ACLU sues Jackson-Reed

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

In this particular instance, you could have easily responded directly to the person you were arguing with. Instead you chose to invoke anyone (including about 90% of American Jews) who thinks Israel has a right to continued existence.

You can it whatever you want, but it makes it harder to see your posts as objective when you continue to lump together people like "anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left" PP and people who "protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

I'm not forcing anyone to take any position. But I have a position. And I believe you and everyone else who is just asking questions about the Israel lobby and just the Israel lobby also has a position that's not just "gosh darn it, we should talk about this."

Also, maybe you meant October 10th or perhaps October 15th.

No, I meant October 7, because *in isolation* the response looks clearly disproportionate and untargeted. 35,000 Gazans killed by Israel, vs 1,200 Israelis and others killed by Hamas (plus multiple more wounded and terrorized on both sides). Plus the wholesale destruction of Gazan homes and infrastructure, putting Gazans at the risk of mass starvation.

Without history and nuance, there wouldn't be much to debate here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

In this particular instance, you could have easily responded directly to the person you were arguing with. Instead you chose to invoke anyone (including about 90% of American Jews) who thinks Israel has a right to continued existence.

You can it whatever you want, but it makes it harder to see your posts as objective when you continue to lump together people like "anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left" PP and people who "protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree."

DP: The specificity that you are seeking is unwieldy and not common practice in normal conversation when a group is mentioned. People understand that group defined by more than one characteristic--ie, pro-Israel is not a monolithic bloc as regards Israel's policies.

But more generally, one group has dominated the room in the US when it comes to discussions of Israel's interests. When someone like Bernie Sanders very clearly argues against anti-Semitism and against the Israel's current Gaza actions, it is notable contrast to the 'loudest' talking points.

That PR power is "the WHOLE POINT" of the documentary under discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

In this particular instance, you could have easily responded directly to the person you were arguing with. Instead you chose to invoke anyone (including about 90% of American Jews) who thinks Israel has a right to continued existence.

You can it whatever you want, but it makes it harder to see your posts as objective when you continue to lump together people like "anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left" PP and people who "protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree."

DP: The specificity that you are seeking is unwieldy and not common practice in normal conversation when a group is mentioned. People understand that group defined by more than one characteristic--ie, pro-Israel is not a monolithic bloc as regards Israel's policies.

But more generally, one group has dominated the room in the US when it comes to discussions of Israel's interests. When someone like Bernie Sanders very clearly argues against anti-Semitism and against the Israel's current Gaza actions, it is notable contrast to the 'loudest' talking points.

That PR power is "the WHOLE POINT" of the documentary under discussion.

Do people actually understand that though? Maybe it's just the "loudest" pro-Palestinian voices driving this, but Jews, except for the most ardently anti-Zionist, have definitely been treated as a monolith these past six months.

Again, the school's position on this doesn't make sense to me. I don't object to the students showing the film. I'm not claiming it's antisemitic. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive about language that suggests all Jews are just crying antisemitism. It's been a long six months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

In this particular instance, you could have easily responded directly to the person you were arguing with. Instead you chose to invoke anyone (including about 90% of American Jews) who thinks Israel has a right to continued existence.

You can it whatever you want, but it makes it harder to see your posts as objective when you continue to lump together people like "anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left" PP and people who "protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree."

DP: The specificity that you are seeking is unwieldy and not common practice in normal conversation when a group is mentioned. People understand that group defined by more than one characteristic--ie, pro-Israel is not a monolithic bloc as regards Israel's policies.

But more generally, one group has dominated the room in the US when it comes to discussions of Israel's interests. When someone like Bernie Sanders very clearly argues against anti-Semitism and against the Israel's current Gaza actions, it is notable contrast to the 'loudest' talking points.

That PR power is "the WHOLE POINT" of the documentary under discussion.

Do people actually understand that though? Maybe it's just the "loudest" pro-Palestinian voices driving this, but Jews, except for the most ardently anti-Zionist, have definitely been treated as a monolith these past six months.

Again, the school's position on this doesn't make sense to me. I don't object to the students showing the film. I'm not claiming it's antisemitic. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive about language that suggests all Jews are just crying antisemitism. It's been a long six months.

All groups are generally treated as monolithic. Muslims from all different countries are lumped together. Asians are often treated like they are all the same. Anyone demonstrating against the Israel war is promptly labelled pro-Hamas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

I'm not forcing anyone to take any position. But I have a position. And I believe you and everyone else who is just asking questions about the Israel lobby and just the Israel lobby also has a position that's not just "gosh darn it, we should talk about this."

Also, maybe you meant October 10th or perhaps October 15th.

Not sure why you have the right to decide what people mean and don’t mean when they say something. Sorry, you can’t handle a grown up discussion. You cannot control everyone’s talking points. This is not your living room

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

In this particular instance, you could have easily responded directly to the person you were arguing with. Instead you chose to invoke anyone (including about 90% of American Jews) who thinks Israel has a right to continued existence.

You can it whatever you want, but it makes it harder to see your posts as objective when you continue to lump together people like "anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left" PP and people who "protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree."

DP: The specificity that you are seeking is unwieldy and not common practice in normal conversation when a group is mentioned. People understand that group defined by more than one characteristic--ie, pro-Israel is not a monolithic bloc as regards Israel's policies.

But more generally, one group has dominated the room in the US when it comes to discussions of Israel's interests. When someone like Bernie Sanders very clearly argues against anti-Semitism and against the Israel's current Gaza actions, it is notable contrast to the 'loudest' talking points.

That PR power is "the WHOLE POINT" of the documentary under discussion.

Do people actually understand that though? Maybe it's just the "loudest" pro-Palestinian voices driving this, but Jews, except for the most ardently anti-Zionist, have definitely been treated as a monolith these past six months.

Again, the school's position on this doesn't make sense to me. I don't object to the students showing the film. I'm not claiming it's antisemitic. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive about language that suggests all Jews are just crying antisemitism. It's been a long six months.

All groups are generally treated as monolithic. Muslims from all different countries are lumped together. Asians are often treated like they are all the same. Anyone demonstrating against the Israel war is promptly labelled pro-Hamas.

Yes, but those are all shitty things to do and it's not unreasonable to request that someone (who otherwise seems to be reasonable) try to do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

I'm not forcing anyone to take any position. But I have a position. And I believe you and everyone else who is just asking questions about the Israel lobby and just the Israel lobby also has a position that's not just "gosh darn it, we should talk about this."

Also, maybe you meant October 10th or perhaps October 15th.

Not sure why you have the right to decide what people mean and don’t mean when they say something. Sorry, you can’t handle a grown up discussion. You cannot control everyone’s talking points. This is not your living room

I was trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they had misspoken, since they were setting up terrorism and persecution in contrast to the events of October 7th and after, since of course those events were also literal terrorism and persecution. That they meant it, I thought, was clarifying.

[Anonymous]

My 10th grader read NIGHT and Speigelman’s MAUS in his English class as did all the 10th graders in March 2024. Don’t know what you are talking about. And they took a field trip to the Holocaust museum with English classes

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/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My 10th grader read NIGHT and Speigelman’s MAUS in his English class as did all the 10th graders in March 2024. Don’t know what you are talking about. And they took a field trip to the Holocaust museum with English classes

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/

They were supposed to teach them in December. They were postponed. There’s a whole thread about it.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1174915.page

The ASU originally advertised this film after Night and Maus had been “postponed” and before they had been taught. I think the parent who complained to Brown was right to do so at that time, and I think the ACLU agrees, which is why they waited until after the books were taught to sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arab Student Union and ACLU are filling a suit against Jackson-Reed HS blaming the school has violated students first amendment right by preventing the spread of pro-Palestine content. Any predictions on the outcome for the school?
I personally think that the school grossly handled the situation, if there ever even was one. I have already heard details from DD that were confirmed in the article bellow.
https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/student-club-sues-jackson-reed-high-school-unconstitutional-censorship-pro

They will not win and thank goodness school leaders and DCPS are not backing down.
Go show that documentary somewhere else not on school grounds. And you also cannot sue an individual school btw, this isn’t Virginia. They are likely blaming the school but suing DCPS.

Calling antisemitism censorship is wild.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the film. For the millionth time, criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitic.

[Anonymous]

You cannot just shut down all criticism of Israel by claiming antisemitism.
Completely unfair and baseless tactics. And yes, US policy towards Israel can be criticised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arab Student Union and ACLU are filling a suit against Jackson-Reed HS blaming the school has violated students first amendment right by preventing the spread of pro-Palestine content. Any predictions on the outcome for the school?
I personally think that the school grossly handled the situation, if there ever even was one. I have already heard details from DD that were confirmed in the article bellow.
https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/student-club-sues-jackson-reed-high-school-unconstitutional-censorship-pro

They will not win and thank goodness school leaders and DCPS are not backing down.
Go show that documentary somewhere else not on school grounds. And you also cannot sue an individual school btw, this isn’t Virginia. They are likely blaming the school but suing DCPS.

Calling antisemitism censorship is wild.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the film. For the millionth time, criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitic.

Not ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, obviously. But that doesn't mean NO criticism of Israel is antisemitic. A lot of Jews are saying in this thread that they/we think this film is.

However, speech being antisemitic or offensive doesn't mean it can be banned, so I think the District is likely to lose this lawsuit regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arab Student Union and ACLU are filling a suit against Jackson-Reed HS blaming the school has violated students first amendment right by preventing the spread of pro-Palestine content. Any predictions on the outcome for the school?
I personally think that the school grossly handled the situation, if there ever even was one. I have already heard details from DD that were confirmed in the article bellow.
https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/student-club-sues-jackson-reed-high-school-unconstitutional-censorship-pro

They will not win and thank goodness school leaders and DCPS are not backing down.
Go show that documentary somewhere else not on school grounds. And you also cannot sue an individual school btw, this isn’t Virginia. They are likely blaming the school but suing DCPS.

Calling antisemitism censorship is wild.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the film. For the millionth time, criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitic.

Not ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, obviously. But that doesn't mean NO criticism of Israel is antisemitic. A lot of Jews are saying in this thread that they/we think this film is.

However, speech being antisemitic or offensive doesn't mean it can be banned, so I think the District is likely to lose this lawsuit regardless.

We’ll see. The principal has the legal right to ban the film in order to prevent polarization and disruption at the school. Jewish students have a right to learn and feel safe at school, and for the majority of them, this film would do the opposite. President Biden said as much in his speech today. The whole premise of the film is one big regurgitation of centuries old antisemitic tropes.

[Anonymous]

The ACLU settled with dc today and the ASU will NOT be screening the movie the occupation of the American mind at Jackson Reed. Instead they will screen a different movie that is not considered by many to be antisemitic.