This parody of this newsletter has led to this result at Colorado College.
What the controversy really illustrates is the absurdity of campus speech codes, which as content-based restrictions on speech simply will not be applied equally. So you get the absurd sorts of results that we see in this case. The "Monthly Rag" refers to male castration. The "Monthly Bag" happens to refer to a sniper rifle and sex in the same publication--not together, but as an obvious parody of "guy stuff." The former is apparently ok. The latter was "received as a threat by members of the Colorado College community." The college president sent out a flash email requesting the dudes to come forward. As a result of all of this, the "dudes" have been found "responsible for violating the student code of conduct policy on violence under the college value of Respect."
Check out this letter from the Colorado College Dean of Students, a classic illustration of Deanspeak. The Dean has given the dudes an opportunity to abase themselves publicly through a "forum for a dialogue about the issues and questions... raised with the posting of 'The Monthly Bag.'" The Dean adds, "Please make sure that this forum happens before the end of Block 8." Apparently the Colorado College Board of Trustees has already wimped out on standing up for free speech.
Wouldn't it be better just to repeal these speech codes and adopt the First Amendment as the governing standard for speech on college campuses? "The Monthly Bag" would be obviously protected speech under the First Amendment (as would "The Monthly Rag," of course). The chilling effect of these sorts of incidents and the consistent pattern of their unequal application is manifest. And it seems to work just fine for public universities.
The indefatigable FIRE is on the case.
Via Phi Beta Cons.
This is what the dean is wetting his pants over.
Grover Gardner: “I don't see anything in it that is even vaguely threatening to men, let alone the male ego.”
So what are you trying to tell us about yourself Grover?
Well, Richard, if I had to dig real, real deep into my psyche, I guess I'd have to admit that I was trying to tell you that I don't find the definition of a curious old Latin term very threatening. Do you?
I'm not sure what's degrading about the coital position described in the Monthly Bag. It's tame compared to the Kama Sutra!
Conversely, a lot of people out there might feel that when women stuff their pants with a big dildo -- especially when its "intended for sex at a later point" -- they are engaged in a degrading sexual practice.
I'll agree with you here. Note also that the "random" rifle statement came right under a definition of "political radicalism" that included the phrase "It is often accompanied by a willingness to cross all ethical boundaries in pursuit of its various ends.". This disturbing juxtaposition gave the college a place to retreat to after they took flak for accusing the students of "bias". At least, that's the way FIRE has it, which does at least seem plausible.
The sniper rifle statment isn't really an explicit threat, so I support the students' right to say what they said. But, that doesn't mean that this particular part of the parody was anything but contemptible.
For that reason, I think the best course for the university administration would have been to publicly condemn the insidious mention of the sniper rifle, but to forgo any attempt to punish the authors. If the adminstration could say that no punishment was in order, due to the rights of the students to express themselves, even better.
After much intense examination of my subconcious, I'm willing to cede your point, Curt. ;-)
I agree with you, Grover. The definition is not very threatening. How about the act itself?
Looks like a safety reminder to me.
That wouldn't be a safety reminder. A safety reminder would tell you how far the thing will go. Effective means how far off you can count on hitting a target. But if you miss and the thing just keeps flying--could be miles. Might want to inform the university that it's worse than they thought.
No. College administrators are not liberal, or hypocritical, or stupid. They can never be rolled by activist students. And this proves it.
Miss what?
What about it, Richard?
Whatever would stop it. Including the target. We presume the shooter would have a berm or other backstop, unless he were actually threatening somebody with it, in which case the fate of the round passing through--unimpeded if an administrator's head--or simply passing would be to go until something did stop it. Given the weight, sectional density and mv of a fifty, could be miles if it had been aimed above any nearby stopper.
Why of course. An administrator's head! Why didn't I think of that? Gotta have another cup of coffee...
Perhaps. The "clear and present danger" test might get flunked. It depends on whether the court thinks the rag would result in action that is prevented by law. Referencing a type of sniper rifle might be considered a threat, but I'm not so convinced that it's likely or even possibly going to result in unlawful action.
Given that the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" test was further limited by the Brandenburg v. Ohio "imminent lawless action" test, I'm not sure how meaningful that particular statement is.
It, rather self-evidently, does not fail the "imminent lawless action" test. The speech itself travels slower than police officers; there's no reason to believe that it would cause lawless actions faster than a police officer could get there.
(I will note the tremendous irony in placing an ad for a porn talk right next to a complaint about anti-abortion protesters and their First Amendment rights.)
Such biting sarcasm, Grover. I bow down to your superior intellect. By the way have you always had this fear of guns? I wonder what Freud would say about that. :)
But not misplaced, I trust. ;-)
I think the bag was referring to a practice known as pegging.
"bag"="testicles" (in response).
I never said the parody in general deserves punishment. I said I thought the "joke" about long-range sniper fire was foolish. I'm not surprised that it prompted a reaction from the administration. I think the Dean's letter was appropriate and the "punishment" rather bland, frankly. Of course, you're talking to someone whose fifth-grade teacher expressed his displeasure by picking up a kid's desk, with the kid in it, and tossing it halfway across the room. Perhaps my standards for "punishment" are somewhat skewed...
I think intent could be a qualifier here, but at any rate I've already ceded the point.
I don't have a problem with either. I never said I did.
Well, there's a time and place for everything. ;-) Be that as it may, I can think of places where talking dirty might draw stares, but joking about an item protected by the Second Amendment will land you in custody.
Also, there is a good argument that the First amendment isn't tailored to the goals of a university and those goals call for a stricter definition of protected speech.
I wasn't responding to you, obviously. I was responding to Mr. Zywicki's post.
A. Zarkov,
I was happier before I knew that. :)
Where's the part where they complain? I missed that.
I was going to object that a skull wouldn't be enough, until I thought twice about the specific of the kull in question.
I suspect it is just anoher example of CC's ambition to be the Amherst of the West.
Thanks for the clarification, theo. Nonetheless, I'll stand by response that I don't think quoting TR was the issue here.
"I was happier before I knew that. :)"
So was I.
In your mind, maybe. Nobody here said that.
After a brief investigation it was determined that there was no intent to harm anyone. That's not patently clear from the anonymous flyer. I can't say I blame the college for looking into the matter. Ignoring it could have had serious consequences.
As I mentioned above, there are times and places where it is not appropriate, and where, in fact, you may be charged with a crime. Obviously the college didn't go anywhere near this far in dealing with the situation.
Hey, post some "sniper jokes" on the bulletin board at work if you feel like it, just to see what kind of response you get. It's a free country.
You only say that because we haven't had a horrible chainsaw massacre on campus lately. Your lack of sensitivity is disgusting.
Reminder to self: "Read the post before following the links".
A great thought experiment. And if it is truly the supposed threat of violence that is at issue, it is hard to see why the Dean has "invited" the student to host a "forum" to "dialogue" about the "issues and questions" he has raised. If the supposed concern with the flyer is a supposed threat, what in the world would be the purpose of the "educational dialogue" prompted by "The Monthly Bag"?
Congress should withdraw any money flow to universities and colleges that have speech codes. That would fix the problem pronto.
LOL. Everybody knows that the real reason men demonize the vagina is because they got fed up with all the BITCHING !!
To feminists everything is about the penis and their own penis envy, then they project these feelings in varying mutations onto men. If they'd just shut up and cook some chicken they would have far less time to worry about their own lack of penii.
Says the "Dog"
In light of the mall, church, and school shootings, wouldn't it behoove students to arm themselves so as to be able to defend themselves and their classmates? (Cornell and Virginia Tech, IIRC, both have student groups dedicated to this.) Couldn't the rifle reference then be interpreted in an opposite manner: that the "Bag" authors wanted to help out their fellow students?
"I suspect it is just anoher example of CC's ambition to be the Amherst of the West."
I don't think Amherst College regulates student speech in this fashion or imposes any similar speech restrictions on its students. If CC wants to become the Amherst of the west, it should encourage robust speech. Or maybe it should just extend an offer to Hadley Arkes.
Is this a parody too?!?
Why turn somersaults trying to figure it out?? The kid wanted to poke fun a feminists so he made a joke about guys and rifles. He picked the wrong way, the wrong time and the wrong place to do it. He got a slap on the wrist and has to sit through some boring "meeting" just like I did in the principal's office in high school. Big effing deal.
The "Bag" publication, on the other hand, by pushing heteronormativity and patriarchy is clearly beyond any protection because surely it will be regarded as hate speech by at least one member of a protected class, and that is sufficient cause to ban it and require self-criticism &re-education sessions for those responsible.
Really, y'all need to get with the times. This stuff isn't difficult; males are bad, white males are doubleplusungood, and Oceana has always been at war with EastAsia...
Truly a ringing defense of free speech, worthy of Patrick Henry at his finest.
What is the average age of an administrator's head these days? Fifty years? Old-growth hardwood can be very effective at stopping a bullet.
At any rate, this incident is begging for an acrid editorial writer to show up and skewer the incident for eight or nine column inches. The working title is "College becomes laughing-stock when trigger happy administrators open a barrel of trouble on student parodists". If anyone from the Denver Newspaper Agency is reading this, feel free to steal -- those gunshy pansies in Springs are too feeble to take this one on, except possibly to acknowledge the aministration's "difficult" position.
Oh, spare me. What a crock. I'll repeat: Big effing deal.
Sir, I am offended at your lack of sensitivity. Please cessate at once or I'll sic my Might Morphin Powertrip Administrators on you.
Bring 'em on!
Life member of the ACLU, no doubt...
Do you really think that if the rifle part had never been in there, that it would have made any difference?
Chilling speech they don't like is whole point of this exercise.
The law is Brandenburg -- directed to, and likely to, incite imminent lawless action.
RE: Get a Grip
"The chilling effect of these sorts of incidents and the consistent pattern of their unequal application is manifest. And it seems to work just fine for public universities." -- Todd Zwicki
You need to take a 'deep breath' and count to 1,000,000. [Note: While holding that breath.]
Maybe...that way....CC can clean-up it's 'act'.
Otherwise, I'll call down the 'good doctor' Dodson on your sorry fourth-point-of-contact.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Ignorance? Sure, I'll plead guilty. IANAL. I was speaking in a more general sense, as in there's a time and place for everything. This was neither the time nor place to make a sniper joke.
Dishonest? No. I'm completely honest. You don't like it? Tough. This is another ginned-up tempest in a teapot. The guy published something inappropriate. He was asked to step forward to assure the administration there was no serious threat behind his "sniper" crack. He did so, which is commendable. He got a talking-to and a letter of reprimand which will stay in his file until he graduates. He still publishes his "rag." That's it.
A real proponent of free speech would worry about some of the real issues, not some kid's college prank that earned him a slap on the wrist.
The president of the college addressed this issue. He was concerned about a threat to the student body, less than four weeks after a hideous incident at a university three states to the east.
And there's no sure way for a school to determine how its applicants will behave until they get there and behave. It works both ways.
On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful that it may not be expressed."
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. That apparently suits some of the "civil liberties defenders" hereabouts just fine...
He got a talking-to and a letter of reprimand which will stay in his file until he graduates.
Which violates the official Colorado College policy on speech...
He still publishes his "rag."
This is false. As is your whining about "degrading sexual act", at the top of the thread. As is your deliberately false claim about "shouting test".
Couldn't you at least make some effort to get the facts correct, oh mighty defender of Civil Liberties?
Of course, nothing a feminist posts in a bathroom can ever be offensive, to anyone...by definition.
Of course, nothing a feminist posts in a bathroom can ever be offensive, to anyone...by definition.
FWIW, Colorado College is a private institution.
Now you and Vernunft can go make fun of the feminazi and carry on about free speech.
Heck, then all the 'dudes' need to do is take the specified public re-education course, publicly admit their inappropriate 2A tendencies, grovel for forgiveness for their misguided belief in the 1A, promise to never, ever refer to any kind of "arms" again, and take sensitivity classes with the term "studies" appended.
What could be wrong with that?
But the point of CC's actions is to have others who might think of speaking out wondering just what--the vagueness is part of the strategy--would cause the admin to react. IOW, to keep their mouths shut. Chilling debate is the purpose.
SURprise.
Radicals and progressives and liberals aren't the ones who will be wondering.
You're right, I find it extremely difficult to take that seriously.
One suspects it's because you don't think it's your ox that will be gored.
This is false. For one thing, nobody literate could see a "threat" in the poster. For another, as the initial reaction of the president makes clear -- see the email linked to in the post -- he's really concerned with people being offended (or "demeaned"), not a "threat." If he actually perceived a "threat," he'd have called the police, not sent out an email whining about people feeling "demeaned." (As FIRE points out, what the students were charged with was "bias." The idea that it was a "threat" was invented later.)
(Perhaps you're confused by the fact that he used the word "safe" in the email. In modern leftist PC-speak, "safe" refers to protected classes not being criticized or mocked; it has nothing to do with physical safety.)
The punishment is mild and no doubt deliberately tedious, as suits the severity of the offense. IMO, the sniper reference could reasonably be held to fail
the "shouting fire" test.
You aren't a lawyer, if you were you wouldn't spout such nonsense. What Holmes actually said in Schenck v. United States was:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing
a panic."
Or as Larry McMurtry wrote in Lonesome Dove:
GMS
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode17.htm
That's entirely a matter of opinion. The reference to chainsaws and sniper rifles could be interpreted differently. For example, I thought the chainsaw jokes were harmless, but the sniper thing jumped out at me, given it's prominence on the page and the complete lack of context for the comment. I think the administration had every right to protect itself and and its charges by tracking down the source of a sniper comment two weeks after the NIU incident. The fact that they didn't call in the SWAT team and shut down the campus shows restraint.
You can take it that way, or you can see it as downplaying his concerns in order not to blow the incident out of proportion. But even if, in the end, it all boils down to whatever PC standards the college advocates and enforces, that is their right as a private school.
Regardless of how or why you think the college president reacted, there remains the fact that making a sniper joke TWO WEEKs after the NIU incident was STUPID. Let me repeat: S-T-U-P-I-D. If it were my kid, he'd get worse from me than the administration handed him, I can assure you.
In my opinion, that's exactly what these fellows did.
And the above, to me, is a perfect example of paranoiac, conspiracy-laden, pseudo-conservative BS that has nothing to do with anything.
If he didn't change his accusation, but merely "downplayed" the charges, that's just as bad--because "downplaying" the charges, but punishing the students based on non-downplayed charges, is simply a way of creating secret charges that the students cannot respond to because they don't know what they are.
The false alarm here was on the part of the college dean, not on the part of the Dudes. The Bag did not claim that a present danger existed -- that a sniper rifle was present, loaded and aimed in anyone's direction, or that it would be in the near future. It stated a bit of trivia of interest to the presumed readers of the newsletter, and would not have created panic in a reader of normal sensibility. Nor would the danger of such a panic approach the danger of a panicked crowed trying to escape a theater under the assumption that everyone who fails to escape immediately is in mortal danger. Holmes did not say that a person can be convicted for publishing the combustion temperature of upholstery in a printed program distributed in a crowded theater, even if there were recent fires in theaters in nearby states.
Does that change your opinion?
The newsletter is not even akin to falsely crying "rifle" in a crowded foyer.
The First Amendment does not provide a heckler's veto. The fact that you or the CC dean "interpreted differently" doesn't qualify; the incitement must be both "imminent" and to "lawless action." Trivia information about a perfectly lawful rifle doesn't even get close. On a larger note, the growing unwillingness of people to deal with the rough-and-tumble of the real world is deeply unsettling, particularly in the context of pure speech.
That's fairly ironic, considering that I can't say any damn thing I please at work. I have to take into consideration the sensibilities of a whole host of people, not the least of whom is my employer, with whom I disagree on a number of ideological issues, some of which determine the sorts of products we license and produce. Nothing in our output is so objectionable to me that I would consider quitting over it. Some of it makes us money and keeps us in business, which is okay with me. And he's smart enough to produce other kinds of things to keep our customer base as wide as possible. But I certainly keep some of my opinions to myself out of a desire to avoid friction and keep my job. That's my "real world." What's yours like?
Oh come on. This wasn't some gun club circular. It was designed to provoke a reaction.
Of course it was. But not a reaction of fear of imminent harm. At least not in any reasonable person.
You're not the sole judge of that.
Your employer doesn't loudly advertise itself as a place where people "are talking, challenging one another" to "try[] new ideas for courses, explor[e] classical ideas from fresh angles, and ventur[e] out into the community, the wilderness, and the world." Indeed, your employer pays you to refrain from certain conduct; it does not charge you for the "privilege" of not speaking.
If parading a swastika in front of a holocaust victim who flatly states that he could not control himself is not sufficient to constitute incitement, a purely factual statement cannot be. I challenge you to post a single case finding a purely factual statement to constitute unprotected incitement.
You're not the sole judge of that.\
I suggest a poll. Who thinks the rifle reference could reasonably be construed an imminent threat?
I'll start off with a "no".
The problem here is that the leftists equate speech with action. To them, there is little difference between speaking about rifles and using them to slaughter fellow students, nor between describing a sex act and using it specifically to demean women.
I am not saying that speech cannot be its own action - slander or threats are the two classic examples - but here, there is a wide gulf between speaking about rifles and actually using them.
Where's the part that says I can do or say anything I please?
What, in your opinion, was the purpose behind publishing The Monthly Bag? Just to talk about "guy stuff"? Was there any sort of "action" implied behind its casual references to sex and violence?
Yes, exactly. There was an intention (to ridicule), and a target (the feminists on campus). The Monthly Bag was calculated to arouse a certain response. Is this just speech, or is it an action?
I fail to see the need, for this discussion, to parse the line between "speech" and "conduct." Here's a clue: if you have to radically change the circumstances of the situation in order to make your point, you might want to try to make a different one.
I count more than one here.
The answer is, I think, that I might be trying to engage him in a discussion about guns, or I might be poking fun at him, or I might be making a threat. Without any context it would be hard to tell. And I feel certain the Secret Service would want to find out.
Where's the "radical change"? An anonymous person posts a campus flyer targeting feminists and mentioning the range of a professional sniper rifle. Are you saying that there's no possibility that that could be perceived as a threat, rather than just plain old speech?
I never claimed to be. I have read a judicial opinion or two about threats, though. And if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you.
Let me know when your schedule eases up. I choose Barretts at 2000 paces.
Oh, I guess that's OK with you. I see now.
I think Scalia would assume you were pointing out to him what a great product was being advertised, and he would head to the nearest gun store to check it out. In Virginia, of course. 'Cause you can't do that sort of thing in D.C.... yet...
That's a symptom of the increasingly rapid feminization of America, which has taken firm root in our colleges and universities. If the U.S. should be so unfortunate as to get a president Obama, he will GUT the U.S. military to an extent that Jimmuh Carter and Kofi Annan could only dream of, and the multi-generational plan instituted under Nikita Khruzchev, and greatly expanded by KGB General Yuri Andropov will come to fruition.
The long-term KGB plan is detailed in the Venona papers, which were leaked to the West soon after the Berlin Wall came down, and is summarized pretty succinctly by a former KGB officer here.
Of course, most folks don't want to believe a word of it. Because, like, the Russians are our friends now. Aren't they? They don't mind that we won the Cold War, and reduced the Soviet Union's population from 330 million in 1989 to 140 million today. They probably figured that losing their eastern European empire is no big deal. Why hold a grudge? Heck, they even changed the KGB to the FSB, so the old guard is gone now. Right?
OK, everybody hold hands now, and let's sing... "Kum ba yah, my Lord, Kum ba yah, Kum ba yah, my Lord, Kum ba yah Kum ba yah, my Lord, Kum ba yah Oh Lord, Kum ba yah..."
Too bad Mr. Savage didn't think of such a snappy comeback back in 1669. Then again if he hadn't sued Mr. Tuberville for assault over the "assizes time" remark, our jurisprudence would be that much the poorer.
Hmm. Under your own standards, that remark would seem to be a threat that could be legally punished. Fortunately for you, those are not the standards of Anglo-American law.