University Backs Down Over Firefly Poster Protest

[Andy Chalk]

University Backs Down Over Firefly Poster Protest

​

The University of Wisconsin has decided that a Firefly poster at the center of a dispute between a professor and the police is not actually a threat to anyone's well-being.

Back in September we learned about the sad story of James Miller, a professor at the University of Wisconsin who Firefly [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113318-University-Threatens-Criminal-Charges-Over-Firefly-Poster]-era Nathan Fillion, emblazoned with a famous quote from the show in which he explains the exact circumstances under which he will kill you. When the police decided that the poster was a potential threat to the peace and took it down, Miller put up another one referencing fascism, which of course just made things worse.

Miller eventually took his case to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education but he also found an outpouring of support from the hordes of indignant nerds brought running by the Firefly factor. Among them were none other than former Firefly stars Fillion and Adam Baldwin, aka the fan-favorite "Man Named Jayne," both of whom weighed in on the debate.

Noting that Miller sent a clip of the show including the relevant quote to the university administration to demonstrate that it was really "an homage to fair play and a code of honor that obviously prefers non-violence," Baldwin wrote on Big Hollywood [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abandlc/2011/10/04/university-professor-censored-over-firefly-poster/], "This is precisely the issue with freedom of speech; words are subjective and can be interpreted differently by separate individuals. Sometimes this is done unintentionally, sometimes with malice, which is why the act of deciding what's NOT free speech is ripe for abuse. The UWS administration's stated desire to 'promote a campus environment that is free from threats of any kind-both direct and implied' may be well-meaning, but its meaning amounts to nothing. How does one set a universal standard to determine what is an implied threat or in what context speech may 'refer to violence and/or harm'?"

Fortunately, Sorensen agreed, declaring that the poster that started the whole mess does not constitute a threat or disruption. He's also going to hold "workshops and forums on the application of the First Amendment on campuses." It's certainly better than tearing down patently inoffensive decorations but Baldwin, while "heartened" by the support of the Firefly community, nonetheless sounded a note of disappointment over the whole thing.

"It remains a tragic multi-generational crime that Leftism's educational malpractices have so perverted our nation's educational system that it becomes necessary for an American university to convene training seminars on the First Amendment," he told Hot Air [http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/05/university-of-wisconsin-retreats-from-censorship/].

Fillion, in a quote passed on by Baldwin, was a little more succinct. "There are times we must try hard to find meaning. I understand that," he said. "I don't understand when we try hard to find malice."

Thanks to ltmarcos [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/ltmarcos] for the tip.


Permalink

 

[DasDestroyer]

Well, at least they let him hang the poster back up.
But yeah, the whole thing reeks of the "freedom or safety" thing.

 

[Zhukov]

A bit of common sense: 1
Complete and utter fuckwits: 0

I call this a win.

Incidentally, was anyone else imagining Mr Baldwin's rather eloquent bit of writing being read in the voice of Jayne Cobb? So many big words and complex sentences.

 

[ike42]

Two things: One, great they put the poster back up, now they should fire that overzealous glorified mall-cop that started the thing in the first place.

Two, what's with the comment about leftism from Baldwin? As far as I can tell it's the right wing that's usually trying to clamp down on free speech. While I'm mostly moderate with views that swing towards both ends of the spectrum I have to take a little offense at that implication. The right wing is the one that's trying to systematically destroy the first amendment by making the claim that there should be no separation of church and state and burning books such as The Catcher in the Rye (seriously why was this piece of crap banned?). It just seems like a a misdirected swing at the left.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Baldwin's politics are apparently pretty hardcore libertarian, which I guess puts him firmly on the right wing. TBH, American political terminology confuses me sometimes. Still, while I disagree in principle with his "Leftism" crack, there's no doubt that he's right about this one. The idea that a respected university needs to hold workshops on the First Amendment, especially in an educational environment, is sad and troubling.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Welcome to the new world order. At least he got to put the poster back up!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Justice is served.

Now, let's have a wee chat with the authoritarian that did it.

 

[Worgen]

Baldwin's politics are apparently pretty hardcore libertarian, which I guess puts him firmly on the right wing. TBH, American political terminology confuses me sometimes. Still, while I disagree in principle with his "Leftism" crack, there's no doubt that he's right about this one. The idea that a respected university needs to hold workshops on the First Amendment, especially in an educational environment, is sad and troubling.

He is kind of a crazy person if I remember some of the stories right, I think he had a whole tirade against sesame street for being some kinda communist propaganda, or something.

 

[CJ1145]

For someone who is not entirely familiar with Baldwin outside of Firefly, I was too distracted by all the big words he used to really even read the article.

Going back, though, I think he has a point. Without context the university completely misinterpreted the point of the quote, and found hostility where there was none.

 

[lumenadducere]

Yeah, I really don't get that "Leftism" crack either. I mean, this really seems more a case of people being stupid and completely out-of-touch, rather than anything to do with partisan politics. But I suppose people who feel strongly enough about their political beliefs will turn anything and everything into a way to blame the other side. Shame.

 

[Panayjon]

Just to clarify, what good 'ol Jayne means about "Leftism" is how the far-Left can be overzealous with political correctness and being overprotective. When people talk about "Nanny States" it can stem from this sort of thing. Note that the "Right" can be guilty of this too, but usually stems from vague religious or moral beliefs. Though, they both tend to ring the, "Think of the children" mentality.

 

[bojac6]

Baldwin's politics are apparently pretty hardcore libertarian, which I guess puts him firmly on the right wing. TBH, American political terminology confuses me sometimes. Still, while I disagree in principle with his "Leftism" crack, there's no doubt that he's right about this one. The idea that a respected university needs to hold workshops on the First Amendment, especially in an educational environment, is sad and troubling.

I've heard people say, at Cons and stuff, that Baldwin isn't that different from his character on Chuck, at least ideologically.

On the other hand, he worked with, speaks highly of, and has stated he'd like to do more with Joss Whedon, who always seemed pretty leftist to me. So he obviously isn't blindly partisan or anything.

 

[Formica Archonis]

"It remains a tragic multi-generational crime that Leftism's educational malpractices have so perverted our nation's educational system that it becomes necessary for an American university to convene training seminars on the First Amendment," he told Hot Air [http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/05/university-of-wisconsin-retreats-from-censorship/].

Bit of partisan trolling there, but the basic points are solid. Universities are quite fond of free speech, where free is "speech the senior faculty agrees with". Universities are also conventionally seen as left-leaning or at least bastions of progressive thought. His problem is mistaking correlation with causation. Just because some universities attract both leftists and people who clamp down on dissenting speech doesn't mean leftists are all people who clamp down on dissenting speech. It just means those universities are incapable of practicing what they preach, another reason I'm glad I didn't go to one.

That said, if one goes with the quote often attributed to Churchill (not that he actually said it), then one arrives at the conclusion that a leftist faculty has no brains.

 

[Varrdy]

Two, what's with the comment about leftism from Baldwin? As far as I can tell it's the right wing that's usually trying to clamp down on free speech. While I'm mostly moderate with views that swing towards both ends of the spectrum I have to take a little offense at that implication. The right wing is the one that's trying to systematically destroy the first amendment by making the claim that there should be no separation of church and state and burning books such as The Catcher in the Rye (seriously why was this piece of crap banned?). It just seems like a a misdirected swing at the left.

I think it's more to do with the current trend of everything and anything being a target for left-wingers who think that everything and anything can be racist / ageist / sexist. Ok that's only the extreme left but it's also seeping into every-day use.

Example - My cousin, who is a teacher, was reprimanded for calling a blackboard "a blackboard" (it's what chalboards are called in the UK because, funnily enough, they're black!) and a whiteboard "a whiteboard". Apprarently this could be seens as "racially insensetve" - thankfully she told the busybody in question to fuck off and do something useful.

Another Example - People being allowed to sue for "hurt feelings". I'm sorry but people who are so weak they feel they have to sue for this deserve to have their "feelings" hurt with a basball bat.

Last example - Recently, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron was accused of being sexist for calling a female MP "Dear".

See what I mean? Thanks to political-correctness, which is very much a lefty idea, you can't say / do anything anymore without upsetting someone.

Actually I will rephrase that - Thanks to PC, you can't say anything without someone saying you are being offensive to (insert race / minority / gender / age-bracket here) even though msot of the time the supposed "target" couldn't give a flying fuck.

Wardy

 

[ike42]

Two, what's with the comment about leftism from Baldwin? As far as I can tell it's the right wing that's usually trying to clamp down on free speech. While I'm mostly moderate with views that swing towards both ends of the spectrum I have to take a little offense at that implication. The right wing is the one that's trying to systematically destroy the first amendment by making the claim that there should be no separation of church and state and burning books such as The Catcher in the Rye (seriously why was this piece of crap banned?). It just seems like a a misdirected swing at the left.

I think it's more to do with the current trend of everything and anything being a target for left-wingers who think that everything and anything can be racist / ageist / sexist. Ok that's only the extreme left but it's also seeping into every-day use.

Example - My cousin, who is a teacher, was reprimanded for calling a blackboard "a blackboard" (it's what chalboards are called in the UK because, funnily enough, they're black!) and a whiteboard "a whiteboard". Apprarently this could be seens as "racially insensetve" - thankfully she told the busybody in question to fuck off and do something useful.

Another Example - People being allowed to sue for "hurt feelings". I'm sorry but people who are so weak they feel they have to sue for this deserve to have their "feelings" hurt with a basball bat.

Last example - Recently, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron was accused of being sexist for calling a female MP "Dear".

See what I mean? Thanks to political-correctness, which is very much a lefty idea, you can't say / do anything anymore without upsetting someone.

Actually I will rephrase that - Thanks to PC, you can't say anything without someone saying you are being offensive to (insert race / minority / gender / age-bracket here) even though msot of the time the supposed "target" couldn't give a flying fuck.

I see where you're coming from and that angle seems to explain it, but that's not a leftist or rightist viewpoint. It's lawyers making everyone scared of getting sued for any stupid thing. I suppose the blame lies mostly with the judges that don't automatically throw out a lot of those BS lawsuits when they come across them.

Wardy

 

[MonkeyPunch]

A decent outcome. But I still wonder that the campus cops just had nothing better to do than take down someone's movie poster...
Also it sort of makes me sad that the whole incident had to had to have this huge investigation. Seems like something so trivial is given so much effort.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Example - My cousin, who is a teacher, was reprimanded for calling a blackboard "a blackboard" (it's what chalboards are called in the UK because, funnily enough, they're black!) and a whiteboard "a whiteboard". Apprarently this could be seens as "racially insensetve" - thankfully she told the busybody in question to fuck off and do something useful.

Reminds me of the time there was a small furor over IDE devices using the terminology "master" and "slave" to determine which device handled communications and took priority. Some people complained it was racist against African-Americans. Me, I found the insistence that it was racist to be the problem since calling "master" and "slave" racist against blacks assumes that all slaves are black.

 

[Aiden Raine]

while I agree that the initial situation could have been handled a little better, I also agree that the poster is somewhat out of place in a university, and a quote that needs to be placed in context for it not to be taken the wrong way is something that you should think twice about going around posting on walls in public, anyway.

personally, I believe that if the university wanted to have the poster removed, they should have it within their rights to do so. people are so hung up on the individual's rights that they forget to take into account the organization's rights as well. not to mention the "freedom of speech" malarkey is often taken so far out of context that I start to question if people even know what exactly the "freedom of speech" is about to start with.

 

[Shjade]

Noting that Miller sent a clip of the show including the relevant quote to the university administration to demonstrate that it was really "an homage to fair play and a code of honor that obviously prefers non-violence,"

Ehh...I'm all for letting the guy keep his poster up as it's no death threat to anyone or anything resembling endorsement of violence, but it's not exactly what he's claiming it is, either. Homage to fair play? Okay, I can let that slide, but "obviously prefers non-violence?" No. Mal doesn't express any sense of regret or remorse over the idea he's expressing; there's no hesitation to it or some kind of "gosh I wish it could be some other way" sentimentality (thus Simon's joke). He's just straight-up saying he doesn't kill people who aren't actively a threat to him, and he's saying it cold. If someone pulls a gun on him or his crew he will put that man down and he'll sleep just fine that night.

Mal is not a peaceful guy.

 

[cefm]

Two, what's with the comment about leftism from Baldwin? As far as I can tell it's the right wing that's usually trying to clamp down on free speech.

Go far enough in either direction and they both wrap around and meet in the middle on other side of reality.