Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared Threatening

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the wait-until-they-find-out-about-reavers dept.

Censorship 566

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?"

cancel ×

566 comments

Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (0, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589046)

That whole university system is almost as crazy politically-correct as Berkley. How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid? How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism? How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)? You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals pushing each other out of the way to tell you how anti-corporation they are--and then tweeting about it on their band-new Macs and iPads (with absolutely no sense of irony).

Christ, I think Madison was the *birthplace* of the smelly drum circle.

If I offended any Wisconsin alum with this post, my apologies. If traumatized, please have a good cry and seek out your nearest grief counselor for immediate treatment. Remember what they told you at university orientation: Not being offended is a *right*, not a privilege!

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (2, Funny)

Kev Vance (833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589104)

Eric Cartman? Is that you?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (1, Insightful)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589106)

Can't tell if stupid or just trolling.

Turning every possible argument (especially one that's visibly just about some over-zealous power-hungry mall cop types), into some 'fucking bleeding heart liberals' or 'fucking heartless republicans' debate, is doing nothing to help your country, or its people.

Remember, folks: divide and conquer.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589512)

Fuck that. It's scorched earth policy now. Just ask the unemployed that span the political spectrum.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (-1, Flamebait)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589108)

Were you born as a condescending asshole or did you need training to reach your level of idiocy?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (5, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589322)

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.

How about flashing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589410)

If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?

What about blackmail? No hurting there either.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589112)

Fuck Madison: They aren't the entire UW system though. I was on the Student Senate @ UW-Milwaukee when the whole Tyson union thing went down, and we pretty openly mocked UW Madison for getting involved.

If I was at Stout, I'd be hanging up the fascist posters all over campus.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589392)

Haha, you couldn't get into Madison. Milwaukee: the fallback school for retards and losers

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589126)

Please return to RedState and stop shitting up Slashdot with your awful posts.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (-1, Troll)

Stele (9443) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589132)

UW Stout != UW Madison

You sound pretty bitter. Did one of your professors try to touch you in your naughty place?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589136)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blue%27s+law

Turn off Fox News. (-1, Flamebait)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589162)

Seriously, this reads like a Fox News article, or a Rush Limbaugh speech.

Can I have some of what the mods are smoking? (-1, Offtopic)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589166)

That drivel got modded "insightful"? Guys, the proper order of things is to moderate, THEN light up the joint!

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589206)

"How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid? How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism? How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"

Never?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (1, Offtopic)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589212)

This tirade suggest a trauma.

Need a hug?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589234)

How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid?

I think it was more because some emo pussies got killed or seriously injured in a stunningly immature and irresponsible hazing ritual, after which rich spoiled brats ran shrieking to their daddies to protect them from the consequences of their inexcusable behavior.

Maybe that part doesn't compute for you because you are just another spoiled brat with a big fat mouth.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (0)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589260)

I fucking hate people that think they have a right not to be offended. If its that big of a deal that you can't handle it in your pea brain and must make a fuss, don't pay attention asshole.

Blame it on Liberals and Communists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589344)

You said;

How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business...

and;

You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals...

So if it weren't for Liberals:
- 9/11 wouldn't have happened,
- there would be no health care crisis,
- there would be no recession,
- America would be a Utopia,
- every student would be carrying a bible and a handgun to school instead of a book on evolutionary biology,

because, according to people like you, Conservatism and the Republican Party are the only good things America has. Correct?

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (5, Insightful)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589630)

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.

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589662)

anti liberal does not mean pro conservative. but most liberals and conservatives see it or spin it that way. 'if you are not with us you are against us' is the typical attitude on either side.

there are people who oppose both and seek a third option, their numbers are swelling over the last decade.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589360)

There's all types at Universities. I would characterize them as "Moderate" overall. Frequently far-right people think anything that isn't themselves are liberal.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (2, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589456)


How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism?

I don't know. Do you? I mean, do you actually have any evidence that anyone actually tried to do what you've just accused some random, faceless group of actually perpetrating, or are you just rambling incoherently?


How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)? You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals pushing each other out of the way to tell you how anti-corporation they are--and then tweeting about it on their band-new Macs and iPads (with absolutely no sense of irony).

I am not an american citizen, nor I ever set foot near it, but from all the Hollywood movies I've been exposed to and from all the political posturing that some US citizens are responsible for in online forums such as this one, I assumed that the US of A was supposed to be a constitutional republic whose citizens enjoyed a set of rights as encoded in the United States Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] . Among this set of rights, there was supposed to be this right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition [wikipedia.org] . If this is supposed to be true then it would mean that it was everyone's business, including "conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals", to take stances, "liberal" or not, on any issue anyone sees fit, which includes wars and union organizing.

But, somehow, it appears that you disagree with this, that you somehow believe that a specific group of people which are a part of your society should be barred from exercising these rights which supposedly people like you hold as fundamental for your very own society.

So, how do you explain your stance on this issue?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589628)

We can explain it simply by saying we are all not of one mind,. We disagree on interpretations and meanings. That doesnt mean we dont TRY our best to make sure our Founding Father's vision remains true. The constant complaining and arguing and disagreeing is a GOOD thing, because at least we are talking. You are never going to make a perfect government, but we do the best we can. I think its working ok so far.

FSZ's (4, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589100)

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".

Re:FSZ's (0)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589246)

Sure he can if doesn't mind getting shot for thought crimes.

Re:FSZ's (2, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589514)

I started writing this post, and I thought you made a joke about the FSZ... and I thought I'd just write something witty (which will then get modded down for bad humor). Then I decided to quickly doublecheck, and this Free Speech Zone is actually a real thing. Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone [wikipedia.org]

Then I read a bit more on wikipedia, and I found out that in the US, you're not always allowed to protest, except in your FSZ... which is practically hidden from public view.

Re:FSZ's (1)

No, I am Spratacus! (2281684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589642)

Must avoid those MURDER-DEATH-KILL situations..

Re:FSZ's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589646)

How far did your "free speech" get you during the Mccarthy era?

Quotes don't kill people (0, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589118)

Chuck Norris does.

Re:Quotes don't kill people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589202)

and evidently Nathan Fillion

Re:Quotes don't kill people (3, Funny)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589236)

Chuck Norris sucks cock for cab fare and then walks home.

I'm SORRY! IM SORRY!

You may mod me down! BUT I HATE CHUCK NORRIS JOKES!

A blank page? (-1, Offtopic)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589122)

WTF!? With nothing but minimalistic protections such as adblock and noscript I get nothing but I blank page trying to view the linked site. Seriously, what are they trying to pull here?

Re:A blank page? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589232)

WTF!? With nothing but minimalistic protections such as adblock and noscript I get nothing but I blank page trying to view the linked site. Seriously, what are they trying to pull here?

They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth by preventing the display of the ads that pay for the site?

You should probably get used to seeing it, websites are doing it more and more often. I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.

Re:A blank page? (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589290)

It tries! :P

Re:A blank page? (1, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589308)

Well, that's their problem. They could just insert static ads at their pages, but no, they want tracking devices too.

Anyway, I don't need their site, what is evidenced by me not having RTFA and not suffering any inconvenience.

Exactly! (0)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589398)

I have no problems whatsoever viewing ads! Hell, some of them may even inform me of things I don't know exist. Still, I'd much rather see blank pages then have to worry about cross site attacks.

Re:A blank page? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589528)

I'm running Ghostery to block tracking and could access the site without problem.

Re:A blank page? (0)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589348)

Exactly!

TFA is about the ultimate ad block: the police came and removed the poster!

From the article... (5, Funny)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589130)

"...school police chief Lisa A. Walter..." It's the L.A.W.

Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror! (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589140)

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.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589196)

If it's on a college campus it's a pretty good bet that they're actual commissioned police officers.

Also, assholes like you are a large part of why security officers end up bitter and pedantic.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589302)

This lady was out of line, commissioned officer or not. There is so little actual threat, they have to create threats.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589350)

If it's on a college campus it's a pretty good bet that they're actual commissioned police officers.

Also, assholes like you are a large part of why security officers end up bitter and pedantic.

Yeh, I can't speak for all campuses but mine had real cops -- graduated from police academy, carried guns, could arrest you, etc. They weren't part of a Newark precinct number but were apparently recognized cops in every other way and were recognized as having full arrest authority by the State of NJ.

Though I recall someone saying their school had rent-a-cops that could just "write you up." So I guess it varies.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589446)

Replying to an AC, but hey, I have a little time to burn.

Thanks for the clarification of the likely employment status of the officer. I'm not sure if you're supposed to be somehow protecting other non-police force security officers somehow by making the distinction, or dragging down the already sullied name of "police officer" by including this barely literate individual within that group. Either way, I don't think my assessment of their demeanour was unfair; They fail at basic English comprehension. I'm surprised s/he was capable of filling in the application form.

Regarding your second point, ad hominim and non sequitur; I am not an asshole, I have never met any campus security and therefore would not generalise about them (having referred to only the one in question in my post), and I don't see a cause / effect relationship between my opinion of the officer's obvious lack of basic language skills as being a cause for their bitterness.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589592)

Regardless, this officer is out of line. Only a fucking nimrod would think that this is a threat. Its akin to pulling a fire alarm because a mosquito buzzed by someone's head.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589240)

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."

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589288)

(who happens to be a woman)

Why the fuck does that matter to the conversation?

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

Ruzty (46204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589462)

I'm not sure about how you were raised. But, I was taught to be kind, respectful and accommodating to women far above and beyond the courtesies you would extend to a man. This mode of operation when interacting with females means they get their side of an issue weighted more heavily than the man on the other side. It's not always fair, but it should be taken into account when trying to understand the situation. And, in my opinion, that is why the distinction was mentioned.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (3, Informative)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589652)

Because women are different than men? This is proven physiologically both in the brain and in the body. Women routinely get treated better in court cases, this is a proven fact. Women have more child rights, women have lower requirements for physically demanding jobs, etc. Only an idealistic idiot thinks otherwise.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589394)

Sounds like all the school administration need a kindergarten refresh then.
I can see the signs posted all over campus now...

"School's closed for the season while we send our faculty back to kindergarten folks!"

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (3, Interesting)

tires don exits (2460114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589242)

As fun as it is to make fun of the rent-a-cop overstepping his bounds (which he did), the summary is a bit misleading. The quote is more about honor than anti-violence. Mal was just saying that he won't kill somebody in their sleep and the only way he will kill is if his opponent has a fair chance. Mal is in no way against violence (although he doesn't like trouble, which violence usually brings. So he tries to avoid combat if he can). The quote was in no way about "not killing people", neither in nor out of context.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589294)

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

I've never seen Firefly (although I've heard good things, mean to check it out) so all I have to go on is the quoted wording. In and of itself, it is clearly not a threat of any kind based upon even the most cursory of examinations. When taking into account the quoted character's personality it may take on new meaning, but that isn't clear from the poster.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589492)

You can't go as far as "only", given this sequence:

The Operative: I want to resolve this like civilized men. I'm not threatening you. I'm unarmed.
Mal: Good. [pulls gun and shoots Operative in the chest, grabs Inara and gets ready to leave]

 

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (2, Interesting)

nharmon (97591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589270)

It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:

I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.

I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589390)

What makes you think that the professor had that poster because he liked that quote in particular. Could it perhaps be that he just liked Firefly?

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (5, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589396)

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.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (1)

More Trouble (211162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589422)

Maybe he thinks it's about a fictional character in a fictional universe? He's a theater professor. He likes the stories. He hung up a TV and/or movie poster. Any movie poster for any movie involving, e.g., guns, is going to be "threatening" by the criteria used in this case.

Why can't people be reasonable? (5, Insightful)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589428)

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. :-(

Nope. Poster is threatening. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589656)

If someone sees that poster, they might want to watch Firefly. You can't possibly compare killing someone to that horror.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (2)

eepok (545733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589664)

She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.

TAT (3, Funny)

georgenh16 (1531259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589144)

You know what this means - the next time he wears a bonnet on campus, he'll be threatened by the "Threat Assessment Team".


"I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you."

Posters are unsafe (4, Funny)

not_surt (1293182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589156)

I got a paper cut from one. I nearly died.

Work too (4, Interesting)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589184)

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]

Re:Work too (0)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589332)

Fucking pussies. I am not sure why people have to be so lame about things that literally don't even matter.

Not killing people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589188)

"Wasn't that a quote about not killing people?"
I think that quote was not shooting people in the back.

Replacement Poster (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589218)

Heh, Prof. Miller should replace the poster with something from Nathan Fillion's work in Almost Porn.

Although the situation pretty much follows the quote dead-on. I mean, the girl had arms, I guess.

Funniest part was watching Fillion act like he doesn't know how to act. OK, maybe not the funniest.

If this is the reaction to a poster... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589258)

Imagine what their reaction would be if someone taught the complexities of, say, Richard III or Romeo and Juliet or The Crucible or, shock of shocks, DEATH of a Salesman! Whoever did that on campus would have their days numbered. So, who was this guy again? A ...theater ...professor? Uh oh...

It's just a kill poster (0)

rjejr (921275) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589292)

I was hopeing there was some steak on these bones, but the articles are incomprehensible and all nonsense. The guy hung up a poster with the word kill on it, the school has an anti-kill word poster rule, so they took it down. Bor-ring. I was hopeing the guy was at least making a stand against Obama's killing of Al Awlaki with a predator drone and missiles, but the story is from 3 weeks ago. If they were doing a school "Firefly" play that would have been better yet. I'm guessing this is also one of those schools that has strict rules against PDA's and you have to get a girls written permission to ask her out on a date.

Self-defense is disturbing for feminists (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589298)

...this kind of stuff presses into their ego in a way that is disempowering.

For me, watching the bitch get it is like watching the bad die at the end of a movie.

Interesting that they're both zealots (2)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589300)

On principle I side with the forces of Post Whatever You Damn Please On Your Office Door, but isn't there a certain amount of hilarity in how far removed from reality both of these people are in how they approached this issue?

The public safety officer is hewing to the absolute letter of the law with no interest in exercising any kind of critical thinking or good judgment, and the prof leaps directly to 'OMG I AM A VICTIM YOU ARE TRAMPLING MY RIGHTS' as if they'd shut down a newspaper or burned books rather than removing a piece of Hollywood memorabilia from an office door.

It seems to me that a dry, P. J. O'Rourke or Jon Stewart style response might have been better suited to pointing out the absurdity of the situation, instead of the 'I am being victimized by the man' clarion call, but as other posters have said, this is Madison.

Lets see if I understand this. (2, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589304)

I read the original exchange [http://thefire.org/article/13592.html], as well as the linked article. From that I get the following:

1. The Campus Police saw a poster on a bulletin board near and removed it due the the reference to killing.
2. They notified Professor Miller that he or someone had posted it and they removed it due to the reference. They asked him to contact them with questions
3. He exploded at them about first amendment rights and called them fascists.
4. They asked to sit down with them and go over the problem and informed him of campus requirements. They also let him know that if he violated campus requirements there may be penalties.
5. He called them "card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons" and put up a poster again calling them fascists.
6. The CP contacted his boss who asked him to meet with him ASAP.
7. He went crying to the media about how his rights are being trampled by fascists.

It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided. While the Campus Police may have gone too far enforcing campus rules, the prof went way out in the deep end without any concern for sanity.

Nothing the CP did was a terrible fascist crime, if Professor Miller had bothered to think before screaming, this would have been a non-issue.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589406)

everything about your post offends me. the cops and the administration have a fascist mentality. authoritarianism is a very common brain disease and you seem to be infected yourself. of course what CP did was a crime. we don't need cops going around ripping down words they can even read correctly. maybe the cops should think before censoring people? the last thing we need is for people not NOT scream when idiocy like this occurs.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589426)

Unconstitutional restrictions. Being a public university means that content based restrictions unless containing a direct threat or obscenity are unconstitutional.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589644)

Did you read the link provided?
It was hung outside his office and not in his office. It did talk about killing people and had nothing to show that the professor hung it up and had nothing to do with his class that.
When he did respond he did so by name calling and acting like a jerk.
He could have just replied. "I hung it up. It is just a movie poster and not a threat to anyone can I have it back?"

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589482)

The guy's an ass, the rentacop is an ass, and the administration are asses. Looks like they are all getting the hell they deserve. Captcha "miseries"

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589494)

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.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589546)

lol. i imagine if you tried to "rough him up badly" he'd beat the living snot out of you. you're on /. for fuck's sake, he'd bounce your nerdy head off the concrete without breaking a sweat.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589640)

As most people don't understand, diplomacy is the first action you should take before starting a shitfest. Always. Kill your opponents with kindness.

Now everyone's butthurt - even those not directly involved - and it's just a big wank-fest/waste of time. It's like celebrity gossip for "intellectuals".

Just a Reminder about Rights (4, Interesting)

Dareth (47614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589508)

You have as many rights in these United States of America as you can afford to hire lawyers to defend.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589530)

I agree.

We also have the right to assembly, but you still need a permit from the city you plan to protest in. He's an employee of the university, the university has rules with regards to posting things. If he were at home, on his own property, he could post whatever he wanted and be within his legal rights.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589556)

Nothing the CP did was a fascist crime?

First of all, the CP (Chief of Police, not Child Pornographer) acted on something that she did not understand in the slightest. A thoughtful person seeks to understand what they are acting against before acting. A thoughtless person believes what they presume and acts on it.

But you know, I can see where a chief of police might find the poster threatening. After all, the quote from a movie (a theatrical expression on the door of a theatrical professor?) stipulates the conditions under which the reader might be killed.

Is the CP armed? Yes.
Is the CP facing him? Yes, at the time just prior to ripping down the poster.
Is the CP awake? Debatable.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589566)

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.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (4, Funny)

BigT (70780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589604)

You want rationality from a theater professor? But where's the drama in that?

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589608)

Funny that someone who would rant about his first amendment rights would have a problem with the NRA.
 
An odd society that we live in. I once read about some so-called intellectual who was proud to be a member of the ACLU and (gasp!) the NRA, like it was some sort of paradox. You would think that people who hold the first amendment as some right to be held above all other rights as a person and it's use in the bill of rights as sacred wouldn't have an issue with a group that supports second amendment rights.
 
We've really gone off the deep end as a society. We fancy ourselves as enlighted fellows but the more I see of it the more I think nothing could be further from the truth.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (1)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589624)

Agreed. Reading the email exchange, I'd say Prof. Miller is quite the drama queen. (I'm sorry, I had to.)

It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided.

Serious face this time: I suspect he's enjoying himself.

Re:Lets see if I understand this. (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589666)

Tsk tsk. They drew first. Now it's just down to who has more chambers in their gun.

Pity the fool (1)

GarryFre (886347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589328)

I pity the fool that says they are threatened by movie quotes. Either that or the have so much time on their hands that they have to make a stink just for something to do. Sure might not be the best thing to let your kids see but they probably have seen worse on Saturday morning TV.

Re:Pity the fool (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589618)

Funny but would you say that if they where showing Birth of a Nation? What if this poster was hung outside the class room. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/ewige.jpg [calvin.edu]

Honestly they didn't know it was from a movie and these days people fear anything in schools that imply violence that I am not shocked at all. You would be surpassed what people are scared of.

Of course (5, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589370)

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.

Man, I told him... (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589460)

He should have put up the poster with "I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

Just in case you didn't RTFA... (5, Informative)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589474)

...the second poster [thefire.org] he hung up is better than the first. Much better.

If I kill you, you'll never know (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589486)

Yeah, the quote sounds all manly and tough, but I think it's also pretty stupid. If I am going to kill you, it's because it's important that you be dead. It's not a test of my masculinity, or some kind of honor thing where I'm going to let Fate or our skills with a weapon decide which of us really deserves to be deceased.

If I kill you, I'm going to sneak up on you, and you'll have no idea what's happening until you no longer know that anything is happening. It won't be "honorable", just necessary. If it's not necessary, I won't do it.

The real civility and honor comes BEFORE the killing part, where I try to settle our differences like adult human beings, with language. If you have any honor, we'll settle it then. If we don't find an honorable way to settle it, I won't be looking for an honorable solution, just a solution.

Must be tough finding a job when you're an idiot.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589496)

Fired repeatedly from mainstream fast food restaurants, miss Suzy Q. Munster, head L.A.W. official on campus managed to get both eyes to focus today and horror of horrors actually read a few lines, misunderstanding them and yanked the poster down in frustration. Muttering under her breath as she slithered, leaving a slime trail a yard wide, back to her cess pool to do something about this. When confronted, she stammered and hummed and hawed, falling back on her position of power (head buried in the sand), she detailed the misunderstanding she had with full volume, repeating it over and over as if it were a mantra.
Now the laughing stock of the entire nation, she's working on her memoirs. If only she had anything memorable to write about.

ALL COPIES OF GUERNICA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589498)

MUST BE REMOVED. This heinous depiction of killing and death might be upsetting to some of the old ladies in the room and must be removed IMMEDIATELY.

If in doubt (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589576)

UW Stout is basically a joke in the UW system with the unofficial motto of "If in doubt go to Stout". It is basically a party school filled with lily white people from the twin cities suburbs. So to me its not a surprise that the campus security there would take down the poster and make a big issue about it, especially if there weren't any parties on campus that night that needed breaking up since they would have plenty of time.

Considering our crazy litigious society . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589590)

It's hard for me to blame the security people.

If an incident ever occured on the campus, you can bet their would be lawsuits. And it is possible that if posters like that are allowed, it might be considered irresponsible on the part of the institution.

Idea for next poster (1)

ArrowBay (2326316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589602)

His next poster should be a quote from Ghandi: "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

The Star-Spangled Banner... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589622)

Excerpted from a weekly legal newsletter on the matter...

The Star-Spangled Banner comes to mind. We sing it at athletic events in the presence of college students and young children. Doesn't it refer to "bombs bursting in air?" Don't bombs kill people?

More ominously, might this stanza inspire violence by unstable individuals, especially against international students from Great Britain:

  Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
  No refuge could save the hireling and slave
  From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

from collegepubs.com/the_pavela_report

If I may suggest a replacement quote (1)

Dannon (142147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589638)

You can't stop the signal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...