• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University of Maryland cancels ‘American Sniper’ after Muslim students complain

SEE is a student organization, not an arm of the University administration. A group of students were going to show the film, and chose not to. Here's what the student group said:

"Student Entertainment Events (SEE) has decided to postpone its May 6th and 7th screenings of American Sniper after meeting with concerned student organizations. SEE is choosing to explore the proactive measures of working with others during the coming months to possibly create an event where students can engage in constructive and moderated dialogues about the controversial topics proposed in the film."

Bold is mine.



A petition is an expression of an opinion by a group of people. That is free speech, not "bullying".



The proper intellectual environment would be to allow students to choose to show or not show the film as they see fit.



Funnily enough, this is exactly what they are planning on doing. Apparently you didn't read the statement.



If a student group wanted to show that film, and another group of students protested its showing via signing a petition, the exact same situation would apply. It's irrelevant what the film is.

To downplay the role of SEE at the university is hilarious. Their own page indicates that they are the entertainment venue for the university. The campus Republicans were in collaboration with SEE to show the film. It was not until another group started complaining did they back down and restrict the goals of the other campus groups. The film is no longer to be shown because privilege was given to the bullying tactics of one student group over the other.

If a disability student group was working with a student activity group in screening a film critiquing the conservative movement for its view of people with disabilities and the Republican student group pitched a fit about it and as a result the disability group couldn't air its film-that is a form of bullying, because now in its place the Republicans only wanted to inject themselves into the conversation without giving fair audience to the disability group.

That's the difference. Had they aired the film and then put in a moderated discussion or the like, that would not infringe on the Expression of the group's that wanted American Sniper to be shown. Instead you cut down on the ability to watch the film in favor of then allowing people to attack it. It's a power imbalance pure and simple.

It's antithetical to the purpose of the university.
 
Last edited:
They should be showing Lone Survivor anyways it's a way better movie.
 
Because they feared some people might not like it, they chose not to do it, freedom of choice to be intimidated!"

No, it's the freedom to choose not to be an asshole. I know that's difficult for some to understand.
 
They chose to show it, and then chose to not, to prevent a negative backlash. That's free speech. They weren't forced to not show it. They chose to.

Freedoms and threats don't go together. One isn't exercising his freedoms when he is being threatened into exercising them.
Perhaps in your ideal world they do, but not in the free world.
 
The University had the freedom to chose to screen this film. They chose not to. That isn't an attack on free speech, that is an example of it.
It was closed as a result of charges of "Islamophobia", the catch-all term which frightens many groups into silence. Of course the Muslims on campus could have shown the good Islam has done throughout the world, its contributions to the science, the arts, and so on, but chose not too.

In fact, judging from the petition, none of them even saw the movie. But the University, as well as SEE, knows perfectly well what happens when Muslims become annoyed by any possible criticism, real or imagined.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Muslim cartoon fury claims lives
 
Freedoms and threats don't go together. One isn't exercising his freedoms when he is being threatened into exercising them.
Perhaps in your ideal world they do, but not in the free world.

There were no threats.

It was closed as a result of charges of "Islamophobia", the catch-all term which frightens many groups into silence. Of course the Muslims on campus could have shown the good Islam has done throughout the world, its contributions to the science, the arts, and so on, but chose not too.

In fact, judging from the petition, none of them even saw the movie. But the University, as well as SEE, knows perfectly well what happens when Muslims become annoyed by any possible criticism, real or imagined.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Muslim cartoon fury claims lives

This post has no substance.
 
Oh, you youngsters. I guess you weren't around when Last Temptation of Christ came out. Christians and conservatives all over the US had a collective snit, and didn't just protest against it, they openly tried to get it shut down -- without, of course, actually seeing the movie.

I was in St Louis at the time, and the city's fire marshall shut down the theater where it was supposed to be shown. He made no pretense about his reasons, either.

Same thing with numerous art exhibitions in the 90s -- e.g. Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, David Wojnarowicz, Karen Finley, Chris Ofili come to mind.

I for one find it mildly hilarious that you imagine that conservatives and Christians have never protested a movie, art exhibit, book, website, or any other cultural expression in an attempt to stifle its author(s).

Christians hate Muslims, and fundies on both sides are doing their damnedest to bring about a Christian/Muslim war that culminates in Armageddon.
 
There were no threats.

To quote you yourself; "They chose to show it, and then chose to not, to prevent a negative backlash".

No one says it isn't within their rights and freedoms to voice their protest against the film.
It's just that claiming the university exercised its "freedom of speech" when it decided not to show a film it first desired to show purely because they are fearing the repercussions from those who protested against the movie, it's quite bizarre to label it as "a great example of freedom of speech". It's a classic example of intimidation. Fully legal intimidation but intimidation nonetheless.
 
A negative backlash means upsetting other students. It doesn't mean there were any threats.

It seems you believe threats to only come in the form of a letter in the mail with the title "I know where you live".
Negative backlash is something to feel threatened by. They were threatened by the Muslim students' fury over the film and they were intimidated by this so to cancel the film. A university canceling a film because of protests from a group of people is always a bad sign and never a "perfect example of freedom".
 
Funny how post 43 is being ignored. Same old hypocrisy at play.
 
To quote you yourself; "They chose to show it, and then chose to not, to prevent a negative backlash".

No one says it isn't within their rights and freedoms to voice their protest against the film.
It's just that claiming the university exercised its "freedom of speech" when it decided not to show a film it first desired to show purely because they are fearing the repercussions from those who protested against the movie, it's quite bizarre to label it as "a great example of freedom of speech". It's a classic example of intimidation. Fully legal intimidation but intimidation nonetheless.

Does it not occur to you that "let's not insult people" is sometimes a motivation that others have?
 
No, it's not. A truly open environment would allow the materials to be presented, but also allow for opportunities to discuss and critique. You should always err on the side of allowing distribution, but allow for retorts-whether that comes in another function or not.

Of course it is an opinion, but it is very relevant given they espoused reasons for why the University should stop that showing. It's a critique of the rationale behind their objections.

I know these subtleties come hard for you, but do please actually pretend to care what the university stands for as an institution in American society before resorting to such simplemindedness.

A truly open environment would have presented bestiality porn. You're free to discuss and critique it.
 
Does it not occur to you that "let's not insult people" is sometimes a motivation that others have?

They seem to have insulted way more people by canceling the film than they would have if they went on with showing it if it made it to the news.
 
I'm personally on the fence with this. The simple truth is that it is just a movie and shouldn't decide or influence your own morals or beliefs. Not showing the movie will not really impact your life any more or less than the day before the movie was even a thought. I do think people should be careful about nationalistic themed movies that are part of the present day reality since it can stir up hatred and judgment if people take the film too personally or realistically. I understand the movie is based on a real person but even with that it's not something that must be seen or must be part of your day or life. Highly emotional movies can be a great way to learn perspective but we need to be careful not to let it influence us. If the movie gets cancelled then it gets cancelled. You can always watch it at home.
 
A truly open environment would have presented bestiality porn. You're free to discuss and critique it.
Islam and bestiality. huh? Not the first time the connection was made, and in fact the Ayatollah Khomeini wrote a book on the subject, outlining the proper etiquette.
 
I'm personally on the fence with this. The simple truth is that it is just a movie and shouldn't decide or influence your own morals or beliefs. Not showing the movie will not really impact your life any more or less than the day before the movie was even a thought. I do think people should be careful about nationalistic themed movies that are part of the present day reality since it can stir up hatred and judgment if people take the film too personally or realistically. I understand the movie is based on a real person but even with that it's not something that must be seen or must be part of your day or life. Highly emotional movies can be a great way to learn perspective but we need to be careful not to let it influence us. If the movie gets cancelled then it gets cancelled. You can always watch it at home.
Yeah, it's always just a movie. Or just a book. Or just a speech. And there will always be those who go along to get along, losing their freedoms chip by chip and never realizing when they are gone.
 
Yeah, it's always just a movie. Or just a book. Or just a speech. And there will always be those who go along to get along, losing their freedoms chip by chip and never realizing when they are gone.

The movie itself is not banned or illegal or anything like that though so you can't really make a connection towards a lost freedom or lost luxury. The university has the right to determine what activities occur on campus based on whatever reason they agree on. I don't think it's chipping away at our freedoms as much as it is just making concessions that probably didn't need to be made. The hype made both for and against the movie by overly passionate people I think contributed mostly to the movie being so controversial. Many people saw the movie as almost a religious experience that should be shown on repeat and other people saw it as a movie that glamorized war and emboldened negative passions towards Muslims, and so with that the movie became polarizing. I honestly just don't see it as anything other than that.
 
The Muslim students had a fit, and the University caved like a spineless little bitch. So typical.
 
The university feared an attack on campus. Period.

If there was an attack over the movie, it would be ironic considering the reasons behind the whining of the Muslim students.
 
Oh, you youngsters. I guess you weren't around when Last Temptation of Christ came out. Christians and conservatives all over the US had a collective snit, and didn't just protest against it, they openly tried to get it shut down -- without, of course, actually seeing the movie.

I was in St Louis at the time, and the city's fire marshall shut down the theater where it was supposed to be shown. He made no pretense about his reasons, either.

Same thing with numerous art exhibitions in the 90s -- e.g. Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, David Wojnarowicz, Karen Finley, Chris Ofili come to mind.

I for one find it mildly hilarious that you imagine that conservatives and Christians have never protested a movie, art exhibit, book, website, or any other cultural expression in an attempt to stifle its author(s).

Christians currently aren't the ones going into newspaper HQs and gunning down editors over cartoons. In fact, show me when they have ever done such things over anything you listed (in other words, no abortion clinic references).
 
People peacefully protested, the movie was shown anyway and no one was killed or injured. What more is there to say?

Muslims peacefully protested, do tell.
 
Back
Top Bottom