University Threatens Criminal Charges Over Firefly Poster

[ParkourMcGhee]

The poster rubbed me the wrong way slightly when I first read it, but I wouldn't take it down. After reading the rest of it (the Fascism poster was hilarious!), I get it and what kind of guy he is, and it doesn't bother me any more.

I hate "PC" and "PR" people >.>, to me it makes no sense to put them in charge. It's like those fat feminists (you know the ones I'm on about - the ugly kind), always having to stick their finger in everything they see. To me, it would be the equivalent to saying "oh, let's put trolls officially in charge of the internet because they clearly already rule", just because they're the loudest.

His new poster needs to be a group of robots standing together with a man passing through a door. Captioned "Free minded open thinkers only.

Even they couldn't take that down. I admire your thinking.

I hope he gets a formal apology from them. Because I'd then frame it and hang it on my fucking door next to the original poster.

Haha this. So much.

 

[Strazdas]

i can see the poin of university, but i support the professor. on a side note, if some professor would decide to put that into university i go to all hell would break loose probably.

 

[Bishop99999999]

Ugh, Firefly and schmaltzy heroism.

I'll take your Firefly and raise you A Song of Ice and Fire:

"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm not saying its the be all and end all argument, that and you'd be surprised at what triggers PTS, chances are you wouldn't be in Uni but that's not the point.

And that's it. There is no justification for that.

I'm just saying he should have erred on the side of caution, opening a discussion about it instead of escalating things is what a wiser head would have done, being a wily old fox instead of ramping up the "anarchy" as it were.

Because none of us have ever been upset enough to stick the finger up to someone.

Especially over the idea of places of learning not being allowed to learn specifics. That's in direct conflict with it.

There are several things we do not know about this situation, all that's being reported on is that the Uni Police are fascist's (no disrespect to Andy Chalk's journalistic integrity, he's actually my fav journo!), Firefly is pretty obscure to the mainstream and the head of the Uni Police might not have seen the funny side of it with recent school shootings.

So, err so far on the edge of caution that freedom of expression isn't allowed anymore? I think you've just let the terrorists win.

If he'd explained himself properly then he might have still had that poster up.

That's a horrible thing to say. Your rights were taken away because you didn't explain yourself?

Also of note, if your that desperate to have a TV quote poster on your wall then you have issues yourself, its only a fucking poster, stop acting like a child, your rights have not been taken away, only your Nathan Fillion poster has.

Principles. They are important.

Important enough for the Bill of Rights. Both sides of the pond.

 

[DracoSuave]

Normally free speech for the win, do not censor the people blah de blah de blah.

Unfortunately due to what's happened in US Universities in the past,

But not at the University of Wisconsin

he should have erred on the side of caution,

Because adults are so fragile?

not only is it insensitive

Because it reminds people of the cancelling of Firefly?

but it could trigger PTS in someone.

From all the school shootings that have never ever happened at the University of Wisconsin?


Seriously. Stop this inane bullshit right now. Stop. You need to get this absolutely straight.

You live in a society based on the concept of freedom of belief. You can believe however you like, provided you do not act maliciously. In order to have freedom of thought, you must have freedom of expression. You absolutely CANNOT have a free society, where works of art and expression are censored based on personal dislike or taste.

The moment you allow someone to say 'You can't say that, it offends my opinion!' you've demolished the intent of free speech. You've made an opinion illegal.

There is a cost to freedom. That cost is that someone, somewhere, is going to say something that may hurt your feelings. It may remind you of something you dislike. However, these things are your own problem. Yes, people have died. Some of them have been at schools. However most people do not die at school. There is no single sort of place in America where no one has died. In fact, there is no type of place in America where no one has been killed or murdered. There is no such place as a murder-free zone.

"Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration, and to produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity, in which individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood." - wiki

What makes this even worse is that this is a university. This is where ideas, culture, and knowledge is to be examined and explored. The entire notion of a university is antithetical to the notion of censorship of perfectly legal art.

The idea that someone got killed in Virginia means that some professor in Wisconsin cannot quote works of dramatic art in a dramatic arts class is as stupid as the ideas of banning any sort of expression.

Uh I actually kind of agree with the university. We're nerds so we know the context of that poster but to a random pleb they'd have no idea what that is refering to. And I'm sorry but as a proffesor she should have the common sense to see that some people may find offence in a poster that refers to killing.

It doesn't matter if they find offence to it. You have no legal right in any Constitution in a free country not to be offended. Moreover, if they don't understand the meaning of some piece of art in their art class, and they don't have the common sense to ask what it means before being offended then they don't belong in a place of higher learning. Period. End. Of. Sentence.

 

[Mortuorum]

Are these people stupid or is the University of Wisconsin run by the Thought Police? Either way, this doesn't make the American education system look very good.

As a University of Wisconsin alumnus, I can say with absolute certainty that the Thought Police run the university. This is not even close to the first time that FIRE [http://thefire.org/] has clashed with the administration over First Amendment issues.

The UW was very open to the primciple of free speech... as long as you subscribed to its ultraliberal agenda. God help you if you were centrist or conservative.

 

[hermes]

The first time it happened, you could be argued that the people that took it down didn't know the source or even that it was a TV show.

The second time, though, just means those people are anal retentive...

 

[t3h br0th3r]

Normally free speech for the win, do not censor the people blah de blah de blah.

Unfortunately due to what's happened in US Universities in the past,

But not at the University of Wisconsin

he should have erred on the side of caution,

Because adults are so fragile?

not only is it insensitive

Because it reminds people of the cancelling of Firefly?

but it could trigger PTS in someone.

From all the school shootings that have never ever happened at the University of Wisconsin?


Seriously. Stop this inane bullshit right now. Stop. You need to get this absolutely straight.

You live in a society based on the concept of freedom of belief. You can believe however you like, provided you do not act maliciously. In order to have freedom of thought, you must have freedom of expression. You absolutely CANNOT have a free society, where works of art and expression are censored based on personal dislike or taste.

The moment you allow someone to say 'You can't say that, it offends my opinion!' you've demolished the intent of free speech. You've made an opinion illegal.

There is a cost to freedom. That cost is that someone, somewhere, is going to say something that may hurt your feelings. It may remind you of something you dislike. However, these things are your own problem. Yes, people have died. Some of them have been at schools. However most people do not die at school. There is no single sort of place in America where no one has died. In fact, there is no type of place in America where no one has been killed or murdered. There is no such place as a murder-free zone.

"Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration, and to produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity, in which individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood." - wiki

What makes this even worse is that this is a university. This is where ideas, culture, and knowledge is to be examined and explored. The entire notion of a university is antithetical to the notion of censorship of perfectly legal art.

The idea that someone got killed in Virginia means that some professor in Wisconsin cannot quote works of dramatic art in a dramatic arts class is as stupid as the ideas of banning any sort of expression.

Uh I actually kind of agree with the university. We're nerds so we know the context of that poster but to a random pleb they'd have no idea what that is refering to. And I'm sorry but as a proffesor she should have the common sense to see that some people may find offence in a poster that refers to killing.

It doesn't matter if they find offence to it. You have no legal right in any Constitution in a free country not to be offended. Moreover, if they don't understand the meaning of some piece of art in their art class, and they don't have the common sense to ask what it means before being offended then they don't belong in a place of higher learning. Period. End. Of. Sentence.

That hat on your avatar is awesome (just wanted to say that first)

anyway, the thing you are forgetting is that freedom of speech only protects people from The government.

it has no baerings on anyone else. The University is tottaly within its rights to fire this smart ass prof if they so please for his failure to comply with university policy.

Besides, those posters, while awesome, are in no way shape or form fit for the work place. Having a poster up that discusses killing human beings outside of your door where everyone, including students and parents on tour is very unprofessional. Following that up with a poster about fascism is childish.

I want to raise the nerd flag and defend this guy but what he did isn't worth defending.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I'm just saying he should have erred on the side of caution, opening a discussion about it instead of escalating things is what a wiser head would have done, being a wily old fox instead of ramping up the "anarchy" as it were.

Because none of us have ever been upset enough to stick the finger up to someone.

Thats different and you know it, sticking your finger up at someone is a momentary brain fart anger thing. Sticking up a poster for a few days however is "fighting the power", "fuck the police", et al, courting controversy.

Come to think of it I've never stuck my finger out at anyone. Its fucking rude, I've done it to friends in a jovial manner though.

Especially over the idea of places of learning not being allowed to learn specifics. That's in direct conflict with it.

I'll be honest I'm not too sure what your getting at here.

So, err so far on the edge of caution that freedom of expression isn't allowed anymore? I think you've just let the terrorists win.

Ridiculous, its a poster that breached the rules.
Context be damned, don't tell me I've let terrorist win because I favour taking down a poster of Nathan Fillion saying an aggressive comment.

If he'd explained himself properly then he might have still had that poster up.

That's a horrible thing to say. Your rights were taken away because you didn't explain yourself?

I'll admit that was worded poorly, but I didn't say his rights were taken away, and his rights have not been taken away.

His Nathan Fillion poster has.

Also of note, if your that desperate to have a TV quote poster on your wall then you have issues yourself, its only a fucking poster, stop acting like a child, your rights have not been taken away, only your Nathan Fillion poster has.

Principles. They are important.

Important enough for the Bill of Rights. Both sides of the pond.

We should rename it the Bill Of Nathan Fillion Posters in honour of this shitstorm.

Having Captain Reynolds face on our doors is a right yes, but if it contradicts other laws then that right will be taken away, not all your rights, just your right to have Nathan saying he kills people on your door.

You can buy a Ferrari and you have that right, your not allowed to drive above the speed limit though.

You can have Nathan Fillion posters, just not on your front door, because it contravene's the University policy.

Putting a poster up is not freedom of speech, its putting a poster up.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Sometimes, the only way to challenge needless regulations is to break them, then justify your actions until the authors of the regulation admit their mistake. I am hopeful that this professor is ready to go the distance with this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Putting a poster up is not freedom of speech, its putting a poster up.

I don't care if it's a Post-It note with "Heil Hitler" in crayon on it, he's a right to express himself.

And not have it removed by some form of Thought Police. But then you already agree...

But they better stay away from my beloved BumbleBee, if they are that ignorant that is.

His room. His ideals. Malcom Reynolds, Che Guevera, The girl in the tennis kit scratching her ass...he's allowed to have them in his room.

And before you accuse me of over-exaggerating, Lisa Walter (note no official Police ranking)

said

"it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing."

This also bans this poster.

Now, remind me...what was the main message of that story?

or this one?

or this one?

Universities are places of learning. Not places of ignorance.

 

[Mortuorum]

anyway, the thing you are forgetting is that freedom of speech only protects people from The government.

it has no baerings on anyone else. The University is tottaly within its rights to fire this smart ass prof if they so please for his failure to comply with university policy.

Actually, the Univeristy of Wisconsin is a public university. Precedent has reinforced time and again that that makes them a government entity with regard to First Amendment issues.

Even if the UW were a private institution, once you involve the police in an enforcement capacity, it once again becomes a freedom of speech issue. (And if you want to argue that campus police are not a property government entity, then they are just ordinary citizens and do not have the right to confiscate personal property... even if it's just a poster.)

 

[DigitalSushi]

Edit: This message is in reply to Root, I fucked up the quote tags, sorry guys.

Putting a poster up is not freedom of speech, its putting a poster up.

I don't care if it's a Post-It note with "Heil Hitler" in crayon on it, he's a right to express himself.

Thats the thing, it wasn't his creation, if it was then I would back him up out of principle

but its just a poster and he's having a hissy fit over it.

And not have it removed by some form of Thought Police. But then you already agree...

I do agree, the thought police should not be involved, but he's the one that's escalating the matter.

But they better stay away from my beloved BumbleBee, if they are that ignorant that is.

His room. His ideals. Malcom Reynolds, Che Guevera, The girl in the tennis kit scratching her ass...he's allowed to have them in his room.

Thats the thing, it wasn't inside his room, it was on the outside of his door. If it was a poster on the inside of his office, then it would be an icebreaker or a talking point... having that shit outside greeting everyone will be seen as aggression.

I'd like to apologise to Root and anyone reading this for messing up the quotes, I'm fucking rubbish, hopefully I've cleaned it up enough that its readable.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, I think this gets down to one of the big issues of our era. Right now we have a problem where the youth have been stripped of their rights in public schools, and private institutions like universities can control the flow or presentation of information directly.

Right now we are looking at a situation where someone who runs a website, a TV network, the radio, or whatever else has more power to censor someone than the elected officials in our goverment. What's more we've gradually developed things to the point where the youth, namely teenagers, can be controlled by policy including that limiting their basic human freedoms, without being given any say in the establishment of those policies.

This kind of problem exists due to the fears generated by school shootings both in public schools and colleges. A "zero tolerance policy" on violent/negative expression of any kind on the other hand benefits noone and probably works to make the situation worse.

I have no real issue with the whole "threat assessment team" but rather the policies on which they are expected to act when it comes to this kind of thing. As I understand things the idea is to have a group intended to investigate when someone shows aberrant behavior of the sort people noticed before certain school shootings took place. I can understand that, but when it comes down to banning posters for violent or threatening imagery, that is going too far. After all violence, action, dark humor, and other things all fall within the range of normal human behavior. It's actually abnormal for someone to be totally non-violent and passive, which is why pacifists stick out from the crowd.

As far as how this makes the American education system as a whole look, well I think it doesn't hurt much overal. Yes it's hypocricy and needs to be dealt with, but this kind of control is nothing new. If you look at China for example their laws about expression require everything to be pro-communist/regime/national, their universities are probably a lot more strict than the US, and while a bit differant, the reputation of European Academia and wanting to keep everything subdued pretty much speaks for itself. This kind of thing is not the American way so to speak, and that's the problem.

 

[unacomn]

The fact that they have a " campus threat assessment team " means they have already failed at being a functional society.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

(Face palm) Of all the stupid, lame-brained excuses...! The damn ben tiansheng yiduirou...!

(Pardon my Mandarin, I only have the Firefly Piniyary to go by...)

 

[Fearzone]

It reassures me we have a Firefly fan standing up for individual liberties in academia.

 

[BaronUberstein]

For once I don't think the American authorities are being too unreasonable. That poster could be conceived as a threat, and with the US' idiotic gun laws, quite a real one.

Interesting.. what is it about our "idiotic" gun laws that makes this ok?

The fact that virtually any citizen over the age of 21 can easily access a fire arm, and by extension anyone who can't easily own one can easily steal one, especially from say student housing. Why do you think America has such a ridiculously high gun crime rate? (It's 5th highest in the world in terms of death by fire arm, that's not including any armed robberies or assaults).

So, Switzerland sure is filled with crime with it's massive amount of guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Wait, no, in fact it had more knife crime than gun crime. Guns don't cause the crime, social issues cause the crime and guns are simply a tool. There are issues with lack of education, poverty, and other such major issues in the United States that lead to gun crime through illegally acquired firearms. If you magically took away all the guns, the people committing the crimes would still have their reasons, be it greed or desperation, and they would simply find another end to their means.

The reason I used Switzerland as an example is to prove a point, that in a nation with high individual wealth, crime is less likely to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Notice Switzerland's rank goes between 4 and 5 on all three measures, compared to the US's rank of 10 to 12.

I am far from a redneck or a crazy person, I personally find going to the firing range and firing pistols to be fun and a good bonding experience with my father. However, if it is not already necessary, a basic firearms safety lesson and background check should be necessary to buy a firearm. I see no reason why a civilian can't protect themselves and their family.

As for the poster, I believe the Chief of Police is overreacting to the situation, but the Professor could be less of a dickhead about it. Instead of a passive aggressive poster he should have gone directly to the authorities and made his case then, instead of lowing himself to petty mudslinging.

Well yeah but that's because, although Switzerland has a lot of guns (more than any country in Europe) it keeps tight control over them. I don't see how you can throw figures I already know about Switzerland at me as a way of excusing the high gun crime rates in America, it doesn't make sense. - If you think that I'm saying guns should be outlawed, I'm not, but thats pretty irrelevant.

Except it's a perfect example of how a society can be perfectly safe even with a high amount of firearms. And what gun crime does happen in Switzerland appears to be from unregistered or illegal firearms.

I'm trying to make a point, that the gun is not the problem, social issues are the problem. It's like a broken arm, sure, painkillers will make it feel better, but you need a cast to fix the problem. Trying to remove guns is the painkiller, it doesn't solve the problem that causes the pain/crime, it just masks over it.

If you're not arguing for the total banning of guns, then we probably are agreeing with each other in our own ways, as I'm for regulations on firearms, but against treating perfectly sane citizens like criminals. I'm simply used to people trying to argue for the complete ban on firearms which I find absurd.

 

[dmcc85]

what can i say?
censorship.
what is it good for?
don't let kids see anything that might be somehow linked to violence.
and as soon as they are old enough : put them in the army and make em kill!
only bad people of course.
that way they never start thinking for themselves.
and that is a good thing , because otherwhise they would become one of the bad people.

i don't know what i am talking about.
don't mind me.