Hecklers Try To Veto University Screening Of 'American Sniper;' May Find Themselves Watching 'Paddington Bear' Instead
from the this-alternate-option-is-perfect-because-YOU-ARE-SPOILED-CHILDREN dept
The University of Michigan has succumbed to a heckler's veto, mistaking an alternate point of view for the only point of view, and shutting down legitimate speech in response.
The Center for Campus Involvement announced Tuesday afternoon they would cancel a planned showing of “American Sniper” at UMix following a student petition over the depiction of certain communities in the film.Notably, the students opposed to this screening didn't do any of the following:
- Protest at the showing.
- Offer a contrasting point of view, either by hosting a movie more closely aligned with their worldview or by asking to be allowed to provide some sort of rebuttal before or after the screening.
- Note that they disapproved of the screening and leave it at that.
- Write letters to the editor of the campus newspaper or any other related journalistic entity.
No. They chose to shut down the screening by circulating a petition that described how hurt their feelings were that the university hadn't consulted with every last student before choosing which film to screen.
“Although we respect the right to freedom of speech, we believe that with this right comes responsibility: responsibility of action, intention, and outcome,” the letter read. “The movie ‘American Sniper’ not only tolerates but promotes anti-Muslim and anti-MENA rhetoric and sympathizes with a mass killer.”1/4 - would not recommend
The Center for Campus Involvement immediately folded and offered its apologies to everyone it inadvertently offended with its movie selection.
“Student reactions have clearly articulated that this is neither the venue nor the time to show this movie,” the statement read. “We deeply regret causing harm to members of our community, and appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided to us by students.”"Harmed" how? By offering a movie no one on campus was obligated to watch? It wasn't a mandatory event and those offended by the movie had several options available, most of which didn't involve ensuring no one on campus could see the movie.
In what would appear to be a dig at the "victims" infantilization-by-proxy of the entire student body, but is more likely due to a limited selection of last-minute offerings (guaranteed not to result in a swift petitioning), the CCI decided to screen "Paddington Bear" instead. For a student body composed of 18-23 year olds.
Howard Wasserman, writing at PrawfsBlog, wonders where the notion of "counter-speech" has disappeared to -- the long-held belief that the best weapon against "offensive" speech is more speech, not less. He posits there are a few reasons we see this so infrequently exercised on campus: It's hard. It sometimes doesn't work. Restrictive campus speech rules -- free speech zones, permits, etc. -- make it almost impossible to mobilize counter-speech efforts.
But the big one is this: people tend to take the easiest route -- shouting someone down -- and many campuses are quick to indulge those engaging in this behavior. Wasserman quotes Floyd Abrams:
"Surely, this is the best evidence yet that a speech-destroying storm is sweeping across American campuses. The students who seek to ban speech have much to learn but a university that yields to their demands can hardly be trusted to teach them.”There may be hope for Michigan's CCI. Sometime during the night following its capitulation, it rediscovered its spine and respect for free speech. This statement arrived the following day:
It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie “American Sniper” on campus as part of a social event for students.And, as a concession to those with nothing better to do and/or still offended by the "American Sniper" screening, the CCI still offering a film targeted at the 10-and-under crowd.
The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters.
The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location.
We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie, and appreciate that concern.So, if the hecklers aren't interested in staying home and brooding about their failed veto, they're more than welcome to sit through "Paddington" -- something guaranteed to be as blandly inoffensive as a documentary on vanilla ice cream. Or maybe those so thoroughly offended by this optional event might take this opportunity to actually engage in some speech of their own, rather than (virtually, via Google Docs) shouting down the speech of others.
Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, “Paddington,” in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.
And maybe the next time this sort of situation arises, the university won't be so swift to grant all of the credibility to a small number of complainers -- something far too many schools do by default.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: american sniper, free speech, heckler's veto, paddington bear, protests
Companies: university of michigan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Yes, what events are depicted DO matter. For University or Techdirt: would you be so supportive of a similarly anti-Jewish film? Of course not.
Double standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Nobody needs to like offensive speech just so they can support its right to exist. More speech, not censorship, remains our best "weapon" against offensive speech.
If you felt it necessary to censor legal content which you consider "offensive" for the protection of yourself/others, where would your journey end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
There are a few points I want to make in response
(1) While you might be OK with it, there is no way in hell the university would show such a movie. No protests needed, it simply would not even be allowed in the first place. If it isn't even allowed to get to a point where someone might heckle it, is that somehow better?
(2) This was a showing by the university. They are endorsing this movie. It isn't like they provided the space any self-funded student group could show any movie they wanted. University funds paid the MPAA fees on this showing.
(3) If somehow it were allowed, the university would have taken pains to assure that counter-speech was part of the agenda. They would have surrounded the showing with such discussion, a lecturer, maybe even an anti-nazi movie. Instead the unviersity decides to show a kids movie about a bear in a separate location. What the hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
See what I did there? I quoted your words back to you, despite the fact I strongly disagree with them. I am not endorsing your opinion by copying your words.
The university (belatedly) sees this as a possible teaching moment which they offer to their students, as is their job. It appears to me that it's worked out marvelously! I'm glad to see such important discussions take place. It's good for everybody. Well, perhaps not for the warmongers and racists, but it is for everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The university spending the students' own money to promote bigotry against those same students isn't a teaching moment in anything other than the tyranny of the majority.
If they want to open up the theatre room to any group that goes through a pro forma process, that's fine. But this is the university picking and choosing the content themselves. Once they start deciding what's OK and what's not OK they are already practising censorship. The people protesting this just want an equal say in that censorship.
This is the difference between letting a student group host David Duke to come speak and paying David Duke's speaking fees out of university funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And if the university decided to show the film as a way of actually endorsing the racist beliefs of its main character/the man who inspired the film, that phrase might actually mean something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
My answer to that remains thus: So what?
The university's decision to show American Sniper does not necessarily mean the administration endorses the film's view of the Iraq War, Chris Kyle's racist beliefs, or anything you might consider "offensive" about the film. I bet plenty of theater owners disagreed with that crap, but they showed the film anyway because of course they did.
If the administration decided to show American Sniper as an explicit endorsement of the messages that film contains - and you could show proof of it - you'd have a hell of an argument to lean upon. As things stand, you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Yes it does. Perhaps you do not understand what "endorse" means. If you pay for something you are endorsing it because you made the active decision to pay for it.
I bet plenty of theater owners disagreed with that crap, but they showed the film anyway because of course they did.
Any theater owners who didn't like the message and still showed it did so because they liked the profit more than they disliked the message. Theaters regularly refuse to show movies based on content.
If you are now arguing that the university likes the money more than they care about principles of egalitarianism, that's a sad commentary on the university's standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
By that logic, any film critic who paid to see American Sniper - or Fifty Shades of Grey, or any other "controversial" film - and savaged the film(/its messages) in their review actually endorsed the film.
If you are now arguing that the university likes the money more than they care about principles of egalitarianism
My argument stands as such: The university has a right to choose whatever movie it wants to show as an optional/non-mandatory event for its student body - and a right to listen to or ignore the student body's wishes in making that choise. The administration's choice of film does not stand as an explicit endorsement of that film's messages unless you can provide proof of said endorsement. What one person considers "offensive" should not stand as the standard for what all people consider "offensive". More speech, not censorship (including the heckler's veto), remains the best "weapon" against offensive speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Ok, now I see the problem. You use bizzaro logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
If you pay for something you are endorsing it because you made the active decision to pay for it.
The decision to pay for something does not automatically confer an endorsement of that something. Tons of people pay for TV/Internet service from Comcast, but I don't think they'd all line up to give Comcast a ringing endorsement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The real reason the movie is being protested is because that Group is anti-military and opposesUS foreign policy, and the film is notccritical of those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
I don't like the movie myself but I wouldn't try to ban it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And I would not, nor could not, force the university to show such a film. The university's administration has every right to decide what speech deserves its platform.
This was a showing by the university. They are endorsing this movie.
I wouldn't necessarily refer to a showing of the film as an "endorsement" of American Sniper - or at least not of the messages supposedly contained within the film, anyway. You can agree to show a film containing a specific message without either endorsing or decrying said message; regular ol' chain theaters do it all the time. I would need the reasoning behind the administration's decision for showing American Sniper to make a better call here, though.
If somehow it were allowed, the university would have taken pains to assure that counter-speech was part of the agenda. They would have surrounded the showing with such discussion, a lecturer, maybe even an anti-nazi movie. Instead the unviersity decides to show a kids movie about a bear in a separate location. What the hell?
I don't have a solid answer for that one. I don't (and can't) know why the administration thought of replacing the original film with a PG film/showing both films at the same time as good ideas. If I had to wager a vague guess, I'd say it has something to do with how the university hadn't made watching either film a mandatory event. Students could've likely set up some sort of competing event/meeting/etc. about American Sniper on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And the students being the people who hired the administration get a say in how the administration makes its decisions.
You can agree to show a film containing a specific message without either endorsing or decrying said message; regular ol' chain theaters do it all the time.
That analogy misses the mark because theaters don't require anybody to pay for films that they don't see. Just turn that around, imagine if every ticket for Paddington at the theater included a 10 cent surcharge to pay for someone else to go see American Sniper. Do you think that would fly?
I'd say it has something to do with how the university hadn't made watching either film a mandatory event
Watching it isn't mandatory but paying for it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
How do you know the administration didn't ask students what film they might want the university to show?
That analogy misses the mark because theaters don't require anybody to pay for films that they don't see.
I'd bet a fair number of college students don't take advantage of all kinds of different groups and classes and such, but their tuition still pays for those. How much of a say in the content of those groups/classes/etc. should students get in exchange for a fraction of their tuition going towards those things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Majority rule is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
How much of a say in the content of those groups/classes/etc. should students get in exchange for a fraction of their tuition going towards those things?
As a minimum they get to say that none of those things promote hate against themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And whose standards would you use to judge content for "hate"? A neo-feminist might have a different idea of what constitutes "hatred" of women than, say, a conservative farmgirl - so which one would you choose as the "standard bearer" for censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The issue here is an unequal baseline. A film that uncritically presented Germany invasion of Poland would never even be considered as an entertainment option. That American Sniper does the same for Iraq means running it is a using different standards for different people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
By whose standards - yours? Hey, some people might actually enjoy such a film. (I wouldn't want to know them or anything, but stick with me, I have a point.) Everyone has different standards of what they would or wouldn't consider a "viable entertainment option", and to use one person's standards as the baseline for such a consideration would lead to madness. (Sorry, Sparta. Better luck next discussion thread.)
Of course people have standards as to what they would consider "entertainment". But how heavily do you want to enforce one specific set of standards upon a group of people who might disagree with them? You made that comment earlier about majority rule as a potshot at me, but you seem ready to make yourself the wolf of the equation when it comes to the idea of what constitutes "entertainment".
What would make you think your personal opinion of what consitutes "entertainment" - or what makes an entertainment choice "offensive" - deserved to become the one baseline standard by which everyone must abide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
According to a certain AC, my teacher must now be considered an apologist for Nazism. Right, I'll go get my pitchfork and torch. We can't ever show anything controversial, am I right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
No. There are many different ways a movie can be viewed. Some people might want to see it for it's technical achievements (if it has any, I haven't seen it) or lack thereof. Some people might want to see what can arguably be called US propaganda.
In short, just because a few people are butthurt about a potential movie, is no reason to send strongly worded letters complaining about being butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exhibit: AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exhibit: AC
That people are offended means little, we all get offended sooner or later. Learning to be tolerant of others' points of view is the most important lesson here, and I fear it's being missed to jingoism on one side and political correctness on the other.
Why are people so THREATENED by others disagreeing with them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
A non-story repeated at college campuses nationwide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
2. If presented in the right context yrs it would be, and in fact often is allowed.
3. Most U's actually pay for these films with Student Association funds which aren't coming out of general tuition but are raised independently by the various Student Clubs.
4. This group is not opposed because it's a biased viewpoint but because it's not their viewpoint. A similar film biased against the US military, in favor of Islam, and against the war would be promoted by the same group and they'd scream racism & bogotry if it wasn't shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
What about the other students who are just fine with this? They pay tuition too, last I checked. If I was a student there, I wouldn't have a problem with the university showing this movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And your freedom to voice your opinion about showing the movie should be recognized.
My opinion is that those who made the choice to show this movie showed very poor judgment. The movie was not being presented as a study in filmmaking or to prompt discussion of historical events -- it was chosen as entertainment for a social event "catering to the interests of a diverse student population". As such, it was an extremely poor choice for the program (especially when the university's campus is situated in a region that has the largest Moslem population in America).
Those who made the decision to show this movie have done a disservice to the university, to its "diverse student population", and to its host community. Hopefully in the future their decisions will be less inconsistent with the traditions of the university and the purported ambitions of the Umix program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And part of that diverse student population expressed its disgust with the film. Had things ended there - or ended with a protest of the screening or whatever - we wouldn't even be talking about this situation.
That group within the entire student population nearly got the film pulled from its scheduled showing (one that the university did not compel students to attend, mind you) because said group tried to enforce its standards for offensiveness on the entire student population. A student may have wanted to see the film so they could see what makes it so offensive and start a better dialogue about it, but the "offended" group could have denied that student such an opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The group went beyond making there voice heard, and refusing to attend the showing, and tried to get the showing stopped, and prevent others from seeing the film. That is they stepped over the boundary that separates free speech censorship. If you truly support free speech, you can say that you find something to be abhorrent, but you cannot use that opinion to shut down the speech that you object to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
demanding that someone in power impose your views on everybody else;
or,
those in power caving in to the loudest voices.
The combination is significant in politics at all levels, and usually to the detriment of the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
and the rest of the time it perpetuates injustice against minorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The petition calling for the cancellation of that American Sniper showing represents a form of "soft censorship". A group of people, however large, tried persuading the university into cancelling a film screening open to all students based only on that group's feelings about the film. They didn't want to start a dialogue about the film in any way; they wanted the university to not show the film at all.
Had they asked for a chance to air grievances in a similarly public forum, I don't think anyone would have taken issue with the group's dislike of the film. But they used their beliefs/opinions to (try to) get a voluntary film screening shut down. They attempted to tell the university what films it could or could not show.
How comfortable would you feel if a group of people tried telling your local movie theater what it could or couldn't show based only on that group's beliefs/opinions?
Don't get me wrong: I take heavy issue with the politics of American Sniper and the beliefs of Chris Kyle. I believe the university made a poorly-timed decision with its choice of film, all things considered. But unless I expected the film screening to result in harm to another student/group, I would either protest the screening, ask for a similarly free (and voluntary) forum to discuss the film's politics, or simply deny the film my attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Yes it is, and it is not far away from the attitude of religious extremists, you must agree with my brand of the faith because it is the one true faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
If The University of Michigan were paying Dick Cheney to speak at an event would it be acceptable to petition against it? What about those poor students who wanted to hear Dick Cheney? Would Tim still be writing an article about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
In the former situation, Cheney's speech would theoretically still happen, but students who disagree with Cheney (for whatever reason) would provide countering speech to his speech.
In the latter situation, Cheney's speech may or may not happen if the offended students successfully force the university into denying Cheney a platform for his speech. Students who may have wanted to hear Cheney speak in person (for whatever reason) would lose that opportunity.
You may dislike Dick Cheney, and you may disagree with his politics, but how does your dislike of him give you or anyone else the right to deny those who may agree (or disagree!) with his politics a chance to see him speak?
And how would you feel if you found out that a politician with whom you agree had a speech shut down because a small group of students complained about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
And those that like to compare the Bush administration to Facists would do well to read up on history so they can have a more informed discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The Jews are a race. Many Jews do not believe the associated religion. Not believing would not have saved you from the Nazis.
Islam is a religion/ideology. As such it is a choice.
The comparison does not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
No, they're not. Perhaps you mean Semites?
If I convert to Judaism, my race won't change. I'll still be a red haired, freckled Caucasian. There are black (Nubian/Ethiopian) Jews, European (Ashkenazi) Jews, Slavic Jews, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
If I convert to Judaism, my race won't change. I'll still be a red haired, freckled Caucasian. There are black (Nubian/Ethiopian) Jews, European (Ashkenazi) Jews, Slavic Jews, ...
In the broadest sense you are right - however Jewish identity is not generally regarded as being affected by the current status of someone's religious beliefs.
For example (from Wikipedia)
"In general, Orthodox Judaism considers individuals born of Jewish mothers to be Jewish, even if they convert to or are raised in another religion"
I realise that that does not make them a race in the biological sense but it does mean that they have an identity that cannot be discarded as easily as that of other religious groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
The word you want is tribe, where membership is conveyed by parentage. In the case of Jews, where membership is passed via the mother, the tribe can be(come) very racially diverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Yes that would do. The point is that it is different from a religious faith or ideology where individual choice is the determining factor.
Hence there are Jewish Christians, Jewish Muslims, Jewish Atheists etc but no Christian Muslims, Muslim Atheists etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
would you be so supportive of a similarly anti-Jewish film? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paddington Bear is offensive
Bad biology, bad policy, bad movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paddington Bear is offensive
Grumble, mumble, rasafrackin' jiggafrigga, ... kroshnit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paddington Bear is offensive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"[or] Note that they disapprove"
Then again, I'm the kind of person whose response to "I'm thirsty." is "Okay, so what?".
If someone could link me to the petition itself (or even just quote the relevant portion), I'd appreciate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is only one qualification that can follow a declaration of support for free speech, and that is I will fight to support your right to free speech, even when I loathe your speech. Any other qualification is denying someone else's tights to free speech, with the speaker being the judge of what speech should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And is it gluten free? Vegan?
I know people that can be offended by *anything*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not then I do not think the students have much to complain about, the tax payers might but since government is not funding education a whole lot these days - not so much huh.
Complaining about a jingoistic snuff piece will not get one very far these days, unless one wants a lot of tea bag bullshit thrown in their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
There are many muslims who are peaceful and many of those have no more understanding of the Koran than many of those who call themselves christians.
A true muslim is called to go out and conquer and convert/destroy the infidels by whatever means are necessary for Allah. True christians are called to be holy and pure, to defend the fatherless and the widows, to love the unlovable, to preach the gospel of the good news of the Kingdom of God, to poor blessing on their enemies, to declare and live the difference between sin and holiness.
So many muslims are bad muslims because they want to live in peace with their neighbours who are not muslim. So many christians are bad christians because they don't want to be holy and pure or to love but would rather hate and tolerate the destruction of those around them.
So where does this leave us in regards to this story, you have a nation that has a provision wherein you have a spectacular freedom to say most anything. Those of us who live in nations that do not have this freedom understand that this freedom is extremely valuable and worth fighting for. But for us, it quite often means prison or exorbitant fines to say something that offends or hurts the feelings of others.
Fight for what you've got, protect it otherwise you will lose it and once it is gone, you'll be worse off that those of us who did not have it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Defending Muslims is no different than defending any other faith. People that are biased don't see that though. From what I understand of American history is that America was created as a place where people of all faiths could go without being harassed. Where they could live their lives free from fear from being different.
Muslims are being treated as the worlds scapegoat in my opinion these last few decades. Some are evil people but that doesn't mean all are evil and should be condemned just because those that twist their faith into an excuse for killing others represent their entire faith.
Maybe if we stopped making war on that area of the world they would stop hating us and attacking us..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
I don't have a problem defending moslems. I don't defend the basic tenets of Islam however. Neither do I defend the basic tenets of Nazism, Communism, Pure Capitalism, Narcissism or Nihilism.
But you do misunderstand the difference between a good moslem and a bad moslem. A bad moslem is one who actions are peaceful, kindly to non-moslems, beneficial to non-Islamic culture and society. What anyone (not a moslem) would call a good, upright person. A good moslem is someone who fights to destroy non-Islamic culture and society. One who will forcefully convert non-moslems to Islam using any and every means to do this - lies, cheating, violence, etc.
Too many people do not understand that people like Osama bin Laden are good moslems. That groups like ISIS and Boko Haram are good islamic groups. They follow the tenets set down by Mohammed. They follow the actions he proscribed as being in accordance with the Koran.
Islam is not just a religion, it covers everything in society, politics, financial, societal, education, diplomacy and foreign policy, etc.
From your limited perspective, moslems may seem to be treated as the worlds scapegoat. Yet in a much broader sense, depending on where you are, various groups will be the scapegoats, chriatians are considered thus in many parts of the world, in other parts this role is given to moslems, in other parts it is given to hindus. Sometimes, it is shared by various groups.
The thing is that Islam is not twisted into an excuse for convert or die. This is a fundamental tenet of the Koran and Islam. I would suggest that you seriously do your own study and see what the Koran actually says. There are many reputable english translations available (written by Islamic scholars). Just as it is acceptable for a moslem to lie and cheat a non-moslem to gain the advantage of Islam over everything else.
If you stopped making war on them, you would simply encourage them to expand. The hatred and the attacks won't stop until all is Islam. You would still then have the struggles between the various sects of Islam (Sunni, Shi'ite, etc).
What many people forget about christianity is that it is about the individual and their personal relationship with the Creator God. When it get polluted by politics and power, it is now longer effective. Don't make the mistake that many do, that the so-called christian attrocities of the past or the present have anything or are anything more than a facade. Many of the so-called christian political parties are no more christian than they are buddhist or hindu.
Can a christian be involved in politics or business? Certainly they can. However, they should be demonstrating by both actions and words their beliefs and faith and their relationship with the Creator God. The one amazing thing about being a full-hearted follower of Jesus Christ is that no-one can do this in and of themselves. It takes the full intervention of Jesus Christ himself to bring about this change within the inner man and bring it forth to the outer man.
Over many years, I have had many interactions with those who call themselves christian but by their actions are demonstrating that they aren't. I have also had many interactions with other who call themselves christian and by their actions and words they demonstrate that they are indeed followers of Jesus Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
tl;dr
Pro-tip: Try like hell to get your comment in at under half-a-screenful. Consider breaking it up into multiple comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Paganism.
The only difference they have between one another is the wording. Meaning, before the written word was invented we all passed on knowledge through song and dance. Take the Navajoes for instance, before they were invaded their entire history was literally written into the land since they had no written language. Thus, after they were invaded and displaced...it was lost forever.That's the way it used to be with all of us!
The point I'm trying to make is history has a tendency to displace the truth and neither Moses, Mohammand, nor Jesus will ever, if they even existed, have their TRUE stories told since the 'written' word has turned into a form of manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Paganism.
Hmm - I either you are defining Paganism (in a somewhat unusual way) or you don't have much information about any of them.
I'd like to know of a belief system that isn't based on Paganism by your definition.
The only difference they have between one another is the wording.
That is also the only difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5.
So what is your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Which means that your supposed "golden age" occurred in a time frame where - by your definition we can have no knowledge at all. Hence your argument cannot be disproved!
How convenient!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
0.02%of 200,000 years is 40 years - but don't let facts get in the way of your argument....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Originally, "pagan" referred specifically to polytheistic religions, particularly the Greek ones. Then for a while it meant "not Christian". Nowadays, it means "a religion that is not one of the main world religions". (It's also sometimes been used to refer to people we would call "hedonists" these days, but that's more of a slang use.)
In any case, all religions that were the precursors to the main ones these days were indeed "pagan" by definition. It's a bit of a self-evident point, but I think it has philosophical importance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
But that does not imply, as he does, that this means that all these religions developed from paganism.
On that basis one would have to say that modern humanistic atheist/agnostic thought developed from Christianity and hence from paganism. In that case the charge applies to everyone's beliefs - and hence it is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
No, because "modern" atheistic/agnostic thought predates Christianity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
No it doesn't. There was atheistic/agnostic thought before Christianity - but themodern version developed in a Christian context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Where is your documentary evidence for this concversation?
And you accuse ME of making things up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
For example in the wikipedia entry on Atheism in the middle ages we find the following:
In the European Middle Ages, no clear expression of atheism is known
hence modern European Atheism developed afterwards - inevitably in a Christian context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Another way to put this is people like them would rather blame God for all the problems of world rather than accept responsibility for their own part. This comes out when they are interviewed about the matter.
If they actually believed that God didn't exist, I would expect them to demonstrate this with far less emotion than they actually express. It is like they are emotionally tortured and torn internally over the matter. They want to be right no matter what and they will destroy you if you get in their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
The crusades bear a similar relationship to the preceding Islamic Jihad as D-day does to the occupation of France.
I'm sure that the allies did some bad things on D-day - but few would say that they should apologise for D-day itself.
Muslims are being treated as the worlds scapegoat in my opinion these last few decades. Some are evil people but that doesn't mean all are evil and should be condemned just because those that twist their faith into an excuse for killing others represent their entire faith.
As eye sea ewe said, if you read the actual Islamic sources you will find that it is the moderates who have twisted the faith. The radicals are following Mohammed to the letter.
Personally I don't understand why the moderates don't just leave the faith altogether*. There is absolutely no reason to believe in it when you have rejected most of what Mohammed said and did.
* Actually I do- it is just that the reason is not rational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
claim religious freedom to do so whilst proclaiming US AP history teaches too much bad stuff that the US has done.
"A true muslim is ..."
Hahahaha - No True Muslim, No True Christian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Actually he is NOT falling into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. He is simply quoting the accepted religious texts.
Consider the classic example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy"
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Of course this assumes that no "manual of Scottish behaviour" exists containing a prohibition on putting sugar on porridge.
eg if I were to say "No true Jew would eat pork" then I would not fall into the fallacy simply because I used the phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Before claiming someone failed to do their research before writing, might help to actually read what they wrote first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm against Israel committing genocide since initially after WW2 all of the local palestinane tribes and the influx of European Jews were suppose to form a nation/alliance...but then the US stepped in with their agenda to destabilize the entire region over the course of several decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A university is a place of education
It would also be inappropriate and a disservice to both the Founders of the Republic as well as the soldiers serving in WW2 to show major speeches of Joseph Goebbels or Michael Hayden on campus without establishing a setting making the dangers of fascism readily accessible.
When there is no time for proper preparation, cancelling a broadcast that will run counter to the ultimate educational goals of the university without an adequately prepared context sounds reasonable to me.
It is not like one can expect Americans to properly recognize fascism and murder worship on their own even when it hits them in the face left and right and left and right and left and right and left and right and shoots them in the back and takes their belongings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live and let live
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live and let live
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also failed to draw the parallel between this movie and any other which shows an imaginary occupation of the US where the people do way worse things in the name of Freedom.
Oh that kid was a little pussy for standing up against the occupying army!
meanwhile in another movie:
Damn commies deserve the worst death, who cares that its just a kid who has no idea whats happening around her, she is right next to a commie who invaded the Glorious State of Freedom! Kill everyone!
Seriously, this movie should be shown in every university along with one of these ones where the roles are reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... this topic covered, and not the cop shooting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... this topic covered, and not the cop shooting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They wanted censorship -- here's my vote.
Because either one is the right age range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fail to see how this differs from the "more speech" solution that we're supposedly so fond of here.
I should hope that any advocate of free speech would see the value in letting students write petitions, of all things. Even those petitions with which they disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]