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?
Nick – do you think dropping leaflets would help galvanize America to rouse itself enough to hold onto free speech? 🙂
I agree that students in the 1960s would have just shown the film anyway. Where is our backbone?
Karen S – in the 60s the YAF would have shown the film.
As for the tug of war over free speech, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we acquiesce to an imperial presidential power grab, then we should be prepared for each and every party to abuse that power.
It is important to denounce wrongdoing, especially when it threatens our right to free speech, regardless of which party is behind it. There is no “but he did it 50 years ago!” I’m quite sure that I could not get out of a speeding ticket by declaring to the CHP that “other people sped on this very road days ago!”
But it’s easier for me because I am not wed to any particular political party. Liberalism is the only party I adamantly oppose, because of the history of outcomes of their policies, not because of their intentions. Other than that, I can see aspects I like out of all parties. I am even sympathetic to the desire to take care of everyone that drives Liberals. I just do not agree with the outcomes.
Karen, GREAT comment. But, you wasted your time and effort on someone who is in his bunker, and hunkered down. Just sayn’.
randyjet:
Here is an interesting essay regarding Orwell and his works. He was a Leftist who opposed Stalinism.
There is no denying the powerful warning about Soviet communism in his works 1984 and Animal Farm. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, is very present in his writing. He opposed authoritarian governments of any kind, socialist or fascist.
You asked for an explanation of how conservatives can agree with a communist. Orwell was at least opposed to the form of communism present. But even if he was a dyed in the wool communist, it would not detract from the value of his writing.
There may not be anyone on this Earth with which I agree on all things. My cousin believes we should do away with all money and her ideal home would be in a commune. She has a kind heart, and I agree with her on many environmental issues. Professor Turley is a Liberal who supports Obamacare. You may have noticed that I do not. And yet I deeply value his opinions on this blog. I agree with you on illegal immigration, while we disagree on some other matters.
His being a Leftist is no threat to my admiration of his message against tyranny in his writing.
http://www.theorwellreader.com/essays/storgaard.html
Karen, I have read most of Orwell’s works and a few bios of him and he was the type who was an original Bolshevik of the Lenin, Trotsky variety. There were tens of thousands of them, who were mostly all executed by Stalin. Victor Serge was an outstanding writer you might like. The best work I think by Orwell was his book Homage to Catalonia which is about his experiences fighting for the Republic in the POUM militia where he was gravely wounded during the Spanish Civil war.
As for the idea Stalin was a favorite of Lenin or was his successor, that is truly funny, especially since Lenin’s so called last testament called for Stalin to be removed from the Central Committee and the post of General Secretary of the party. That is NOT what most rational folks would call a ringing endorsement.
The Iraq war is a War of Aggression – War Crime
Chris Kyle is a War Criminal / Mass Murderer
The Muslims did not do 9/11. Israel and American traitors did 9/11
randyjet
It is too bad that folks forget about the Genovese affair at Rutgers in which the Prof said that he welcomed the VC victory in Vietnam in 1965.
What was their campaign position on the Crusades?
Randyjet said …
… the VC victory in Vietnam in 1965…
Say what? There was no ” VC” victory in 1965. Was that a “typo” that meant to say the PAVN Victory in 1975? The “VC” conquered no one, not even in 1975…it was regular PAVN troops that took Saigon and the rest of the country…enabled greatly by Kissinger’s weak kneed Paris treaty…it was a foregone conclusion.
Ari, it should have read A VC victory back in 65. The Saigon regime was doomed from the start since it rested mainly on the Quislings who fought to keep Vietnam FRENCH and established a Catholic dictatorship under Diem. It is pretty hard to keep such a regime in power except with massive outside help and mass murder when 80% of the population is Buddhist. Even Eisenhower had to admit that had a free election been held in all of Vietnam, Ho would have won with around 80% of the vote. Which is why the Vietminh agreed to free elections. ALL politicians are in favor of free elections when they know they will probably win. Diem held an election which he won with 99% of the vote.
po
By evidence, most of us suggest and understand some objective, non-biased information that is verifiable, not some conclusion derived from one’s own subjective perspective
I don’t think you understand how to apply either one of these definitions. I didn’t quote the statistics but we all know roughly what they are. For your conclusions to be true every statement would have to be linked to an original study in order to constitute evidence, which is absurd. You might as well argue I can’t prove grass is green, it would have a comparable reduction in your credibility.
Evidence come in many different types. I freely cite what I rely on that others may judge how reasonable it is. People refuse to say … probably have good reason to hide their thought processes.
To say that students in our universities do not support free speech, freedom of association and other traditional liberal mechanism of freedom is not only wrong, it is disingenuous.
We’re not discussing students generally. We’re discussing a small subset of them: left-leaning political activists. Their efforts to suppress free speech are documented and available in many places, try Fire.org. Most clearly this can be seen in speaker selection. Speakers supporting left-leaning positions, even extreme-left positions, are invited to campus far more often than similarly positioned right-leaning speakers. And the right-leaning speakers who are invited routinely face efforts to disinvite them and if unsuccessful efforts to disrupt their speeches.
Also supporting this assertion is the routine effort to describe others beliefs or spoken disagreement as harassment, hate speech, or a hostile environment.
Pogo, Thanks for TheFire plug. Pun intended. It is one of my favorite websites. But, some here could really all of the documented abuses on campuses and still refuse to accept the truth, that being liberals are fascists in the way their run universities. That’s why you need to just ignore that ilk.
“To say that students in our universities do not support free speech, freedom of association and other traditional liberal mechanism of freedom is not only wrong, it is disingenuous”
More correctly it should be stated:
“Students AND American Universities generally do not support free speech, freedom of association and other traditional liberal mechanism of freedom.”
That’s why The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org) exists.
In po’s imaginary universe, there’d be no need for such work.
Professor Turley has written many interesting articles about the erosion of free speech, and interest in debating different viewpoints, at universities.
randyjet:
“When I was a member of the Young Socialist Alliance at University of Houston, during the oil embargo and shortage, we asked EXXON to send us a speaker to present their views, which they did. He gave an interesting presentation and we had some sharp questions for him as well. So to smear the left as intolerant of other points of view is simply a slander. We had pretty good attendance at the forum we sponsored too.”
Do you feel that your experience of the far Left during your college days reflects its attitudes towards free speech, and opposing viewpoints, today?
Karen, Back then we also had the Stalinists who we fought against on this subject. I have not been back to college, but I am friends with a number of profs, and this is a minority opinion that was expressed in the banning. As I said in a previous post, this smacks more of corporate stay safe thing than a PC one. I went to the SEE web site and looked at the members. They are marketing, and corporate types to the core not leftists. That 300 signatures can be taken for an outpouring of sentiment is absurd on its face. That is the sentiment of the left by those few signatures is also absurd.
Rick
By evidence, most of us suggest and understand some objective, non-biased information that is verifiable, not some conclusion derived from one’s own subjective perspective, no matter how far on the chain of intellectual breakdown we take it.
In that, you have failed to provide an evidence that works for you as well as for me and anyone else. Hence your failed argument. keep working on it.
To say that students in our universities do not support free speech, freedom of association and other traditional liberal mechanism of freedom is not only wrong, it is disingenuous. Do you realize how many political exchanges happen on a campus? How many daily interactions that echo the larger society? How many of those we are not privy of? How many social and political conflicts happen and are resolved between students and faculty that we don’t know about? How many students complete their education without ever manifesting or speaking out against anything? And you would take the one case you hear about that engages a tiny minority of students to use as evidence that universities are leftist?
What is your evidence?
po
It is obvious to me that many of who harping the leftist cuss word confuse it with liberal.
This is exactly backwards. We use leftist because the people we’re describing don’t support free speech, freedom of association, or other traditionally liberal mechanisms of freedom. Nor do they engage ideas honestly in the spirit of Locke or Mills, but rather feign offense and claim to be victims.
Students probably do think of themselves as liberal, which speaks to their fundamental mis-education rather than an error by those describing them.
And it isn’t a cuss word, it’s a distinction.
The students should find an outdoor projector and make a public showing of the movie on the side of the administration building. If the architecture is not accommodating then within the main square of the campus.
Issac,
I don’t know what you’ve been smokin’ man, but you’ve got it all backwards.
The righties are going to pounce on this. No doubt, Sharia laws takes effect on U – MD College Park campus.
I agree with you — the First Amendment should trump here. I do find it odd, however, that there was no mention of the UIUC Stephen Salaita case. Free speech should be free speech for everyone — including Muslim/Palestinian activists. When you ban the expression of one side, but protect the expression of the other side, you create an even bigger problem. The First Amendment exists for all.
The Muslims have a right to reject seeing the movie “American Sniper.” They do not have the right to keep the rest of the college population from seeing the movie. The Muslims are protected under the constitution of free speech and the rest of the campus is also protected. If these Muslims are not terrorist sympathizers then why should this movie banned–they should uphold freedom and patriotism to the US.
The same holds true of the Indiana law where protesters persecuted the governor for wanting to defend business people and their rights. Oh, I forgot, some of these business people are God believing individuals, so their rights are denied.
po
The moment you provide any evidence for your statement, I’ll welcome your request I provide one for mine.
I did. In response you’re re-defining the term “evidence” narrowly to justify not explaining your assertions. Don’t think your effort isn’t completely transparent.