SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Cleveland.com:
CINCINNATI (AP) -- Kent State University, facing the threat of a lawsuit, reiterated on Friday that it cannot accommodate a request to allow white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak in early May as part of his campus tour.
The university, which is based in Kent but has regional campuses elsewhere in the state, said it had responded to attorney Kyle Bristow reaffirming its earlier response that no suitable space is available for Spencer to speak between April 30 and May 12.
Bristow had told Kent State it had until the end of business Friday to agree to rent space at an "acceptable date and time" or face a lawsuit. Several other schools, including Ohio State University and the University of Cincinnati, are in litigation over Spencer.
Tour organizer Cameron Padgett wanted Spencer to speak at Kent State on the May 4 anniversary of Ohio National Guard shootings that killed four students during anti-war protests in 1970. The university said early May is too busy with activities around the end of the academic year.
Bristow said last year that Spencer planned to speak March 14 on the University of Cincinnati campus, but the university said there was no contract in place, and the two sides are now in a legal standoff over the university's demand for a security fee of nearly $11,000.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:51PM (35 children)
Being opposed to a Skinhead does not make one a Snowflake. But name calling definitely helps boost your argument.
I am open to listening to opinions that I am predisposed to be opposed to, or that make me uncomfortable. But at my own choosing of whether or not to listen.
The university has some form of governance. That governance mechanism should have control of who they invite or even allow to speak.
It is a sad reality that there are lines to be drawn. All I have to do is put on my troll hat and imagine how I might troll the university with the most ridiculous, profoundly absurd, scientifically ridiculous, violence promoting, or any other type of subject matter. And I can imagine some pretty bad possibilities. Promotion of dead baby road kill. My point here is simply that the university must rightfully have authority to control university activities.
Promoters of my hypothetical dead baby road kill can still have their free speech. Elsewhere. Just like certain trolls or spammers are modded away right here on SN.
Furthermore promoters of certain ideas can and in actual fact do create real and genuine security problems that bring a certain cost with them. If you would deny the university the right to reject certain speakers, then at least give them the right to not have to pay the security costs. Otherwise, I think it is fair play that all conservative and right leaning venues should be required to both host and pay for the security of whatever outlandish speakers I can think of. After all, it is only fair. I have a few speaker ideas for, just to pick one, Liberty University.
If snowflake is the insult to use for someone with opinions you don't like, then your opinion of who is a snowflake makes you a snowflake.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM
More concisely: If you want to pull the trigger on forcing venues to host anyone and foot the security costs, I can definitely think of some ways that you will not like how the shoe fits on the other foot.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:13PM (1 child)
Did you even read what he wrote, or did you just kneejerk on "snowflake'?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:17PM
I did read it fully. I did misinterpret something, as I point out further below. The snowflake part could be interpreted to mean two very different things.
Still my point that Richard Spencer should not be able to force a venue to accept him.
And for those who want that to force that to happen I would point out that the Goose and the Gander have compatible ports without need of any kind of special adapter for compatibility.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:18PM (11 children)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:49PM
I agree.
In addition, it is not only Spencer who is entitled to have taxpayer funded security, but also the venue that might suffer massive property damage or worse.
Police security, sadly, may not be adequate (for either Spencer or the venue). So now who pays for security?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:33PM (9 children)
Spencer has no right to security paid for by taxpayers, when he is causing the need for security in the first place!
This is like saying that the city has provide me a squad of police officers to protect me when I walk up to a gang of bikers, and call them all "faggots".
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:00PM (5 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:11PM
Faggot!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)
He has a right to speak.
He does not have a right for force any venue to let him speak there.
He can to on FoxNews or InfoWars or wherever like minded people go. I'm sure they will welcome him with open arms.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:59PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:32PM (1 child)
So he needs protection from people heckling? Shouldn't use a public venue then. Damn bigots are the most sensitive little shits around.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 16 2018, @12:11PM
Yes. Anyone who tries to shout over a talk, should be escorted out by security. No-one seems to have the balls to actually do this, unfortunately - this childish misbehaviour is increasingly becoming normalised. I don't see that this changes just because it's a public institution. What would you expect to happen if you started screaming over the judge in court?
Picket outside, or even at the back of the lecture hall, but you don't get to shout over the speaker then whine if you get removed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:20PM (2 children)
The people who would do violence are causing the need for security.
You do not have a right to physically assault others just because you're offended by their speech, so yes, police officers should protect you if that biker gang attempts to assault you. Take responsibility for your own actions.
Oh, and the "fighting words" standard was invented entirely by the courts. It makes literally zero sense to blame a speaker because someone else make the individual decision to assault them for something they said. The first amendment has no exception for "fighting words" either. It's just another bogus limitation on our rights created by authoritarian judges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:39PM
Another faggot! Your mother smelled of elderberries!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:57PM
GENIUS!
I'm going to go into every city that voted for trump and trash talk him until someone takes a swing at me. Then I will sue the city and demand that a police squad follow me around to protect me from the violent public. I will repeat this process until I bankrupt the cities. MAGA!@!!
I'll just be glad that you're an insignificunt fly on four year turd being dropped on the U.S.A
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:24PM (14 children)
Why should a publicly funded university control who they allow to speak?
There are hundreds of empty classrooms and lecture halls that sit empty every evening. Rent them all out for the price of the janitorial services, arrest, fine, expel those who disrupt such speakers. After all, there is another dark empty lecture hall just down the corridor for those with opposing views.
More to the point, Universities ARE THEMSELVES a form of government, an arm of the government, funded by State and Federal funds. Their express purpose is to educate, encourage debate, and allow the free exchange of Ideas and to provide a forum for free speech. Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint.
For Universities to start unilaterally cutting off debate and the free flow of Ideas is directly counter to their function, and the First Amendment.
The problem isn't the speakers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:07PM
I pretty much agree with you up until the very last line. I'd change that to "The problem isn't just the speakers.".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Why should a publicly funded university control who they allow to speak?
Yeah, screw teachers! We should just let any random nutjob off the street teach classes. How dare they control who speaks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:25PM
What does that have to do with anything? The university has a process for inviting speakers, and if someone follows that process, I don't think a public university should be allowed to deplatform them after the fact because they don't like what they might say, or because other people might do violence in response to their words. Teachers have absolutely nothing to do with the system the universities have in place for inviting speakers. Either stop allowing anyone to give speeches or accept that bad people will give speeches sometimes.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:13PM (6 children)
I did say: It is a sad reality that there are lines to be drawn.
It is sad. But it is true.
Do you think the university should allow a person to speak advocating (insert the worst imaginable things I can think of here)?
I would agree with you that that line should be pretty far into letting all kinds of diverse speakers and viewpoints be heard. But I cannot seem to escape the idea that there is some boundary somewhere that the university must just insist NO WAY.
Sorry it is not as ideal as you or I might like. But we're talking about speakers and viewpoints stated by human beings. Therefore there MUST be some ultimate limits. Or so it seems. There is some line somewhere beyond crazy where nobody is actually being helped. It is not advancing human knowledge. Etc.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:33PM (4 children)
As an example taken to absurdity, I personally consider everything TheMightBuzzard writes to be 100% beyond the pale. I think he should be entirely prevented from speaking in public. How is your line, wherever you draw it, any more objectively true than mine? Can you draw any line that doesn't by definition disenfranchise somebody? Doesn't the fact that there are hypothetical humans to advance these hypothetically universally despised viewpoints imply that there is someone the statement helps?
. I am trying to be lighthearted here, but I really don't understand how you can advocate a limit on pure speech. No offense meant TMB, you are just an easy person to pick on, others here might take me seriously.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)
I consider everything TheMightyBuzzard writes to be perfectly fine to say in public. I am free to agree or disagree. On SN you can even mod if you wish. Or better yet, reply. I am thinking of a line that is far removed from most posters here on SN. The ones I would put outside the line generally are modded to oblivian before I even see their posts. And nothing they say contributes to the advancement of human knowledge any any way.
I AM NOT suggesting limiting speech itself. I am suggesting that any venue, even a state supported venue, should have some right and authority to exclude certain speech. Those speakers are perfectly free to speak. Just somewhere else. There are venues and platforms that would welcome them. Maybe 4chan. Or FoxNews. Or InfoWars. Or FaceTwit.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)
I think that you are putting a false reason behind free speech, we don't have freedom of speech so that we can advance human knowledge, we have it because anything else is tyranny
I referenced TMB precisely because he doesn't believe in censorship, even those comments that you claim are modded to oblivion, I can and sometimes do read.
If a venue can exclude "certain" speech, how can you define that as anything other that limiting speech itself?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @02:51PM
My remark about advancing human knowledge is merely an attempt to attach a level of value to certain 'speech' if you wish to dignify it as such.
I don't consider it disenfranchising anyone if venues are allowed to refuse to host them. They can still speak. People can still listen. That is the right you are so concerned about. People don't have to listen. Other people don't have to pay to host your speech or pay for security for it. You can speak all you want. People can listen all they want.
Certain venues might welcome you to speak if they aren't so utterly and complete repulsed by it, and the associated costs.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:04PM
This isn't about censorship, it is about not providing a platform. If you can't understand the difference then this is a stupid conversation.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:01AM
Thank God there’s some sanity on this site. I can’t stand the idea of imams being able to speak in public forums and it seems there are other like minded individuals here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:41PM (3 children)
That is called "tenure", and Spencer doesn't have it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:01PM (2 children)
Even non-tenured can speak. Just somewhere else.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:45AM (1 child)
Yeah, down at the local Pint & Jigger, with all the Jocks and Fratboys. Why doesn't Richard (Dick) Spenser just speak there?
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday February 16 2018, @05:52AM
After all, his model may well be The Beer-hall Putsch [wikipedia.org] Frumping drunk Nazis!
Of course, no real American would ever attempt such a treasonous act against the constitution, unless they somehow thought that white people were someone better or different than other people. Perhaps superior, and destined to Rule? And maybe, in the long run, authorized to liquidate all the "lesser" species of humans, like people who park in handicap stalls without a permit, or people who think they are superior, when in fact they do not know the difference between "rein" and "reign" (looking at you, VLM, you fucking Nazi Looser!). This is why we cannot have White supremacy, and it is also why all I want for Christmas is a White Genocide.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:04PM (4 children)
The problem is this is a state supported school.
This is a continual problem. To what extent should government money be used to determine what is available in the way of speech. The answer *ought* to be that it isn't, but this is wholly impractical. Only so many people can reasonably speak at the same time and place. And any selection is open to abuse.
A reasonable answer might be that any speaker allowed must be requested by the students or faculty, and that the size of venue should be determined by the number of students and faculty that sign a petition requesting that speaker. This, of course, has its own problems, and is open to various kinds of abuse. But with a lot of detail work it might become a reasonable approach. E.g., I haven't mentioned costs, but it's not desirable that venues be for sale to the highest bidder. But cost recovery is important. Lots of details.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:44PM (2 children)
No, that is not the problem at all. Do you think that Stanford, or Harvard, or Creighton should not have the same requirements for free speech, as universities? Catholic universities are Universities first, and Catholic second. The same applies to State Universities, they are not (well, should not be) propaganda instruments for the state.
Secondly, being this is an aristarchus submission, it behooves one to check out the original, where one might see that the opening snarky comment reads: "Weaponized free speech deployed in Ohio." These alt-right types are trying to force their way onto universities for a reason, and the reason is that having a place, even a non-official invited place, at an institution of Higher Learning confers a certain legitimacy to the admittedly bonkers position being expounded. The Flat-earthers and the "Electric Universe" people would give their eye teeth just to give a talk at a real university, as would most fundie Christians (so far, they have been trying to found their own "Universities", but they are not really fooling anyone).
So the alt-right finds some chumps, usually the College Republicans, since no one likes them anyway, to invite them on campus, and when the University community of scholars and Learned People suggest this is not a good idea, and the Administration says it is going to cost way more than it is worth, the Alt-wrongers can start crying "First Amendment", and threaten to sue, and still get all the press coverage, which is what aristarchus just helped them do. Win-win tactic for the alt-right.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)
Not many people know, there was something called Widmar v Vincent. Where some students at the State University were religious, they wanted to have religious meetings at the university. But VERY NASTY administrators told them "no." And our MAGNIFICENT Supreme Court gave those administrators a MAJOR SMACKDOWN!!!! Big time.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 17 2018, @04:59AM
Downmodders are VERY DUMB & VERY UNFAIR. Nothing REDUNDANT about this tweet!!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:54PM
Simple - privatise it for the day of May 4.
(GRIN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford