yelling “Fire!” in that proverbially crowded theater, of course).

That First Amendment freedom has benefited our country in many ways. Among other things, it has protected and fostered the free flow of ideas, creativity, and political debate. Further, that right has been guaranteed by the blood of soldiers and exemplified by men who lost their lives while speaking out for good, but at-the-time controversial causes.

It is therefore more than a shame when our fellow citizens abuse free speech.

For over a decade, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been a two-man case study in such abuse. The pair has gotten away with much, from lampooning Tom Cruise as a closeted homosexual to depicting various respected global figures engaged in all manner of debauchery.

Last week, their 200th show managed to grab international headlines. In the episode, previously lampooned cartoon celebrities like Cruise sought to capture the one person who was seemingly impervious to the public mockery they had suffered: the Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings be upon him (a blessing that Muslims say following the mention of him or other messengers of God). The show eventually appeared to ‘show’ the Prophet, but disguised in a bear suit.

Part two of the episode continued the same storyline, but this time, Comedy Central censored numerous images and bleeped out apparent references to the Prophet.

As the company knew, Muslims generally avoid visual representations of the Prophet—even positive ones—out of fear that people may eventually use such images as idols in derogation of the pure worship of God. For example, some American Muslims have asked Congress to remove its statue of the Prophet, which appears in the Capitol Building along with other depictions of historic law-bearers.

Even the 1977 Hollywood biographical movie “Muhammad: the Messenger of God” never once showed its title character, instead telling his story from the perspective of another real-life figure of the time.

Of course, if positive visual representations of the Prophet spark criticism, insulting visual representations can inspire even greater consternation, as shown by the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy.

That international incident began when Danish newspapers published—and then, to make a point about free speech following criticism—republished pictures of the Prophet in an unflattering light.

Angry demonstrations swept across the Muslim world, sporadic violence ensued, and some protestors attacked Danish embassies. The incident sparked a global debate over free speech and religion—specifically, the right to free speech balanced against religious sensitivity.

With the airing of last week’s South Park episode, that debate has returned full-force. Soon after the show cut to black, the website “Revolution Muslim” posted a message telling Parker and Stone that they would “probably wind up like” murdered Dutch filmmaker and Islam critic Theo Van Gogh. The group also published addresses where the South Park creators might be located.

America is home to about seven million Muslims, but so far, that website posting represents the only instance of open anger over the episode. Putting aside the issue of media over-amplification, the whole mess still highlights the unfortunate tendency of some Americans to abuse their right to freedom of speech—whether by widely publishing someone’s address, or by intentionally and unnecessarily offending 1.6 billion people.

Of course, freedom of speech protects South Park’s right to do what it did, but when the show does dangerous things for no reason, it abuses and misuses that right.

In attempting to depict the Prophet, Stone and Parker were making an obvious point: nothing should be off-limits to mockery. But why make that point now, and why in this way?

Because they could—and because it was their 200th episode.

But doing something offensive and dangerous just because you can, or as a warped way to celebrate free speech, is not an admirable exercise of that right—it’s an abuse of it.

The fact is this: 1.6 billion people around the world sincerely believe that God has delivered messages to mankind through human messengers like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and yes, Muhammad, may peace and blessings be upon them all. Widely publicized, negative visual depictions of those messengers have, as you might expect, sparked negative reactions among some Muslims.

Even if you think that offended Muslims are simply overreacting, why try to provoke such inevitable reactions unless you have a pressing reason to do so?

Imagine it this way: I’m sitting beside a man named Bob. I know that Bob loves his recently deceased mother. In fact, Bob loves his late mother so much that he sometimes punches people who mock, insult or otherwise malign her. Such a reaction is, of course, illegal. Further, I consider his sensitivity ridiculous.

I now have two options.

Option one: I can turn, look Bob in the eye, and tell him that his mother was fat. This will remind him of my philosophical belief that nothing should be off-limits to my mockery.

Option two: I can leave Bob alone, for I don’t actually need to insult his mother, much less discuss her at all. Furthermore, to the extent that my insult could make some elusive point about free speech, the potential harm to my nose and/or offense to Bob outweigh the benefits.

Although Matt Stone and Trey Parker have never been known as considerate, they should follow the lead of Comedy Central and most major media organizations by voluntarily choosing Option #2—not out of fear, but out of respect. By instead attempting to offend for the sake of offending, they simultaneously exercise and abuse their right to free speech.

After all, many people around the world cannot freely say what they want, much less on national television. Those of us fortunate enough to live in a country where we can speak freely should exercise our right safely, respectfully, and most importantly, wisely.

The above article was posted on Facebook, I am just re-posting it

Further reading: South Park, the “Four Morons” of Revolution Muslim, and CNN’s Epic Fail