Republican Leads Protest as Game-Art Exhibit is Expelled From RPI
Republican Leads Protest as Game-Art Exhibit is Expelled From RPI
March 11, 2008
The fallout continues at New York's Rensselaer Polytechnical University (RPI) following last week's cancellation of a controversial video game art exhibit by Iraqi citizen and Art Institute of Chicago professor Wafaa Bilal.
As reported by the Albany Times-Union, the exhibition, suspended last week while school officials conducted a review, has now been officially expelled from campus. The head of RPI's Art Department has been ordered to have the exhibit hauled away by day's end. Of the decision, RPI VP William Walker said via press release:
As stewards of a private university, we have the right and, indeed, the responsibility to ensure that university resources are used in ways that are in the overall best interests of the institution.
Bilal's exhibit was moved to the off-campus Sanctuary for Independent Media where protesters, led by Robert Mirch (left), Republican majority leader of the Rensselaer County Legislature, expressed their disapproval. Mirch told the Times-Union:
We're upset about the video game. He can show it. I don't have to approve it...
This Mirch quote appears on a separate Times-Union blog:
The Sanctuary for Independent Media should cancel this exhibit immediately. Allowing for the portrayal of the assassination of a president to be staged is wrong, un-American and destructive. I support free speech, but this exhibit goes beyond the bounds of what is decent or acceptable.
A counter-protest, organized in support of Bilal, was also present at the exhibit's new location.
Comments
It's perfectly "American" to assassinate a president. Several American presidents have been assassinated, and Americans have called for the assassination of several presidents of other countries. Destroying what we don't like IS the American way.
As others have pointed out, the assassination of a president has been the plot of countless movies, TV shows, home-made shorts, games, mods, comics, plays, music, and books. And of all that media, how many have actually incited the killing of an actual president?
"I support free speech, but this exhibit goes beyond the bounds of what is decent or acceptable."
That's why we dub it "Freedom Of Speech." If we create a list of what everyone in the country found offensive, we'd have a list of everything in the world. We're allowed free speech (though, we're not guaranteed to be free from the consequences of our speech), because someone is going to get emotionally distraught over anything, anyway. "Freedom Of Speech" is the polite way of "STFU, cry-baby!".
It's the institute's decision to allow or disallow whatever exhibit they choose, but claiming that it's offensive to a couple of people is ridiculous. Do you know how many people find the Statue Of Liberty offensive? More than a few. So, when are we gonna go knock it down?
No. Sorry. I think I'm going to keep talking to you, since you know, I can. If you don't like it, you can take your own advice and leave, since what you want really doesn't matter to me. Simple as that.
Your still looking solely at face value, you can not look at things like that. Ok example Face value of BF2 Insurgent army.
I get stuck playing as them a lot, and just becuase I play as them doesn't mean I'm in support of terrists. Now just becuase I use nefarouse techniques (suicide bombing on the tanks, or jeep bombs, and the accostional C4 in the road) Doesn't mean I would do, or consider such things in reality land.
Face value of such action in a game "You sir are a terrist! You win a free all expense paid trip to GiTMo! Congradulations!"
"weall agree the collage isn’t censoring out right, but worried about life and property."
No, they're worried about funding, because the club that organized the protests found a bunch of vocal alumni to threaten to withdraw funding if the college went ahead with it. And I'm willing to bet they called the FBI and building inspectors too...
The only "life and property" worries were the FBI, and after looking into things, the worst they've done is state they'll show up to "have a look", and they questioned the artist for a few minutes. Other than that, any "life and property" claims the college is making is complete Cover Your Ass (TM) maneuvering to justify their actions. Pretend it was all in the best interest of their students and all that bull.
The reason we have the First Amendment is because of statements like this.
And while we ourselves will make that decision, we will subsequently allow vocal republicans to alter that decision for us. For while we knew full well what the artist was doing, we had no idea people would make such a fuss. And as such we will hide behind "accountability" and "responsibility" as a CYA move.
Mirch is pretty self-contradictory there... "He can show it", but "the Sanctuary should cancel this exhibit immediately... because it goes beyond what is decent or acceptable."
So either it's ok to show, or it's not. Make up your mind.
Therefore its not a case of the Universities right to show or not show an exhibit of any subject, they HAD CHOSEN to show it. Its now become censorship and thats shocking in such a setting.
@Allowing for the portrayal of the assassination of a president to be staged is wrong, un-American and destructive.@
Its ridiculous to claim it unsuitable to have media that portrays an attempt on the life of the president. What about 24? thats about terrorism, Or that new film Vantage point - isn't that about an assasination attempt?
Ignoring the actual fact that this isnt really about attacking Bush as far as I can tell ( conjecture without playing the game ), its merely modding a game that was about americans attacking Iraqis, and making it about iraqis attacking americans.
Oh I forgot, Games aren't Media - they are murder simulators...
I guess this guy has never watched any television programs, films, plays, or any form of media... ever.
Yes, the contridictions are astounding. In the same breath he says Bilal can show it but can't. I love how he got it removed from RPI and is now trying to pressure SIM into removing it. But with a Name like Sactuary, I doubt he will get far.
I hope that the people who support Bilal far outnumber the people who are against this display.
"its merely modding a game that was about americans attacking Iraqis, and making it about iraqis attacking americans."
It's not even that. An Al Queda-affilliated group already did that. He just pasted his picture on the main character's face so he could insert himself into the story (because his brother was supposedly killed by shrapnel from a US missile) so he's exploring the "what if I had gone down that path" angle as part of his exhibit.
"Therefore its not a case of the Universities right to show or not show an exhibit of any subject, they HAD CHOSEN to show it. Its now become censorship and thats shocking in such a setting."
Yeah, it's getting tiring explaining that. ;) The University chose to show it, invited him, reviewed his work, and clearly approved or they would have un-invited him before we ever heard about him. Only after the whining swelled once the public realized what was in the exhibit, did they cave to calls for censorship.
sorry had to post again. Read your post and its spot on.
'We agree with Free Speech as long as that speech is acceptable and decent to me.'
Wow, if your constitution had been written by idiots like this what a different world !!
I cant believe people actually say this stuff. I hope this guy is Client 8 with Spitzer, true colours and all that.
Though somehow I doubt he would be nearly as interested in the situation if Clinton were president. Many 'patriotism on your sleeve' republicans seem to consider clintion so horrible that all those normal rules just don't apply (even though Bill was in many ways more socially concervative then Bush)
We insert:
"The Sanctuary for Independent Media should cancel this exhibit immediately. Allowing for the portrayal of the assassination of a president to be staged is wrong, un-American and destructive. I support free speech, but this exhibit goes beyond the bounds of what is decent or acceptable."
and the translator returns:
"These evil liberals should cancel this exhibit immediately. Allowing for the portrayal of the assassination of an American president who is not Bill Clinton to be staged is wrong, un-nationalist, and something I don't like. I support free speech, but not when it is speech I do not agree with."
There, fixed!
I do support Mirch's right the disagree with the content of the exhibit and to express his feelings and why he feels them. I draw the line where he starts to assert that since he doesn't like it, no one else should be allowed to make a decision for themselves.
@neeneko
Yes, isn't it amazing how it is okay to kill someone remarkably similar to Kim Jong-Il in "Mercenaries", but pruning the shrub is over the line?
That seems to be how it goes.
But as for his comments on the Bush Assassination thing, it is a valid form of speech. Some people do feel that assassination is the only recourse for Bush's failures. Motions to impeach have not made it passed consideration. Jan 21, 2009 seems like and eon away. So what are they to do? Wait an watch as he continues to destroy the US until hopefully someone other than Hillary or a republican can step in and clean up the mess. Seems like a great solution.
Of course I would not condone assassinating Bush unless Chaney were assassinated along with him. I do not want to see Chaney as president even for less than a year.
If anyone finds links, thanks in advance.
The first amendment doesn't garentee a forum to voice your opinion. If I'm painting and the muse grabs you and now YOu want to paint, I don't HAVE to give you my brush. I'm not encroaching on your first amendment rights because I won't give you my brush for you to paint. Go find your own paint brush.
Just because the school won't let him put up his art exhibit doesn't encroach on his freedom of speach. If he wanted he could build a museum right on the other side of their property line and show his exhibit all day long. They are just saying he can't use their property.
In the end, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amandment, the war, terrorism, republicans, democrats, or anything else. It's a non-story. The people are protesting the schools decision, and they are allowed to do so. But trying to bring these other things into it are just hiding the issue.
can you say MISSING THE POINT
The whole exhibit was created to show that the US actions have lead to the creation of such a game , that is now used by AlQaeda to recruit more fighters. Your not meant to say 'oh wow assassinating the president, great' your meant to be outraged, but then ask yourself why would anyone produce such a thing. And when you have your answer to why, then your seeing the point.
""As others have pointed out, the assassination of a president has been the plot of countless movies, TV shows, home-made shorts, games, mods, comics, plays, music, and books. And of all that media, how many have actually incited the killing of an actual president?""
Great point! well said, complete hypocracy.
This IS American history/philosophy. Shit like this and McCarthyism aren't the exception, it's the rule
Please read the comments and articles. You're right, this isn't about free speech. But it *is* about a school bowing to threats from a vocal minority.
The school said he could use their property. They knew what his exhibit entailed. They only changed their mind when a bunch of screaming Republican club protesters decided to make a stink and call the FBI...
So it still is about censorship. Because the club and it's supporters were trying to get the exhibit censored. And through monetary threats, they succeeded...
This IS American history/philosophy. Shit like this and McCarthyism aren't the exception, it's the rule
@ Void Munashii
Haha, 'pruning the shrub'. Gold.
When did this week become "hypocracy week"?
Ok these idiots get lumped in with Spitzer, JT, and the rest of the gang. Time to move on.
Wait... when did free speech come under the condition that it's decent and acceptable. That's the whole concept of free speech, being able to say things that aren't decent, and aren't acceptable. Free speech is just that, FREE speech, not "free unless i don't approve" speech.
He has the right to protest against the exibit and he has every right to call for the showing's cancelation. Everyone needs to calm down about this and stop lobbing insults at the man.
"He has the right to protest against the exibit and he has every right to call for the showing’s cancelation."
We're not objecting (too loudly) to that. We're objecting to his two-facedness in that he's willing to stand up for freedom of speech, as long as it's "decent and acceptable". That he claims that he's willing to defend this guy's right to show his art, but will come down hard on anyone who actually provides the man a venue to do so...
That's like saying you support freedom of speech as long as people keep their mouths shut... ;)
And the hypocrisy is mind-boggling. "He can show it", "I support free speech", "They should shut it down". One of those phrases doesn't fit with the rest.
@ jkdjr25:
I take no offense to the fact that he is protesting, but I particularly dislike the very things he is saying. I still have my rights as an American citizen and as a human being to voice that opinion, do I not?
Perhaps this guy should show up to my alma mater and throw a fit when the Gay-Straight Alliance puts on an event.
It's funny that you say that, because I've noticed the exact opposite from the mainstream press. Every news report I've seen/heard on tv and radio has identified Spitzer as being a democrat, and I don't remember that during the Foley affair the media always specifically identified him by his political affiliation.
lose.
"He has the right to protest against the exibit and he has every right to call for the showing’s cancelation. Everyone needs to calm down about this and stop lobbing insults at the man."
Are you sure you read everything the man said? Nothing blatantly hypocritical and contradictory jumps out at you?
He has the right to protest this piece. I think it's a stupid opinion, but he has a right to express it. Wanting it gone from RPI makes him... yeah, whatever. But then chasing it to the Sanctuary, and protesting there, too? What possible explanation is there for that other than wanting to completely censor the exhibit? "Not only are you not allowed to do it on school grounds, I don't want you to do it ANYWHERE."
And all this without examining his actual words, which pretty much prove our point for us. I may not dispute his right to express his opinion, but I fervently hold that his opinion and actions make him a craven asshole who should be ignored utterly.
they are expelling the kid for expressing a viewpoint about what the war is doing to people in Iraq that they don't agree with
THAT IS ALL THIS IS. nothing more. it should be condemned.
RPI is a PRIVATE school and they have the right to allow/disallow what is shown on their campus. Of course, they look like fools. But then following the exhibit to an off-campus site and trying to get it banned there is just silly.
Hell I watched their documentary "Shut up and Sing" and lots of what was being said can be used here.
Here is a couple of quotes from the movie
"I love their music, but I wish they would just shut up and sing"
"freedom of speech is fine but by God you don't do it outside of the country and you don't do it in mass publicly"
"They don’t know what they’re talking about. Callow foolish women, who deserve to be slapped around."
Of course the Tagline is movie fits perfectly
"Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don't do it in public."
"Private school"
Yes, it is. What we're complaining about is that the SCHOOL decided to show the work. And then the SCHOOL canceled it, because they were scared of protests and the FBI... But only after people started protesting.
So while the school had every right to decide what to show, we're complaining about how spineless they were in the face of hypocrites who pledge that they support freedom of speech, but only conditionally.
Especially considering that many of those protesters who claimed that a private school has the right to decide what to show, are now demanding that another institution also "obey them" when it comes to demanding that this exhibit not be shown. So they're fine with a private institution making it's own decision about what to show, as long as it agrees with them...
I'd like to take this moment and ask - what the HELL does un-American mean?
Is there even an "American"? Tens of mixed races, cultures and religions, a constitutional love for firearms and some of the finest examples of individuals with an IQ that matches their shoe number (Smart people - no offense), and yet this small game is "un-American".
:-/
It may be because of who else is involved... in the Spitzer article, he is alone in his controversy. However, in this situation, Mirch is not alone, he is just one of many other republicans involved; afterall, it was republicans who have been most vocal about this whole exhibit and did the most to get the school to cancel it.
Bush is the president of America. The guy makes a game ware you kill the president of America. Some people see that us "un-American" crazy huh?
By the way, this is not free speech. This is a threat. Someone makes a game ware you kill the president, is just as much as saying "I want to kill the president" and is a threat. And he should be expelled. If someone at a school made a game about school shootings ware you killed a certain person in the school that is REAL. Lets say the principal. and you went around saying " the game is to draw attention to the fact of how easy it is to get guns, also how most shooters have psychological problems"
You would be thrown out of the school and maybe even put in jail. Just like you should be.
You know, one day you guys are going to wake up and then you will understand whats been happening this entire time, but by then it will be to late.
"Someone makes a game ware you kill the president, is just as much as saying “I want to kill the president” and is a threat.... You would be thrown out of the school and maybe even put in jail. Just like you should be."
This is what investigations are for. The FBI looked into it, and realized that it was a threat made in the context of a story told in an art exhibit, ie not a real threat, but a fictional one.
So no, it's not illegal. There's a line that can be crossed, and he didn't cross it.
By your logic the guys at Eidos Interactive want to kill Cheney and should all be put in jail.
You have shown how ignorant people can be, completely missed the point or even what the game is about. You dont know the background of the game. You just latched onto sensationalist part and started screaming your head off.
So a game that assassinates Kim Jong Ill is ok then? or A game that assassinates Saddam Hussein?
I guess games that kill terrorist or Arabs should be banned to? After all your making a game about killing people. Thats a threat and you should be thrown in jail. Hell lets attach that with a hate crime since the game is targeting a specific group of people. Well I am going to call the FBI to arrest the people in the military to arrest the people for America's Army.
I know lets arrest the all the movie and tv people that have created stories about killing the president.
Why does this remind me of that movie made by Turkey, Valley of the Wolves: Iraq Where are Americas are portrayed in a negative light and create a huge controversy, while its ok to portray Middle Easterns in our media in a negative light; True Lies, 24, Back to the Future and etc.
"So a game that assassinates Kim Jong Ill is ok then? or A game that assassinates Saddam Hussein?I guess games that kill terrorist or Arabs should be banned to? After all your making a game about killing people."
The difference is, games like call of duty 4, have us killing our enemy's that we are at war with. Not our own president. I mean come on! Don't you get it. Thats all I have to say on that issue. Its sort of cut and dry.
The only Middle Easterns portrayed in a negative light in 24 our the terrorists. What the hell is wrong with you? This last season, The star (Jack) was getting help from a Middle Eastern man who was helping jack stop the terrorists. Also, I thought the show this season, stood up for The Muslim community. One of the people at CTU, was a Muslim, Who was also stopping the terrorists. And countless other things, which I'm not going to even go into because its just a stupid tv show and has nothing to do with this.
Thanks for proving how stupid you really are.
I don't like Bush, I think he is destroying the country. The only reason he got elected is because is less of an idiot the guy he was running against. So then why do I stick up for him, its weird. I guess I'm sort of patriotic, I mean I don't hate everything he has done. And they have foiled tons of terrorist plots, so I give him a thumb up for that one. So as I said before, thanks for sharing your stupidity. Now get away from me and go pollute someone else's mind.
You just needed to state your side, you didn't have to get snippy about it.
I don't like someone who makes ridiculous assumptions there for antagonizing the person just because that someone has nothing to say that has anything to do with facts or logic.
He doesn't know you personally and cannot predict what your reaction to something may be. You could have stated your views without resorting to insults.
As to the article itself, I'm also miffed about it, and I do not believe that the artist should be jailed "just to be safe." By some of the logic I see the maker of Super Columbine Massacre RPG should be jailed for "threatening" to have Columbine happen again.
Or that kid who made a map of his school for Counter Strike should have been jailed straight away for "threatening" to shoot up his school
Its funny how most people who claim to be as "patriotic" as you do seem to be nothing but arrogant, hatefilled pricks. You're very similar to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in that way.
So its ok to have games that portray assassinates other leaders if we are at war with them. Last time I check, we were not at war with North Korea, or China.
Ok I declare war on Incompetence and Ignorance. Mission 1: Kill all people that latch on to sensationalist news.
Well I guess you have no experience in media history. So something was different last season of 24, good job, you got one example. Then how did they portray the middle east before in previous seasons? Huh? Thats like saying I saved a child after murdering the whole village. Compared to all the media history of how America has portray Middle Easterns you have a few examples here and there. Great job at cherry picking your facts.
As for Patriotism
"Patriotism, a blinds man reasoning to fight for something because the whole said its the right thing to do. The patriotic make great soldiers for they do not think for themselves, they have others do the think for them, they just do." ~unknown
Well gummy you came on here, so why dont you go away and go pollute someone elses mind. He is acting like the people in the story. "I dont mind freedom of speech as long as it conforms to my ideals and beliefs." He didnt have to come on this site and read what people have wrote, He choose to come on this site, and now he telling people to go away. The funny part is if his comment gets deleted he would cry Censorship.
I'm, pretty sure that standing up against the goverment with a firearm might involve shooting the president.
So its its un-patriotic to NOT have media protraying the American citizens exercising their rights (by assasinating a president)
Well said. By his own logic Barack Obama should be banned from running for president because his middle name is Hussain, so he might be a terrorist according to republicans like Steven King of Iowa.
Besides, SAYING something about shooting the president still is speech. It's actions, not words that would get one in hot water.
yea, he does not know me so he should shut his mouth and not make stuff up. Plain and simple. Also, I never said he should go to jail, I said if someone made a game about shooting up a school, and then had someone like the principle in the game. They might go to jail, and that they should. I never said this guy should go to jail. I said what he was doing was not free speech, but a threat. There's a difference. In other words, the mod should not be put on display and be called "Art". Thats all I'm saying.
@Rukon Zappa
I thought I said to get a way from me, stop talking to me, I don't care what you have to say.
Thank you, finally someone else agrees that Hannity is a biggot. The man blames liberals for America's ills. When in reality its those unwilling to compromise. (FYI I am a republican) Anyways off my soapbox.
@ Gummy
This exibit has ABOSLUTLY NOTHING, to do with killing the Bush. IT'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SHOW "Huh what if I let my hate control me?" and to show just how easy it is for people to follow the masses that, has a measurable amount of power, has money, provides shelter and food, to those who are otherwise with out it.
Personally I think it should not be show, but thats exactly why it should be, to change the minds whom are WILLING TO CHANGE. I may not like it but damn the man has the right to show it. I would be willing to change my stance if he was just going "Death to people who don't believe what I do!"
@ Fu**ed Up
MErcanaries didn't have Kin Jong Ill, it had his son, and Kim was killed after he made an attempt to reconcile with South Korea, his son didn't like the idea killed him and sold nukes to terrorist groups. It show Kim Sr. in a positive light while his son in a negative light.
I never said we where at war with North Korea. I focused on your point about terrorists, thats all.
As for saying "how did they portray the middle east before in previous seasons?"
If you have to ask, it would seem you did not even watch the show, so you are just making stuff up as well. And if you know about anything that put all middle eastern people in a bad light, please tell me. I must of missed it, I have only watched every season of 24, and most of them twice.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to say anything. Just go back to your dream land, reality does not suit you very well.
My apologies. Still, unless the game specifically said "what will happen soon" I don't see how it's a threat.
Also, Ebonheart did kinda clear it up.
Gummy: Simple internet tough guy, or does he take Adam Savage's saying I reject your reality and substitute my own just a bit too far?
Discuss.
"Bilal casts himself as a suicide-bomber in the game (left). After learning of the real-life death of his brother in the war, he is recruited by Al Qaeda to join the hunt for Bush. "
Thats all.
You do comprehend the fact that most war themed games are made of a strong mix of fiction and fact right? You aren't that ignorant are you? Or do you think every facet of every piece of each Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games actually happened?
A "what if" scenario at best.
Einstein once said, "Nationalism is an infantile disease, it is the measles of mankind."
Face value child. Remember in BF2 you can play as "Insurgents" doesn't mean you are one. And he took an Al-Qeuda recruiting tool, cut his picture on the main character, and rewrote a back story. He's trying to, if even over simplified way to show cause and effect.
Simply watch Syriana, pay VERY close attention to the oil workers in the movie. Hell if want read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriana
But my point is not about that. My point is validating the assassination of foreign leaders. Kim Jong Ill just seems like the next likely target due to the bad blood between the US and North Korea and the reports of N. Korea of having nuclear weapons. Who knows China might be the next, although most unlikely due to the number of factors that Corporations use in China. The people in power do not want to see that war happen.
If we can validate the assassination of a foreign leader then why cant other people validate the assassination of our leader?
There is no way the public would by into the idea Just because he is a foreigner. Something on this scale usually would need political, social, and economical motives on top of that.
@gummy
I have watched the show. I am a heavy critic on media in analyzing the communicative nature of entertainment. The mass media is a reflection into our society, our culture, or beliefs, values and ideologies.
24 for has done a decent job at portraying more to terrorism than race (maybe be to prevent a backlash). The producers are smart enough to stop one side portrayals. They have been careful to skirt around the issue and try to stay away from using Muslims and instead use the Russians, Mexicans, and business men.
In season 2 it was Muslims and Americans, in season 4 were Muslims from turkey, oh and the outcry that occured when people heard that season 6 main villian was going to be Muslim but ended up codifying it by using context.
But well the best example is in season 4 that called for the disclaimer to be shown. But then ended up codifying it in the end once again.
But then 24 is only one example in millions of others. Look at Back the future and how the Arab terrorist after Doc was shown as bumbling idiot that couldnt get the gun to fire. Or in True Lies where the main villain ends up riding a rocket. These are all examples being codified
What Bilal is showing is the reality of the current situation, not that he is threatening to kill Bush. He is trying to promote discussion, and he absolutely has the right to create this exhibit and see if someone will put it up. Mind you he also has to deal with the consequences of his actions and the fact is he didn't before; he definitely has an FBI file now.
Unless Bilal deliberately called for Bush's assassination then all of this is one great big, what might have happened. Your school example is faulty as well, how many people has fantasized about killing a particularly irritating Boss or Teacher? What you're suggesting is that people should be jailed for their thoughts rather than their actions, and I definitely find that un-American.
In this day and age, everything that is happening all over the word. Its just not right to uphold a mod like this put it on display and call it art. It's about a suicide-bomber recruited by Al Qaeda to join the hunt for Bush. Its wrong, any way you look at it. Now can this person make the mod?, yes. Its free speech, I'm not saying he has no right to make it, he can. But it should not be displayed like the way it was going to, because its about killing our own president. Thats my view on it.
In each and every case, the right wing opinion is as controversial as the ones expressed by Bilal in his exhibit yet how many lefties will stand up and defend them in the name of "fostering dialogue?" Show of hands?
Thought so. It all depends on whose ox is gored, doesn't it?
For the record, I believe Bilal's exhibit should go on. I believe in dialogue, I believe all opinions should be heard -- especially the ones I vehemently disagree with. I also believe in intellectual honesty. I wonder how many of my liberal compatriots share that belief?
I really, really hope you didn't just defend Ann Coulter.
At least it wasn't Hannady
Game. Set. Match.
Of course. Is her right to express her opinion less worthy of defense than Bilal's? The fact that you would ask that only points out there to you, there are some opinions not worthy of protecting. That's some set of principles.
No one's asking you to agree with her or to not use your right to speak to express your opinion about her opinion. I'm asking whether you truly believe in a free exchange of ideas which necessitates defending speech you absolutely abhor. It's easy to defend the rights of people you agree with.
You got us there. But at times, you have to wonder why people who just use there ability to spread hate and fear purposly. I agree with their right to say things but at times you have to step back and go "Ok thats enough sit down and shut up"
"They are absolutely right that the university doesn’t have to show this exhibit, or any exhibit. However, they were willing to do so until these narrow minded people got involved.
Therefore its not a case of the Universities right to show or not show an exhibit of any subject, they HAD CHOSEN to show it. Its now become censorship and thats shocking in such a setting."
It is their choice to show or not show it. How is it censorship if the same people that decided to show it, have now decided to not show it???
You are being ridiculous...
Those people that got vocal didn't censor it, the university did, as is its right...it was worried about its money flow and they protected the university as they were supposed to...
By you logic: If I want to host a poetry reading in my house but then say I don't want you to use my house go to the house next door, HOW THE HELL IS THAT CENSORSHIP???? If its my house I have the right to do what I want. The next thing you are gonna tell me is that unless that reading is being held at every house, all those house owners are censoring that poetry... That is your logic here and it isn't very logical...
I have discussions on a regular basis with a diehard republican who also happens to be a creationist and bible-literalist. He's entitled to his view of things. I'm not however going to defend hatemongering by someone like Ann Coulter. I DO however defend the right to throw her own tactics against her, despite her then crying persecution over it while taking no form of personal responsibility. And it goes to both sides of the political spectrum.
Then again, you did defend her while crying about everything democrats do as wrong, so I have a pretty good idea where you stand on things.
Honestly I think your right, what tend to happen is people are all for free speach when it's the side they support, but if it's someone they disagree with then all that goes out the window.
I remember something on of my proffesors said "your either for free speach, or your not".
Yeah, THAT doesn't look suspicious...
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=671084&category=&BCCo...
This isn't a free speech issue, this is an issue of a college to decide who they invite or un-invite...
IF your point is that colleges should give a platform to everyone who wants to speak at them then what would say if the KKK or neo-nazi requested to speak at some college, should they be allowed to speak even though the college doesn't want them to???
What if a college invites someone without knowing that the person they invited represents those groups? Do they HAVE to host them dispite the college not wanting to???(after they find out that is)
Colleges are private property and everyone has the right to choose who they allow on their property... that is their right and as far as I can see that is the only issue here...
oh by the way in case you are wondering, I think Wafaa Bilal has every right to show his mod in any place that he is welcomed by the owners of said place... or on public property... and the government or any other group has no right to shut him up... but as I keep saying that isn't the issue here...
"Your still looking solely at face value, you can not look at things like that. Ok example Face value of BF2 Insurgent army.
I get stuck playing as them a lot, and just becuase I play as them doesn’t mean I’m in support of terrists"
I never said you where, I never said the guy who made the mod was one either. I agree with what david said. But I see this game as a load of crap, really I do. If the guy went out did research got pictures got claims or what ever he needed. And put something together to get a point across. That's great, I'm all for that. But like I said before, I see this game as a load of crap. It's just a way to act out a killing of a president. Thats how I see it, I could be wrong, but thats what the game says when you read it. Its about killing Bush. Now I must go. Good by.
Well, that does tell me something, before any of us truly say anything we gotta see the game, and now that's unlikely to happen
Doors not up to code?! That's total bs, thats definatly a cloak and dagger way to shut down the exibit.
@Shady8x
No the University already knew what the exibit was and FULLY AGREED, it was only after they agreed to and annouced it that they shut it down.
Now if a member of the KKK or Black Panthers, said "let me speak to them about my groupd and why we hate [insert group/race/political affliation] and why they need to leave" and the University said no before they agreed thats one thing. This is not that case, they agreed after full disclosure.
"Hatemongering?" Isn't that exactly the accusation that the protestors are tthrowing at Bilal? That his speech falls outside the acceptable realm of discourse and therefore should be shut down? Where exactly is the line between controversial speech and "hatemongering?" And why are you the one who gets to draw it?
I don't mean to defend Ann Coulter specifically -- I find her obnoxious, annoying and shockingly ill-informed for someone who's often called on as a commentator on world events, but just consider that your emotional reaction to her just might equal those who protest Bilal -- or the Dixie Chicks for that matter (Whose fans told them, I believe, “Ok thats enough sit down and shut up”)
I don't believe I ever said that everything the Democrats do is wrong. Please try not to stereotype me on the basis of one forum post. I may be a Republican, I may be a liberal disgusted at the intellectual dishonesty of my fellow liberals a la Christopher Hitchens. It doesn't make the question moot. The cases I cited were clearly analagous to the one that has you guys so upset save that the political affiliations of the protestor and protestees were switched. In such cases, what is your reaction (not you as an individual, but much of the left side of the aisle)? How you feel about such cases is a pretty good inidcator of whether you're actually committed to principles like Free Speech or just mouthing them as a partisan bludgeon.
oops I was going to write a response to what you said but than I wrote one aimed at someone else and forgot to remove your name...
sorry, I actually agree with most of what you said...
"should they be allowed to speak even though the college doesn’t want them to??? What if a college invites someone without knowing that the person they invited represents those groups? Do they HAVE to host them dispite the college not wanting to???(after they find out that is)"
What if the college knows WHO they are inviting and WHAT his art show will be about and EXACTLY what it will contain? Are they at least guilty of being spineless if they then, knowing full well the answer to those questions, cancel his show after it starts because some (minority yet vocal) students get all hissy and start temper-tantruming to alumni and the police?
Are these same people not equally guilty of attempted censorship when they then follow the art show to it's new location, and AGAIN call the authorities in order to force it's closure?
Once again face value, He DID NOT CREATE THE GAME. HE instead took the game cut, copy and pasted, to show "what if..." and "why this..." It's just that simple. Every time I see some of your posts I see that No matter what I and others show you, that your mind has closed.
Now I base that off of the fact you said "I never said you were" as I was taking a real world comparrison of what he does and compared it to another game with similear properties. And actully you did say that what they guy was showing was a threat, I'm sure someone will gladly qoute your prevoise entry if you would like.
"No the University already knew what the exibit was and FULLY AGREED, it was only after they agreed to and annouced it that they shut it down."
So what if they changed their mind? They are a business and they were worried about having to fire a lot of teachers and shutting down a bunch of classes just to host an event that they probably did review to closely beforehand...
It is their property and they have the right to invite or un-invite people as much as they want...
@Ebonheart
"Now if a member of the KKK or Black Panthers, said “let me speak to them about my groupd and why we hate [insert group/race/political affliation] and why they need to leave” and the University said no before they agreed thats one thing. This is not that case, they agreed after full disclosure."
What if they didn't know that a speaker was affiliated with that group before inviting him... and then there was protests and they reviewed the material to be presented more closely and decided to cancel... Is that also censorship cause that seems darn close to what happened here...
I am against censorship, but this isn't a censorship issue this is rights of property owners issue...