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?
Its not PC its censorship and its wrong.
Muslims are offended by everything! I am offended by the decision of some of their co religious to kill indiscriminately Muslims, Christians and anyone else they feel like. I am offended by some of the co religious who kidnap young girls and make them sex slaves! I am offended by this and many other things that some Muslims do but nobody cares that I am offended because I have no intention of acting out my offense by killing anyone. That’s the big difference.
Muslims no matter how offended should be told this is America and we have free speech. Its a freedom apparently Muslims do not treasure. just because you are “American” Muslims that doesn’t give you the right to rewrite the Constitution to say free speech except when Muslims are offended.
Any university that takes this step should receive no further federal or state aid and should be sued by every single group that has the resources to do so.
As to the offended Muslims, if you wish to live in another country perhaps you should move. I have no interest in you Re making the US in the image of Saudi Arabia.
Thanks for the advice, Ari, but emotions? Nah, I am enjoying myself…quite a bit I might say.
Sometimes clowning oneself is the only thing to do in face of the relentless onslaught of clowns…:)
Don’t take my words too seriously…I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t enjoying myself. I love my foils!
have you been following the discussion?
Po at times you be-clown yourself. Spend more time on your own positions, in detail, and less on berating that of other’s. I know you are better than that, but emotions can carry you away.
Rick, are you okay? Aren’t you the one who requested evidence from me first?
I made a subjective (which by essence does not request an evidence) comment, prompting you to provide you with an evidence for my subjective comment!
When I turned the table on you, you are now complaining that I am the one requesting an evidence!
If you knew you couldn’t handle the heat, like Nick who refuses to name me while lobbing stones at me from a glass treehouse , you shoulda stayed out the kitchen!
Rick, Time, like everything, is a finite resource. You don’t get the time you spend responding to court jesters back. It is wasted.
Rick, You would be better off hitting yourself in the balls than responding to that guy. When you hit yourself in the balls, you realize it’s stupid immediately. Responding to toxic people is insidious.
Gary Lewis Evans, Great point! The ACLU, that was for free speech in representing the Nazi Party of USA to march in Skokie, a few decades ago, would NEVER do so today. They have become part of the apparatchik, controlling the campuses. They have been co-opted. That’s why we need to support TRUE free speech organizations like www/thefire.org. They walk the walk. The ACLU is now PC. That should scare folks. But, the leftists here are part of the assault on free speech, not part of the solution. Integrity is malleable in their paradigm.
po,
For someone that won’t even cite the evidence supporting his belief there are hypocrites among those criticizing the current circumstance you’re awfully exacting on what type of evidence you consider acceptable.
And yes, I supplied the evidence supporting my suspicions earlier. A refresher for you though: evidence is not the same as metaphysical proof. I find it interesting someone who cannot identify even a single piece of evidence to support his positions demands such proof of others. A person who won’t cite a single reason to support his own position demands specific tallies of individuals and denies clear relationships.
Such extreme double standards demonstrate who is reasonable and who is not.
Rick:
I find it quite revealing you’ve made several comments on the subject and have yet to answer the original two questions:
1. Why do you believe I can have no evidence supporting the assertion that Palestinians cheered the 911 attacks?
2. What evidence do you use to support your position that conservatives( I never uttered the word conservatives, I said AMONG THOSE condemning the protesters ) are hypocrites on free speech?
You’ve put in a lot of work to avoid the issues, I’m starting to think it must be intentional.
—————————
Rick, you’ve done a lot of work reworking the issues to arrive at something that was NOT what we were discussing.
This was my initial comment:
Whichever one works for you, whichever one more likely to expose the hypocrites.
You responded with that:
Surely you have some evidence they are hypocrites rather then just assuming they are.
I replied with this:
Do we need evidence to believe that among the ones raising an uproar are hypocrites?
You replied with that:
Only those of us who form opinions based on evidence need it.
To which I return with this:
Rick, is any of the following things you said based on evidence?
1- I suspect there are more non-Muslim students than Muslim students pushing this. It’s a campus-left initiative.
2-I’d like to see this. Why reinvent the wheel though? Wouldn’t it be faster and easier to just queue up the videos of Palestinians cheering in the streets?
Are you recusing yourself from among the lot that speaks only based on evidence?
Rick answers with that:
1. There aren’t very many Muslim students at UM (or at most Universities for that matter) compared to non-Muslims, and leftist activists outnumber specifically Muslim activists by a wide margin.
do you have a tally of how many protesting students were muslim vs the non-muslims? That is the sort of evidence that would be welcome
2. Muslim advocacy institutions are part of the left, particularly on campus.
Where is your evidence for that? Does every university have a muslim advocacy institution? What is a muslim advocacy institution? Would a conservative/salafist or wahabist muslim advocacy institution be part of the left?
3. There is effectively no difference in the two groups positions, non-Muslim leftist activists make the same assertions about the movie.
Where is your evidence for that? Are both unified groups that speak with one voice? What is your evidence that others non-leftist groups aren’t part of this protest? Where is the evidence that all the students protesting belong to a group, whether leftist of muslim?
4. Due to the numbers it’s implausible that Muslim activists would be able to get the movie banned without the non-Muslim activists acting in concert. Implausible suggests a personal view, an educated guess…is It based on evidence?
And what I said earlier:
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 – the BDS Movement is both very active and very vocal on campuses. My guess (without evidence) is that they had a hand in getting the film banned. They would feel very hurt if they were left out.
Sorry, fiver, I was off rehabbing a house.
I have had this discussion many times.
I don’t detect an effort to learn about this.
I can’t do any better than Robert Conquest or Daniel Pipes in their histories of communism.
Teach yourself, if you want the truth.
Why doesn’t the ACLU fight against this growing problem of censorship on campus?
Is it because they agree with the university in this blocking of free speech? This isn’t the ACLU that I remember. I remember when the fought to allow Nazis march through Skokie Illinois that had a large population of Jews that lived through concentration camps.
Just a few years ago the ACLU took the University of Maryland to court because they couldn’t distribute ACLU information when and where they wanted to distribute on campus.
randyjet … said more concisely: What am I missing?
Ari, The comment the prof made was that he would not mind a VC victory when he said it in 1965. This subjected him to a political campaign on the part of the GOP in New Jersey to fire him from his job. That failed by a slim margin. I mentioned this to point out the difference in magnitude of some students postponing the showing of the movie, to what the GOP tried to do against a prof for stating his opinion at an anti-war rally. So the PC that is being denounced is small potatoes to what was done in the past by the GOP hacks.
ningen, LOL!
I am offended by the denunciation of a movie as offensive. Therefore, such denunciation ought to be banned from college campuses.
Ari, I have caught him in flat ass lies previously. He vanished for months, but always reappears and will dissemble, hedge, fudge, etc. to try and make a point that is just not there w/ facts.
po
Rick, the fallacy in your original argument is haunting your current one…though you miss it again. Evidence may come in different forms, but just like pornography, it is recognizable. You are confusing argument and evidence.
This is simply false. I’m referencing the evidence while you claim referencing it is the same as not having it. This is deeply confused.
Your argumentation may be rational, one part leads to the next, which leads to the next, which leads to a conclusion that makes sense. It is akin to my saying, for example,
Me: karen is a hypocrite.
You: Why?
Me:Well, she attacks other for doing something that she, herself does.
In reality you never said or demonstrated this. In fact I asked what you based your assertion conservatives are hypocrites on free speech on, and you have yet to answer.
Or better yet, she attacks muslims for the evil they do but refuses to condemn everyone else, even when they do worse.
You think this proves she’s a hypocrite on free speech? I see you’re getting lost again.
(That’s a rational argument, the premise is supported by the conclusion, or the conclusion supports the premise.)
You:What is your evidence though?
Me: That argument is evidence enough.
Still referring to something about Muslims?
———————————————————–
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.
Now, Rick, you are moving the goal posts to allow you to narrowly define the scope and terms of the discussion.
We are not discussing a small subset of students (though I see that you may be). We are discussing students generally, and the assertions made here that schools nowadays are a hotbed of leftist activity.
Again, this is simply false. The discussion was about the campus activism that led to cancelling the movie. And schools are a hotbed of leftist activity, with many programs serving as political training. Of course the vast majority of students avoid deep involvement in politics so there’s no contradiction in believing most students are not leftist but campus politics are.
I find it quite revealing you’ve made several comments on the subject and have yet to answer the original two questions:
1. Why do you believe I can have no evidence supporting the assertion that Palestinians cheered the 911 attacks?
2. What evidence do you use to support your position that conservatives are hypocrites on free speech?
You’ve put in a lot of work to avoid the issues, I’m starting to think it must be intentional.
randyjet said …
Ari, it should have read A VC victory back in 65
You did it again. Surely you must be kidding?
The VC had nothing to do with the coup against Diem by his own military in 1963. You may be thinking of the drawn out fight for the Ia Drang, in 1963, which was the first time regular US troops fought regular PAVN troops. Or maybe were you thinking of the battle for Dong Xoai in 1965…where the VC withdrew as US forces mounted against them.
And it was not the VC who conquered the south permanently in 1975…it was the PAVN using regular army formations and armored vehicles. Please understand, there is distinct difference between the PAVN and the VC, although the VC were coordinated by the PAVN. The fights for Dak To and Khe Sanh, among other later major fights, were PAVN operations. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a combined effort by the VC (alternatively referred to as the NLF) and the PAVN (alternatively referred to as the NVA) counrty wide…and it pretty much took the remaining wind from the sails of the VC. The PAVN regrouped from defeat in Tet and sent regular troops south to augment and infuse within the failing VC….and took over completely thereafter. The VC were tag-a-long elements thereafter. The treaty in Paris around 1972 permitted the PAVN to keep all regular army troops in place in South Vietnam…e.g., guaranteeing the out come in 1975.
Not bragging @ all. There are PI’s who bill @ higher rates than me. I do bill longtime clients @ a lesser rate. But, the quoted rate is what you would have to pay to hire me. And, I know Pogo bills @ a higher rate as well. I am not anonymous little, rabbit. This is an anonymous blog if someone chooses that route. EVERYTHING I SAY HERE can be verified. I have a female stalker here, and others, who have checked me out. It’s all real. They hate me and would SCREAM if anything I said was incorrect. Your incredulity only illustrates how mundane and insignificant your life and career is. There are many brave folks here who use their real names, not aliases and sockpuppet names. Now, if I get the number 2 combo, can I get a salad instead of fries. LOL!
Quoting a billable rate on an internet comment board?
Wow. Words just fail.
You’re right. Someone who says: “Do you want fries with that?” is a credibility engagement you definitely want to avoid.
Because we all know that the person asking about fries probably really does have some fries to offer. But the person who brags about their billable rate on an anonymous comment board?
Yeah. We know about them too.