Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared Threatening 566
ocean_soul writes "Probably because nothing more threatening was happening and they need to prove their usefulness the school police at University of Wisconsin-Stout decided a Firefly poster with the quote: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed," was a threat to the safety on campus. Wasn't that a quote about not killing people?"
FSZ's (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely he can hang his poster up in the Free Speech Zone set aside for that purpose. You know, the three square feet way off in the back of the most distant parking lot where you can say whatever you want without fear that anyone will actually hear what you're saying.
-
All free Americans should despise our new so-called "Free Speech Zones". My "Free Speech Zone" used to be called "The United States of America".
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:1, Insightful)
Can't tell if stupid or just trolling.
Turning every possible argument (especially one that's visibly just about some over-zealous power-hungry mall cop types), into some 'fucking bleeding heart liberals' or 'fucking heartless republicans' debate, is doing nothing to help your country, or its people.
Remember, folks: divide and conquer.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:0, Insightful)
Please return to RedState and stop shitting up Slashdot with your awful posts.
Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone send that guy back to kindergarten so he can learn to understand a sentence properly.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it was more because some emo pussies got killed or seriously injured in a stunningly immature and irresponsible hazing ritual, after which rich spoiled brats ran shrieking to their daddies to protect them from the consequences of their inexcusable behavior.
Maybe that part doesn't compute for you because you are just another spoiled brat with a big fat mouth.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
Lets see if I understand this. (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the original exchange [http://thefire.org/article/13592.html], as well as the linked article. From that I get the following:
1. The Campus Police saw a poster on a bulletin board near and removed it due the the reference to killing.
2. They notified Professor Miller that he or someone had posted it and they removed it due to the reference. They asked him to contact them with questions
3. He exploded at them about first amendment rights and called them fascists.
4. They asked to sit down with them and go over the problem and informed him of campus requirements. They also let him know that if he violated campus requirements there may be penalties.
5. He called them "card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons" and put up a poster again calling them fascists.
6. The CP contacted his boss who asked him to meet with him ASAP.
7. He went crying to the media about how his rights are being trampled by fascists.
It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided. While the Campus Police may have gone too far enforcing campus rules, the prof went way out in the deep end without any concern for sanity.
Nothing the CP did was a terrible fascist crime, if Professor Miller had bothered to think before screaming, this would have been a non-issue.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't people be reasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a twisted way I see how they could have an argument.
If you dig a little deeper (like looking at the case on the FIRE site) the professor then put up a poster against fascism, indicating that fascism can lead to violence and death. Campus police took that one down too and got the dean involved, which is when this guy got a lawyer.
Seriously, Fascism?! Campus police has a problem with a poster against Fascism?!
Basically, what's going on here is that the professor had a poster that could, by a decidedly UNreasonable (but still sane and literate) person be construed to be a threat. Campus police took it down. The guy got upset and replaced it with a new poster which, while DEPICTING comic violence, constituted real political speech and clearly was NOT a threat of any kind. It was phrased as a warning that Fascism can lead to violence. This is where the story should have ended.
Campus police decided that since this guy was a "troublemaker" they would show him by taking down the new poster too and going after his job. This is where campus police went too far. The new poster was NOT a threat, and campus police knew it, or should have known it.
So, the professor got a lawyer.
And, the moral of the story is: Fear the police, they have public opinion, power, and guns on their side.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know. Do you? I mean, do you actually have any evidence that anyone actually tried to do what you've just accused some random, faceless group of actually perpetrating, or are you just rambling incoherently?
I am not an american citizen, nor I ever set foot near it, but from all the Hollywood movies I've been exposed to and from all the political posturing that some US citizens are responsible for in online forums such as this one, I assumed that the US of A was supposed to be a constitutional republic whose citizens enjoyed a set of rights as encoded in the United States Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org]. Among this set of rights, there was supposed to be this right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition [wikipedia.org]. If this is supposed to be true then it would mean that it was everyone's business, including "conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals", to take stances, "liberal" or not, on any issue anyone sees fit, which includes wars and union organizing.
But, somehow, it appears that you disagree with this, that you somehow believe that a specific group of people which are a part of your society should be barred from exercising these rights which supposedly people like you hold as fundamental for your very own society.
So, how do you explain your stance on this issue?
If I kill you, you'll never know (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the quote sounds all manly and tough, but I think it's also pretty stupid. If I am going to kill you, it's because it's important that you be dead. It's not a test of my masculinity, or some kind of honor thing where I'm going to let Fate or our skills with a weapon decide which of us really deserves to be deceased.
If I kill you, I'm going to sneak up on you, and you'll have no idea what's happening until you no longer know that anything is happening. It won't be "honorable", just necessary. If it's not necessary, I won't do it.
The real civility and honor comes BEFORE the killing part, where I try to settle our differences like adult human beings, with language. If you have any honor, we'll settle it then. If we don't find an honorable way to settle it, I won't be looking for an honorable solution, just a solution.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so the real problem isn't that the content of the poster was threatening. The problem is that he didn't show the proper deference to authority. Just making sure we're clear on this.
Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (Score:5, Insightful)
Because slamming one side automatically means he's vouching for the other side, right?
Because there are only two real options in your country, both just as bad?
Wake up and realize that what you think is "liberal" and "conservatives" are just two sides of the same superficially democratic machine, and it's only real purpose is to keep itself in power. You only have one party, thinly veiled as two. Any American who gets into a con vs lib argument is just a zombie doing exactly what the system wants them to do. It's very sad and pathetic watching this from the outside, seeing everything you people believe in as a lie. I guess being immersed in it since childhood makes it easier to believe. It's kind of like watching a documentary about cargo cults... it's hard to believe people living in such ignorance exist... but there they are.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:3, Insightful)
The cop understood the quote just fine, she just disagrees with the message. Cops don't seem to like the idea that normal people should be able (or really even willing) to defend themselves. Partly because they see that as their job, and partly because they don't want ordinary citizens to be able to defend themselves against cops.
Re:How about flashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?
Actually... probably not.
Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.
Re:A blank page? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth
And I thought we had gone too far when we called illegal copying "stealing".
Dude, nobody has stolen their bandwidth. Look, it's still there! Look!
I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.
On the contrary, if your karma is high enough, you even get an option to disable advertisement. Some sites still understand that without readers, they're nothing but a guy wanking in the basement.
Basically, if you want to be paid for your content, put up a paywall. Ads are not payment. Putting them on your site is a bet, not a price ticket. You play a bit of lottery, every ad is a ticket that may or may not yield you some cash. If your business model is based on ads, then you're a professional gambler, nothing more. Sure, with large enough numbers, statistics usually level out in your favour, but never forget that there's no guarantee - getting 100 million page views with zero ad clicks may be a statistical anomaly, but it could happen. If that means you starve, then you've bet the farm on an unreliable business model.
Short version: Your problem, not mine.
I will make my one point and get out... (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here wasn't that a security person took down the poster, it was rather than call someone higher up and ask "why the hell is a rent a cop touching my personal property?" he decided to go to name calling. That is not how things are done in business if you want to keep your job. You call your boss, he makes a call, a couple hours later either the matter is dropped and you put your poster back up or your boss calls you a douche for putting up a dumb poster. Either way, quick resolution.
But no, let's put up a new poster implying the security people were fascists. Because that will help. Now everyone gets called to the (metaphorical) principle's office because your couldn't handle it like an adult.
Oh and BTW, they took down a poster in your work environment, not beat you for stating political ideals. There's a difference.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:4, Insightful)
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.
No, really. This equality bullshit fad needs to end NOW! Reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron", recently made into a movie, where
The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains
That nicely sums up my opinion of political correctness. If the only way to achieve a stable society is to stoop down to the lowest common denominator, I say ship all the weak, ugly imbeciles off to a damn Mars colony so we can have our nice little utopia, and they can have their real-life Idiocracy. Everyone's happy then, right ?
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (Score:5, Insightful)
When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
A liberal believes in freedom.
A conservative believes in not wasting.
I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.
The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".
The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".
This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with you.
Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?
When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.
Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.
You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Tom, mr UID 822, I for one am quite pleased that you're not one of those P.C. apologists. Yes, people aren't always people, sometimes they're just savages, and should be treated as such.
As someone who has spent far too much time in bars, as both a patron and employee, I whole-heartedly agree with you. The latest generation has been so coddled that they believe themselves impervious to criticism and reprimand. Waking up to a good sore knuckle imprint serves to fill in for the lessons their parents failed to teach.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:2, Insightful)
You just proved someone else's point. Anything that isn't yours is obviously the other, and even more extreme.
Compromise is bad. Compromise is a guarantee an idea gets Nerfed to the point of not working. Universities by and large are VERY left wing and work to indoctrinate the young people who enter them. Perhaps you completely missed the whole Shakita Butler teaching incredibly flawed and biased definitions of racism at the University of Delaware? How about college campuses that suppress students right wing ideas and philosophies but allow left? [google.com]
Truth is the left builds up a wall of fake attack/defense claims to mask their own attacks. I'm just as against the right trying to legislate their morality and protect their corporate contracts and interest as I am of the left trying to legislate their ideas and protect their corporate contracts and interest. The truth is the left is the attack machine, it's about 70 / 30 with the left attacking 70 and one of the attacks they make is calling a block of their attack as "refusal to reach across the isle" and "refusal to compromise". If a right winger has $100 he earned, the left wants all of it, the right winger says no not giving you $50 is refusal to compromise. I don't see where not giving you $50 is wrong.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Insightful)
Compromise?
So, was Pelosi and the Democrats compromising when they forced ObamaCare on everyone? [heritage.org]
So the head of the Teamsters Union was compromising when he said "Take those SOB's out"?
There's tons more...if one cares to look just a smidge. Sorry, I just can't believe you meant what you said. Must have mis-stated it...or you're living in a rose-colored glasses induced world there.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
The above comment was presumably brought to us by the "project your side's malevolent activities onto your opponent, get moderated Insightful" school of political thought? Because US politics didn't used to be nearly as far to the right as it was, and the way it got there was through the use of exactly the same tactics by the right that you're accusing the left wing of using - they deliberately drove ideas further and further to the right into the political mainstream, redefining what counted as centrist and far-left as they did so. We know this from statements by members of the right wing saying that this is what they were doing.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with "libertarians" is some have a funny definition of "liberty", thinking that taxes and regulations infringe on their freedoms, when your refusal to pay your fair share and your pollution infringe on my own rights.
You don't have the right to dirty my air and rivers. You should have the right to smoke crack with your hired bitch; it's your right to destroy your life any way you deem fit. Smoke your crack, but don't burglarize my house to pay for your habit.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Insightful)
"How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid?"
Frats are still there. QQ moar.
"How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism?"
Zero times?
"How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"
Who is "they?" And what issues are they, in your mind, allowed to take stances on?
"You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals pushing each other out of the way to tell you how anti-corporation they are--and then tweeting about it on their band-new Macs and iPads (with absolutely no sense of irony)."
University of Wisconsin-Stout's in-state undergrad tuition is around $8.5k a year (2 semesters of 15 credits). Yeah, only Rockefellers going there! Do you have any idea what a "trust fund" is, or how much other universities cost?
"Christ, I think Madison was the *birthplace* of the smelly drum circle."
Have you ever even left Wisconsin?
And let me get this straight--you think hippies are against free speech? Hippies support the police going into offices and tearing down posters? Hippies are in cahoots with the "campus threat assessment team"?
This post is fairly hilarious.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually, when some right-wing guy brings up the `get a pair' taunt during some argument about some symbol/statement/law that offends somebody, I usually use the following to make them get the point.
1) Mosque at ground zero. If the Muslims have money to set up a mosque there, why is it your concern? You should just swallow your feelings, right?
2) Mapplethorpe Exhibit. Jesus in a jar of urine. You should just man up, right?
3) Gay parade in SF. Everybody should just STFU, right?
You get the picture. There are lots of such examples you can bring up.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, what I don't even
What are you saying here?
Re:Why can't people be reasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I've seen some ridiculous communist/fascist loving stuff at University. I've seen people who "admire" Kim Jong-Il, and who "admire" Hitler, and who "admired" Mao.
I have been around various universities pretty much all my life, and I don't think I have ever seen a person who genuinely admired any of the dictators that you mention (except some communist fanatics at the communist government controlled university that I studied when I was young, and these people generally did not belong at a university, and were booted from their positions by the rest of the academic community soon after the revolution). I have seen people who studied Kim Jong-Il, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. I have also seen people who claimed to admire them, in order to shock or create controversy, both in university environments and outside.
These "leaders" killed millions of people in the name of truly evil ideologies, and they are typically tolerated at academic institutions.
If by tolerated you mean discussed and studied, you are right. You see, the thing about academia, the whole purpose of it is to figure out things and understand them, understand where they come from, what caused them, how can we recognize them when they come along next time, etc.
For example, UW Madison had its local paper run an ad by a Holocaust denier, because, "âoeno opinions or assertions can be so offensive that we cannot bring ourselves to hear them.â'
As much as I oppose holocaust deniers, I completely agree with the UWMs reasoning. And I am not the only only one, there is for example this famous quote by Salman Rushdie: âoeWhat is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to existâ. I think he speaks from experience. From an academic point of view, it is impossible to study an opinion or assertion, debate it and argue against it, without hearing it.
Also, UW Madison has *at least* one professor (Erik Olin Wright) who studies the "scientific" ideas of Stalin. A mass murderer by *any* standard. Probably the most prolific mass murderer in history.
Indeed, and that's exactly why we need to study his ideas. We need to understand what did the most prolific mass murderer in history think, how did he justify his actions and so on. If for no other reason, than at least in order to prevent others like him to gain power and attempt to repeat his actions. If you look around the world, there are plenty of people who would very much like to emulate Stalin, and no, most of them (if any) are in academia.
Scary to me that a Firefly poster would be considered the "worrying" document.
I completely agree with you on this. That is completely ridiculous. However, I think that it is not necessarily caused by either liberal or conservative point of view, as many people here argue. I think at the beginning it was simply a stupid business decision. I imagine that the administration on the university probably instructed the cops to be on a look out for certain keywords. I imagine that they are mostly worried that a student will read the poster, misunderstand it, mention it to parents, somebody will call in a reporter, it will be on the news, and bunch of complete idiots will say that someone (it does not matter who) at the university is threatening students, other bunch of complete idiots will believe it, the enrollment will drop, and since most income in state universities these days come from tuition, it will be an economic disaster for the school. I don't agree with that reasoning, I thing it is stupid, but unfortunately, you can see it at various state schools around the country all the time. The rest is just the cop being dumb. No need to spin it into some sort of "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" thing.
Re:don't get confused (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the idea is that they don't want mobs. Too many examples in the past of angry protesting mobs disrupting events; blocking entrances, shouting at people entering the events, etc. Free speech is allowed, disturbing the peace is not. So now the free speech zones seem to be the preemptive approach to avoiding disruption and/or violence. I do agree that many jurisdictions are taking this preemption too far.
Basically we still do have free speech everywhere. But that is not the same thing as being allowed to protest everywhere. You are allowed to walk to the entrance of the NYSE and speak your mind even with unpopular views. However you're not allowed to incite others to violence, or bring a group of people to disrupt traffic and block entrances.
Of course even if this is a legal infraction does that matter? The civil rights marchers went ahead and marched even though it was illegal.