PDA

View Full Version : Feels before Reals collides on college campus.



Anoleis
05-05-2014, 09:26 PM
here's a link (http://youtu.be/0MZfsbXilKU)
A language warning, the sounds made are vulgar, loud, and highly obnoxious.

An Arizona State student get's a little too physical with a fire and brimstone preacher. Preacher's bodyguard\acquainted bystander\dude in the red shirt tosses kid to the ground. Kid then freaks out; blood curdling screams as he goes after dude in the red shirt. A small tussle later, and the kid settle for screaming "Your sign is offensive!" "It's hate speech, you're provoking assault!" [paraphrased a little] As far as I can figure out the sign read somethings about judgement day, thieves, masturbation, liars, drunkards, fornicators, and homosexuals; the usual things that get you acquainted with God's fiery wrath.

Apparently, some of ASU's other students who are seeing this on the web are hopeful that this will get the fire and brimstone preachers off campus. So, the college gets to trek the fun grey area of free speech and what is deemed too offensive for their campus.

Qoco
05-05-2014, 09:33 PM
First of all, school is not the place for these protests and secondly, that kid is a moron. Both parties deserve to wear the dunce hat.

DeathBlade/13.666
05-06-2014, 11:24 AM
When I want someone off the campus, I just make their life on campus a miserable hell.

International 4-8818
05-06-2014, 11:36 AM
I mean, technically the guy has the right to say whatever he wants but the student did not uhhh "play it cool" and just looks like an ass.

Anoleis
05-06-2014, 01:28 PM
First of all, school is not the place for these protests
Technically, campus is the place for these protests. He does have a legal right to be there.


When I want someone off the campus, I just make their life on campus a miserable hell.
It's lucky for Joe Banshee that this preacher wasn't a litigious money vacuum like the WBC.

Qoco
05-06-2014, 04:28 PM
Technically, campus is the place for these protests. He does have a legal right to be there.

You go to school to study and to prepare for the future, not to protest about whatever the guy was protesting about. I wanted to go back and look but the video got removed. I will just assume that it was about the things you mentioned in the OP, which do not fall in accordance with the place that it is being done.


As far as I can figure out the sign read somethings about judgement day, thieves, masturbation, liars, drunkards, fornicators, and homosexuals; the usual things that get you acquainted with God's fiery wrath.

It may or may not be legal, but what matters is that it is socially unsatisfactory and will bring controversy in a place like a school campus, where young and ignorant people go to. As a matter of fact, if I were there studying, doing my school work and minding my own business, and I saw some fat guy swinging signs at me with content on the signs like the ones that you mentioned, I would say that he is disturbing my peace, as a student that is there to follow the purpose of the school and not for other reasons like being selfish by trying to force my personal beliefs into other people who do not care about them, as they are not there for that. There is a time and place for everything.

.:neuko:.
05-06-2014, 06:21 PM
You go to school to study and to prepare for the future, not to protest about whatever the guy was protesting about. I wanted to go back and look but the video got removed. I will just assume that it was about the things you mentioned in the OP, which do not fall in accordance with the place that it is being done.

It may or may not be legal, but what matters is that it is socially unsatisfactory and will bring controversy in a place like a school campus, where young and ignorant people go to. As a matter of fact, if I were there studying, doing my school work and minding my own business, and I saw some fat guy swinging signs at me with content on the signs like the ones that you mentioned, I would say that he is disturbing my peace, as a student that is there to follow the purpose of the school and not for other reasons like being selfish by trying to force my personal beliefs into other people who do not care about them, as they are not there for that. There is a time and place for everything.

Unfortunately, it seems that YouTube has removed the video, so I can only base my comment on the OP's text.

Anyway, I totally agree with you. Normally I would champion anyone's right to freedom of speech, but not like this. And I loathe the idea of any adult purposely taking advantage of some kid who simply isn't mature enough to have the fear of God put into them. Sure, the kid could have handled the situation better and the physical attack on the priest was completely unnecessary. That said, I can hardly feel sorry for the priest who had no relevant reason to be on the campus in the first place, legally permitted or not. So what if his actions were technically within the law? Doesn't change the fact that his actions were also breaching one's entitlement to a decent education. Suppose I went to his church, hung around his premises, and then started waving signs of anti-religious messages encouraging spiritism and the summoning of demons--and then used the legal system as a crutch by playing the right-to-freedom-of-speech card? Yeah... highly doubt that excuse would have sailed with flying colours there. Nope, as far as I'm concerned that was effectively restricted property he was on and he crossed the line when he started intruding on one's real opportunity for study, however lawful and maybe peripheral his actions may have been. While I don't condone the student's handling of the situation (as I said, he could have handled it better), he has at least one defense, he's an inexperienced kid; it's the adult who should have known better. To me this whole situation is barely any different to someone kicking a ball into someone's else's back yard, and then complaining because they got savagely mauled by the property owner's guard dog as they hopped over the fence to retrieve their ball. The problem with that complaint is, they had other less intrusive options and no real reason to be there in the first place.

Nervous
05-06-2014, 07:18 PM
http://blog.lib.uiowa.edu/drp/files/2012/01/DI-1970-5-5.jpg

If people could protest on a campus then, why not now? In my opinion a campus is a great place to protest. So long as its nowhere near the Ohio National Guard.

Anoleis
05-06-2014, 08:47 PM
I wanted to go back and look but the video got removed. I will just assume that it was about the things you mentioned in the OP, which do not fall in accordance with the place that it is being done.


Unfortunately, it seems that YouTube has removed the video, so I can only base my comment on the OP's text.Here's the video (http://barstoolu.barstoolsports.com/random-thoughts/arizona-state-student-vs-protestor/#comment-114353).


You go to school to study and to prepare for the future, not to protest about whatever the guy was protesting about.
College is not just about the classes. College campuses are not limited to strict study. How is this any different than kids with Green Peace other than their message is less "offensive." What about all the research and activism that happens at college? Not all of that is "to study and prepare for the future."


It may or may not be legal, but what matters is that it is socially unsatisfactory and will bring controversy in a place like a school campus, where young and ignorant people go to.
Wait what? It's legal, but it shouldn't be because there are stupid people who can't control themselves? You do realize that's a "valid" argument to banning just about anything from knives to booze?


As a matter of fact, if I were there studying, doing my school work and minding my own business, and I saw some fat guy swinging signs at me with content on the signs like the ones that you mentioned, I would say that he is disturbing my peace, as a student that is there to follow the purpose of the school and not for other reasons like being selfish by trying to force my personal beliefs into other people who do not care about them, as they are not there for that.
This guy isn't swinging his sign at anyone. He has the legal right to be there, where as you do not have the right to decide that your offended state is an excuse to act like a toddler.



Anyway, I totally agree with you. Normally I would champion anyone's right to freedom of speech, but not like this.
Holding signs is some new heinous form of speech?


And I loathe the idea of any adult purposely taking advantage of some kid who simply isn't mature enough to have the fear of God put into them.
Okay, you haven't watched the video, so I'm going to overlook some of your post that the video might clear up.


Doesn't change the fact that his actions were also breaching one's entitlement to a decent education.
A preacher holding a sign does not breach his entitlement to a decent education. His inability to cope with differing opinions is his problem, not the preacher's.


Suppose I went to his church, hung around his premises, and then started waving signs of anti-religious messages encouraging spiritism and the summoning of demons--and then used the legal system as a crutch by playing the right-to-freedom-of-speech card?
Church premises are private property; your analogy is flawed. Atheists on campus happen often.


Nope, as far as I'm concerned that was effectively restricted property he was on and he crossed the line when he started intruding on one's real opportunity for study
Too bad as far as you are concerned you are wrong. The guy is outside in an actually public area, there's nothing effectively restricted about it.


he has at least one defense, he's an inexperienced kid; it's the adult who should have known better.
Known better than to what; exercise his right to speak? The kid is not inexperienced. He's childish to a degree that he can't properly control his actions.

Wio
05-06-2014, 08:52 PM
There was a time in progressives abhorred censorship and championed freedom of speech, but these days they just cannot stand it.

.:neuko:.
05-07-2014, 03:56 AM
Firstly, I must clarify an error that I just noticed in my other post. I referred to the "preacher" as a "priest", which may not be true, so my apologies for that.

Secondly, I clicked that link in your post, but again, the video has been removed; which, is hardly surprising seen as it's the same YouTube video. There is an additional looped video below of a kid lunging at a guy with a sign (Presumably the one in question), but I could hardly call it conclusive. Furthermore the user comments on the site are not really helpful. If anything, it seems most are sheerly making fun of the kid's shameful fall to ground as he was pushed away from the preacher and aren't really discussing what is probably a serious underlying issue.


Holding signs is some new heinous form of speech?

Obviously there's nothing "heinous" about holding a sign per se, and I don't know why you brought up that word as I don't remember implying that anything "heinous" was going on. Nonetheless, the preacher is responsible for the text on the sign. Form of speech or not, it doesn't change the fact that he was still conveying a message with pretty clear intentions. The fact that he's (supposedly) not using oral means of communication to convey his message doesn't make it any less offensive.



A preacher holding a sign does not breach his entitlement to a decent education. His inability to cope with differing opinions is his problem, not the preacher's.

My argument against this is in the second-last paragraph.



Church premises are private property; your analogy is flawed.

Actually this is not the case with all churches, as the definition of "church" differs between countries. Even if some church did have the legal right to force me off its private premises and exercised it, I could at least argue from a point of fairness that this would be unjust since all I did was hold up a sign outside the main building, which, by your logic means I would not be breaching one's entitlement to practice their religious beliefs. Yet because it's legally classed as private property the church is free to kick me off the premises for uhm... well, as you put it: having "differing opinions".



The guy is outside in an actually public area, there's nothing effectively restricted about it.

Just because an area is public that does not mean it can't be restricted. It is restricted in the sense that it is part of a vital educational institution, not some casual public environment like a town square (and even in the latter, depending on the country, you can't just publicly convey the wrath of God). The notion that the kid could simply retain his educational entitlements by simply ignoring the preacher (or his sign rather) is shortsighted also. For one thing, it's unlikely the preacher would have stood in a place where his sign wouldn't have been noticed as this would have defeated the objective. Why would you not read a sign if you saw it? You could ignore it of course, but what if it was important? And how could you possibly know this until you read it? Obviously the kid did read the sign, and now possibly bears unnecessary thoughts that might affect his studies. You could argue that this sort of thing would likely happen outside the premises anyway, so what difference would it make if the same situation happened on the campus. Except... beyond his campus he'd be normally free to leave such situations (parks for instance) and minimise mental intrusion that way; meanwhile, he can't just simply leave an environment on which his future depends. So each time he goes to the school/college/uni/whatever it's called, he'll have to pass by that man with the sign, retaining the unwanted fear of God in his head as a result. Also, just a thought, but have you considered that the kid might consider himself homosexual? If you were he, how would you like to be reminded each day you walk into your campus that you'll be going to hell for your sexual orientation?



Known better than to what; exercise his right to speak? The kid is not inexperienced. He's childish to a degree that he can't properly control his actions.

I did say that I don't condone the kid's physical actions, so in that sense I do agree that he was being childish. Even in my country, lax as the legal system is, his actions would have at least been considered indecent assault while the "dude in the red shirt"'s would have been considered reasonable restraint. And of course, their was no demon possessing his soul that physically forced him to hit the preacher. However, given the circumstances, it's understandable why he did; not excusable, but understandable. Had he hit the man for the sheer pleasure of it, it would have been a more serious matter. Had the assaulted preacher pressed charges and the case been brought to court, the judge would still have to consider the circumstances leading to the assault, including the possibility that the preacher could have used less provocative methods of getting his message across. But no, he apparently thought it necessary to expose unhelpful information with no regard for anyone's educational rights. His intentions were deliberate and calculated.

Animedude5555
05-07-2014, 05:53 AM
Video removed. Please repost the video, preferably on a different video site. Youtube's rules suck a$$.

Anoleis
05-07-2014, 09:50 AM
Firstly, I must clarify an error that I just noticed in my other post. I referred to the "preacher" as a "priest", which may not be true, so my apologies for that.
Preacher, priest, w/e I don't know the word to describe a fire and brimstone. It doesn't really matter what type of zealot he is; sorry if I made it seem important.


Secondly, I clicked that link in your post, but again, the video has been removed; which, is hardly surprising seen as it's the same YouTube video. There is an additional looped video below of a kid lunging at a guy with a sign (Presumably the one in question), but I could hardly call it conclusive.
And that explains why I couldn't get video controls on what I thought was a video. Hopefully this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYGcn8wd-fk) stays up longer. I know it's another YT link, but I can't find the liveleak version.


Nonetheless, the preacher is responsible for the text on the sign. Form of speech or not, it doesn't change the fact that he was still conveying a message with pretty clear intentions. The fact that he's (supposedly) not using oral means of communication to convey his message doesn't make it any less offensive.
His intentions are to scare people into believe his way with 1000 year old scare tactics. It is irrelevant who finds it offensive.


Even if some church did have the legal right to force me off its private premises and exercised it, I could at least argue from a point of fairness that this would be unjust since all I did was hold up a sign outside the main building, which, by your logic means I would not be breaching one's entitlement to practice their religious beliefs. Yet because it's legally classed as private property the church is free to kick me off the premises for uhm... well, as you put it: having "differing opinions".
Any church on private property has the right to kick you off the property. Please don't conflate that Churches having the right to kick one off their property with a violation of the right to free speech. Anyone has the right to get someone they do not want on their property off, regardless of what is being said. It isn't a violation of free speech to kick trespassers off private property. It is a violation of free speech to kick someone off public property because of their message. See how that works?


It is restricted in the sense that it is part of a vital educational institution, not some casual public environment like a town square
HAHAHA, oh god, wow. Have you ever been to college? Campus does not consist of classrooms and silent study gardens. ASU is hardly vital, and the construction by my dorm has been, including the Christians/Judgement Dayers I got talked at by yesterday, the most obnoxious thing here. The college environment is very "casual" outside of class, and areas outside of the buildings are casual public environments.


The notion that the kid could simply retain his educational entitlements by simply ignoring the preacher (or his sign rather) is shortsighted also. For one thing, it's unlikely the preacher would have stood in a place where his sign wouldn't have been noticed as this would have defeated the objective.
It must be so nice blaming one's inadequacies on others.
"Jimmy, why didn't you do your homework?"
"A mean, nasty man with a sign was standing on my walk back to my dorm, and despite being an adult with responsibilities, I chose to spend my time thinking about how he was wrong."

If you can't function properly because someone on campus disagrees with you, there are obviously underlying problems.

Also, el-oh-el at that last part. Everyone can say anything so long as they do it out of earshot.


Why would you not read a sign if you saw it? You could ignore it of course, but what if it was important?
What if it said I was going to die in six hours? Should I ignore that sign? Or the sign that says "You're a big poopy head?"


Obviously the kid did read the sign, and now possibly bears unnecessary thoughts that might affect his studies.
Are you reading what you're saying? Unnecessary thoughts? What the burning Christ are those? You can't tell people not to say things because they might make someone think something. God forbid people actually think at college.


You could argue that this sort of thing would likely happen outside the premises anyway, so what difference would it make if the same situation happened on the campus. Except... beyond his campus he'd be normally free to leave such situations (parks for instance) and minimise mental intrusion that way; meanwhile, he can't just simply leave an environment on which his future depends.
Today I learned that walking away from annoying people is too much effort on my part and the annoying people should just know to stay away from me regardless of their rights.


So each time he goes to the school/college/uni/whatever it's called, he'll have to pass by that man with the sign, retaining the unwanted fear of God in his head as a result.
Each time I walk past the diversity poster in my dorm I retain unwanted fear of offending someone.
Each time I log onto AF I retain unwanted knowledge of anime and fear that someone may attack me for said knowledge.

Do you see how ridiculous this is yet? Nobody has a freedom from ideas, especially on a college campus.


Also, just a thought, but have you considered that the kid might consider himself homosexual? If you were he, how would you like to be reminded each day you walk into your campus that you'll be going to hell for your sexual orientation?
It isn't an excuse for not getting the counseling the college offers. Since I actually am a homosexual, and have been told several times exactly what horrors lie in wait unless I give up my butt piracy; I don't empathize with a ninny who gets his personal evaluations from religious crocks with signs.


But no, he apparently thought it necessary to expose unhelpful information with no regard for anyone's educational rights. His intentions were deliberate and calculated.
Let me explain what your "educational rights" on a college campus are. If you are in class, you have the right to listen and learn. Outside of class, you have nothing. There are no "educational entitlements" outside of class. You are paying for the class, and the right to sleep on campus. You are not entitled to a quiet study space. You are not entitled to an area where nobody questions your views. You are not paying for the right to not hear ideas that might be troubling.

It's comical that you continue to cast the preacher as some omniscient villain. Because that preacher was totally trying to get people to attack him, and knew he could illicit an attack by telling them how horrible hell is and exactly how to stay out of it. His clear intent was to piss people off and ruin their college experience. Much diabolical so chessmaster wow

DeathBlade/13.666
05-07-2014, 11:10 AM
Technically, campus is the place for these protests. He does have a legal right to be there.


It's lucky for Joe Banshee that this preacher wasn't a litigious money vacuum like the WBC.
Just have the college marching band practice around him, so all that is heard is sweet music instead of preaching. The Band Director won't mind, because it's extra practicing for the band members.

Wio
05-07-2014, 04:35 PM
Just have the college marching band practice around him, so all that is heard is sweet music instead of preaching. The Band Director won't mind, because it's extra practicing for the band members.

Well, it's an upgrade from using violence, but it still is childish. It sounds as though you are afraid of other people hearing his message because you don't like it. Are you scared that some people will hear his ideas and agree with them?

Anoleis
05-07-2014, 04:41 PM
Just have the college marching band practice around him, so all that is heard is sweet music instead of preaching. The Band Director won't mind, because it's extra practicing for the band members.
You'll have to forgive my negligence, but it is my understanding that some colleges have "fixed" this by providing Free Speech areas. Of course, then you get to this story. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/21/Video-Pornography-Professor-Assaults-Pro-Life-Activist) The source is just what I pulled up on google, you'll find a similar story just about everywhere.

sunnyside
05-07-2014, 09:09 PM
While I'll grant they're technically assault, those cases are barely so. At least it sounds like the teacher is being charged.

That said you do rather expect that sort of thing to happen around protests. Actually I take it as a point of pride that reports on protests generally aren't followed by a "killed and injured count" as they are in much of the world.

It's only worth bringing up in these cases because of the possible hypocrisy of the stereotype of the sorts of people who would oppose those signs. (Though for all we know those individuals follow a violent strain of anarchism and are internally consistent.) Engaging in violence against people saying things you don't like is historically pretty much "normal" for humanity.



It may or may not be legal, but what matters is that it is socially unsatisfactory and will bring controversy in a place like a school campus, where young and ignorant people go to.


as far as I'm concerned that was effectively restricted property he was on and he crossed the line when he started intruding on one's real opportunity for study, however lawful and maybe peripheral his actions may have been. While I don't condone the student's handling of the situation (as I said, he could have handled it better), he has at least one defense, he's an inexperienced kid; it's the adult who should have known better.



Just because an area is public that does not mean it can't be restricted. It is restricted in the sense that it is part of a vital educational institution, not some casual public environment like a town square (and even in the latter, depending on the country, you can't just publicly convey the wrath of God).

I commend your studiousness.

However (at least in the US) college are places of controversy. In the sense that to graduate you are almost certainly going to be required to take some classes along the lines of "diversity" and also "international perspectives". Those courses will often have "challenge students thinking" or "controversy" in their titles or descriptions. I don't know if they're just common or required for accreditation these days.

The university probably also has a "diversity statement" or somesuch that will include something about exposing students to and respecting all differences or something like that.

Now most universities are actually private property, I think even the roads. They can ask you to leave. But to a limited extent that want to facilitate a measure of protest or people doing odd stuff and so will have free speech zones, a permitting system, or some mechanism. Presumably the protesters are availing themselves of those opportunities.

Anoleis
05-07-2014, 09:27 PM
Now most universities are actually private property, I think even the roads. They can ask you to leave. But to a limited extent that want to facilitate a measure of protest or people doing odd stuff and so will have free speech zones, a permitting system, or some mechanism. Presumably the protesters are availing themselves of those opportunities.
The university can ask you to leave, yes. It would be pretty bad press to ask a fire and brimstone doomsayer to leave a free speech zone. Got to let the crazies vent or we get stuff like Columbine and V. Tech happens. /s Considering what they let in said zones, the doomsayers are pretty tame. I'm going to assume said Doomsayer is in the free speech zone. I can't give them much credit, but I can say this; they knows where they can legally guilt. Can't guilt the masses if campus security if all up in your holy hizzie.

AllHopeInEclipse
05-07-2014, 09:49 PM
An Arizona State student...

Found your problem. It's not just because I'm a fan and former University of Arizona student. They had a student body president a few years back who said they needed to work on the image of the school, and within the same month appeared in a porn flick online.

Link for reference, was a student VP.

http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/96/1/01_5.html

Wio
05-07-2014, 11:20 PM
The university probably also has a "diversity statement" or somesuch that will include something about exposing students to and respecting all differences or something like that.

Women can pick feminist courses and most minorities can pick a course about their ethnicity to fulfill this requirement. In other words, it is a joke.

DeathBlade/13.666
05-08-2014, 08:30 AM
Well, it's an upgrade from using violence, but it still is childish. It sounds as though you are afraid of other people hearing his message because you don't like it. Are you scared that some people will hear his ideas and agree with them?
Yes it's absolutely childish, but it's not because I'm afraid of hearing or others hearing the message. It's because I've heard it all before. It's Fire and Brimstone. The message hasn't changed since the 1800's. And those that typically preach and follow it have a serious lack of understanding of the bible.

You'll have to forgive my negligence, but it is my understanding that some colleges have "fixed" this by providing Free Speech areas. Of course, then you get to this story. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/21/Video-Pornography-Professor-Assaults-Pro-Life-Activist) The source is just what I pulled up on google, you'll find a similar story just about everywhere. >.>; Sorry your statement has been lost due to me now hearing that there's a professor in porn... Which means there's a PhD in porn... Which means I'm gonna go get me a doctorate. XD J/K. That is true, but there's nothing against a marching band drowning out speech in free speech areas. Or people can take note from the Native Hawaiians and put pennies in their ears. All else fails, use a "Wrap-it-Up" box.