Hate crime law used to censor the viewing of Obsession

January 11, 2007 2:05 AM

Hate crime laws used to censor the viewing of Obsession. Pace University administrators warned Hillel (Jewish organization for campus life) that viewing the movie Obession would be a Hate-act crime and reported to proper authorities. The Muslim Student Association told the Pace administrators that the showing the film would negatively portrayed Islam.
posted by IronWolve (27 comments total)

I have not seen Obsession, but now I have to watch it. I'm not sure how this could be considered a hate crime, but with political correctness going overboard, who knows.
posted by IronWolve at 2:12 AM on January 11, 2007

I read it as showing the movie would implicate the presenters in an existing hate crime investigation. This is a substantially different meaning from the summary's.
posted by Osmanthus at 3:06 AM on January 11, 2007

Interesting, but thanks no, I'm not sure I'd want to watch more of the usual reactionary drivel about dhimmitude and Eurabia and liberal America and terrorist-loving campuses (ooh, Frontpage Magazine, Daniel Pipes, Melanie Philips, Bat Ye'or, Horowitz, did they leave anyone out?) just because it's rehashed in movie form and it gets protested by religious fanatics. Good for them for getting such precious publicity though.

Also, they should try and keep up, in Londonistan, right at the heart of Eurabia, some groups of Christians, Muslims and Jews happily united in protest against the tyranny of a new law against gay discrimination in the proivision of goods and services, which will have the horrific consequence that 'a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be forced to print a flyer for a gay night club'.

So let's make our minds up, is it Islamic fanatics or gays and secular liberals that are going to destroy western civilisation? 'both' may be a convenient answer but I'm afraid it's logically unsustainable.
posted by pleeker at 3:19 AM on January 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ya, I should of worded that different. But the Dean did tell them not to show the film, and threatened them.
posted by IronWolve at 3:21 AM on January 11, 2007

From your first link:

I think I now have come to understand the love affair that the American Liberal Left seems to have with Islam. Islamic Terrorists use suicide bombs to kill innocent men, women, and children much like Liberal Democrats support the legalized murder of innocent infants through what they refer to as a “Decision between a woman and her doctor” (Abortion)

The same liberals defend mass murderers such as Stanley “Tookie” Williams, and cop killers like Mumia abu-Jamal and support the killing of mentally incapacitated people. Much like Nazis and Islamic Fundementalists. I now fully understand why Democrats have come to love and embrace Islam.

Right.

Is there another source on this story perhaps, one that's a little less rabidly partisan maybe?
posted by pleeker at 3:23 AM on January 11, 2007

Cripes.

I don't think my eyes will ever recover from being exposed to that nut-job's blathering.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 3:29 AM on January 11, 2007

The only thing worse than a rabid fundie wingnut is a rabid Zionist Jewish wingnut.
posted by rxrfrx at 4:21 AM on January 11, 2007

Ya, I should of worded that different.

the FPP's wording is badly misleading and maybe you should have linked to a site slightly more reputable than a LGF nut blog whose owner (a Michelle Malkin fan) writes stuff like

"Wouldn’t this be the same thing that Democrats have been screaming about? I guess now if you object to having Islam forced down your throat, groups like the ACLU and CAIR will be looking into things like your phone records and your internet comings and goings. I guess CAIR and the Demoncrats approve of phone taps and spying on American’s when it involves the defense of Islam, but not in defense of innocent American Christians and Jews who might be in harms way in the event of another attack by Islamic Terrorists such as the 19 muslim male, most of which from Saudi Arabia on Sept 11, 2001".

Best of the web is an elusive concept but, still, this is bad faith (not to mention, it's also a shit post). somebody who cares (Allah knows I don't) should email Matt or Jessamyn.
posted by matteo at 4:33 AM on January 11, 2007

more from Ironwolve's source:

Congressional Jihadist Keith Ellison Is Nothing More Then Cynthia McKinney With a Penis!
January 11, 2007
Vox Populi, Current Events, War, Politics, Religion

By The Rogue Jew

Did Cynthia McKinney get a sex change and a better hairdresser?
Islamic Sharia Law is already starting to get its sandal in the door with the naming of Congressional Jihadist and America’s first ever Islamic Fundementalist Congressman Keith Ellison (D-CAIR) to the House Judiciary Committee which by coincidence oversees matters such as Immigration, Civil Liberties, and the Courts.

...

Ellison is now a man of many hats. He’s Al Sharpton without a brain. He’s the Cartoon Like Prophet Muhammad with a legislative vote. He’s Osama bin Laden with Keys to the capitol. But above all else, the hat he wears the proudest is the fact that he will forever be known from this day forward as Cynthia McKinney with a penis!

posted by matteo at 4:49 AM on January 11, 2007

groups like the ACLU and CAIR will be looking into things like your phone records and your internet comings and goings.

So this is bad practice when the agency in question isn't paid for by your taxes?
posted by yerfatma at 5:05 AM on January 11, 2007

So this is bad practice when the agency in question isn't paid for by your taxes? RNC motto.
posted by jsteward at 5:28 AM on January 11, 2007

Wow, this post is so bad, you can almost smell it through the internets.
posted by psmealey at 5:37 AM on January 11, 2007

Reactionary drivel (the article) and almost certainly incorrect. Also this has nothing to do with any "hate crime" laws, but could relate to university policies.
posted by delmoi at 5:37 AM on January 11, 2007

This site has become a dumping ground for name calling, attacks upon this or that person, group, position. But the real problem is that comments seldom any longer deal with a post for what it says or tries to say. In this instance, is it a good or a bad thing that a university has told a student organization it ought not show a film, a film that presumably has been viewed and well received elsewhere. The film, which I have not seen, is said to deal with radical Islam and not with Islam itself.

Is there such a thing as radical Islam that is not the same as Muslims world-wide, and, if so, then what is a hate crime that would be involved? Is showing a film on the nazis a hate crime because it puts all Germans in a bad light?

Resolution for the New Year: address the issues of a post and stop spewing bile
posted by Postroad at 5:42 AM on January 11, 2007

Postroad - there are crazy fundamentalists in every sect. The issue with this post, methinks, is that none of the links go to sites with even a whiff of credibility, thereby rendering the discussion moot. And though I haven't seen it, these associations hint at the credibility, or lack thereof, of this film.

I mean, Glenn Beck? "Liberty Film Festival?" Pfft!
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 5:54 AM on January 11, 2007

And it's "Yeah," not "Ya," and "should have," not "should of." Jesus!
posted by ghastlyfop at 5:59 AM on January 11, 2007

The main article is simple provocation, designed to stir emotions , the way they say it in elite circles, to make you barking mad and angered.

The incipit tells a lot

It would seem that American’s Freedom of Speech is the latest casualty of the War on Terror.

First let's describe it so that challenging and making accusations is the same as erasing the bill of rights. That's bullshit and the author either doesn't know his arse from an hole in the wall, or does that to provocate an emotional reaction ! Freedom is under attack !

Let's skip a lot of drivel, but read it if you like, I pick and choose what I find interest, you have a link to the article anyway

If we continue to appease and give in to every wimper from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage & Mayhem, then all to soon the violence

Look ! Pot , meet kettle ! He starts with the outrage alarmist oh noes routine , then he says the other are doing something...that is exactly what he is doing, inciting reaction, outrage.

Despicable ? Nah it bores to tears, it's like watching politician attack each other on TV..funny if you like to see two barking dogs attacking each other, very sad if you believe they are actually going to attack each other out of the screen..it's like WWF Wrestling !
posted by elpapacito at 6:02 AM on January 11, 2007

I have not seen Obsession, but now I have to watch it.

Prepare yourself for a metric fuckton of Godwin.
posted by shawnj at 6:21 AM on January 11, 2007

Without really having a reliable source for this story its difficult to tell (mens news daily??? you must be joking) but this doesn't really seem like "censorship" per se. If it's the Jewish organization for campus life, they probably receive university funds for all their activities. So it would be perfectly normal for them to have to receive approval for those activities -- and if student government judged this to be a divisive or inflammatory activity it seems reasonable that they would not give them the funds to do it, or use of the school's A/V equipment, etc. But this is also just conjecture.
posted by crackingdes at 6:26 AM on January 11, 2007

Protesting Obsession? Sure, I could understand protesting Bonfire of the Vanities or Mission to Mars, but Obsession is one of the best works Brian dePalma did in the 1970s.

Oops, different movie... Never mind...
posted by jonp72 at 6:35 AM on January 11, 2007

Ditto M.C. Lo-Carb. This is a potentially interesting issue, but the main link is so hyperbolic that it makes intelligent discussion impossible.

In this instance, is it a good or a bad thing that a university has told a student organization it ought not show a film

For the record, if this is true, it's bad. Campus speech codes in general give me the heebie-jeebies, and this would consitute a clear infingement on academic freedom that any university ought to regard as an embarrassment. (That's assuming that Obsession, which I've not seen, isn't completely outside the bounds of civilized discourse, like a direct incitement to violence.)
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:36 AM on January 11, 2007

Another great post by ironwolve.

PS flagged as noise.
posted by Mister_A at 6:39 AM on January 11, 2007

Here's an abridged version of Obsession You can find a full version of the film on YouTube in parts.
posted by shawnj at 6:40 AM on January 11, 2007

So let's make our minds up, is it Islamic fanatics or gays and secular liberals that are going to destroy western civilisation? 'both' may be a convenient answer but I'm afraid it's logically unsustainable.

Not really.

Speaking as a hateful little troll who hates the right, left and pretty much everything levantine, one could soften us up for the other. A weakened society is just prey for a more vigorous and determined one.

Get too high a fever and eventually you get cold. Room temperature, actually. :)
posted by codswallop at 6:50 AM on January 11, 2007

Actually the article links the the NYTimes about the Koran in the toilet.
posted by IronWolve at 6:51 AM on January 11, 2007

In this instance, is it a good or a bad thing that a university has told a student organization it ought not show a film, a film that presumably has been viewed and well received elsewhere.

Well, the point is that the article claims that there is some sort of government sanctioned "censorship" based on some absurd misunderstanding about what "Hate Crimes" are, as opposed to some sort of censorship based on university policies. I think it's OK for universities to have standards, I guess. But that's not the point.
posted by delmoi at 6:59 AM on January 11, 2007

What a shoddily written article. Uggh. Even if I might sympathize with their position the partisanship and grade school writing style ruin this bit of so called journalism. Who knows what really happened? I wouldn't trust one sentence of this tripe.
posted by caddis at 7:01 AM on January 11, 2007