Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006,
by Fred (,
censorship, Comedy Central, cults, scientology, South Park, Tom Cruise
,
There appears to be some evidence that Tom Cruise pressured Comedy Central into pulling the scheduled airing of the episode of South Park mocking Scientology. According to Hollywood, Interrupted
Sources from inside Paramount and South Park Studios report that parent company Viacom pulled last night’s scheduled repeat of the high-rated “Trapped in the Closet” episode after the humorless Scientologist movie star Tom Cruise threatened to cancel all publicity for Mission Impossible:3 if Comedy Central aired the episode that satirizes Scientology and mocks his sexuality again.
Not only is this the first time that the South Park creators have been officially censored in their ten hit seasons with Comedy Central, Viacom officials also reportedly ordered Matt Stone and Trey Parker not to discuss the reason why their episode was cancelled.
The South Park boys are said to be angry, but will probably get revenge with the manner in which they deal with Scientologist Isaac Hayes’ departure from the show.
So far, 1948 people have signed an online petition stating that
We, the loyal viewers of television’s South Park, do hereby protest against the removal of the episode “Trapped in the Closet.” We demand that Comedy Central put this episode back on the air and show it as soon as possible: we want everyone, including Tom Cruise, to know that censorship is wrong.
To that effect, we also will refuse to see any movies featuring Tom Cruise, most especially Mission Impossible 3, until this episode is once again shown.
Boycotting Mission Impossible 3 seems more like self-defense than a statement of political principle, but any attempt to stand up to murderous cults is to be commended.
[via lots of people, including Boing Boing]
Share This
Friday, March 10th, 2006,
by Fred (,
abortion, cults, custody, National Center for Men, politics, support
,
Chicagoan sues for constitutional right to be a deadbeat
They had sex. She got pregnant. She sued for child support. Now, he’s suing back, claiming that men have a constitutional right to “avoid procreation.”With the suit, Matthew Dubay, 25, of Saginaw, Mich., becomes the public face of a “men’s rights” movement that claims men should have the same ability as women to decide whether to have children.
The case is the first to assert a constitutional freedom to “choose not to be a father” under the equal protection clause, said Dubay’s attorney, Jeffery Cojocar.
Elsewhere, the “men’s rights” group has been calling this Roe v. Wade for Men. which makes sense, given that the only way, post-conception, for a man to “choose not to be a father” is to force the woman to have an abortion. It is, of course, a publicity stunt. Whatever your personal views about abortion, we do not as a society force individuals to undergo invasive medical treatment that carries inherent risk (conversely, at least one foundation for Roe is that government should neither force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, which itself has inherent risk, nor prevent a woman from undergoing medical treatment after informed consent).
Men and women both have means by which they can choose not to be a parent, both behavioral and technological (some more effective than others). There are many issues that men’s organizations can, and should, focus on — ensuring equality in custody considerations, for example, or improving enforcement of visitation orders. But allowing men to avoid supporting the children they bring into this world is not among them. There is no Constitutional right to be a deadbeat.
Share This
