Last night's episode of South Park was one of those rare but shimmering moments when the show is both funny and politically relevant. At issue: Family Guy, and the cartoon portrayal of the prophet Muhammad of Islam.

First, the funny, wherein Family Guy is taken to task. The episode (along with last week's) primarily makes fun of how Family Guy's humor mostly derives from jokes that are completely irrelevant to the plot. To illustrate this point, they explain that the writing staff of the show is comprised of several manatees in a large water tank who pick from a pile random balls with words written upon them such as "Gary Coleman" and "Mexico." These balls, when put together, create a random Family Guy joke. Funny, mocking, and (metaphorically) true.

Second, the political, wherein South Park reveals the persistent hypocrisy surrounding censorship. The basic plot of the episode is that Fox is refusing to air a Family Guy episode that shows a cartoon representation of Muhammad, and Kyle goes on a crusade to get them to change their minds. Layered above that is the obvious question of whether Comedy Central (i.e., Viacom) will let South Park itself portray Muhammad. The answer comes at the end of the episode, when Kyle finally convinces Fox to air the Family Guy episode. A rather mundane joke follows where Muhammad gives Peter a football helmet at his front door (I don't remember why), but when Muhammad is supposed to appear, white text on a black screen appears stating that Comedy Central refused to allow the portrayal of Muhammad.

They then show Al Qaeda's hypothetical response to Fox's airing of Muhammad, which you can view below. The hypocrisy being clear: the network is too scared to allow them to show Muhammad do something as mundane as handing Peter a football helmet, yet they air the below without a blink of the eye.

Censorship = Fear:

Today's an interesting day for the Berkman Center (my employer). After releasing an OpenNet Initiative report that details how the Tunisian government censors, filters, and controls Internet information, a couple of Berkman fellows (Ethan Zuckerman and Rebecca MacKinnon from Global Voices) are hosting a session called "Expression under Repression" at WSIS -- and the Tunisian authorities aren't happy about it.

The RJ is reporting that the city of Las Vegas has removed two pieces of art from a gallery that connects the City Hall to the garage, after receiving an anonymous complaint. I've posted one of the pieces here, which is by Kristin Pinkerton.

From the article:

City Manager Doug Selby said the pictures were taken down because of fears that the city could be sued for violating Title VII.

As Lee said to me, I guess they'd rather be sued for First Amendment violations.

Of course, the real hypocrisy in all of this is that this is happening in Las Vegas, where billboards with almost naked women in lusty poses are de rigeur.

Update: Word is that they are putting them back up today.

=?   

So the American Library Association lists the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000. That is, books that have been the cause of complaints from parents, concerned readers, moral and upstanding citizens, etc. What's interesting about this list is that most people would probably be surprised not to find such books as Animal Farm, Portnoy's Complaint, or Origin of Species but to find those written mostly for children and adolescents.

The list contains such hubris as Where's Waldo (#88 -- who knows why), Forever by Judy Blume (#8 - a novel meant to be a sexual awakener for older adolescents), James and the Giant Peach (#56 - he's arguably a parricidal killer!), and the Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz (#1 ). All told, I've read 20 of the books on the list (plus a few more I've read partly), most when I was between the ages of 8 and 13. I guess these books deliver reality to their unsuspecting readers all too swiftly, as exemplified by the inclusion of Bridge to Terabithia. Perhaps parents would rather let their children learn about coping with death through example than through literary food-for-thought. (via Kevin Drum)