SF State loves terrorists

**Briareos** · 12-05-2006, 11:15 AM

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/007652.html

Attacking Hamas and Hezbollah is apparently offensive there...

**Grazzt** · 12-05-2006, 12:15 PM

You know, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm opposed to what the school did on the grounds that just because something is offensive to someone, doesn't mean it should be banned. I mean, I'm not opposed to flag burning, even though I probably wouldn't want to hang around with people who burn the Canadian flag.

At the same time, I'm really opposed to the way Briareos framed this debate. Instead of focussing on whether or not it's right to ban things that are offensive to people, he somehow decides to make it seem as if the school is sympathetic to terrorists. What the hell? They're just trying to be sensitive to Muslim kids who don't want to see this sort of thing from happening. How do you get them "loving" terrorists out of an act of over-PCness? The students weren't even complaining about the fact that they were Hezbollah and Hamas flags being stomped on, just the fact that they have the word "God" on them.

**the4thpip** · 12-05-2006, 12:33 PM

You shouldn't feel torn just because Briareos is a weirdo.

We tend to ignore him unless he brings dip. He makes a wicked cheese dip.

**The Xenos** · 12-05-2006, 12:36 PM

I don't know about banning, but I think the Republican group are blazing stupid for trashing someone's flag.

Of course, anyone offended by those jerks should find an American flag and torch it. Actually, a picture of Bush, or any other Republican symbol, would be more apropriate, becase I'm sure those kids offended are proud Americans.

**Paul McEnery** · 12-05-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Briareos

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/007652.html

Republican students are nazi asswipes.

There. Fixed it for you.

BTW, you've got to love this textbook standard play:

The College Republicans said they will take legal action against the university if sanctions are imposed upon them, citing their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Their first amendment right to suppress other people's freedom of speech? Nice.

This is America. Nobody gets to despoil property. :D

**Briareos** · 12-05-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Grazzt

You know, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm opposed to what the school did on the grounds that just because something is offensive to someone, doesn't mean it should be banned. I mean, I'm not opposed to flag burning, even though I probably wouldn't want to hang around with people who burn the Canadian flag.

At the same time, I'm really opposed to the way Briareos framed this debate. Instead of focussing on whether or not it's right to ban things that are offensive to people, he somehow decides to make it seem as if the school is sympathetic to terrorists. What the hell? They're just trying to be sensitive to Muslim kids who don't want to see this sort of thing from happening. How do you get them "loving" terrorists out of an act of over-PCness? The students weren't even complaining about the fact that they were Hezbollah and Hamas flags being stomped on, just the fact that they have the word "God" on them.

Nonsense. The people complaining about the word "God" being stomped were just fine with a crucifix in a jar of urine.

**Cam63** · 12-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Briareos

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/007652.html

Attacking Hamas and Hezbollah is apparently offensive there...

Sit down before you hurt yourself.

**Briareos** · 12-05-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by The Xenos

I don't know about banning, but I think the Republican group are blazing stupid for trashing someone's flag.

Of course, anyone offended by those jerks should find an American flag and torch it. Actually, a picture of Bush, or any other Republican symbol, would be more apropriate, becase I'm sure those kids offended are proud Americans.

Moral equivalency at it's dumbest.

**Loren** · 12-05-2006, 01:23 PM

"Members… pre-mediated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."

Y'know, change "stomping" to "burning," and you virtually have the identical argument that's often used in defending anti-flag-burning laws.

I wonder how many folks on the SF Student Board are simultaneously against laws prohibiting flag burning, but willing to pass their own ban against flag stomping.

And nothing in the article says more about the state of freedom of speech on campus than this line: "Administrators have been criticized for even allowing the [anti-terrorism] rally to take place." Yeah, how dare they allow a rally that some people disagreed with.

**PatrickG** · 12-05-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Briareos

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/007652.html

Attacking Hamas and Hezbollah is apparently offensive there...

Let me reframe this:

You suppose they don't want to beat out the Golden Gate bridge as the top terrorist target in the city?

**PatrickG** · 12-05-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Loren

"Members… pre-mediated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."

Y'know, change "stomping" to "burning," and you virtually have the identical argument that's often used in defending anti-flag-burning laws.

I wonder how many folks on the SF Student Board are simultaneously against laws prohibiting flag burning, but willing to pass their own ban against flag stomping.

And nothing in the article says more about the state of freedom of speech on campus than this line: "Administrators have been criticized for even allowing the [anti-terrorism] rally to take place." Yeah, how dare they allow a rally that some people disagreed with.

Unfortunately, universities tend to implement a different standard of policy than their faculty and students tend to advocate for public policy.

Personally, I have less trouble reconciling this. While I find corporate or institutional censorship to be unfortunate, I don't feel it rises to the same level as governmental censorship in terms of vices. And were the college wholly private, I'd support and endorse them censoring whatever they choose since they're property owners even if I questioned the judgment of a place of higher learning doing it.

My college, for instance, is private. And has banned gays from organizing. While I find this to be deeply unfortunate and have signed every petition circulated that calls for a change in policy (a policy which I think is inconsistent since the rationale for banning Listen from forming is a ban on advocacy groups for which Democrat and Republican clubs are grandfathered), I do not feel that anyone should force a property owner to change through means other than making one's voice heard and adjusting the cash flow directed toward an institution. I'm close enough to graduating that I won't drop out...

... However, I will issue demands and earmark any money I donate back. And I hope that I one day find myself with enough money that earmarking of funds and withholding of donations on conditions will change policy at the school, in order to steer the school towards the vision I had of it when I decided to enroll.

**Ian Boothby** · 12-05-2006, 03:16 PM

I think flag companies are behind all this pro flag stomping and burning. Because in the end you have to buy a new flag and who profits? That's right, Big Flag. Don't let Big Flag win.