University Threatens Criminal Charges Over Firefly Poster

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Noelveiga said:
You have made some very good arguments. I would have to say that I would never agree with complete deregulation of gun controls or any such thing. Not controlling who guns go to would be a big problem in any society. And I would never argue that what we have is by any stretch of the imagination better than anywhere else. But it's simply not right to punish people who use guns responsibly because some do not, whether it's due to ignorance about firearms or some weird psycho fantasy they picked up from some action movie.

The right to own a gun may be an historical aberration, but that does not mean it has not yielded positive results, or that it, in and of itself, is a negative aspect of our society.

And I mean no disrespect, but knowing people from a country and watching American news does not indicate that you are informed about America, socially speaking. There are so many things that do not make it on the news that it borders on ridiculous. And I'll inform you about a few that makes it not ok for police to be the only form of protection in our society. Detroit SRT invaded a home serving a no knock warrant, which summarily resulted in them firing upon and killing a 4 year old girl, despite not having been fired upon themselves. 6 police were chasing a vandal who fell off a bridge and broke his back, but then when he could not comply with the officer's orders (they didn't believe he was hurt) to come up from the where he had fallen, they tazed (spelling?) him to death (the death part was accidental of course). In New Jersey (where I'm from) a police officer ran a stop sign killing two girls (one 17 year old driver and her 16 year old sister), but he was not even relieved of duty. These are the type of ineptitude's Americans are left with for protection without the ability to protect ourselves. I'm relatively sure that you have heard of none of these things. One big thing that had happened in Philadelphia you may have heard of is the instance where 13 police officers beat three suspects nearly to death in front of everyone (including a helicopter news camera). They believed the suspects to be responsible for a police shooting. None of the officers lost their jobs. The only one who was demoted was the one who was so confused he just stood there not knowing what to do. People need to be able to defend themselves when the police can't be trusted to do it. I'm sure that in your country, the police are very different and are capable of coming to your aid, not necessarily here though. And more often than not, the gun owner can fire a shot as a warning to scare the bad element away.

I'm not defending people who use guns to kill other people except in the most extreme self defense circumstances, but I can't agree that stronger gun controls or prohibition of guns (not that you said that, just stating as part of my point) is the answer. I can understand your point, I honestly hate guns, if you have ever been hunting with a gun or seen an animal shot, I think you would want to be nowhere near them unless you had no other choice. Guns are a deterrent, that is all. If you lock your car, it will deter a car thief, but only if he doesn't want it bad enough. If someone means to harm someone else, the gun may be a deterrent, but not if he means to do them harm enough. My friends father had a saying, "if everyone has guns, at very least people are cordial to each other".

I respect your side of our debate. But there are plenty of instances where crime rates increase with the inclusion of draconian (we'll use that as an extreme, but no gun controls is not actually a good thing) gun controls. In most cities, people can still have a rifle or shotgun, or some means to defend themselves, in their home. People do try to make the argument that handguns are necessary for this, but that is obviously false. I know I brought this up before, but Chicago completely ban gun ownership, and their crime rates did increase. That is statistical fact. Then they relaxed the gun controls, and they dropped. I was looking for a map I had found previously, and it broke down the distribution of gun ownership and and intended homicides with gun violence, and it really was telling. But for the life of me I cannot find it. The best I could find was a state by state breakdown of gun homicide rates, which is much more telling than a nation wide statistic.

You are quite right, the amount of homeless people in the US drives me insane. There is no reason for it. I know that many people who are homeless have some form of mental illness, it's what makes Penn Station New York kinda scary late at night in the winter time. So many homeless people, so many people talking to no one. One of my major political issues is when there is a drive to help people in other countries fix this problem when it is present in America. I lived in New Mexico for a short while. Not in a major city, but about 14 miles outside of a really really small town, and when I went shopping on Fridays, there would be 15 homeless people by the highway entrance trying to get somewhere. The most disconcerting part is that while I expected to see that in New York, I didn't expect to see it in the middle of nowhere. I am not against aiding developing nations, I don't want it to seem that way, and if there is a large natural disaster that lead up to the problem, I'm all for that. But to say we must subsidize a developing nation because of lack of homes and clean water seems outright stupid when we have people in America who do not have homes or easy access to clean water.

As I said before, it is one of our many social problems. And time will fix these, given enough of it. The policies that are in place to do it now are money pits. They are ineffective and the politicians answer is to simply throw more money at the same programs, which yields ever diminishing results. It is one of the reasons why there is so much political strife in America, and why it's divided so deeply. The common misconception is that Republicans would rather get rich and never worry about it while the Democrats like to think that just giving these people money will help them. Both want to alleviate the problem, but in their own way. In the instance of the Democrats, it really started with JFK's war on poverty. Which has been twisted in so many ways that it's not nearly the same as when it started. The Republicans like to think they are looking for market solutions to fix it. Neither side is any good at it though, as it turns out. But, I digress, I've gone on a tangent. Anyway, it's been fun going back and forth with you. The more level headed people there are floating around on these forums, the better off we all are.
 

Lug100

New member
Sep 2, 2011
67
0
0
Active Schizophrenic said:
Lug100 said:
*sigh* yet another news story that makes me lose hope in humanity.... <img src=http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975>
DAMMIT YOU BEAT ME TO IT. I HATE YOU.
It appears my ninjaring skills are improving >.<
 

t3h br0th3r

New member
May 7, 2009
294
0
0
Baresark said:
That was by far the most logical and well thought out post I have ever seen on any forum anywhere. I have edited college papers that were not as well composed as that post. If you don't have an advanced degree in something then you do your self a disservice because you certainly have the mind for it.

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar, and there aren't many of us left.
 

Lug100

New member
Sep 2, 2011
67
0
0
KingsGambit said:
Load of rubbish. If I could only speak to University Police Chief Lisa A. Walter, I would tell her only this. "If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you return my poster now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

Let her interpret that how she likes :)
Ahah "Taken" i do belive :3 i totally agree, put up a poster of this next, or better still, put the poster up on the Police Chiefs door
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
The land of the brave, the home of the free.

My, my, what a nanny state you have.


Sparrow said:
On a lighter note, what in the hell is a "threat assessment team" and why would any university need one?
For writing risk assessments.

A particular problem of US universities, which are apparently prone to being shot up.

Fair dues. Needs to get done, and having a team for it saves time and paperwork for the teachers.
 

Soak

New member
Sep 21, 2010
139
0
0
Duh, that professor should stop to argue and obey! That's what our education is there for, to teach us that free speech and the right to think for oneself is dead! And "higher education" means "higher standard of obedience", doesn't it?

Guh, usually i try to have a positive attitude, but in such a case cynicism takes over...
Abandon4093 said:
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.
 

Odbarc

Elite Member
Jun 30, 2010
1,155
0
41
Deshara said:
Odbarc said:
With this thread, I finally watched the first episode of Firefly because I keep HEARING ABOUT IT!

Okay, so I'm glad I did and I'll watch the rest of the season finale throughout the next two weeks.
... I'm not sure if this guy is new, or just a very clever troll...
Not trolling when I said I didn't watch it. It aired on Fox, right? I ignored their non-cartoon shows and when Family Guy canceled, I only watched Simpsons.
My first impression was they were on horses for some reason so I figured it was just a western.

Saw the first episode, Ha ha ha, the way he shoots that Alliance guy with the hostage, LOL!!
Is there only 14 episodes?
 

King Toasty

New member
Oct 2, 2010
1,527
0
0
Pandaman1911 said:
King Toasty said:
Pandaman1911 said:
Seems logical, what with all the school shootings and whatnot. Better safe than sorry. A shame he didn't think stuff through. You know. Like professors are supposed to do?
"All the school shootings"? They aren't exactly common.
They're a hell of a lot more common than they should be.
Nah, they're just as common as I'd expect from humanity.
 

King Toasty

New member
Oct 2, 2010
1,527
0
0
Redlin5 said:
King Toasty said:
Redlin5 said:
This seems like a waste of government money. It was clearly a quote and not an actual message to students, threatening them...

[sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub]
Did... did you just say that?

NEVER seen Firefly? I... I feel so sorry for you.
Saviordd1 said:
Redlin5 said:
[sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub][sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub][sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub][sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub][sub]Never seen Firefly.[/sub]


Apparently it is a miracle I'm still alive as this show seems to be crucial to the human condition :p

Dude. How do you live with yourself?

Seriously. Rent/Netflix, or SOMETHING. Just watch it.
 

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
Considering everything that Universities protect under the auspices of free speech, everything from flag burning, to violent nationalism, to sexism, to political intolerance and everything else that rubs me the wrong way and having them more or less say 'if you don't like it, tough, deal with it'. A university is coming down on a poster, depicting a character stating in a roundabout way that he's an honorable man...THAT is what a university cracks down on?

Somebody want to put up the 'I don't want to live on this Planet Anymore' Professor image for me?
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Noelveiga said:
Baresark said:
Noelveiga said:
snip
snip
A few things: I did not mean it to sound as if we "need" guns for fear of the criminal element because no cops are trustworthy. I gave some examples simply as a standing point as to why the Police should not be explicitly trusted with self defense. In America, the training your police have would be considered very poor training. But, their need to walk into a situation with a weapon drawn is not because people may have a gun, though that does play a part in it. Their training is actually quite wrong in this regard, in my opinion. Most of them are told that their job is dangerous, that they are put on the streets to fight a war against crime, drugs, poverty, or whatever excuse they are told that week. They are told they are a painted target and there are people on the street who would kill them rather than be caught shoplifting. While this may be true a minor portion of the time, it's not true all the time. And the all or nothing argument technique doesn't work here. There are times they are obviously in danger, and times they obviously are not. They are also told that people are lying to them. It doesn't matter what the situation is, they are being lied to. All people are their potential suspect. The problem is that they then think every single situation is the one that they are going to meet the evil criminal that lives only to shoot police. It's bad training on the part of the state to allow this. I'm quite sure that police in your country are not taught the same thing. It's the same reason why people who see a cop in America first question what they are doing wrong. In your country you are probably relaxed a bit when you see an officer because you know that if anything happens, they are there to help.

Some facts that slant the prevailing view for them: Their job is dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as every job I have ever had, they don't make the top ten most dangerous jobs list. They are not fighting a war, this isn't a warzone. People as a whole tend to be quite civilized in most situations. In rare situations, people do want to see others come to harm, but that is why a cooling down period is so important in gun control laws.

Also, I didn't mean to frame this like it's a debate either, that is my miscommunication. Though America is polarized by a lot of things, there is no real debate about the right to own a gun in America. In the vast majority of places here, you have the right. That doesn't mean you have to own a gun, or go to a firing range, or hunt, or drive a pickup truck, or whatever other visions one may get form such a thing. Do guns get used to kill people? Absolutely. It is just a fact of life. Just like where you are from, it may be much more rare than it is in America, but it still does happen. And, it actually works quite well for us. We have social issues. There are impoverished and homeless people, as we have discussed. And I think I gave you the impression that America is filled with gun loving nuts. While the ownership is a right here, and the gun ownership statistics list America as the number one gun owners in the world with 88 guns per 100 people, you shouldn't think we are all running around packing heat or spend our Saturday nights with a 12 pack of beer, polishing our guns.

That is not to say that the debate doesn't exist at all, but for very few people it exists. The Chicago thing was pretty easy to use since it's the most clear cut example. My point was not that people won't illegally buy firearms, but to simply point out that all it did was remove the law abiding citizens ability to have a gun for self defense. The same thing happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Removing the honest citizens defense capability only left criminals with guns. Who kept getting into shootouts with the police ( I exaggerate, it wasn't as commmon place as I make it sound, but it did happen several times before and several times after they disarmed citizens). I agree that it's a non debate with the vast majority of Europe (I'm assuming your location since you didn't mention where exactly you were from). But it's not here either. Occasionally some crazy nutjob will jump on a soapbox and say that guns are the devil, state a single statistic and some people will listen. As it gets more national attention, the battle lines will be drawn. Don't get me wrong. Too many people on both sides get angry and start flaming each other. I would rather not be considered on either side. But I am a devout libertarian and am forced to side on the lesser of two evils in this singular case, the Republicrats. All in all though, it's pretty much a harmless issue, because as we discussed, violence is a social issue. Guns are sometimes used, but so are knives, bricks, bats and fists.

It's also interesting to hear how news starts in your country. I think they do local first in America for two reasons. First, local is the thing that most directly affects you. If there is a serial rapist going around, they basically want to hit on that first. Second, there are news station in America that only deal with international or economic, so it becomes less pressing for local news to handle it. Well, that is the only reason I can think of, I may in fact be wrong. Sorry for typing so much again, I hope there is some kind of content in there.
 

kebab4you

New member
Jan 3, 2010
1,451
0
0
Doesn't surprise me, university's have become a place where you´re not allowed to be offended, if you´re offended then clearly w/e it is, is in the wrong and need to stop this instant without any question...
 

ZombieGenesis

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,909
0
0
I don't even care about Firely, and I'm quite aware that is retarded.
Save for going to the directors house and spraying the quote over his walls in red paint I can't see how anything there can be taken as a possible threat. Especially in a university environment where NONE OF THE STUDENTS ARE MINORS.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Akalabeth said:
His rights are irrelevant.
They really aren't, you know. That's the basis of legality.
He's a teacher, he has responsibilities to follow the rules and expected conduct of that institution. If they deem it against the rules, they take it down. That simple.
Which would be fine IF they were the rules.

This is against one person's personal ideals that directly contradict the University's ideals.

The Wisconsin Idea is the principle that the university should improve people?s lives beyond the classroom. It spans UW?Madison?s teaching, research, outreach and public service.
I don't think the policing of free speech is improving people's lives.

If Ms. Walter had made a request, then fine. Acting as judge, jury and sheriff isn't.

Furthermore, if the University itself has any rules about "the depiction of violence and killing" then I would expect that ruling to be applied throughout the campus or they are deliberately targetting the Professor - which is another no-no.

I'd also suggest that it would make teaching History and most other subjects near impossible.

But then, safety must be our primary concern. Especially from the nasty old truth.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Akalabeth said:
You don't understand. His rights are irrelevant in the context of this discussion because his rights are not being violated, he's an EMPLOYEE of the university. If they don't like the poster they can take it down. And if HE doesn't like that he can go get another job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

He's a teacher, he has responsibilities to follow the rules and expected conduct of that institution. If they deem it against the rules, they take it down. That simple.
Which would be fine IF they were the rules.

This is against one person's personal ideals that directly contradict the University's ideals.
Yeah and the person is EMPLOYED by the university and they get to say what he can put on the wall of his classroom and what he cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying_in_academia

People need to step back and look at this in ANY other context. If you're in a professional environment, and you put something in your work space which your employer disagrees with they can tell you to remove it. Because you're employed there. If you don't like their rules, or their opinion, then go somewhere else.
And they could tell him to remove it. At that point it's his decision.

But he can, and has, argue that it's legally unfair to impose that purely on him.

That's the law.

What they can't do is force him to leave without a fair reason. And one person's concerns is not a fair reason. Even if they're the boss.
 

Zaverexus

New member
Jul 5, 2010
934
0
0
I understand how someone could conceivably find the poster unsettling, but in a drama classroom it is simply a fictional reference. And of course the second poster was no more threatening than an actual warning sign.
It really is just stupid; as long as its not harming anyone, let people do what they want. freedom of expression, non of this should have been a question.