A board at the University of Maryland announced it will postpone indefinitely the screening of “American Sniper” on campus after Muslim organizations opposed the watching of the film as anti-Islamic and offensive. I have not seen the movie, but the effort to prevent other people from watching films set badly with me both in terms of free speech as well as the pluralistic values governing university communities. The movie was critically acclaimed and nominated for six oscars, including best picture, actor (Bradley Cooper) and adapted screenplay. Even people like Michele Obama have publicly proclaimed how the movie touched them. This is not to say that they are right. However, opposing other people from seeing a major artistic work is part of a growing effort to curtail free speech in the West and particularly on college campuses.
We have seen a crackdown on free speech in the West. For other recent columns, click here and here and here. This trend has only increased after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo in the West. What is particularly worrisome is that these attacks on free speech are being done in the name of pluralism and tolerance.
The role of universities and private organizations in this trend is equally worrisome. This includes the disgraceful decision of Yale University Press to delete all of the Muhammad cartoons that triggered a spasm of murders and church burnings by Muslims around the world. Yale removed the cartoon from Jytte Klausen’s “The Cartoons That Shook the World.”
There has been a campaign across the country by Muslim students and faculty to ban the film as offensive. The University of Maryland’s Muslim Student Association declared that “American Sniper only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason. This movie dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes.”
There are many films that are objectionable from different perspectives. I never liked Zero Dark Thirty (2012) from a civil liberties stand point because it perpetuated the myth that torture was the key in finding Bin Laden or that it is somehow justified by such results. However, I would not seek to prevent others from seeing it. I am satisfied with voicing my objections to the accuracy and implied message of the film.
Recently, a similar effort led to initially to the canceling of a showing of American Sniper at the University of Michigan but later relented to showing the film after public outcry.
Maryland pulled the film after the objections but failed to explain where this line is drawn over groups preventing students from seeing films on campus. However, Student Entertainment Events, announced that it was contemplating “an event where students can engage in CONSTRUCTIVE and moderated dialogues about the controversial topics proposed in the film.” Once again, it is not clear whether other films would be subject to such special measures if groups or individuals object. While I commend the group for seeking a compromise, I remain disturbed by the lack of clarity in the standard for such postponements or barring of films. Any group can schedule a discussion about a film on their own. It does not serve their interests to be seen trying to deny free speech in this way to others on campus. We have long maintained that the solution to bad speech is more speech — not the denial of unpopular speech. There has been no restriction on the Muslim student group from planning such discussions. The question is why other students should be prevent or postponed in seeing a major and critically acclaimed movie.
What do you think?
Free speech is necessary to practice many religions.
Show the movie!!!! And show it again!!
It should be noted that the movie, while well done (consensus) doesn’t change the fact that it has propaganda riddled throughout and indeed underlying the plot.
If a student or group of students is going to show a documentary of persons from Iraq and Syria and their tendency to support ISIS or Al Qaeda, then we’ll see if there is integrity for the freedom of speech. This film or discussion of our militarism is not in danger of being marginalized by the society at large.
What’s more interesting than a university overstepping its censorship boundaries is the always encouraging wave of students engaging in free speech. And more importantly, speaking some truth to power.
Seriously ? Because the showing on campus of a movie that started its theatrical run four months ago, has already grossed over $500 million world-wide, and probably has already been seen by most of the people likely to attend the showing on campus would likely result in what? This is a second run movie (although it is still in theaters in Bethesda, Rockville, Largo, Hyattsville, and Silver Spring, MD and at three complexes in DC). It’s not like the objectors have really prevented the dissemination of those “objectionable” ideas. Those ideas are already out there. It seems very unlikely that, after the showing, there would be an anti-Muslim pogrom. (Although, to be fair, it is the University of Maryland, which does have a history of rioting at the slightest excuse, and one never knows what might happen if the PG County police become involved.) It seems to me that the ant-Muslim feeling that this arouses is likely to be resentment that the marginal cost of attendance has gone up significantly. Now students will have to pay commercial ticket prices and travel to off-campus theater complexes to see it (or buy the DVD and have a, presumably smaller, viewing party — maybe with beer).
Isaac, as the question at hand, which side is banning American Sniper on campus: right or left?
My evidence suggests it’s the hypersensitive left in Universities, in coalition with Muslims.
“randyjet
As a Vietnam era veteran, leftist, and opponent of the invasion of Iraq, and one who has seen the film, this is an outrage. I voted for, worked for Obama, and I am damned tired of the fools on the right who think that this ban is a product of the left”
Sorry, but this ban is a product of the left. The right has their fools, but it wasn’t the right that brought “safe spaces” and a unique interpretation of tolerance to the masses.
Bailers, I grew up during the McCarthy era in which 100s of people were sent to PRISON for their politics. People lost their jobs, had to flee the US to avoid prison. had all their property stolen on a mass scale. Groups such as the NAACP were declared illegal organizations, people were murdered, all for their political views. ALL THAT WAS THE RIGHT WING!
Now this is a bit like a tempest in a teapot and it smacks more of corporate shyness to offend anybody. That anything was banned because of 200 and 300 signatures out of a campus of tens of thousands is bizarre. Any fundie group could get that number of signatures protesting any film because it would offend them. Hell, you could probably get that number protesting teaching the world is a sphere and not flat as any fool can see.
I also have to laugh at the folks who cite Orwell since he was a communist to his dying day. He was fighting against the conservative political current that was Stalinism. The Stalinists had more in common with the right wing than the left as was proven when the Soviet Union fell and the so called communists converted en masse to capitalists.
Pogo
Both sides, left and right have their extremes and faults. For decades now the right seems to simply excel in the area of extreme stupidity, faulty judgement, and holding the American public hostage to garner power. Unfortunately there are only two choices. The left is by far the lesser of the two evils. The right is simply chaos, confusion, and the wrong direction-backwards.
Randyjet
Wow, an Obama fan. I like the guy too. He is not perfect and the US was so much in need of a super hero after eight years of arrogant incompetence, we all expected the much needed repairs. Instead we got the stark truth. The US needs two more political parties and to eliminate all private funding of elections.
Parties can be funded by the taxpayer based on voter recognition, just like in Canada. This would make it a straight decision between the voter and the prospect. The way it is now is not much different than Russia. Putin, the Koch brothers, it’s all the same.
Obama will go down in history as one of the best Presidents. Hopefully the Republicans will continue to just go down.
“I am damned tired of the fools on the right who think that this ban is a product of the left.”
Too bad, but that’s where it stems from:
Recall earlier in April that the
The film was to be replaced with a screening of a children’s film, “Paddington.”
Only the left talks that way.
It’s classic university liberal multicultural deconstructionist anti-West babbling, highjacked by Muslims.
HumpinDog:
I agree. It is our responsibility to stand up for our rights.
We can’t expect others to carry our water.
As a Vietnam era veteran, leftist, and opponent of the invasion of Iraq, and one who has seen the film, this is an outrage. I voted for, worked for Obama, and I am damned tired of the fools on the right who think that this ban is a product of the left. While I am not a fan of Eastwood’s politics, I am a big fan of his films since they are substantial works with a depth that is quite surprising and always entertaining.
I certainly hope the students at the U of M will take action to protest against this assault against freedom of speech and take measures to get rid of the fools who did this outrage. The next election to the SEE or whoever appoints them needs to see them gone.
Religion is not that important.
If your faith is strong enough it shouldn’t matter.
Keep it to yourself.
The Art, Architecture, and Music is OK.
If you want to dress up in bedsheets, that’s OK too, but we have to see the face and if you’re carrying weapons then we’ll have to cut out the bedsheets.
Find someplace out of the way to pray and do it quietly.
A movie or other expression that promotes the killing of terrorists intent on killing us, is not unacceptable.
We’re all Bozos on this Bus.
Shame on the University of Maryland. If I were a donor I would seriously reconsider. If I had a child attending there I would seriously reconsider.
I am reminded of a church’s campaign to take “NYPD Blue” off the air in the Southeast Texas market where I once worked. “NYPD Blue” showed more nudity than most network dramas (including Dennis Franz’s bare buttocks!) and the pastor and his congregation said it was inappropriate for God-fearing families. As the primary anchor for the local ABC affiliate, it fell to me to explain the station’s decision to acquiesce to this relatively small group of viewers, who believed that because they didn’t like “NYPD Blue,” no one should watch it. I did, of course, but felt very much the hypocrite. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
I observe, at the risk of political incorrectness, that the Muslims at the U of M are just not that important. Freedom of speech/expression, is. They will move on. Let us not allow them to take the fundamental basis for academia with them.
This is the Muslim version of the Indiana bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Both used the heckler’s veto.
The left and Sharia have much in common (vicious authoritarianism), hence their frequent alliances.
See WW2 for examples.
Muslims will use the West’s historical tolerance, the leftist multicultural sin of ‘giving offense’, the University’s hatred for the military/US exceptionalism/patriotism, post-secondary deconstructionism, and taqiyya as weapons to enforce sharia.
More coming soon.
See France and England for examples.
Non Muslim students at University of Maryland: speak up or forever hold your piece.
This is the face of sharia in America. Soon all we will be allowed to see are movies about honor killings, burka-covered women and tales of those jolly ISIS boys.
The camel’s nose is in the tent.
Tolerance has become the enemy of free speech.
Find it offensive? Don’t go see it.
Special snowflakes and the administrators that protect them are going to be the downfall of this country.