The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Long, Belabored Sigh

I thought we were done with this crap. But now, much like their international overlords, some Campus-based believers have gotten together to call for the legal suppression of speech they find offensive.

Way to go, guys. Aside from not knowing the difference between libel and slander, you’ve managed to co-opt the very same rhetoric that the PC Crusaders have been using for years. Congratulations, you’ve now removed any illusions anyone might have had that there’s a discernable difference between the threats to liberty presented by the left and right. The relative merits of the incidental fee as a whole (I’m against it) are a different concern, but so long as it exists it cannot be legally, or morally, distributed based on the viewpoint of those in receivership. This is especially true for groups that are 1) publications and 2) have been receiving funding for years.

Either shut up and go home with your grievance filing and your amazingly silly quotations:

“I don’t think free speech should be suppressed, but that doesn’t mean what people say will be right, or inoffensive, or that they shouldn’t be ostracized for it,” Ivezic said.

Or start publishing your own Pro-Jesus rag. You’ve got, what, 96 signatories on your petition? Imagine the sort of student publication you could put out with that many staffers. Hell, the OC has had less than 20 committed members of staff for as long as I can remember (so like, since 2000) and it seems to muddle through just fine. Get over yourselves, get over your indignation, and use your outrage to put more speech out there rather than demand that a publication be shut down because your oh-so-delicate sensibilities were offended.

  1. Margo Cohn says:

    visual that is !

  2. Margo Cohn says:

    You’ve inspired me Joe……I’m going to get a visulal-artist friend on it at once. The imagery of mendacity and fecundity is straight out of Tennessee Williams.

  3. Joe Murray says:

    So who’s gonna publish Margo’s Torah Turd or Abraham slipping it to Isaac??

  4. Joe Murray says:

    Thank You for your reply Timothy….essentially we are in agreement.
    Fair application is all any group can hope for.

  5. Joe Murray says:

    David Irving (the fool of a historian that he is)is currently in the Josefstadt prison in Vienna. His sentence was not suspended and he was given three years. Please check your facts when posting publicly.

    Regarding your revision of my original question: Very well Meghann? How do you feel about such a law? I am truly interested in this question and in assuring that rules (whether regarding fine art , fiction or history ) are applied evenly.
    You Timothy?
    Should we have similar laws to protect all groups from having their history distorted?
    Perhaps most publishers of pre-Columbian American history texts should be jailed (or have their sentences suspended) for their denial of the atrocities committed against Native Americans?

  6. Timothy says:

    His opinions are stupid, he has every right to hold them and should face no legal consequences. The laws against holocaust denial in Europe are a tragedy. No purpose is served by their existence, and in a free nation the even the extollment of ideas most odious has a place. Supporting a man’s right to say what he wishes, virtually without constraint, is very different than agreeing with him. He has every right to deny the holocaust, or even go so far as to say he wishes the Nazi’s would’ve succeeded, or that their banner should be taken up today. That’s speech, he has a right to it. Doesn’t have a right to violate anyone’s person or property, but that sort of goes without saying and the distinction should be obvious.

    What is with you people? You assume that because I’m all right with attacking The One True Church (TM, all rights reserved) I must be some sort of over-sensitive PC ninny who thinks The Great Prophet (US Patent #55176) or the Descendents Of Abraham (Void where prohibited) can’t be criticized? Can you even read?

    You want to be pissed off about some dumb bunch of communists drawing Jesus getting jiggy with Judas, be pissed. Fine, go ahead, send angry letters and post angry things to angry websites… but when you start saying “I’m offended, this should be shut down/defunded/censored” you’re become exactly like the dread liberals you so distain.

    I’ll be the first person to tell you that the world’s religions have made important, largely good, contributions to human progress over the centuries. Many of the world’s best thinkers were religious, many of them were inspired by their beliefs, but that in no way means church organizations are above reproach, or that they shouldn’t be aggressively called-out when they’re flagrantly in the wrong. Or that they shouldn’t be mocked just for the hell of it, like anything else.

    In short, cram it.

  7. Meghann says:

    Shouldn’t the question be “how do you feel about the Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime punishable by incarceration?” ?

    For the record, the historian in question was given a one-year suspended jail sentence.

  8. Joe Murray says:

    A QUESTION FROM A ROBOTRANSUBSTANTIATOR:

    I wonder TIMOTHY, how do you feel about the Austrian Historian who was recently jailed for denying the holocaust ?

  9. Timothy says:

    In the future, please refrain from posting the same text on two different threads. Thank you.

  10. Margo Cohn says:

    One wonders when the open season on Catholicism will end? There are those who will not cease to fill the world with vile images meant to provoke…..of Jesus in Urine (Serrano’s (sp?) Piss Christ), or of the Virgin Mary in Dung. Now we have Jesus with a boner for Judas.
    Perhaps someone should seek an NEA grant or student activity funds to produce The Torah in Turd or Abraham sodomizing Isaac. Perhaps someone might fund a study to investigate sexual abuse by Rabbis and report it daily on the front page of every major american newspaper as often as posssible. It would be instructive to sit back and watch the fireworks.

  11. Timothy says:

    Jumping Jesus Christ on Toast, I’ll just start putting a disclaimer on everything I write so you get it, Zach.

    “I’m aware that not all Catholics are ring-kissing, Pope-licking, robotransubstantiators* and that many may disagree with such-and-such offical Church position, etc.”

    But, look, a Cardinal who was in serious contention for the position of Guy With The Tallest Hat has such little respect for free expression that he called for legal sanctions over a work of fiction, I hardly think it can be surprising that his attitude would filter down in one way or another to the lower levels of the organization. Especially given that every bloody member of the Church is one of his or her own free-will.

    *This is my personal favorite of the words I’ve invented.

  12. alex says:

    hah.. Phil lives in my dorm, she’s the one with the “Stop Abortion Now” sign in her room. My neighbor’s room is the one with the

    ? Her ?
    ? Vagina?
    Her
    ?Choice?
    sign right underneath.

  13. Zachary White says:

    I know this may sound odd coming from me as I am the first one to file the original grievance, but I do agree with you all for the most part. But, first, two objections:

    In response to Timothy, you must realize that not all catholics share in this ridiculous Dan Brown witchhunt which is currently going on. The Da Vinci Code is a novel, a work of fiction, nothing more. I think it is utterly ridiculous that the Church is getting so worked up over it and trying to boycott the soon-to-be-released film. True, many Catholics are very upset about the DaVinci Code for good reason, but there are others who have calmer minds. I am not going to criticize the Church, but in my opinion there are more important matters to be focusing on that a stupid book some art-loving douchebag in a turtleneck wrote. Basically, I think that the people who are trying to destroy the DaVinci Code need to get a life and realize that people can write whatever they want in a free society. Please don’t assume that all Catholics are mindless automatons who follow everything the Church Hierarchy says.

    Secondly, in response to Niedermeyer, the group which is displaying those violent images of genocide/abortion up at the EMU Amphitheater is a private group, and not affiliated with the Newman Center, or any Catholic group as far as I know. Their methods are well-intentioned but flawed, in my opinion, as they do little to create a meaningful dialogue but rather simply put up offensive and disrespectful images for shock value. Still, they don’t represent all Catholics, so don’t generalize.

    As I said, I do agree with you for the most part. The logic of the new grievance seems to be flawed and centered around legal arguments that really can’t be supported. I am in a difficult position because I started this whole deal and the people who signed the new Grievance (I did NOT sign it) are all my friends and I want to support them, yet I disagree with the basic premise of their grievance. Also, since this all began and I have had more time to think it over, my views since filing the grievance have changed a bit. I dislike the Insurgent and, after talking with them in person, have little respect for their viewpoints, but I don’t want them censored and really only wanted an apology and a dialogue, hence why I filed the original grievance.

    Thats my two cents.

  14. niedermeyer says:

    identity politics become more and more surreal ever day

  15. Miles Rost says:

    Whoa…would have never thought they’d use SoCaS in this case.

  16. Olly says:

    Whoa!

    “The grievance states that The Insurgent violated three University policies: discrimination, fabrication of information and separation of church and state.”

    Separation of church and state? Has anyone got their hands on a copy of this thing? I want to see if it’s written in crayon.

  17. Olly says:

    I’ll probably be doing my own share of ranting about the Students of Faith in due course. (And correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t stand a chance, legally speaking.) However, I’m just going to hide down here in the comment section for a moment and enjoy the schadenfreude: because really, as I will never tire of saying, this couldn’t be happening to a nicer bunch of guys.

  18. Ian says:

    Heh:

    She does not want her money to go toward a group that offends any race, religion or socioeconomic class, she said.

    No more jokes about wealthy people or jabs at the middle class? I’m not quite sure what I’ll do…

  19. niedermeyer says:

    The logic of the religous right:

    Crudely-drawn caricature of naked Jesus that will only be seen by conspiracy theorists, anarcho-ecotopists and lonely prisoners= offensive and unnacceptable.

    Huge, blown-up images of (supposedly) aborted fetuses and genocides in the busiest part of campus, conflating the practice of abortion with genocide= moral imperative.

    hmmm….

  20. Nate says:

    Amen!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.