
What does South Park's boundary-pushing comedy mean for politics?
For 27 seasons, South Park has never held back when it comes to mocking those in power. Yet after nearly three decades on the air, its new season is arguably its most vicious. South Park 's latest episodes have brutally satirized the Trump administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and even the show's own network, Paramount.
South Park has received backlash from those it mocks, but it's also seeing record-breaking numbers of people tuning in to watch the show.
Today on Commotion, guest host Ali Hassan speaks with TV critic Kathryn VanArendonk and comedian Ashley Ray about how South Park pushes the limits of comedy and what it means for both art and politics.
We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player.
WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube:
Ali: As recently as last fall, South Park 's co-creator said in Vanity Fair: "I don't know what more we could possibly say about Trump." So, Kathryn, what's changed?
Kathryn: A couple things have changed. Most notably, he was re-elected. I mean, it's a pretty big and monumental shift. And I think the other thing is that that election has forced a lot of people to realize that this administration does not seem to be operating in a lot of the same ways that the first Trump administration did. It is much more extreme, a lot of the guardrails that were in place that first time around have been removed. And so suddenly, there is this acceleration of a lot of things that people were hoping they would not actually have to deal with.
The other really important thing that has changed is that since that first statement that they were like, "I'm not sure what else to say about Trump," South Park and Paramount came to this really important deal — over a billion dollar deal — for all streaming rights to South Park and streaming rights to future episodes that they're going to promise to make. And then in almost the same week, Paramount fired Stephen Colbert and ended his late night show because they were trying — allegedly — to appease the Trump administration to get this merger [with Skydance] done. And so suddenly South Park, the creators find themselves in this place where they had just gotten all of this money from this corporate overlord, who is then making deals with this administration that is doing a lot of things that really bothers them.
Ali: Ashley, what would you say the South Park audience looks like now versus what they looked like 28 years ago when they started?
Ashley: I feel like I came of age at the right time for South Park. I was in middle school, which I think is still the show's main audience. But I was in middle school, Bush was in office, and it felt like the show that gave me a voice when I had issues with politics that I didn't understand as a kid. I was like, "This gets it, I am mad about this war, and here's a show that is saying this." And I think in its original formation, it was a little, "Let's speak truth to power and point out things that are ridiculous."
But as the culture shifted and things became more liberal and Obama got into office, South Park, I think, understood that their role was to then question that voice in authority. And to really become that voice of the contrarian of, "Hey, this is what people are afraid to talk about, afraid to say." I think with the rise of more liberal television shows on Comedy Central, like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report getting popular, South Park said, "Hey, we can kind of be the other side of that, and we can stand up for the guys who are like, 'Well, why can't I say the R-word? Why can't I do this anymore?'" And point out how maybe sometimes these guys are just saying all this stuff because they want to smell their own farts and it's not so serious.
I think they became this show that the right wing embraced and thought was on their side. And the show was happy to cater to those shock-jock dudes. And now I think they realize they've created this audience that isn't really understanding what they intend to do, now that they want to take aim at Trump — it's not out of admiration. And I think this audience refuses to see that they are being made fun of because they see South Park as being on their side.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's takeover of Washington law enforcement faces anger, pushback and protests
WASHINGTON – Members of the United States National Guard stood near the Washington Monument on Saturday amid escalating tensions in the U.S. capital as President Donald Trump ramped up the presence of law enforcement in the mostly Democratic city. Tourists walking by the uniformed troops in Washington's blistering weekend heat were confused about their presence, with a group from Kentucky asking why the troops were even there. Some families requested photos with the troops and the National Guard members obliged. The sight of army-fatigued National Guard members and face-covered police agents has increased in Washington throughout the week after Trump signed an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the nation's capital. Many residents of Washington are outraged by Trump's overreach, with scores taking to the streets on Saturday to protest the president's takeover. People held signs that read 'Hands off DC' and 'Dump Trump' while chanting 'Trump must go' as they walked toward the White House. Autumn Tustin, holding a sign that said 'No ICE! No National Guard!' said it was important to show up for the demonstration outside the White House because other people don't feel safe coming out to push against Trump's agenda to take over the capital. 'Being part of a movement feels like the best thing we can do at this point,' she told The Canadian Press. Tustin said sometimes it feels like 'frogs in a boiling pot of water,' where there are a lot of ongoing changes that have huge consequences down the road. She has seen several National Guard members in tourist areas, describing it as 'bizarre' and a 'waste of talent and money.' On Saturday, West Virginia, Ohio and South Carolina authorized hundreds of additional National Guard members to head to Washington. 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey said. Hundreds of federal law enforcement officers from agencies such as the Secret Service and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement have also fanned across the city. Social media platforms have since filled with videos and pictures of federal agents descending on neighbourhoods — apprehending delivery drivers, dismantling homeless camps and approaching people on the city's public transportation system and in local parks. One viral video showed a man hurling a sandwich at a federal law-enforcement official. Following the incident, sandwich-thrower Sean Charles Dunn was fired from his job in the U.S. Justice Department and charged with a felony. Trump's takeover has caused outrage from Washington residents but there's little city leaders are able to do to stop it. The District of Columbia is uniquely controlled by the federal government and local leaders are obliged to co-operate with Trump's order. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser, in a letter to residents, said the city's 'limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now.' Trump on Monday claimed he had to take the action because crime 'is getting worse, not getting better,' even as police data shows that violence in the capital city is falling. Washington has been plagued by violent crime, particularly during drug epidemics of the 1980s and early 1990s. There was a spike in violent crime again in 2023 but it plummeted the following year and has declined again so far in 2025. Much of the National Guard presence in Washington appears symbolic, with members roasting in the summer heat near national monuments and museums. Other law enforcement agencies, however, have descended throughout the city, evoking anger and fear in many local residents. There's been a clear increase in police presence in neighbourhoods like the dense and diverse Columbia Heights, and on Friday night in entertainment districts like U Street, 14th Street and 16th Street, north of the White House. It's less clear how much, if any, policing has increased in areas in the southeast that have higher crime rates. Trump was at his Virginia golf club Saturday. — With files from The Associated Press This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 16, 2025.


National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
Christine Van Geyn: Letting safety override freedom makes us all 'pre-criminals'
In Steven Spielberg's Minority Report, set in 2054, crime has been eliminated thanks to psychics who predict wrongdoing before it happens. 'Pre-criminals' are arrested for 'Pre-crimes' they haven't committed. But the visions are flawed and open to manipulation. The dark side of 'pre-crime' is totalitarianism disguised as public safety. The film is a timeless warning about the tension between liberty and security. Article content Article content That warning is increasingly relevant. In recent years, governments and institutions have embraced what's been called safetyism: the belief that safety, especially from physical or emotional harm, should override all other values, including freedom, autonomy and open debate. When safety becomes the highest good, risk becomes intolerable, state control is normalized 'for your own good,' and dissent is cast as dangerous. Article content Article content Consider the uproar over American Christian worship singer Sean Feucht's performances in Canada. Several cities cancelled or denied his permits under the guise of ' health and safety,' not just physical safety, but protecting people from ideas or language they might find upsetting. Article content Or take Nova Scotia's sweeping ban on all forest activity this summer without a permit, accompanied by $25,000 fines (plus tax and a victim's surcharge). Concerned about fire risk, the provincial government issued a proclamation under the Forests Act to prohibit far more than what is needed to prevent fires, including fishing from barren rock, walking a dog on a trail, or having a picnic. Its reasoning: anyone in the woods might do something dangerous, like lighting a campfire or committing arson. Article content Punishing people who violate burn bans is reasonable. Treating every nature lover as a potential criminal is Minority Report logic, incompatible with a free society. Some defenders of the forest lockdown have even argued that hikers could cause fires by dropping water bottles that might, in a remote theoretical scenario, focus sunlight like a magnifying glass. By that standard, we could justify banning almost anything: driving, swimming, or stepping outside. Such fears say more about an individual's risk tolerance than actual danger. Article content Article content This 'safety above all else' mindset has been used repeatedly to justify government overreach. It was cited in 2022 to invoke the Emergencies Act against the non-violent Freedom Convoy protests. It underpinned the Trudeau government's decision to list all plastic manufactured items, from straws and bags to hard hats and medical equipment, as 'toxic' under federal environmental law. It drives 'bubble zone' laws that prioritize emotional comfort for some while stripping others of constitutionally protected free speech and assembly rights.

CTV News
3 hours ago
- CTV News
Gay couple weighs uncertain future as debate over marriage equality resurfaces
In a cozy home nestled in the heart of Tampa, a simple ballpoint pen sits behind glass. a piece of history framed and hung on the wall. For Mark Bias-West and Carrie West, that pen represents the moment they helped make history as the first same-sex couple to sign a domestic partnership with the city of Tampa back in 2012. (WFTS via CNN Newsource) TAMPA, Florida (WFTS) -- In a cozy home nestled in the heart of Tampa, a simple ballpoint pen sits behind glass. a piece of history framed and hung on the wall. For Mark Bias-West and Carrie West, that pen represents the moment they helped make history as the first same-sex couple to sign a domestic partnership with the city of Tampa back in 2012. 'Well, we are,' Carrie said proudly when asked if they were Tampa's first same-sex domestic partners. 'We signed the domestic partnership for the City of Tampa. We helped put it together, and that was one of the first things out there. We did it, and we got pictures of that in the offices.' Their framed pen and documentation aren't just memorabilia. They're symbols of a hard-won fight. 'This just isn't like, 'Okay, you guys are together and that's it,'' Carrie said. 'This is making a major change in the way the county represents and the way the city is representing the people in the LGBTQ+ community in Hillsborough County and in Tampa. This was big. This is big news. We were very happy.' In 2012, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Florida. But the couple believed change had to start locally. 'We kind of pioneered a lot of different things out there,' Carrie said. 'We wanted to work with Hillsborough County in getting that done. That's kind of the first steps of getting equal marriage.' They didn't stop there. 'We went up to Washington, D.C., and protested for equal marriage,' Carrie continued. 'We went all across the country and throughout the state of Florida, making sure people realized that was really an effort. And we did that around 2012. Then we started saying, we need to have this in the state of Florida — but we also have to have it first in our county, in our city.' The domestic partnership registry they fought for helped pave the way for broader recognition. In 2023, Carrie and Mark were legally married. Fears Resurface Amid Supreme Court Uncertainty Today, more than a decade after signing that first registry, Carrie and Mark are watching closely as legal and political winds shift. The couple is deeply concerned about what could happen if the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that challenges Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. 'The Supreme Court is… I don't want to say unpredictable, but it is,' Carrie said. 'We don't know exactly how their way of thinking is, and remember, we don't even know what the powers be, who pays for the Supreme Court justices anymore. It's not the way it used to be.' 'It's not a fair, balanced justice system anymore in the United States,' he added. When asked if he feared his own marriage could be in jeopardy, Carrie didn't hesitate. 'That is very true,' he said. 'Once you start going through there, it's going to be just like Clarence Thomas and his wife going through biracial or any kind of situation that would be defining and saying, 'Guess what? You are not now legally married.'' He believes such moves would open a 'can of worms' across the country, creating chaos and confusion, not just for same-sex couples, but for anyone relying on what has long been considered settled law. 'I think it's just going to put the progress of the Supreme Court in going through the Constitution,' Carrie said. 'I believe it's going to be very heavy on the courts, very heavy on the legislature. And I don't believe if you read the Supreme Court rulings, what this is in the Constitution. This is meant for all people, for all beings. Everybody's being equal. And that's the way that they decided upon what the justices said it should be.' The couple's concern is tied to the legal battle involving Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. Davis is now asking the Supreme Court to take up her appeal, arguing that being required to issue licenses violated her religious freedom. 'This is a case about Kim Davis,' said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University College of Law. 'She's been litigating for around a decade, trying to argue that somehow this discriminates against her, and not the other way around,' Torres-Spelliscy added. Professor Torres-Spelliscy says the Supreme Court is highly selective about what cases it hears, and that the Davis case may not present the strongest vehicle for overturning Obergefell. 'We don't know whether they're going to take the case at all,' Torres-Spelliscy said. 'If they do, they might not take up her invitation to overrule Obergefell.' Even if the court did, there's another layer of protection. 'After the Dobbs decision, the one that overturned Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects interracial and same-sex marriages at the federal level,' she explained. 'So even if the Supreme Court got rid of Obergefell, there is still protection that is statutory from Congress.' Still, she warned that rights based on substantive due process, the same constitutional principle that underpinned Roe and Obergefell, are vulnerable, especially given Justice Clarence Thomas's written opinion urging the Court to revisit those rulings. 'If we take Justice Thomas seriously, then all of these rights are up for grabs,' she said. 'That includes interracial marriage, same-sex intimacy, and even birth control.' James Fox, also a law professor at Stetson, said the roots of today's uncertainty lie in the narrow 5-4 nature of the Obergefell decision. 'Because that was a one-vote majority, it's inherently at risk,' Fox said. 'Now, only two of the justices in the majority: Kagan and Sotomayor, are still on the court.' He said the concern about Obergefell being overturned is legitimate; just maybe not by this case. 'Ms. Davis has not done well in litigation so far,' Fox said. 'In 2020, she asked for Supreme Court review and did not get it. One of the judges in this most recent ruling was a Trump appointee. The judge who wrote it was a George W. Bush appointee. There's a pretty consistent history of courts, including the Supreme Court, saying no in this case.' Fox explained that Davis's legal defence is based partly on religious freedom arguments, including a First Amendment claim that she had the right not to issue marriage licenses. While the lower courts dismissed those arguments, he said that type of claim is likely to return in future cases. 'The court has been receptive to trying to balance free exercise of religion claims against the rights of same-sex couples,' Fox said. 'And I think that's the tension. Where you have two constitutional claims in opposition to each other. I think that's where you're likely to see the court, in the next five years or so, start to recognize some limitations on same-sex marriage.' Still, Fox emphasized that he does not believe Obergefell is in immediate danger. 'I don't think this case is a reason for people in same-sex marriages to feel that there's any risk,' he said. 'But a future case might come up where the court starts to consider some of these arguments. It's something to watch closely.' For Carrie West and Mark Bias-West, the worry is more than legal — it's personal. The fight they started years ago wasn't just about paperwork or government recognition. It was about being seen. Being equal. 'This is what we think of the community,' Carrie said. 'This is what we think of the neighbors. This is how we treat the people around us throughout the whole area.' That pen still hangs on their wall. A symbol. A first. And, they hope, not the last word. By Jada Williams.