November 15, 2007
GW Satirists Get $25 Fine, Probation
When posters appeared on the GW campus early last month bearing the message, "Hate Muslims? So Do We!", some people laughed, others got offended, and the university got a ton of media coverage unrelated to its exorbitant tuition. Today the GW Hatchet reports that the students responsible for the posters have each received a $25 fine and probation.
As you all may recall, the posters were part of a campaign to mock Islamo-Facism Awareness Week, a set of events on college campuses nationwide sponsored by the conservative Young America's Foundation. The posters, which bore the name of GW's Young America's Foundation chapter, featured an image of a Muslim man, along with tell-tale signs including "suicide vest," "hidden AK-47" and "peg-leg for smuggling children and heroin." Nine students were eventually implicated in poster-gate, including anti-war Iraq vet Adam Kokesh.
From the Hatchet's article:
Graduate student Adam Kokesh, a prominent anti-war Iraq veteran, said the satirical posters were intended to be overtly racist, according to an SJS report. "It was act of civil disobedience," Kokesh told The Hatchet Wednesday afternoon. "We knew we were violating postering policy and we were willing to take the consequences."
Sergio Gor, YAF's president, said he was unhappy with the outcome of the judicial proceedings. He added that the students unfairly attacked his group and should be suspended or expelled. "I think that's absolutely unacceptable that, once again, we see the double standards that are being applied - because the punishment doesn't fit the crime," Gor said.
Beyond the debate as to whether the fine and probation are enough, the Hatchet relays an interesting tidbit that's worth wondering about:
At a mediation meeting at Marvin Center several hours after the incident, UPD officers confronted Kokesh because he was a "possible suspect in posting hate material earlier that day," a police report states. The officers threatened the use of pepper spray when Kokesh did not comply with orders to stop and identify himself, the report said. He was immediately released.Pepper spray? Please. We all know that a taser is the best way to subdue a rowdy student.
|
While I still believe this poster is very funny, I think they got off pretty damn easy. $25 and probation? I do believe there was a double standard applied.
What's the double-standard? That satire is treated differently than actual hate speech? Or am I missing something?
I think it's only a "double standard" if there is an example of a similar postering violation in which the punishment was much harsher.
or maybe "more harsh?" My adjective needs fixed.
i am not familiar with all the details of this incident, but i have a question: was the satirical message over the head's over the university head's? the posters are transparently satirical, and i find it hard to believe people, especially at a university, didn't get it.
When it comes to satire, Mr. Kokesh could use a lesson from Doug and Dinesdale, the Piranha Brothers.
The problem with the poster, imo, is that it has the name of the Young America's Foundation (what that name is supposed to mean, I really don't know). Anyway, that kind of crosses the line from satire into fraud. It may not necessarily be illegal, but it shouldn't be tolerated in a university setting.
The double standard (at least as far as I see it) is this:
Despite the fact that the authors of the posters did not intend to offend anyone with the posters and despite the fact that when read in full the posters are clearly satire, the effect of putting up these posters was that a bunch of students (who either didn't read the whole poster or who misread it) got offended.
So while the authors did not intend to offend, certain people were nonetheless offended. Countless students have been severely punished for offending other students when they did not intend to offend, or even when the content of their message was, in context, not even offensive. Normally the charge is that they're ignorant and should have known that what they said would be offensive. Well these people should have known that printing in 72 point font "Hate Muslims? So do we!!!" would offend some students. They shouldn't be treated differently just because they espouse Liberal views.
Reid, I'd just have to ask for one example of "students [being] severely punished for offending other students when they did not intend to offend". There may be an obvious incident that students/alumnae know about, but it isn't obvious to the rest of us (or me, at least).
If GW has in the past expelled kids for a similar offense, then I agree that this is a double standard and their punishment should be more severe. But I haven't read any specific examples of previous, more severe punishments: "X happened in 1999. They got punishment Y. So it's unfair that these kids get a $25 fine and probation."
Since there are no laws against offending people, I don't care whether they intended to or not. The question is whether the attribution to YAF was merely satirical or libelous. Since that's a blurry line, and since $25 was a lot of money when I was in college, I'd say the punishment is appropriate.
I'm disappointed GWU did not give the malefactors the punishment I suggested: 20 hours of public service scraping old posters off the campus walls, and a 13-week course in writing satire.
I would have suggested a course in "Reader-Response Theory" but they got a good lesson in that already.
voteprime and registeringsucks:
The posters factually reported the event sponsor and how to get more information about the event.
There was a separate attribution line for the poster: "Brought to you by Students for Conservative-Fascism Awareness week"
The poster’s last line was supposed to reassure us this was a joke: "P.S. Seriously, do a Google video search for "The Power of Nightmares."
It's still not funny, but the intention is clear.
I hope these kids have learned their lesson: writing humor is harder than it looks.
Between this and the Jewish girl who drew swastikas on her door, I am convinced that GW sucks.
I think we need to remember that these speech codes are unconstitutional. One of the latest incidents occurred in San Francisco State University where the the college Republicans stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Hamas and Hezbollah, two Middle East terrorist organizations (the Republican students said they didn't know that the flags contained the name of Allah).
Anyhow, a SFSU student filed a complaint with university saying the Republican students engaged in "acts of incivility" and "intimidation" and created a "hostile environment" by publicly walking over the flags. A University panel eventually said there was no grounds for the case.
However, an outside group took the University to court and a magistrate judge issued an injunction against the speech code. I believe that is where the case is now.
My experience with speech codes has been one of a college enacting these codes in response to dogged pressure brought by groups determined to use the authority of the university to eliminate harassment and discrimination while pressing their own causes. Most of the time the cause has some type of liberal basis which ends up being used to prevent the free speech of conservative organizations like the SFSU Republicans.