Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-if-nobody-showed-up? dept.

Governor Rick Scott (R) has declared a state of emergency in the county where the University of Florida lay, due to a planned speech by Richard Spencer. According to NPR:

When Hurricane Irma was bearing down on Florida last month, Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency. On Monday, he did the same thing in Alachua County, ahead of a speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

"We live in a country where everyone has the right to voice their opinion, however, we have zero tolerance for violence and public safety is always our number one priority," Scott said in a statement. "This executive order is an additional step to ensure that the University of Florida and the entire community is prepared so everyone can stay safe."

"I find that the threat of a potential emergency is imminent," Scott declared in his executive order, noting that Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell had requested the state's assistance. The order will make it easier for various agencies to coordinate a security plan for Thursday's speech at the university.

[...] No campus group invited Spencer to speak, and the university is not hosting or sponsoring the event. Spencer's group, the National Policy Institute, is paying the university $10,564 for facility rental and security.

And it looks like it could get expensive:

The speech and accompanying protests are also a major expense: The university as well as state and local agencies expect to spend more than $500,000 to provide additional security.

And the University of Florida can't demand that Spencer pay the full cost of protecting him, because of a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement.

In that decision, the university explains, "the Court clarified that the government cannot assess a security fee on the speaker based upon the costs of controlling the reaction of potential hostile onlookers or protestors," under legal doctrine known as the "heckler's veto."

Well, that is the cost of free speech in a free country.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:24PM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:24PM (#584243) Homepage
    I can think of several offences that heckling might fall under (breach of the peace, affray, incitement, even assault), so no, I'm not sure it should be counted as free speech at all, and definitely is not constutionally protected under Amdt1.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:25PM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:25PM (#584245) Homepage
    I meant to end "citations needed."
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:44AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:44AM (#584295) Journal
    It depends on the situation. But a public venue on a public college campus is about as weak a case against heckling as you'll get.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:39PM (#584598)

    Just cause there is a law that may outlaw it ignoring the constitution, enforcement of that law would fail if it was used in an unconstitutional way.

    Screaming and making noise in the middle of a night out side someones house? Breach of peace.
    Screaming and making noise at a public gathering, particularly one with a political streak? Constitutionally protected speech.

    You should look up a book called "We Must Not be Afraid to be Free"