LINK Art professor sues after firing over Prophet Muhammad images
I'm super happy she's suing, and I think she has an excellent case. If you don't know the story, this professor was teaching an art history class in which much religious art would be explored including images of Muhammad. She had it in the syllabus and even warned the students right before showing the image. Yet, instead of opting out, a Muslim student subjected herself to seeing the image, became offended, and complained to the administration. Based on that single complaint the professor's contract was canceled and she was defamed by the university as Islamophobic. Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations is supporting her. I hope she wins big.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I am reminded of the author/barrister John Mortimer of "Rumpole of the Bailey" fame. He had the job of defending obscenity cases in the late 60s early 70s. (How out of date they seem now with internet porn). Now the law stated that the publication had to "deprave or corrupt". So you would have the ridiculous situation where some like Rev John Shepard. The Bishop of Liverpool stands up in open court and says "Yes I was depraved and corrupted by viewing this porno".
The complaining student was given a fair warning about the content of the lecture. They chose to attend regardless. The painting was made by Muslims for Muslims in an age when such things weren't forbidden to some Muslims. (it is still just a minority of Muslims that ban such depictions. So it cannot be called anti-Muslim) Moreover, a university should be in the business of questioning your preconceived ideas. If it is just an echo chamber then you deserve your money back.
273kelvin
Level 8
Jan 19, 2023
1
Organizations that publicly post images of Muhammad, especially insulting ones, for no reason other than outrage generation ... I have problems with that. In this case from what I know, no such motive was present and believers were fully warned. So yeah, I think her cause is just.
Druvius
Level 8
Jan 18, 2023
0
I disagree, After the publication of the Charley Ebdo cartoon and subsequent fatwa. There was a failed campaign to have every newspaper in the free world publish the cartoon. Unfortunately, they all bottled out but imagine if it had succeeded. It would have nipped in the bud what amounts to censorship by a religious minority.
[reddit.com]
@Druvius "I think deliberately provoking people to violence is a bad idea." There is a big difference between "Let's go get the bastards" and "Look what you made me do". To some* this whole site and our refusal to accept their truth is an abomination and worthy of violent action. Does this mean we should all shut up and close the site? Obviously not. we live in a western democracy where free speech is cherished (it may not always be liked but it still should be loved). We all have the right to be offended and some might say a duty. For if nobody is ever offended then we are not free. It is also not racist to think that anyone who does not want to live in a free western democracy and all it entails can fuck off to somewhere that does meet their requirements and that includes alt-right Christians. (Ghana is accepting immigrants)
I get that some sites might deliberately set out to pick a fight and some trolls too but that is a price we pay to live here. If that drives some to violence, then that is THEIR problem and THEIR action.
*Insert religious nutters of choice here.
@Druvius Freedom of speech includes the right to offend others with speech that is controversial and unpopular. Which is why Jewish lawyer David Goldberger defended Chicago area Nazis right to march thru the Jewish neighborhood of Skokie in 1977. Or as Noam Chomsky put it: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, then we don’t believe in it at all.”
Have we learned anything here, today?
@NostraDumbass Yes, you don't seem to understand that there's no such thing as an unfettered right. And you didn't answer my question.
@Druvius You are projecting your own deficiencies onto me when you suggest I lack understanding. The point is driven home when you failed to grasp that my Skokie example was an answer to your question. Nice self-own.
There is quite a bit of Islamic art that includes Muhammad. It has become the fuckwad members, equivalent to Christian evangelicals, who have taken command of large swaths of the religion and, like evangelicals, work toward the stupidfication of their populace. There are even Muslim scholars who have and di argue that the Koran has been altered over time (a key tenet denial to those who would kill over that idea - Satanic Verses centers on that).
My guess is that the college will want to settle, as they carry insurance for such suits. I hope she drags them and insists on much more.
( nothing to do with this - I had a part in what turned into a law suit against a high school for the actions of a college counselor - sex with a student. The suit wasn't settled for almost 8 years. School immediately offered a million, insurance money, but the parents wanted the school to suffer. In the end, a little over 2 million was settled upon).
Beowulfsfriend
Level 9
Jan 18, 2023
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.