http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6932.html Censors Win at NYU by Charles Mitchell March 30, 2006, at 03:57 p.m. As FIRE announced yesterday, administrators at New York University (NYU) were attempting to squelch a panel discussion on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Leaders of the NYU Objectivist Club, which organized the panel, were told to choose one of two unacceptable options. They could either exclude the over 150 off-campus guests who had registered to attend the event or agree not to show the Danish cartoons. E-mails from NYU administrator Robert Butler on March 27 and 28 substantiating this ultimatum are available on FIRE’s website. Today, FIRE has the unfortunate duty of reporting that NYU succeeded in muzzling the Objectivist Club. While the event was held, with what students called their largest crowd ever, NYU did not allow the cartoons to be shown—nor were all of the off-campus guests even allowed in. Instead, as NYU’s student newspaper has reported, the students were forced to display easels with blank panels. FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, who was part of the panel, aptly noted this morning, “Those blank easels were a testament to campus repression and a climate of fear.” Not even a T-shirt bearing one of the images was allowed in the room. To make matters even worse, the students were allowed to admit only 75 of the approximately 150 off-campus guests who had registered. Stephan Walker, the vice president of the Objectivist Club, confirmed to FIRE that even several members of the media had to be turned away. Later, Lukianoff and a blogger both observed a student being forced to remove a shirt depicting one of the cartoons. Finally, following through on plans divulged in an e-mail in FIRE’s possession, members of the Bengali Student Association apparently obtained and then ripped up many of the student tickets for the event. Walker has a bag of these torn-up tickets. NYU’s shameful actions violate both the moral principle of freedom of speech and, as UCLA Professor of Law Eugene Volokh recently noted, its own policies. FIRE has archived the relevant policies, in which NYU shockingly claims to be “committed to maintaining an environment where open, vigorous debate and speech can occur.” But NYU’s actions last night show that its real commitment is to censorship. As an NYU spokesman told Inside Higher Ed, the university’s objection to the cartoons is based on the fact that “an important group in our Muslim community made it clear that they found the display of the cartoons deeply offensive.” The spokesman also told the New York Sun that “it wasn't necessary to show the cartoons to discuss them.” And if that wasn’t enough lunacy for one day, the spokesman said the following to NYU’s student paper: “Realistically, one can have a discussion on smallpox without actually handing out the the live virus to the audience.” Simply put, making decisions about what is too offensive to be shown to people is none of NYU’s business—and infecting people with smallpox is not the same as showing them a cartoon! If the university truly believes in freedom of speech and open inquiry, it must leave decisions on whether to show possibly offensive material to its students. Instead, NYU kept the Objectivist Club from showing the cartoons the discussion of which was the entire purpose of their event. When the cartoon controversy first struck American campuses, FIRE noted in a statement that in most cases, university administrators responded in accordance with the principles of liberty by allowing students to decide for themselves whether to publish or display the images. (Century College, on the other hand, effectively banned Professor Karen Murdock from posting the cartoons on a public bulletin board.) NYU, unfortunately for its many students and alumni, has just made itself an exception to that trend. FIRE dearly hopes that members of the media and the public will not cease to expose and denounce NYU’s bizarre distaste for freedom. We are happy to answer any questions—and NYU President John Sexton deserves to answer some himself. *** Also see http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/30/442ba2b11f517
Is NYU trying to avoid getting bombed or something? It's probably not out of the question considering the way some of these extremists think. Intimidation at its finest.
I don't see anything indicating a bomb-threat or the like from the article, but it's certainly plausible that they've considered the 'public safety' aspect of it and are worried about things getting out of hand. Certainly wouldn't be the first time... Oh, and gwayneco, the 'jihadists' won a LOOOONG time ago (theoritically, that is) when we collectively as a nation decided to give up some of our rights in exchange for that elusive absolute security. Although that might not have been their aim, they're successful in bringing it about.
WTF???????????? THIS IS NOT A 'JIHAD VICTORY'.. THIS IS SIMPLY FIXING SOMETHING WRONG MAKING IT RIGHT.. THOSE CARTOONS ARE IGNORANT AND RACIST... THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE PROPAGANDA THOSE JIHAD M*F*** DO... ITS OK TO HATE ON THE EXTREMISTS, BUT ITS NOT RIGHT TO HATE ON A WHOLE RACE/RELIGION USING RACIAL TONES.. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS REALLY TRYING TO SAY? THAT THEY WERE SCARED TO SHOW THE CARTOONS? SCARED OF THE BOMBS? PLEASEEEEEEEEE........... THATS SO r****dED THEY ONLY FOUND IT UNNECESSARY AND INAPPROPRIATE, WHICH IS TRUE.. IF SOMEONE GOT BOMBED FOR SHOWING r****dEED CARTOONS LIKE THAT ID SAY THEY DESERVED.. KNUCKLEHEADS LIKE THAT NEED AN ASS WHOOPIN ONCE IN A WHILE.. ALSO REMEMBER THESE ARE DANISH CARTOONS, NOT EVEN AMERICAN. I CANT SEE WHY YOU GUYS ARE SO EAGER TO JUMP ON THE HATING.. EVEN IF IT WAS AN AMERICAN CARTOON, YOU SHOULDNT FEEL ITS UNPATRIOTIC TO DISAGREE WITH IT.. UR A GROWN ASS MAN/ADULT.. U CAN MAKE UR OWN DECISIONS.. U KNOW WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG... STOP AUTOMATICALLY HAVING A POLITICAL STANCE WITHOUT EVEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT IT
US Constitutional Amendments V and VI: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. He was held without trial or prosecution for three years. If that is deemed to have been due process of law, then Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. As a US citizen, all of this applies to him, yet none of this has happened.
I go to NYU and since it's a private school, they can basically do what they want (you should see how the classes are set-up and the tuition rate)...The TA's went on strike for better benefits last semester and they were severely punished, thus, it doesn't suprise me that they squashed this event...they also removed art last semester that portrayed Bush as a monkey when a student group set-up an exhibit...they also didn't allow Iran's ambassador to the UN to come and speak as well either...they also banned all coke products from campus, because of the company's alleged involvement in human rights abuses in Columbia...so saying that "nyu hands jihadists another victory" is a bit ridiculous, because this isn't an isolated incident.
