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?"
Work too (Score:5, Interesting)
I get the same thing at work. A few friends had a photo op for a school project and the main person decided to do a Shadowrun themed shoot. We dressed up in our gear and I grabbed my fake Katana ($40 at a game convention; yea fake) for some fluff along with my hat and oversized coat over my motorcycle jacket (for bulkiness). Anyway, she took some really good pictures. I printed out one of me with my sheathed sword and posted it in my cube. I got a little "talking to" from my supervisor about appropriate content at work.
I've been talked to a few times about different things. My Zombie t-shirt with the shotgun on the back was one. I'm to the point that I have only one non-work related item up in my cubical. My Zombie calendar. I'm actually surprised it's lasted this long.
[John]
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:3, Interesting)
It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:
I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.
I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I generally agree that the calm, rational approach is the right one, it also shouldn't be the only one in your repertoire. And there are times when exploding on someone is the best way to handle a matter. That is especially true if the other side is acting first, and talking after the fact. Had they talked to him before removing the poster, I dare to guess he would have been calmer.
Here's why I can relate: I live in the center of my city. There's a street filled with pubs nearby. Near the weekend, lots of people over there are drunken assholes. Sometimes, on their way home or whatever, they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance. If I ever catch one in the act, I've sworn to myself I'll rough him up badly. Because the fact that he got that idea in the first place disqualifies him for any rational discussion, calm or otherwise. And besides, the damage is already done.
While Miller reacted strongly, it seems to me that he was in a similar situation. They had already removed the poster, and their initial notification didn't indicate they were willing to reconsider, only that they'd answer questions. From his perspective, there was no option for a solution in his interest offered, so exploding was the act by which he intended to open up the issue, so the option "put the poster back" was at least on the table.
Could he have done it in a different way? Maybe. Sometimes, stating your thoughts calmly and rationally is the right thing. But sometimes, it also means you're not going to be taken seriously, and your opponent will not look for a compromise solution, but rather for a way to brush you off, exactly because you aren't loud, so you're not a thread, just a nuissance.
Just a Reminder about Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
You have as many rights in these United States of America as you can afford to hire lawyers to defend.
Re:Work too (Score:2, Interesting)
Semi-OT but this tactic might be useful. Worked for me in the military and civilian workplace.
Try THIS game:
Since work is work and not home, I developed the habit of never decorating my workplace at all. I don't look at my door/walls anyway, so I make my workspace so low-key that no one hangs around it or eyeballs it to see what I'm doing. I don't want any "conversation starters" in that area because I don't care to interact except on my initiative. If I am elsewhere it doesn't look as if I was "interrupted". It' doesn't change and is so "blank" it "disappears".
I don't need to assert my identity or style by using workplace objects. I don't want to fucking talk to the PHB-types in my designated space, so I never gave them the excuse to stay and chat.
I can groom and bullshit them nicely in THEIR space while using THEIR decor as a conversation starter. People love to talk about themselves and they stop thinking when they do. I bring my social skills to the game on my terms.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the biggest smoke screen liberals are using today.
I'm a libertarian, I look at the left vs. right debate mostly from the outside and I've declared most of it foolish. What I have noticed is a lot of quotes coming from the left that say "even liberals in America are conservatives when compared to the rest of the world" "all right wingers are incredibly right wing so they see only slightly liberal or even neutral institutions as far left." The left is an attack machine against the right and the general goal of the overall left is to "change the center of balance" so that it appears that moderates on their side are neutral so that radicals seem moderate - bringing their fringe closer to center and moving the rights moderates to the radical realm in the general overall perception.
What I see from the right is mostly a dismissal of the left as wrong. When they do go on the attack against the left they usually attack the individual issue, not the person/people in general (the left does not constrain itself so). When the issue a left and right winger disagree on is financial right wingers are usually ok with the left winger otherwise, the left winger usually sees nothing from the right winger as acceptable. When it's a moral cause right wingers tend to be less accepting of the left otherwise.
Us libertarians, when we do agree with either of your issues in principal just wished you would stop legislating them on everyone, especially at the federal level so we don't screw the nation as a whole when you're wrong. Even when you're right we want you to leave it out of the federal level of laws so it's not mismanaged at the top, over taxed for, and imposed on all 50 states plus territories through what should be illegal symbiotic relationships with corporations that have unreasonable relationships with the federal government.
"Threatening" behavior on campus (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though I don't agree with his liberal bashing, he is right about the offending part.
Its not just people's interpretation of offending behavior, it their interpretation of threatening behavior. I knew a professor who did computer vision research and had a round bulls-eye target (*not* a silhouette target, ie it was the type of target you would find in the Olympics not on a police or military range) shot full of holes on his wall. This target was used in a computer vision project and the professor would occasionally glance at it while thinking of algorithms to apply to its image. He joked he'll have to complete the project quickly because someone will invariably walk by in the hallway and see the target on his *interior office wall* and file a complaint saying the target created a threatening environment. He was serious, he was quite confident he will eventually be asked to take it down.
Re:If I kill you, you'll never know (Score:4, Interesting)
I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
don't get confused (Score:3, Interesting)
You are allowed to protest pretty much anywhere if you do so peacefully. At certain big events where there is expected to be disruption and not peaceful protest (like the anti-WTO protests) there are designated free speech zones.
Yes, these free speech zones are far out of the way and not conducive to protest.
You thinking that in the US you cannot protest anywhere else would be equivalent to me looking at the Speaker's Corner article on wikipedia and concluding there is no free speech or protest legally allowed outside a few tiny regions of England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner [wikipedia.org]
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're a little confused, or haven't been paying attention. To a right winger, anyone who thinks pollutants should be regulated is a "tree hugging hippie" and global warming is a left-wing conspiracy, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and the poor are all poor because they're barely human,creationism should be taught in schools and think "God helps those who help themselves" is in .the bible (it isn't) and it's your God-given right to never pay taxes ("Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's").
Libertarians can lean to the left or the right. Me, I'm probably more left leaning; you should be able to do whatever you want so long as you don't victimize me, but then I consider paying someone shit for an honest day's work is victimizing him. I'm all for a European-style health care system; our own is simply retarded.
That said, it's just wrong to supress this guy's speech. You should have the right to say anything you want no matter how offensive, but if you slander me I have the right to sue.
You have the right to bare arms, but you don't have the right to point one at me.
Youe rights end where mine begin (and no, I agree that you don't have the right to not be offended).
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:3, Interesting)
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
Secondly, let's consider a scenario: Group A wants independent states and a small Federal government, so they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. Group B wants to increase Federal government size and power by increasing spending and eventually taxes.
What's the compromise? No increase in spending? Well, the compromise in the US has ALWAYS been an increase in spending, there's never been any actual cut in spending.
The law says that the Federal budget will always increase each year over the previous ("baseline budgeting"), so if neither group takes any action, Group B's desires are met. (Any "cuts" they talk about are actually reductions in future spending from the baseline, never reductions from the current year's budget.)
So that's why Group B wants to "compromise", because it makes them look more reasonable without risking anything--their goals are being met if they get none of their evident demands.