Jim Emerson / March 17, 2006

Printer-friendly » E-mail this to a friend »

Daily Variety reports a statement by an anonymous spokesperson (?) for Tom Cruise, saying he did not exert pressure on Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom (owner of Paramount) to pull the scheduled repeat of the "South Park" episode that ridiculed Cruise and Scientology -- at least not by threatening he wouldn't do publicity for "MI:3." ("Inside Move: 'South Park' feeling some celeb heat?"):

Blog reports pegged the mysterious episode switch to objections raised by Cruise, who, the reports stated, threatened to not promote "Mission: Impossible 3," the summer tentpole for Viacom-owned Paramount.

A spokesman for Cruise denied that Cruise had ever made such a threat. "He never said any such thing about 'Mission: Impossible 3,'" the spokesman said.

Seems kind of like a non-denial denial to me, since it doesn't address the central question: Did he try to prevent the episode from being repeated or not?

On his Time.com blog, The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan reminds readers that Paramount did refuse to air the episode in the UK, "where the media is more vulnerable to libel claims":

The only way Comedy Central can show that they are not lying about this is to broadcast "Trapped in the Closet" again. Next week. Or at least, to put it in rotation again (as of now, it isn't scheduled). This seems on the face of it to be yet another example of a big media company kow-towing to religious sensitivities. Comedy Central has already yanked one 'South Park' episode, under pressure from the Catholic League. Now they're caving in to the Scientologists. Can you see them allowing another 'South Park' episode which includes Muhammad? 'South Park' has portrayed Muhammad before, but that was before the Islamist bullies took to the streets. You think Viacom cares about freedom of expression?

Sullivan urges readers to write to Viacom and Comedy Central at this link to voice your objections (suggested subject line: "Freedom of Speech"), and concludes by calling for a boycott of "MI:3":

Finally, make sure you don't go see Paramount's "Mission Impossible: 3," Cruise's upcoming movie. I know you weren't going to see it anyway. But now any money you spend on this movie is a blow against freedom of speech. Boycott it. Tell your friends to boycott it.

I've had one e-mail from a Canadian reader already who says the criticism should be focused on Viacom for caving in, but not on Cruise for exerting his influence to keep the "Trapped in the Closet" episode from being shown again. After all, wouldn't you do the same thing if somebody publicly ridiculed you (and you happened to have the power and influence Cruise does)?

Well, first of all, as I noted earlier in the week, people do have constitutional (and inalienable!) rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Which means that your speech and your religion are not exempt from ridicule. If you honor the principle of free speech then you don't believe in suppressing offensive or unflattering speech; you believe in responding to it with more speech, not censorship. That's the whole idea. Cruise can condemn or criticize or ridicule or call for a boycott of "South Park" all he likes. But when he (and/or his mega-media bosses) actually intervene to prevent something from being expressed (something that is not illegal or libelous), that's a kind of corporate prior restraint that (though legal -- and undoubtedly common) is not something free speech advocates can condone. So, we criticize. It's scary enough that so few companies control all the mainstream media (television networks, newspapers, movie studios, etc.); it's even worse when we see how clients in one division of the company can quash work by clients in another division.

Say George Clooney was making a big movie at 20th Century Fox. Would it be right for him to put pressure on the powers at Fox News to stifle Bill O'Reilly's cartoonish condemnations of "Hollywood liberals"? Not that such a thing would ever happen. But I submit it would be wrong if it did. And the outcry would be tremendous. Let's not forget that the corporate media in America were, for the most part, too afraid to actually show their readers the insulting Danish cartoons of Mohammed that some Muslims were killing and rioting about. How do we develop an informed opinion about the controversy if we can't see the actual cartoons for ourselves? One more blow against democracy, which requires an informed population.

P.S. Comedy Central claims they substituted the South Park Film Festival episode, featuring Chef's Salty Chocolate Balls, because Scientologist Issac Hayes had quit the show a few days earlier over objections to the Scientology stuff in "Trapped in the Closet." They said they wanted to show an old episode that featured one of Chef's most memorable appearances, because fans would like the chance to remember and pay tribute to him. Which makes very little sense. The guy just resigned from the show a few days before they were scheduled to show the very episode that caused him to quit. That's the one people want to see. If that was the logic behind the programming decision, somebody sure doesn't understand the "South Park" audience and needs to get a new job.

"Trapped in the Closet" can be viewed in its entiredy (for the time being) here and here.

More about Cruise and Xenu and Scientology here.

Previous Scanners postings about Cruise and Scientology and censorship (and Chef) here and here and here.

Wikipedia also has articles about "Trapped in the Closet" and Scientology.

Rolling Stone recently published an in-depth article about Scientology and its recruitment of celebrities.

The Church of Scientology of South Park is here.