I love the show but sometimes it contains material that is so very very wrong on a variety of levels, I wonder how it gets shown on free-to-air TV.
In Australia we are, no doubt, behind the US with regards to South Park episodes and often repeats are shown when between seasons so the following may be an episode from 6 months - 2 years ago.
Cartman gives a talk on how the Latino community has contributed to the Arts in America and comes out with his left hand done up as Jennifer Lopez. The rest of the episode follows Cartman’s struggle with the new Jennifer Lopez’s fame and at one point Ben Affleck (sp?) falls in love with Cartman’s hand (still dressed as J Lo) and even gets oral sex from it :o.
This episode is but a mere example of how wrong South Park can be (something I enjoy from a humourous point of view).
How does it get past the censors? Are they so stupid that they can’t see the connotations?
The U.S. has freedom of speech. That’s why they get away with it there.
In Australia, we don’t have freedom of speech. We have sensors, but South Park falls well within the MA guidelines. They show it after 8.30, on SBS (which is covered by a different code to the commercial networks).
Australian censors are prudes, unrepresentative of general society and despicably stifly free speech, but they aren’t that bad. South Park is pretty tame.
I was under the impression that the US while having “freedom of speech” actually tended to be a lot more strict with media than Australia. I know that many American Tripple J (radio station) guests have to be reassured that, yes, they can say “fuck” on the air.
South Park is tame in terms of graphic/language, but IMHO the ideas often presented are far far worse than saying “cunt” or showing sexual intercourse.
I do understand why South Park can do it, but I think it’s slightly illogical.
In the USA, South Park is on Comedy Central, a cable channel which are not governed by the FCC or their laws against ‘obscene broadcasts’ which are a restriction of ‘free speech’. A show such as South Park could not be broadcast in the USA without some major censoring, both in content and language.
I believe that even if it was broadcast in the US, it wouldn’t be censored by the government per se. There is no federal agency that reviews TV shows beforehand, just one (the FCC) that acts on citizen complaints and gives out fines.
There is no active censoring of TV or radio shows by the government in the US. Each network has a “standards and practices” department which sets content guidelines for the network. They have to balance what the viewers want with what the advertisers are comfortable with. Obviously, the network broadcast standards have been quite liberalized over time. Back in the 1950s, you couldn’t even show two people in bed together.
The FCC can act in response to consumer complaints about broadcast network content. If they find something to be obscene (a very narrow criteria) then they can fine the network. This is very rare, and in the history of the FCC, only a few fines have been imposed on TV broadcast networks, and a few dozen on radio stations. The vast majority of the FCC’s enforcement actions are for ensuring technical standards and other boring minutia.
Cable channels are not bound by these content restrictions, and can theoreitcally air whatevery they want. But they still have advertisers to placate. Premium cable channels, which have no advertisers and make their money from subscriptions, can get away with pretty much whatever they want.
In the US, South Park airs on Comedy Central, an advertiser-supported cable channel. They can do it because they’ve found advertisers willing to put their ads on the show, as long as it’s aired late at night. They have even shown the South Park movie, an order of magnitude more offensive than the TV show, unedited.
Until last year, the UPN, for example, didn’t have a standards and practices department. That’s why BtVS got away with Buffy and Spike fucking each other until the house fell down around them. That’s also why they have a standards and practices department now.
I haven’t heard “fuck” uttered on South Park, but they did have that one episode where they said “shit” 163 times (more or less). Interestingly, “shit” is censored in later shows.
I’d be inclined to search for a real cite on that, Johnny L.A.. While it is funny to think that the morality-thugs don’t care if you’re viciously insulting someone as long as you’re not talking about sex, it just sounds too funny to be true.
There is mention of it in this hilarious document (“the foul language pie” ROFL), but searches turn up only repostings in blogs, message boards, and other “unreliable” personal or agenda-driven sites.
…unless someone wanted to broadcast a TV special that portrayed a former Republican President in a less-than-glowing light – then the RNC will come in with guns a’blazin’!
The first two “cites” you provide give exact quotes of what Bono supposedly said, yet in the two articles the quote is different. Why? I smell something odd there.
The only thing I can find is this document (again, from the website of the complaining “council”), which vaguely alludes that the decision may have something to do with an “approach” wherein a word that is otherwise indecent is deemed not because it’s used as an adjective, etc. The guy even says he “cannot comment on the specifics of a decision that I hope will soon be coming before me.” Meaning he can’t talk about the Bono case specifically, and in any case the incident apparently still in the queue to be reviewed.
So the story apparently is legit, but people have taken it and added their own material to it and presented it as news. Real news sites realize that vague allusions and making assumptions about decisions in a case that hasn’t even been decided yet isn’t good journalism.
Actually, Comedy Central, right after the inaugaration of Bush II, had a very irreverent program called “That’s My Bush!” which portrayed him as a dumb frat boy type (although largely benevolent, and they were working on a Gore version if HE’D won. Officially.) Fortunately, it finished its run before 9/11; even CC didn’t make fun of politics for a while after that. But then again, that was taste and sensitivity at work; the government wouldn’t and couldn’t have done anything if they had gone totally tasteless. But they would have lost the goodwill of many of their viewers, which means lost money.
This ain’t the UK with its Spitting Image and all, but there’s TONS of anti-Republican or anti-Democrat stuff on American TV, depending on who’s in power. I think we just don’t export it. An Aussie wouldn’t laugh too hard at Karl Rove and George Stephanopoulos, would they, just like most John Howard jokes would soar over my head, and I’m fairly informed for a seppo.
