Topic # 1(aliza):  The Colorado legislature debated a bill that would require divorcing parents to obtain a full year of counseling before a divorce is granted. The bill's sponsor, Rep. David Schultheis, said he wanted the counseling to focus on the negative effects of divorce on children, saying, "It's easier to get out of a marriage than a Tupperware contract." The bill was designed to make exceptions for physically or psychologically abused spouses, but critics worried that the counseling might inhibit an abused spouse's efforts to escape, and also that a year of counseling could produce great negativity that would ultimately be harmful to both parents and children.

Other legislatures have considered or are considering bills requiring couples to undergo counseling before getting married. In July, 2001, Minnesota passed a law giving couples a break on their marriage license fee if they take a premarital education course. What do you think? Is this a good idea?

I totally agree witht he courts on this issure, form my perspective it depends on the circumstancs of the divorce, if their is spousal abuse wheather verbal or physical than an immdiate divoce should be granted but if the issues are alot miner that i fel that couple should be made to work out this issue for a year and then at the end of their year and they have not  reach anagreement or figured out how to get along then ultimately they should seperate. I also agre with marriage counseling before a couple gets married becasue form my perspective familes who I have gone through premarital counseling have more sucessful marriages.   KIRIN

I agree with the idea behind it, because it is proven that couples who have some sort of counseling or marital education BEFORE getting married are less likely to get divorced, forcing people to do this will only make it become a thing to "get over" and they may not really have their hearts in it.  You can force someone to do something, but you cant force someone to believe in that something, so i disagree -katime

I don't think this is a good idea. I understand that the divorce rate is higher than ever in the United States right now, but the root of the problem isn't the divorces, it's the people rushing into marriage without being fully aware of the trials that marriage puts you through. COunciling a failed couple is a lost cause; if it's over it's over, too late for counciling. If anything, counseling for couples GOING INTO marriage should be counseled to see if they're up for the challenges for marriage. Atleast with that, the couple can actually tell if they're fit for marriage thus cuting down the amount of divorces due to failed marriages. -Merissa


 

   Today marriage has become a big issue due to the divorce rate, and how many people rush into the whole idea of marriage.  Even though the numbers are high for divorce many people end up getting married at a young age only to find themselves getting a divorce in 3 years.  Marriage is a life changing event that should be taken seriously because it has many different effects on anyone involved including friends, family and any children.  Many children involved in divorce have difficulties depending on their age, and the way the divorce proceeds.  The hassles of custody of the children and in general the entire idea of your parents splitting up is hard.  I think that families should try to work things out as much as possible before giving up on a marriage and getting a divorce.  Counseling might be a good option for people to begin with, and it can solve many simple problems.  Because counseling doesn't work for everybody, divorce of course is another option, but I think that people should take precautions when deciding to marry in the first place.  Premarital education courses could be helpful, if they aren't pricey, and deal with issues that many couples run into.  Although at this point in time couples might feel that they can go through everything together because they are in love, and no real problems have occurred.  Depending on what the course entails, these premarital education courses could be beneficial, but in reality how many people are going to attend them?  It's all dependent on the people involved in the marriage and their relationship status.~aliza


I personally believe that it is not the government's place to intrude upon individuals personal struggles. If a couple feels seeking help is necesarry or that seeking help may better the chances of the relationship surviving, I think/hope that couple is responsible/mature enough to seek such help. For anyone to come in and to enforce counseling upon a troubled couple because he/she feels it is not ethical for a divorce to take place is just beyond me. Of the two propositions listed above, I, like Mya, have an easier time understanding the decreased marriage license fee after undergoing a premarriage counseling course simply because it is not mandatory, it's merely a form of luring someone in. But for any sort of counseling to be made mandatory despite the affects of divorce on children is rediculous.--Lauren Gross

It sounds like a fine Idea to me, I think it could definatly not hurt at all and even potentially help out people (I dont knwo the statistics of how successful this would really be but I would assume it would def be beneficial). The only complaint I would have is that the government shouldnt interfer with personal relationships however, it sounds like this bill isnt making any mandatory requests, all optional suggestions (which is fine). *kim*

 

It is startling to see how many more divorces there are these days as compared to earlier years.  It seems like people getting together is all politics rather than love, but I do understand that sometimes the love goes and things don’t always end up as planned.  Probably the most discussed part of a divorce is how it is going to affect the children.  Because of this the government has looked at possible ways they can prevent divorces or maybe even fix them.  I don’t know if taking mandatory classes after a divorce will solve the problem, however providing classes for future married couples would be effective.  Also, giving couples a break off their marriage fee would be an incentive for them to take the classes and manage their marriage.  Besides that, I don’t think the government should get any more involved.  A marriage is a commitment by both the people involved and they should decide what happens between them.  Also, they should be mature enough to respect each other’s decision and take what happens as an adult.  That’s a big responsibility to put on people, but if they are mature enough to get married, they should be able to handle it.  ----Tim

 

Having grown up in a household with tensions mounting between the parents on a daily basis, I know that personally it is not the best for the children psychologically.  The children grow up feeling the lack of love in the household and never get to see a healthy relationship.  Personally, the divorce was a rough time in my life to endure but now that I look back on it, I know my life is much better without my father in it.  My mother is much happier and the general atmosphere in our house is much more pleasant.  I'm not saying that it isn't a good thing for the premarital courses and such because that is using prevention instead of trying to fix something that is already broken.  For the other part of the question though, I think that is wrong.  No one, not even the government, should force two people to stay together when they don't want to be together.  They entered the marriage by choice and they should be able to leave the marriage by choice.  No child should have to endure another year of constant fighting or a lack of love in the household.  It's not fair on the people in the marriage or on their children.  This is all personal opinion based on experience but I find it completely wrong to say that two people unhappy in marriage with eachother have to stay together for another year, attempting to work it out, because sometimes, honestly, the problems are not fixable.  ~ Danielle

 

I think this is a very touchy topic and that there is no answer. What's right for one couple could be completely wrong for another and to have one rule set for everyone to follow would seem absurd. Although making it mandatory for couples to undergo counseling may seem like a good idea at first, there's bound to be major problems underlying. If a married couple "falls out of love" and decides to file for divorce, it's obvious they're sure it's what they want to do. And there's no need to force them to be with each other and put the entire family through a year's worth of unneeded stress. A waive of the marriage license fee in return for couples going through counseling before marriage seems kind of unrealistic also. I know the divorce rate is at an all time high and the average span of a marriage these days is around ten years but what about those couples that truely are ready for a long term marriage? To make them sit through counseling when they don't need it seems sort of unfair. I mean, I'm sure these proposed laws are all in good intentions but thinking realistically - they're not going to do anything for us. --Michelle

 

I don’t like the sound of either one of those laws. In theory, having counseling for a year before granted a divorce sounds ok. It could help patch up a marriage and help their children. I have seen effects of divorce from some of my friends. They always tell such horrible stories. I couldn’t image if my parents went through a divorce, especially when I was younger. If that law would go into effect the exception for physically or psychologically abused spouses is a must! However, it is quite possible in order to get out of a marriage people will intentionally start abusing their spouses. As far as undergoing counseling before marriage, it seems rather crazy. When a couple is ready to get married there usually aren’t any problems or issues to be resolved. They are usually infatuated with each other. However, if the state is willing to pay them (reducing the marriage fee) and making the counseling optional, I don’t find anything wrong with that. --Christina

Well this is a very sensative topic for me personally. My parents are currently going through a divorce, and I believe that if they had this conselling class, their decision would change. You must realize that my bias is that I dont not believe my parents should get divorced. If my parents were to realize the effects of what could happen to my two little sisters, i do believe they would stick it out. A lot of people have said that this is a bad idea, to give parents conselling, I would like to know how many of them have experianced one for themselves. My parents have succusfully lied to each one of my sisters by telling them how things are gunna be, while in the real senerario, it doesnt seem to be very likely. I do believe it is unusual for an 18 year old to be dealing with divorcing parents, but I do have the aid of intelligence and "experience"(i realize it cant compare) on my side, so I do believe that this divorce will not be surprising to me, as it will be for them. I would be in support of these conselling trials, parents everywhere get divorced now a days....its no longer a big deal. I do believe that parents are begining to treat marriages more like relationships.....instead of what they are....marriages! Haveing a coarse could help them realize that the affects on their children, and if spliting up would be the best option. This isnt like a test......fill in your answers into a machine and it determines if u should get divorced/married....this is a person to person meeting....and over a year i believe that there would be a connection and understanding between conselour and counsellers. -Josh-

I have grown up in with my mom being my primary caretaker because my parents got divorced when I was 2.  Although I was very young when my parents split up and I don't remember them fighting, I still know how difficult it is to deal with divorce. However, I don't think that the government doesn't have the right to force couples to stay together for a year and try to work it out. I agree with Danielle that it is a couple's choice to go into a marriage and it should be their choice to leave it. It is not always in the family's best interest to have a couple stay together, especially if children are together. I do think that there should be mandatory counseling before a couple gets married. A lot of times people rush into marriage and don't always know the person that they are vowing to spend their life with. Marriage counseling would be beneficial and would allow for communication to strengthen and give couples a better understanding of eachother. ~ Kelsey Genter

 When I first read this topic I thought to myself, “wow! What a great idea!” I think divorce is a horrible thing and should be avoided at all costs. However, that being said, it should take place when absolutely necessary. I think that people often do not give their marriage a chance, and maybe therapy would help that. And even if it did not solve the problem, you would be able to assured that you did everything you could. In a perfect world, this is the ideal situation. However, this unfortunately is not a perfect world and there are outstanding circumstances that would not work with this. Although the will would make exceptions for abused spouses, there is no way that they could perfectly eliminate that. Also, I think that getting a break on the fee if you attend counseling is a terrific idea. Statistics show that today people are rushing in to marriage before they are positive they can make it work. This then causes higher divorce rates. If the pain and suffering that follows divorce could be avoided I think we should do what it takes to make that happen and a possibility. --katie Campbell

Although there are good intentions behind this law, I think it is pretty ridiculous.  The government has no business getting into people's personal affairs.  For one, it seems to be popular now for people not even to get married.  They live together, and if they break up, it is not a huge deal.  One person moves out.  I don't feel like this is a good thing because people should make a commitment to be together and make a family.  I do believe a marriage contract should be taken much more seriously because it seems like people marry without knowing each other that well and know that there is an escape.  I just found a few stats online agreeing that the divorce rate is at 50%.  That is insane.  Something should be done about it, but it is not the government's responsibility.  This law does not take several arguments into account.  For one, if people don't want to go through the marriage counseling before they get married, they just might not get married in the first place.  They could raise a family and leave each other, without even having the burden of going through a divorce.  Also, people would probably start abusing their spouse to get out of the marriage quicker.  On the other hand, abusive people would not always be detected, and their spouse could be stuck in that awful relationship for an extra year.  Who would pay for this anyway?  The government is in enough debt as it is.  If each person would have to pay for it, how would low income citizens afford to get married?  As good as this law might sound on the surface, the cons out weight the pros.  ~ Jessica Harcourt ~

 

I agree with Jessica and think it is totally ridiculous. Why should the government have any say in peoples marriages and divorces. It is a commitment between two individuals and no one else should be involved in their decision. Specifically, counseling before getting a divorce is stupid. It will just cause more problems within the families and children. I know if my parents were getting divorced I would rather it be a quick process than a long drawn out one. To go through counseling before marriage will just prevent many people from getting married. It would just be a hassle for everyone. The government should not be able to decide what happens with marriages and divorces. Alexis

 

I dont believe that those laws would be good ideas. If people really want to get divorced, they are going to get divorced. One year of counseling may help some couples, but would definitely rip some farther apart, making matters even worse for children if they are involved. The divorce rate is very high, and most of my friends come from divorced homes, but i dont know what the government could do to make people stay together. -beckie

 

I really don't think the courts should have any influence over people's decisions to get married or to divorce. With the amount of money that goes into divorces, I don't think that couples take it lightly. This is just my opinion,  but I don't see how the courts should have anything to do with people and their married live's- to force them to go into counseling before they decide to go through with a divorce, or marriage, seems to infringe on their rights of freedom. I understand that it might be better for the children of the parents..but if situations are so bad that they need to separate, I do not think a stranger counseling them would help. Also, people who go to counseling go because they want to change the way things are, and they are willing to change things about their situations in order to benefit themselves, or in marriage counseling, their spouse's and their relationship. If people go into counseling unwilling to change, or with no want to be there, I don't see how anyone would benefit. -Mel

 

            I think that the premarital education is a good idea, so that when problems start to arise in a marriage they will have an idea of where to go for help.  This may also take away the stigma of going for help since they have already had some counseling before they were married.  As far as divorce is concerned, I think that the cleanest and fastest break is best.  The longer you are forced to stay in a situation that you don’t like the more resentment builds up.  I think this would make it harder to agree upon things like custody that concern the children.  Two people staying together that aren’t getting along would be worse for the kids than having two happy separate parents.  One thing that would help is if they could cover the ideas of divorce in the premarital course emphasizing that if problems arise that cannot be resolved the two should act as adults and not play petty games especially those that involve the children.  I think that it is getting easier to grow up in a divorced family than it was in the past because a lot of the stigma is gone since divorce is becoming so prominent.  Evan

 

I actually never thought about this subject, but really...counseling before you get married would be a really good idea!  That way... you know that you are going to stay together longer.  I believe that when people get married they should know for a fact that  this is the person they want to live one for the rest of their livessss.  Divorces occur way to much.  Counseling before marriage would actually help this i believe. Who knows...-julie simon

TOPIC #2 // South Park vs. freedom of speech (Merissa)

South Park, the more than controversial cartoon has been put under flame by the public several times for its usage of crude jokes and offensive language and stereotypes. South Park has already upset the  Islamic community for drawing the prophet Mohammed and the Christian community in its Bloody Mary episode. Scientology is now South Park's latest victim with its latest episode making a mockery of the religion and also insisting that Tom Cruise might be "hiding in the closet". The episode was soon hanked from the air. Does South Park go too far with its jokes and if so, how far is too far? Aren't the makers of South Park entitled to freedom of speech like everyone else?

South park has been a controversial show since it first started. But i do believe thaa tit can be insensitive, see although they ahve freedom of expression and speech. they don't have to make the entire poplulation unhappy, as well as uncomfortable. not onlythat but thier jokes are so crude and offenseive that i have chosen not to watch South PArk. I also feel that south park is really offensive and i choose not to watch the televsio show, i also feel that this show is harmful to people who feed into sterotypes, because this show most definatly puts out sterotypes as well as racial jokes that increase the pwong perspecives that americans and young generations have of other people. -kirin

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with South Park. After reading over many of the responses I'm happy to see that many of my peers feel the same way. The fact of the matter is, as Americans we are entitled to freedom of speech. If you don't like what someone is saying, just don't watch/listen to it. Furthermore South Park simply pokes fun, I don't think people walk away from South Park thinking: you know that episode about ____insert anything here__ really shapes my thinking of ______. That's completely ridiculous. South Park is a funny and outlandish show and people who  watch it and some who don't know not to take it seriously. We've really got to loosen up and honestly, if you're that famous that you're being mentioned in one of the most popular cartoons in the country I say give yourself a pat on the back :) -Merissa

Although I don't watch South Park on a regular basis, I think it's extremely witty as well as somewhat educational. The "crude" references displayed in South Park, always leave someone pondering what that scene was alluding to in the "real world". With that said, I know I personally have conversations with those who I am watching with and could potentially even do a little research on current events just to make sure I caught every joke made without any going right over my head. The writers of South Park are entitled to freedom of speech. The TVGuide never fails to warn viewers what each show, including South Park, is age appropriate for. Unlike many critics, I think South Park CAN be somewhat crude but is in no way harmful to its viewers. --Lauren Gross

 I think South Park is funny, crude, and I think they are insanely insulting. But i dont think that what theyre doing is wrong.  They dont discriminate or make fun of just ONE kind of people. They make fun of everyone equally and are basically making fun of the WORLD. It is politically incorrect in any way, but that is why i think its not insulting.  Its meant to make the person whose being insulted actually laugh also.  It IS the free speech of the writers to write what they want. -katime

I feel it is almost impossible to determine what should be censored in the media.  Too many people have different opinions about cencorship.  Different topics effect different people.  I understand this show is a joke and have not been offened by anything I have seen yet.  I do not practice religion so i would not be offended by anything they have had about that on the show.  I do not foolow Scientology and do not know what that religion even is.  I do know the voice of chef quit the show because he was offened by the writers making jokes about his religion.  Whether or not Sout Park airs people will still be making jokes about religion and other cultrues.  We might as well let the writers have their fun while doing it.  If you don't like what they say, don't watch the show.  No one is forceing you.  I think it all just depends on how uptight you are about that stuff. If you are seriously going to bitch about what is on South Park then i think you have bigger problems you need to deal with. -mya

I personally do not watch South Park and I think I have only ever watched 1 or 2 episodes however, I have heard lots about it (due to all the controversy of coarse). I think that of coarse the writters are entitled to freedom of speech. The good thing about South Park (if "good thing" is even right term to use) is that they poke fun at a variety of topics not just one topics consistently. If every episode was making fun of homosexuality, for example, then that would be a diferent story because it could be seen as a discriminatory attack against one group. It is a show, the ratings suggest the age of viewers, and therefore if you have a huge problem with the show then i suggest not watching it. This is a comedy, not meant to be taken personally offensive. *kim*

I don’t watch South Park because I have three certain shows that I watch almost every week.  When I was living at home, my parents never let my brothers or me watch shows like South Park.  Heck, we weren’t even allowed to watch MTV.  Our options were pretty much the Disney Channel or Fox Family.  Therefore, I have actually never even watched one episode, but I have an idea what it is about.  I just took a business law test today regarding defamation, slander, and libel.  I feel that South Park and similar shows don’t get away with bashing and making fun because they have free speech.  They get away with it because people don’t believe what they see and hear while watching the show.  At first, it does seem like defamation, but when taking into account the defenses, believability comes into play.  This determines that there is no defamation occurring on South Park and other shows of the sort.  I would have to say that they are going too far when the audience believes what they are saying, not just laughing at something funny.  Just making funny jokes about events and actions of public figures is not bad if the audience is detached.   ~Jessica Harcourt ~

 

The public disapproval of South Park is ridiculous.  Now, my opinion might be biased because South Park is one of my favorite shows, but even if I didn’t like the show I still wouldn’t like the accusations against South Park.  Everything the show talks about is a joke.  The makers have the right in this country to state whatever they want and the people have the right to ignore the show altogether.  I really do not like the singer Eminem, but I understand that he is entitled to his opinion and he can state that opinion, and I’m going to ignore it.  Instead of disapproving of South Park, the authorities need to look at shows like Mind of Mencia and Chappelle’s Show, which are the most racist shows I have ever seen right on satellite and cable television.  They joke about skin color and race and say terrible things about religion, yet South Park is considered more controversial than either of those two shows.  It all comes down to freedom of speech and I believe all people in America can say whatever they want.  Similarly, all people of America have the right to ignore what others say just as much as they have the right to speak their minds.  ---Tim    


I think Tim has a great point, and I don't even have the bias of South Park being my favorite show. I hardly ever even watch it. People have the right to speak out about anything they want to. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is said, but I respect the right of people to share their opinions. One of the problems with America today is that everyone always has to complain about something. If you were to express your opinion about something and someone disagreed with it, that's their right. You can agrue against it, but don't criticize that person for letting their ideas be known. There is a line, though, and South Park comes pretty close to that line, but I don't think they should be forced to pull certain episodes from the air. If you don't agree with the message, don't watch the show. - Josh Berkheimer

I honestly have not watched much South Park. Growing up my guy friends loved the show and always tried to get me to watch it. Although funny at times, I also felt that the jokes were a bit too much, sometimes too mean-spirited for my own taste. However, when thinking about it, we truly are all entitled to freedom of speech, therefore making these controversial South Park episodes fair game. Although a bit more crude than other shows, there really isn’t much of a difference between the “teasing” South Park does to certain issues and the jokes that Jay Leno or David Letterman cracks about social issues on a daily basis. I think people just are offended by it because of the nature in which it is made. --Katie Campbell


I think that south park is an interesting show.  I don't watch it on a regular basis, or really at all, only when there's nothing else on do I watch it.  Some of it is funny, some of it is stupid.  It does make fun of a lot of different things, but that's what makes the show.  Although many people don't like the show, a lot of people enjoy it, and think that it's a way of expressing their freedom of speech or whatever.  I usually take south park as a joke, or a way that's like look at how ridiculous we are as people.  I don't take any of it personally, therefore I could really care less with what they do or say.  Also people may take offense but they have a choice of watching the show to begin with.  There are plenty of tv shows that are considered discriminatory and these shows haven't really been questioned so why south park?  If you don't want to support the show or are against it, don't watch it.  That way you aren't supporting it.  What about those news shows that are more "democratic" or "republican"?  I think it's up to the viewer to decide if they can watch the show without taking offense, or to watch the show if they enjoy it.  Each viewer has a different opinion on the show, and therefore it's their choice to watch it.~aliza


i am very tired of this arguement.  for that matter i am mostly just tired of arguing. 
i feel as if im beating the same dead horse with the same lame club....i dont like limiting life. 
i dont wanna see choice disappear into the black bag of bureaucracy. 
i dont wanna be annoying. 
an' by the way, fuck censorship.

  i have no more patience for the moral mire of modern man.  i am tired.  i hope that south park wins sweet victory...free speach for all(even those crazy fascists!)   mr. xylater..roughly equivalent to tyler+marx+crassideals+long days+PEACHES+DANDeLION wine and a slighlty gutteresque tongue; the product of hot coffee and hammers(not to say that moral dilema is a recent advent of human culture, it is however that specific aspect of our society that i have chosen to attack)

 

A lot of comedy shows today are "crude" or "inapprorpriate".  Some are simply more blatant in the way they show it.  For example, the cast of "Whose Line Is It Anyways", is extremely perverted with their jokes on the show.  The majority (I would get probably about 90%) include some sort of sexual reference or innuendo.  Yet, children continue to watch the show, not knowing what the cast is talking about until the child is older.  "South Park" is truly no different than "Whose Line Is It Anyways".  "South Park" is just more obvious with the inappropriate jokes.  I have already stated a thousand times how I feel about the censorship in the United States.  This is a basic "censorship" issue and honestly, if the public cares so much about the crude jokes on the show then they just should not watch it.  Like Aliza said, it is the choice of the viewer to watch the inappropriate jokes as they set their tv to watch it.  If they do not want to see it, then they just should not tune in for it.  People tune in to watch "South Park" because they want that kind of humor.  They know what is coming; it is not a surprise.  I just think that if people have a problem with the jokes on "South Park", instead of trying to censor it out they should just not watch it.  ~ Danielle

First off, I'd like to say that I've never actually seen an episode of South Park. My parents found it repulsive and forbade it in the house. I did get the gist of what the show was about, though, through friends at school and such. When I became older and was able to decide what I wanted to watch I decided for myself that I didn't want to watch South Park...or any other show like it. I think the writers for the show have the right to say what they want but they should watch how they say it. They know the age group that watches their show; they know the influence television can have on children's minds. But I also agree with the fact that the majority of the blame goes to uninvolved parents. They let their children watch these types of shows on their television when they're paying for the cable and then complain that these types of shows air. The simple solution would be for parents to wise up and watch what their children watch and when they see something they don't like, change the channel. Because there's no stopping the writers from saying what they have the right to say through their show, and there shouldn't have to be. There are some people who enjoy those types of shows, I not being one of them, but they're out there. I grew up watching Boy Meets World and Double Dare, what happened to those days? --Michelle

I have only seen South Park once in my life, and it actually was in a class I’m taking this semester. The episode we watched was rather entertaining. I didn’t find that the jokes were going too far, but then, again this was only one episode. It is understandable when talking about religious issues the jokes can become offensive. I guess if you don’t want to be offended, knowing the content of the show, don’t choose to watch it. -christina

 Alright, people in this country have got to realize this is a cartoon, and the point of cartoons is entertainment, and one of the best ways to entertain someone is to make them laugh. This jokes they make are purely to make someone laugh.....thats why people watch South Park, because its funny. People dont watch it because they think its educational....they dont watch it because they want to model their lives after Stan. This goes back to the "Killing Screens" and parents need to step in and teach kids that cartoons arent real and are meant to be funny on the overall. If the show was composed of real people, things may be different but on the overall they dont cross the line. Some of their jokes can be crude....and make fun of a lot of people....but I dont not believe they reflect the thoughts of the creaters.....ITS A CARTOON.....laugh a little....make fun of yourself once in a while....some people just gotta loosen up.-Josh-

I agree with what many have said above about everyone's right to freedom of speech and the producers/writers of the show have the same right. I haven't watched much South Park, but I know what the show is basically about. Although it may be controversial and crude, so are half of the other shows on television. If people don't want to be exposed to the crude jokes on South Park then they don't need to watch the show. Parents can set limits on what their children watch, like some above who said they were forbidden to watch it. Life doesn't need to be completely censored and people need to realize that the show is making JOKES and don't need to take things so seriously. If they are offended, then they can turn it off. No one is forcing them to watch South Park. ~ Kelsey Genter

I do not watch south park. I think I watched one episode once and hated it. I just do not think it is funny at all. However, I do believe in freedom speech. We are going up in a society that strongly encourages freedom of speech. That goes for everyone, even writers of television shows. So I do not think that the show crosses the line on the jokes it says. If it offends anyone, they should just not watch it, turn the television off, get off the couch! It supposed to be a joke; to make people laugh. There is always people who get offended by jokes. You cant please everyone. South Park is a television cartoon and thats all it is. I do not think it is meant to be taken so seriously. Alexis

Eh, everyone is too uptight, South Park is crude and it makes fun of every group they can think of, similar to Family Guy. If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you dont want your kids to watch it, don't let them. The creators of south park have the freedom to write whatever they want, just as we all have the right to not watch it, boycott it if necessary. It's all about the freedoms. -beckie

I have a very laid back opinion about things like this- I think it is important for individuals to be able to laugh at themselves and not be so serious. I understand how South Park can be very offensful- the few times I've watched it I know I've felt like some of it was inappropriate. But South Park is known for its criticism and sarcasm of society, if people are too offended while watching it, they can choose not to watch it. Maybe they can relax a little on some of the really controversial issues, but for the most part, I think they have the freedom to write and produce what they want. And if they make enough money to keep it on air...then obviously there are alot of people who do not find it too offensive and look forward to watching it. I think everybody knows not to take the jokes on South Park literally, so its not like influencing the way people view certain groups/events... -Mel

            I feel the same as many of my classmates, if you don’t like it don’t watch it.  If many people respond this way it will eventually go off the air.  Personally I have seen some very funny episodes, and when I feel that it is too gross or offensive I just turn it off.  I think that it is critical that they do have a free range of all of the issues because there should be no topic that is so important that it cannot be criticized or laughed at.  The only problem that I can see coming from this is that younger children have a tendency to goof around and quote South Park.  This could get the kids in trouble, but parents should be responsible for the actions of their kids not South Park.  The parents should guiding their children in what is appropriate and what is reality.  Evan

 

I HATE SOUTH PARK! I remember when I was in like 9th grade and everyone was watching south park, I would really wonder why they are watching such a stupid show.  It has no purpose to it and all it doesnt is just make fun of stereotypes in our life.  It is similar to the simpsons, which I also hate.  All these shows do is make fun of things are that are already controversial in our world.  They should be banned and limited on television.  The young teenage population is persuaded to believe things that are happening on these shows and violence is becoming more prevalent. It is horrible. Hate hate hate hate hate south park. -julie simon


safe mode