ACLU sues Jackson-Reed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

DP: Have you read this thread? It has some answers for you.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As I have written repeatedly, the transcript posted here is not for the version of the video the students plan to show. Your current "WHOLE POINT", which is different than you previous said, is fairly accurate other than your references to Hamas' charter which, as I previously explained to you, is not in the video that the students plan to show.

The ACLU press release which is linked in the first post of this thread links to the video. Again I ask that you at least take the time to watch it before you demand that students be prevented from seeing it. Here is the link provided by the ACLU:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKRwdsq-As

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

So if David Duke was narrating a film about Brown v BoE it would be absurd for people to impute messaging or import to the choice of narrator? Louis Farrakhan could narrate a film about Jewish owned banks and people would be absurd to believe the choice of narrator is without import or meaning?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As I have written repeatedly, the transcript posted here is not for the version of the video the students plan to show. Your current "WHOLE POINT", which is different than you previous said, is fairly accurate other than your references to Hamas' charter which, as I previously explained to you, is not in the video that the students plan to show.

The ACLU press release which is linked in the first post of this thread links to the video. Again I ask that you at least take the time to watch it before you demand that students be prevented from seeing it. Here is the link provided by the ACLU:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKRwdsq-As

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

Come on Jeff. Imagine this scenario:

A group of students wants to show a documentary on “woke culture”. Part of it is narrated by David Duke. An earlier version included statements about how “slavery wasn’t that bad and didn’t cause the civil war” but was edited out.

You actually think JR would allow it to be shown?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As I have written repeatedly, the transcript posted here is not for the version of the video the students plan to show. Your current "WHOLE POINT", which is different than you previous said, is fairly accurate other than your references to Hamas' charter which, as I previously explained to you, is not in the video that the students plan to show.

The ACLU press release which is linked in the first post of this thread links to the video. Again I ask that you at least take the time to watch it before you demand that students be prevented from seeing it. Here is the link provided by the ACLU:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKRwdsq-As

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

Come on Jeff. Imagine this scenario:

A group of students wants to show a documentary on “woke culture”. Part of it is narrated by David Duke. An earlier version included statements about how “slavery wasn’t that bad and didn’t cause the civil war” but was edited out.

You actually think JR would allow it to be shown?

We have apparently reached the point at which posters are no longer able to credibly dispute the content of the video. I am not going to engage your hypotheticals. If you have an objection to the content of the video, let’s hear it. Right now you are simply back peddling.

I will again ask that you watch the video.

[Anonymous]

I watched the film and it seems reasonable.
No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives. It is ridiculous to shut down uncomfortable conversations. Let the film be shown, participation is optional after all. Everyone should be encouraged to participate in a moderated discussion after the movie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

So if David Duke was narrating a film about Brown v BoE it would be absurd for people to impute messaging or import to the choice of narrator? Louis Farrakhan could narrate a film about Jewish owned banks and people would be absurd to believe the choice of narrator is without import or meaning?

That's a ridiculous scenario. The bass player from Pink Floyd has certainly said some inartful things and may have views you disagree with, but he's no David Duke.

In fact, his "going around in Nazi uniforms" consists of music performances (i.e., rock concerts) that are meant to be a depiction of an unhinged fascist, as portrayed in the popular movie "The Wall". They are thoroughly *anti-fascist*.

Ralph Fiennes dressed as a nazi in Schindler's List as well. How is that different?

Watch the film, and speak to the content. Or don't. Just don't spread lies.

[Anonymous]

You don’t win hearts and minds by silencing people. Let them show the documentary. It is the right thing to do

[Anonymous]

This same film caused a bunch of controversy in Takoma Park 5 years ago:

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2019/07/documentary-screening-sparks-controversy-in-takoma-park/

They first banned it, then decided it was OK to show as long as there's a panel discussion afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

So if David Duke was narrating a film about Brown v BoE it would be absurd for people to impute messaging or import to the choice of narrator? Louis Farrakhan could narrate a film about Jewish owned banks and people would be absurd to believe the choice of narrator is without import or meaning?

That's a ridiculous scenario. The bass player from Pink Floyd has certainly said some inartful things and may have views you disagree with, but he's no David Duke.

In fact, his "going around in Nazi uniforms" consists of music performances (i.e., rock concerts) that are meant to be a depiction of an unhinged fascist, as portrayed in the popular movie "The Wall". They are thoroughly *anti-fascist*.

Ralph Fiennes dressed as a nazi in Schindler's List as well. How is that different?

Watch the film, and speak to the content. Or don't. Just don't spread lies.

If anyone in the world could watch the movie version of The Wall and not immediately get that it’s 100% anti-Fascist, then they’re really not very bright.

I think PP knows this and is just throwing stuff at the wall to try to distract people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This the same school that indefinitely postponed readings of Maus and Night earlier this year. Is the JSU sewing too? Why don’t the groups get together and do a collective old fashioned sit in? Seems like a better use of resources. Where are the adults? Oh wait, the ACLU.

https://thejackson-reedbeacon.com/21675/news/students-teachers-struggle-to-discuss-israel-hamas-war/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/12/19/schools-speech-israel-gaza-protest/

"Five teachers met with Assistant Principal Marc Minsker, who oversees the English department, to discuss the delay of reading 'Night and Maus.' Minsker said that teachers were struggling with how to teach 'because [the conflict is] a sensitive topic right now.'

The department decided to postpone reading the books until tensions decreased."

Wow. I thought people were exaggerating.

So the school postponed/cancelled indefinitely the Holocaust lessons?

No. As mentioned upthread, Night and Maus were taught last month—as planned when the teachers originally requested the delay so that they could prepare lessons that took the current context into account.

how does the "current context" have anything to do with the hamas attacks and the war?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you?

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote:

"the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat".

Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion.

I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:

On the evening of December 6, 2023, a parent who was present in the school removed one of the posters from the wall and complained to the school administration about the showing of the film. In response, Principal Brown cancelled the event and had the posters taken down.

I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain.

Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public.

As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity.

So if David Duke was narrating a film about Brown v BoE it would be absurd for people to impute messaging or import to the choice of narrator? Louis Farrakhan could narrate a film about Jewish owned banks and people would be absurd to believe the choice of narrator is without import or meaning?

That's a ridiculous scenario. The bass player from Pink Floyd has certainly said some inartful things and may have views you disagree with, but he's no David Duke.

In fact, his "going around in Nazi uniforms" consists of music performances (i.e., rock concerts) that are meant to be a depiction of an unhinged fascist, as portrayed in the popular movie "The Wall". They are thoroughly *anti-fascist*.

Ralph Fiennes dressed as a nazi in Schindler's List as well. How is that different?

Watch the film, and speak to the content. Or don't. Just don't spread lies.

If anyone in the world could watch the movie version of The Wall and not immediately get that it’s 100% anti-Fascist, then they’re really not very bright.

I think PP knows this and is just throwing stuff at the wall to try to distract people.

Both his former saxophonist and his former producer have spoken out about his anti-Semitism.

"Norbert Stachel, Waters’ former saxophonist, alleged several instances where he said Waters displayed anti-Jewish sentiment. He claimed Waters lost his temper on tour in Lebanon after a succession of vegetarian dishes were produced at a restaurant and demanded that waiters “take away the Jew food”.

Stachel also alleged Waters mocked his grandmother who was murdered in the Holocaust, and that a colleague warned him not to react to any comments about Jews if he wanted to keep his job." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/sep/28/roger-waters-accused-of-repeated-antisemitism-in-new-documentary

I think you knew this already.

[Anonymous]

Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."