Firefly is a threat of violence

[Raistlin]

On September 12, 2011, Professor Miller posted on his office door an image of Nathan Fillion in Joss Whedon's sci-fi series Firefly and a line from an episode: "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." On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter notified Miller that she had removed the poster because it "refer[s] to killing." After Miller replied, "respect my first amendment rights," Walter wrote that "the poster can be interpreted as a threat." Walter also threatened Miller with criminal charges: "If you choose to repost the article or something similar to it, it will be removed and you could face charges of disorderly conduct."

In response to Walter's censorship, Miller placed a new poster on his office door on the 16th. The poster read "Warning: Fascism" and mocked, "Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets."

Astoundingly, Walter escalated the absurdity. On September 20, she wrote that this poster, too, had been censored because it "depicts violence and mentions violence and death" and was expected to "be constituted as a threat."

what

[Madame Adequate]

To be fair Mal did solve a lot of problems in Firefly by being violent

[Peegee]

this is asinine. We're talking about a private educational institution (I assume this person is a professor of some sort that relates to something other than communications or sociology) - if the private company doesn't want the poster to appear, they merely have to say so.

[Shlup]

To be fair Mal did solve a lot of problems in Firefly by being violent

To be fair, slap yourself.

[Raistlin]

this is asinine. We're talking about a private educational institution (I assume this person is a professor of some sort that relates to something other than communications or sociology) - if the private company doesn't want the poster to appear, they merely have to say so.

Everything you just said is obliviously wrong.

1) It's a public school.
2) Even if it was private, that does not shield the school administration from justified public criticism for being retarded.

[Peegee]

this is asinine. We're talking about a private educational institution (I assume this person is a professor of some sort that relates to something other than communications or sociology) - if the private company doesn't want the poster to appear, they merely have to say so.

Everything you just said is obliviously wrong.

1) It's a public school.
2) Even if it was private, that does not shield the school administration from justified public criticism for being retarded.

I really wish I were trolling but I re-read it and still don't see how I was supposed to discern it was a public school. *clicks link anyway* Oh it's a state university. WHATEVER it's /gc/ lalala

seriously though, I didn't know state universities were public places.

the second point is irrelevant to mine.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

this is asinine. We're talking about a private educational institution (I assume this person is a professor of some sort that relates to something other than communications or sociology) - if the private company doesn't want the poster to appear, they merely have to say so.

Everything you just said is obliviously wrong.

1) It's a public school.
2) Even if it was private, that does not shield the school administration from justified public criticism for being retarded.

You're right, and I for one like the exposure of their ludicrous standards.

If they WERE private it's my understanding that they could continue to hold regulations like that in place. (Am I right?) Public exposure would just allow potential students and faculty to avoid the institution on the grounds that they're all morons.

[Peegee]

this is asinine. We're talking about a private educational institution (I assume this person is a professor of some sort that relates to something other than communications or sociology) - if the private company doesn't want the poster to appear, they merely have to say so.

Everything you just said is obliviously wrong.

1) It's a public school.
2) Even if it was private, that does not shield the school administration from justified public criticism for being retarded.

You're right, and I for one like the exposure of their ludicrous standards.

If they WERE private it's my understanding that they could continue to hold regulations like that in place. (Am I right?) Public exposure would just allow potential students and faculty to avoid the institution on the grounds that they're all morons.

Pretty much this. I still wish they weren't a public school

[NorthernChaosGod]

That's smurfing retarded. Mal is the best man ever.

[Laddy]

They're not going to bring back Firefly, are they?

[Old Manus]

He could have made a better comeback than FASCISM THE CATCH-ALL WORD FOR INJUSTICE

(SPOILER)How about socialism

[Araciel]

They're not going to bring back Firefly, are they?

If enough people sign enough petitions and donate enough money....

No.

[Raistlin]

So the UW-Stout administration has been asked about this patently ridiculous decision, and a couple of days ago its spokesperson came out with this brilliant retort, which has convinced me that the original poster was too dangerous to allow college students to ever see:

"The word 'kill' is in there," UW-Stout spokesman Doug Mell said. "There's no question about that."

It wouldn't be so sad if that was not the only apparent defense. And then he tried to defend the removal of the second poster:

Mell says that "[t]he second poster was taken down because obviously it depicts violence."

Apparently all action movie posters are SERIOUS THREATS that must be stopped.

As to why the university continues to refuse to protect an obvious First Amendment right:

Mell explains that "[o]ur action has to be viewed in the context of post-Virginia Tech and post-Northern Illinois."

Apparently Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois is the college equivalent of "9/11," used to justify any abject stupidity. Anyway, here's a FIRE blog entry with a bunch of links to online reactions to this story, for those interested.

[Jiro]

So basically one guy was like "oh man I love firefly" and this police chick was like "dude I don't know what firefly is because I'm an idiot so you're in big trout now" and then the guy was like "smurf you nerds rule" and nothing makes sense.

[Old Manus]

http://i.imgur.com/hCIrf.jpg