Slashdot Mirror
Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared Threatening
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?"
Surely he can hang his poster up in the Free Speech Zone set aside for that purpose. You know, the three square feet way off in the back of the most distant parking lot where you can say whatever you want without fear that anyone will actually hear what you're saying.
-
All free Americans should despise our new so-called "Free Speech Zones". My "Free Speech Zone" used to be called "The United States of America".
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
"...school police chief Lisa A. Walter..." It's the L.A.W.
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
Who'da thunk that a failed mall-cop would screw up something as simple as english comprehension, eh? I've never heard that quote before, yet even I can see that it's essentially saying that the person will only kill another person if they are presenting an immediate and credible threat to said person's life. HURRR DURRR, that's the only time it's legal, and they'd better have the pistol to your head and their finger on the trigger for you to react like that.
Someone send that guy back to kindergarten so he can learn to understand a sentence properly.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I got a paper cut from one. I nearly died.
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]
Shit better not happen!
There would be something to what you say, except that the campus administration appears to be siding with the Rent-a-cop (who happens to be a woman).
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Even though I don't agree with his liberal bashing, he is right about the offending part. Offending someone doesn't hurt them, and they should have the balls to fucking ignore it. If you are such an asshole you have to censor people because of your nimrod self-entitlement complex, you don't even deserve to live in this country.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
If you go to the trouble to fund and staff a "Threat Assessment Team", then they have to find threats. Even if none really exist, something will be labeled Threat. Bureaucracy will take it from there.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
He thinks it's a quote from a fictional character and being older than 6 doesn't have to 100% agree with the philosophy of said fictional character in order to enjoy the story or think it has some sort of artistic merit.
Actually, the quote wasn't quite that noble. What it's saying is that the person will only kill someone with the ability to defend themselves.
:-(
In a twisted way I see how they could have an argument.
If you dig a little deeper (like looking at the case on the FIRE site) the professor then put up a poster against fascism, indicating that fascism can lead to violence and death. Campus police took that one down too and got the dean involved, which is when this guy got a lawyer.
Seriously, Fascism?! Campus police has a problem with a poster against Fascism?!
Basically, what's going on here is that the professor had a poster that could, by a decidedly UNreasonable (but still sane and literate) person be construed to be a threat. Campus police took it down. The guy got upset and replaced it with a new poster which, while DEPICTING comic violence, constituted real political speech and clearly was NOT a threat of any kind. It was phrased as a warning that Fascism can lead to violence. This is where the story should have ended.
Campus police decided that since this guy was a "troublemaker" they would show him by taking down the new poster too and going after his job. This is where campus police went too far. The new poster was NOT a threat, and campus police knew it, or should have known it.
So, the professor got a lawyer.
And, the moral of the story is: Fear the police, they have public opinion, power, and guns on their side.
...the second poster he hung up is better than the first. Much better.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You have as many rights in these United States of America as you can afford to hire lawyers to defend.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Ah, so the real problem isn't that the content of the poster was threatening. The problem is that he didn't show the proper deference to authority. Just making sure we're clear on this.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You want rationality from a theater professor? But where's the drama in that?
Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
Because slamming one side automatically means he's vouching for the other side, right?
Because there are only two real options in your country, both just as bad?
Wake up and realize that what you think is "liberal" and "conservatives" are just two sides of the same superficially democratic machine, and it's only real purpose is to keep itself in power. You only have one party, thinly veiled as two. Any American who gets into a con vs lib argument is just a zombie doing exactly what the system wants them to do. It's very sad and pathetic watching this from the outside, seeing everything you people believe in as a lie. I guess being immersed in it since childhood makes it easier to believe. It's kind of like watching a documentary about cargo cults... it's hard to believe people living in such ignorance exist... but there they are.
If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?
Actually... probably not.
Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.
They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth
And I thought we had gone too far when we called illegal copying "stealing".
Dude, nobody has stolen their bandwidth. Look, it's still there! Look!
I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.
On the contrary, if your karma is high enough, you even get an option to disable advertisement. Some sites still understand that without readers, they're nothing but a guy wanking in the basement.
Basically, if you want to be paid for your content, put up a paywall. Ads are not payment. Putting them on your site is a bet, not a price ticket. You play a bit of lottery, every ad is a ticket that may or may not yield you some cash. If your business model is based on ads, then you're a professional gambler, nothing more. Sure, with large enough numbers, statistics usually level out in your favour, but never forget that there's no guarantee - getting 100 million page views with zero ad clicks may be a statistical anomaly, but it could happen. If that means you starve, then you've bet the farm on an unreliable business model.
Short version: Your problem, not mine.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance."
when I lived in chicago we solved that one. every friday night 2 of my neighbors and I would sit out on the porch with a gardenhose and a trigger nozzle. Nothing stops idiots like having 3 people hose them down as they walk by.
IT took only 3 weeks of this and suddenly we did not have the problem anymore. Which sucked, because it was a lot of fun drinking on the porch and hosing down idiots.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Nope, white male and poor since the economy sucks ass right now and apparently I went to school for the wrong thing, Applied Mathematics. I'm also married to a black woman that agrees with me who has probably lived a harder life than 90 percent of the people in this country. My father lived a harder life than her starving most of the time while his sisters got raped and given Hepatitis C by their sociopath uncle who murdered my grandfather and one other person. He worked his ass off to get where he is today, which is also poor now since the economy sucks. Psychological trauma and pain from what? Only a fucking nimrod gets "Hurt" over words from someone they don't even know. If I can ignore them, why can't they? If you can't handle it then go start your own utopian dream land and please stop bothering me. There is a major difference between something like PTSD from bombs exploding near you all the time, and getting "trauma" from a god damn poster. Give me a fucking break.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
A liberal believes in freedom.
A conservative believes in not wasting.
I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.
The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".
The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".
This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
If the poster was of 1940's Ronald Reagan dressed as a cowboy with the same quote, people probably would've been leaving flowers and candles at the door.
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.
I disagree with you.
Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?
When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.
Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.
You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The above comment was presumably brought to us by the "project your side's malevolent activities onto your opponent, get moderated Insightful" school of political thought? Because US politics didn't used to be nearly as far to the right as it was, and the way it got there was through the use of exactly the same tactics by the right that you're accusing the left wing of using - they deliberately drove ideas further and further to the right into the political mainstream, redefining what counted as centrist and far-left as they did so. We know this from statements by members of the right wing saying that this is what they were doing.
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).
Free Martian Whores!
The trouble with "libertarians" is some have a funny definition of "liberty", thinking that taxes and regulations infringe on their freedoms, when your refusal to pay your fair share and your pollution infringe on my own rights.
You don't have the right to dirty my air and rivers. You should have the right to smoke crack with your hired bitch; it's your right to destroy your life any way you deem fit. Smoke your crack, but don't burglarize my house to pay for your habit.
Free Martian Whores!