That doesn’t appear to actually be a quote either from the article you linked or any of the parties involved in this incident. Putting quotes around it is disingenuous.
Well perhaps another quote from Mal would be appropriate.
“Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.”
Actually, it is fair paraphrase of the linked article title, which is:
“Freedom of Speech Evidently Has No Place In a University.”
Perhaps, Ian, you can explain what is fundamentally different beyond word order? If the idea is not his own, but that of the source linked; then not only is he right to use quotation marks, but failure to do so can be construed as plagerism per MLA guidelines. It is indeed not a direct quote, but it is a proper representation of the original source’s idea using roughly the same words.
As for the linked article… the drama instructor does go a bit off the reservation with his response
As I wrote over there, I don’t think it is any less fascist to disregard freedom to bare arms as it is freedom of speech. But the instructor makes a good point on receiving a lecture about threats from a person carrying a firearm and truncheon. What’s the police chief to say as a reason for having those on her person when interacting with anybody? “I’ll only use them if I have to” isn’t much different than “I’ll only kill you if you are armed”. But then perhaps that’s why she sees a threat. In her work, the police chief would be awake, potentially facing the instructor, and she’d be armed. So in that context, the instructor is threatening to kill her, which makes the instructor’s response poster all the more idiotic.
As much as I like the line from the show; it isn’t clear that armed means posing a direct and immediate threat to the speaker (Mal shoots many people who are armed that weren’t pointing a firearm at him). Add that to the instructors response email, and it gets even muddier. The instructor seems to have a problem with people being armed.
But they’re the smart ones?
Why are the fights so bitter in academia? Because the stakes are so small.
Reading this stuff makes me glad I never went to college. I attended the Universal School of Adversity. It wasn’t always fun, I never got to pick the lessons and I’m glad I’ve survived.
But I came out with a PhD in Survival! With minors in Critical Thinking and Shooting for my Opponents Weak Spot.
This makes two of us Schtumpy. It drives my friend nuts that he spent all that time and money going to college to eventually become a teacher not really making much more than me. And I think he’s still paying off student loans.
Leland:
Nonsense and horsefeathers. You could just as easily say that I have to quote you if I write that it’s fascist to ignore the right to wear sleeveless dresses.
In any case, it’s a silly point as this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about abuse of authority by a pinheaded ‘Safety Officer’.
Is there any tyrannical,authoritarian regime that didn’t cite “public safety” as the basis for almost every oppressive act?
You could just as easily say that I have to quote you if I write that it’s fascist to ignore the right to wear sleeveless dresses.
Not at all, that analogy is so flawed I can’t even take it seriously. I provided you a source, go complain to MLA.
I mostly agree with your second paragraph. It’s abuse of authority, but there’s a possibility that the police chief was carrying out a request made by someone else that has even more authority. Even so, it’s still abusive.
To be fair, I agree Rands use of quotation marks is bad form, but mainly my initial response is in relation to the notion that it wasn’t from any party and disingenious. The title of the article suggests the same thing using the same words, just a different order. That’s hardly disingenious, unless you believe the other author believes something other than what’s stated in the title.
…this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about abuse of authority by a pinheaded ‘Safety Officer’.
If it’s not about freedom of speech, why is the pinheaded ‘Safety Officer’s’ action an abuse of his authority?
You’re making too much sense McGehee. Consider yerself scolded.
Leland, I was just poking a little fun at your use of “bare arms” instead of ‘bear arms’.
The problem I have with the title is the use of the word “here”. It implies that those words were used by someone at the university, which so far as I can tell is not the case. It is also a different formulation than the linked title, which is clear that it is the authors opinion of something that happened elsewhere.
@McGehee: I don’t think the removal of a poster from university property of a poster by the university is violating free speech, in the same way that if you post a political sign on my lawn that I don’t like and I remove it it isn’t a violation of free speech. It is an abuse of authority because the safety chief escalated the situation after it was clear that there was no threat implied by the poster, instead of admitting she was wrong.
No one would f with the USA if we all had bear arms.
It wasn’t the university’s lawn, it was the professor’s office door. While it’s possible (though unlikely) UWS is an exception, most universities have a policy designating that faculty members may use their office doors for personal expression. And in theory at least, open expression is the whole point of a university’s existence.
To further simplify: A faculty member’s office door is traditionally and in most cases officially a free speech zone for his personal use.
That’s a total walk-back McGehee. Now you’re saying that it’s a violation of university tradition, not free speech.
It brings up a good question – why do we give up our rights when we enter the workplace, and why isn’t free speech protected in the workplace? (or free assembly or association?) It isn’t and never has been in the United States.
I wonder if this would have caused such a kerfuffle amongst the libertarian set if it had taken place in a factory… I doubt it.
That doesn’t appear to actually be a quote either from the article you linked or any of the parties involved in this incident. Putting quotes around it is disingenuous.
Well perhaps another quote from Mal would be appropriate.
“Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.”
Actually, it is fair paraphrase of the linked article title, which is:
“Freedom of Speech Evidently Has No Place In a University.”
Perhaps, Ian, you can explain what is fundamentally different beyond word order? If the idea is not his own, but that of the source linked; then not only is he right to use quotation marks, but failure to do so can be construed as plagerism per MLA guidelines. It is indeed not a direct quote, but it is a proper representation of the original source’s idea using roughly the same words.
As for the linked article… the drama instructor does go a bit off the reservation with his response
As I wrote over there, I don’t think it is any less fascist to disregard freedom to bare arms as it is freedom of speech. But the instructor makes a good point on receiving a lecture about threats from a person carrying a firearm and truncheon. What’s the police chief to say as a reason for having those on her person when interacting with anybody? “I’ll only use them if I have to” isn’t much different than “I’ll only kill you if you are armed”. But then perhaps that’s why she sees a threat. In her work, the police chief would be awake, potentially facing the instructor, and she’d be armed. So in that context, the instructor is threatening to kill her, which makes the instructor’s response poster all the more idiotic.
As much as I like the line from the show; it isn’t clear that armed means posing a direct and immediate threat to the speaker (Mal shoots many people who are armed that weren’t pointing a firearm at him). Add that to the instructors response email, and it gets even muddier. The instructor seems to have a problem with people being armed.
But they’re the smart ones?
Why are the fights so bitter in academia? Because the stakes are so small.
Reading this stuff makes me glad I never went to college. I attended the Universal School of Adversity. It wasn’t always fun, I never got to pick the lessons and I’m glad I’ve survived.
But I came out with a PhD in Survival! With minors in Critical Thinking and Shooting for my Opponents Weak Spot.
This makes two of us Schtumpy. It drives my friend nuts that he spent all that time and money going to college to eventually become a teacher not really making much more than me. And I think he’s still paying off student loans.
Leland:
Nonsense and horsefeathers. You could just as easily say that I have to quote you if I write that it’s fascist to ignore the right to wear sleeveless dresses.
In any case, it’s a silly point as this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about abuse of authority by a pinheaded ‘Safety Officer’.
Is there any tyrannical,authoritarian regime that didn’t cite “public safety” as the basis for almost every oppressive act?
You could just as easily say that I have to quote you if I write that it’s fascist to ignore the right to wear sleeveless dresses.
Not at all, that analogy is so flawed I can’t even take it seriously. I provided you a source, go complain to MLA.
I mostly agree with your second paragraph. It’s abuse of authority, but there’s a possibility that the police chief was carrying out a request made by someone else that has even more authority. Even so, it’s still abusive.
To be fair, I agree Rands use of quotation marks is bad form, but mainly my initial response is in relation to the notion that it wasn’t from any party and disingenious. The title of the article suggests the same thing using the same words, just a different order. That’s hardly disingenious, unless you believe the other author believes something other than what’s stated in the title.
If it’s not about freedom of speech, why is the pinheaded ‘Safety Officer’s’ action an abuse of his authority?
You’re making too much sense McGehee. Consider yerself scolded.
Leland, I was just poking a little fun at your use of “bare arms” instead of ‘bear arms’.
The problem I have with the title is the use of the word “here”. It implies that those words were used by someone at the university, which so far as I can tell is not the case. It is also a different formulation than the linked title, which is clear that it is the authors opinion of something that happened elsewhere.
@McGehee: I don’t think the removal of a poster from university property of a poster by the university is violating free speech, in the same way that if you post a political sign on my lawn that I don’t like and I remove it it isn’t a violation of free speech. It is an abuse of authority because the safety chief escalated the situation after it was clear that there was no threat implied by the poster, instead of admitting she was wrong.
No one would f with the USA if we all had bear arms.
It wasn’t the university’s lawn, it was the professor’s office door. While it’s possible (though unlikely) UWS is an exception, most universities have a policy designating that faculty members may use their office doors for personal expression. And in theory at least, open expression is the whole point of a university’s existence.
To further simplify: A faculty member’s office door is traditionally and in most cases officially a free speech zone for his personal use.
That’s a total walk-back McGehee. Now you’re saying that it’s a violation of university tradition, not free speech.
It brings up a good question – why do we give up our rights when we enter the workplace, and why isn’t free speech protected in the workplace? (or free assembly or association?) It isn’t and never has been in the United States.
I wonder if this would have caused such a kerfuffle amongst the libertarian set if it had taken place in a factory… I doubt it.