BlackWidower said:
See, this is the crux of my point. If we say you can't say this, this, this or this. We literally can't say anything. See, when adults discuss serious issues, sometimes they might accidentally say something that can be interpreted as a racist, or homophobic, or sexist, or violent statement. Even if that's not the intention.
Freedom without limits is anarchy. So freedoms only extend so far as they do not infringe upon another person's freedoms. If a person is free to study at a university of their choice, they should likewise be free to study in an environment where they feel safe and secure. If material within that environment infringes upon that freedom to feel safe then that material should be removed. Or if an individual responsibilty for safety on campus deems that material is potentially creating an unsafe environment then I would suggest they are within their mandate to remove it.
Let's look at another example. Porn. What if someone put pornographic posters all over the university. Or, more appropriately, let's say a member of faculty put a poster on the exterior of his office door where it for example said, well I can't think of anything clever but let's say it's a poster where a guy on the poster is basically saying something about himself (ala firefly poster) and at the same time, is engaged in sex acts with a woman who is a position of inferiority/objectified. No nudity, but it's clear what's going on.
Would this be appropriate? I mean should not a woman be able to go to his office, ask for help without being concerned he might try to ask them for sexual favours? Or without just feeling objectified? And if such a poster would be inappropriate, why not one that mentions killing?
In the case of the firefly poster it's a fine line either way, some chiefs would have taken it down, some would not have. This chief made a judgement call and decided it was inappropriate so took it down and that judgements seems to be made with the best interests in mind in terms of what's going on at the university. Maybe the after the fact "we'll investigate you if you do this" was a bit harsh, but it was only an issue because the professor chose to make it one.
Next, you want to talk about the specific posters. Fine. The Firefly poster I interpret as a metaphor. It's not literally about killing. Killing is used as a metaphor by the character in question, whoever he is, to say he's a noble man.
The fascism poster. Well let's be clear, it wasn't saying "I'm going to kill you," it's saying, "these people will kill you if we let this bullshit continue." Now, tell me, are you saying that poster is lying? That fascism doesn't cause death? That people haven't died because of fascism?
Fascism is an abstract concept for a governmental/societal system. It is not a person. Nor a force of nature. So no, it does not CAUSE death. People operating within the framework of fascism cause death. Just like democracies do not cause death, even though "democracies" fight for freedom by dropping bombs on afghani civilians.
Let's be clear what the second poster was saying. It was saying "Some fascist cop took my fuckin poster". It doesn't matter what the specific wording on the poster was except in so far as it gives the chief a reason to take it down. In this case it was mentioning death, etcetera, and thus under the wording of the warning would be taken down.
Yes, both mentioned death because death exists in reality. If they ban posters that talk about death, then that means one can't put up a poster memorializing JFK, because it mentions that he died at one point. Now of course they wouldn't do that, because it's not about death. It's about controlling people and silencing those that disagree with them. That is why the fascism poster was taken down. Don't fool yourself.
Of course it could just be that they thought any mention of death is a threat in any context. But in that case, they are complete morons!
