17 Comments

1. Rick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @11:03 am
   

   But wasn't Kirk just exercising his free speech rights? The wall was for expression. Sounds like he expressed himself with a boxcutter instead of a pen.

2. Patrick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @11:09 am
   

   Not quite, but note a clarification I slipped in.

3. Grandy  •  Sep 23, 2011 @11:17 am
   

   Ordering students to remove something, and then forcibly removing it when they refuse is not an exercising of free speech. It's censorship, period.

4. David  •  Sep 23, 2011 @11:49 am
   

   Keep your entreaty
   Off my graffiti

5. Ken  •  Sep 23, 2011 @11:57 am
   

   You beat me to this one.

   Here's what I wanted to say:

   Everybody's heard of the Heckler's Veto — the notion that the state prevents you from speaking because a hearer might get out of hand.

   That's not quite the case here. Joe E. Kirk is not a heckler, exactly.

   What is he? A weakling. A moral, intellectual, and spiritual weakling, incapable of enduring an affront to someone he likes, even if that affront is an inarticulate cry on a wall on a campus.

   Sam Houston State University Police have enacted a Weakling's Veto.

6. Ken  •  Sep 23, 2011 @12:07 pm
   

   By the way, here is one article in the student paper, with comments.

7. Rick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @1:28 pm
   

   Oh, I see. Because he's in an authority position? If another student had done the same thing (removing the quote), would it be censorship? If they had crossed it out with a pen instead of using a knife?

8. Rick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @1:31 pm
   

   If another student had alerted the Police instead? Seems like the police / faculty policy are to blame. I don't disagree that Mr. Kirk seems like a douche, just saying that his box-cutter ACT constitutes official censorship seems a little broad.

9. Patrick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @1:50 pm
   

   just saying that his box-cutter ACT constitutes official censorship seems a little broad.

   His act of ordering them to remove it was censorship. It was following that up with boxcutter vandalism that made him a douche.

10. Rick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @2:11 pm
    

    Ah, so he's guilty of Attempted Censorship; he spoke to them and they refused…

    The Police were the censors in this scenario in that they actually succeeded in shutting down the free speech, in my opinion.

    Anyway, didn't intend for so much ink to be spilled on this – sorry!

11. SPQR  •  Sep 23, 2011 @2:28 pm
    

    I got lost, Rick, just what were you trying to say in defense of the douche?

12. EH  •  Sep 23, 2011 @3:36 pm
    

    "The rooster has sex with all of them" –Seinfeld

13. Rick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @3:58 pm
    

    @SPQR – I'm not defending him, I'm saying the real First Amendment problem is with the law that made the wall a misdemeanor and the Police enforcing the law.

14. SPQR  •  Sep 23, 2011 @4:01 pm
    

    How strange is it then, that Patrick decided to write a blog post about something else?

15. Patrick  •  Sep 23, 2011 @4:31 pm
    

    Something I should have mentioned at the start:

    Only a dick puts a blazer on over a plaid shirt, then lets the t-shirt underneath the blazer and the plaid shirt show. He didn't even wear a clip-on tie at faculty picture day.

    And look at the man's chin. Specifically, look at the sack hanging beneath his third chin. Clearly, Professor Joe E. Kirk is a mutant, a commie, and a traitor.

16. VPJ  •  Sep 23, 2011 @8:04 pm
    

    I wonder what the douche would have said had the students written "FUCK JOE E. KIRK" on the wall? Would he have been cool with that because the douchebag in question was there to defend himself? Course, we'll never know. On the other hand, I hereby cordially invite him to bring it.

    FUCK JOE E. KIRK

    Bring your sharpest boxcutter, asshole.

17. SPQR  •  Sep 24, 2011 @4:09 pm
    

    ** Resolves to get his chin tucked by the plastic surgeon before Patrick sees him **

1 Trackback

• Sep 30, 2011: Joe E. Kirk is a douche « For the Sake of Science