These are al valid points. Especially about how cartoon characters are allowed a lot more leeway to offend than live actors. Also about how early South Park was pretty tame compared to what Parker and Stone were getting away with in later episodes.
I distinctly remember watching the episode "Scott Tenorman Must Die" with 3 of my friends, and when the episode was finished, we all just sort of stared at the TV for a minute until someone said, "I can't believe we just ####### saw that!".
I've since come to learn that this episode is a loose retelling of the violent Shakespearean tragedy, "Titus Andronicus" but I doubt if even many SP fans know this.
Scott Tenorman Must Die - Wikipedia
But back to the BBC.
As you said, "Til Death Do Us Part" was on the primary U.K. TV channel at a time when the UK only had 3 channels, yet there was a huge public outcry against the show and it was actively opposed by many government officials and other "decency" activists.
This was at a time when a small minority of writers within the BBC were essentially given a blank canvas and told they could produce what they wanted. It was the same atmosphere of late 60s creative freedom that gave birth to Monty Python.
I believe it was just a temporarily anomaly and it had a parallel in the U.S.. Once we hit the mid 70s, that sort of thing was no longer allowed.
It seems to me that TV in the 80s and 90s was kind of a wasteland of mediocrity. It wasn't until the proliferation of specialized cable channels and subscription TV programs that producers began to push new boundaries. When there's only a total of 5 channels possible to watch, then any program that someone might find offensive is going to be noticed by those same people. But when there are hundreds of viewing options, and most of them need to be selected from a package and paid for by subscription, then people who are easily offended won't even be aware that such programs exist at all.
Just my 2c. I could easily be off base in my observations.
That's true - although in the UK (I can't speak for the U.S. or elsewhere) there were additional factors, particularly around financing.
The BBC has certain responsibilities in its charter, and is publicly funded - so whilst for example, nobody was kicking up a stink about the cost of making nature documentaries, they caught a ton of flack for the effects budget on "Blakes 7" (years later, one of it's biggest successes was Red Dwarf, and later still the rebooted Dr Who).
There was a huge talent drain, where the BBC would train technicians, producers, directors, writers to absolutely the highest standards in the industry, foster, and nurture their talents, and basically offer them a job for life.
The trouble was, again because of the way it was funded, it couldn't justify high wages - so the highly trained personnel would jump ship, to well paying commercial channels.
The unions got broken up, and cable / satellite networks gained traction - demanding their own, stand-out content - and offered even higher pay.
It's no wonder the really creative, edgy content, ended up on pay per view.
And yet, throughout the 80's, and 90's in particular - and still to this day - Channel 4 built its reputation on edgy, creative, hard hitting content, alongside (and often within) the usual roster of soap operas, game shows and other light entertainment.
It is interesting though, that where U.S. mainstream tv has always balked at nudity - particularly full frontal male nudity - that hasn't been an issue in the UK for my entire lifetime.
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, the BBCs own production "The year of The Sex Olympics" has never been aired again, since its original broadcast.
It seems, in this modern era, totally relevant, and ripe for a remake - but I don't think anyone (except perhaps someone like Lars Von Trier) would have the courage to truly run with the idea, and no free to air network would dare broadcast it.
