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: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:48PM (29 children)
Not only he should be able to demand it, but he's demanding it, and he may yet win. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects Spencer's right to say absolutely anything, short of inciting people to break the law, or putting them in immediate danger. This protection fully extends to hate speech, whatever that is. If you are hailing from the left, then you surely want it to extend to the hate speech, because your constant whining about economic inequality is hate speech to 0.1% income percentile, and they will sew your mouth shut if the law lets them. So when a university starts discriminating against fascist speakers like Spencer, however hateful and abhorrent their views may seem, the speakers often sue, win, get reimbursed for the expense, and get the venue anyway.
I am so well-prepared today :) because I was just in a car listening to the UC Davis talk radio, and the guy there was talking about this whole issue and Spencer in particular, and he brought up some very depressing stats. The guy seemed very leftish, mind it. Sorry if I botch the survey questions, but he said:
When college students were asked, does the 1st amendment protect the right to hate speech directed at minorities? Something like 4 in 10 said no, which is completely false, with democratic-leaning students getting it significantly more wrong than republican-leaning ones. He conjectured it was due to how parents and grade schools approach the subject of hate speech and diversity. When asked, would it be legitimate for protesters to crash the event and shout so loud that the speaker can't be heard, a decent proportion of students, again around 40%, said yes, which is again incorrect in the sense that it's illegal, running afoul of the constitutionally protected right to free speech and peaceful assembly. I guess it could be worse :)
At the same time I think it's OK for venues to take the cost of providing the security into account. If a particular speaker or even topic has good stats behind it, supporting a conclusion that there will be a violent protest, then the venue should be able to put the burden of paying for security on the speaker, regardless of who is likely to instigate violence, or for what reason. Yes, it will make it much more expensive for Nazis to speak on campuses, but it won't be unfair, because it's not the universities' fault. Schools simply cannot do anything that is likely to induce violence towards the students and the staff.
An appropriate response from the administration should be, in my view, a constitutional literacy campaign together with scheduling a rebuttal speech following a controversial speaker, in the same venue and to the same audience, after a short break. It's not like it's hard to mount a vigorous defense against racial bigotry and fascism, especially when that side is presented by sleazy lunatics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:34PM (5 children)
Why?
That's just another form of government intimidation of unpopular views. You are essentially endorsing open warfare rather than discussion.
The proper response is to offer a second lecture hall for those opposed to any specific speaker. Protesters are free to carry on in that second lecture hall, but may not disrupt the proceedings they find abhorrent.
Any attempt to disrupt a speaker, when an alternative venue is made available, should be met with police who get to keep all the fines levied.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:12PM (4 children)
And who will be paying for the police work again? Police don't work for free. As you can plainly see, I am all for Spencer's right to express his political views, and I also believe that a university campus, out of all places, is a highly appropriate place to host someone expressing highly controversial views, even if the speaker is a poster of a troll. But I do not see how Spencer or anyone else can expect the taxpayer to foot his security bills whenever he purposefully hurls himself in the middle of a very hostile audience to present his views. We are not made of money, and there are rights, including this little number [wikisource.org], which also need protection.
Offering a second lecture hall to anyone won't do anything. The same 40% of college students who are prepared to infringe on Spencer's constitutional right to free speech, however hypocritical and wrong that is with respect to the US law, could not give less of a damn. They don't want to be heard because, let's be fair, they don't have anything particularly smart to say. They just want Spencer to shut up and go away. So I don't see why it would be unfair for schools to require speakers who were attacked in the past to hire their own security detail, or else go and express their views somewhere else, like the net.
I would concede that ideally, public venues should carry this burden. May be they should have a free-expression budget out of which to pay for the protection of free speech on campus, but I am trying to be realistic. As it stands, many public colleges and universities in USA lack sufficient funds to provide adequate instruction, and that for many complex reasons. So of course they can make a case that spending thousands of dollars to protect a visiting troll is a giant middle finger to their students. This money will certainly come out of the pile which would otherwise be spent on hiring another full-time political science faculty instructor, who certainly has her own opinions to share.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:03PM
I see absolutely no reason why universities should be a free-for-all, and freedom of speech != given a free soap box. If a student group reserves a location for whatever speaker they'd like then sure, but speakers don't just get to decide they'll have an auditorium on any state campus they'd like.
Speaking of trolls, you sure seem like one with your closing line: "This money will certainly come out of the pile which would otherwise be spent on hiring another full-time political science faculty instructor, who certainly has her own opinions to share."
UNDER THE BRIDGE FOUL BEAST!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:05PM (2 children)
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:48AM
Truly, arcx, you are dumber than a bag of hammers. Take your all caps, and stick them as magnets on your refridgerator door.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:22PM (2 children)
The 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects Spencer's right to say absolutely anything,
Not on my property it doesn't. Speak all you want. You don't get to demand the use of a private venue to do it, though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:21PM
That still does not necessarily have to mean that the governing body of a public institution should be required to host any speaker, regardless of cost.
If such a person is refused, then maybe you or like minded people should host this speaker that you think has so much to contribute to society regardless of cost.
All persons are free to speak. Nobody should be forced to listen, nor even forced to provide a venue for them to speak -- including the government.
The government cannot stop him from speaking. (but in fact government does take notice of certain kinds of speech!) But the government does not have to pay the bill for him to speak. (eg, other taxpayers do not have to pay for his ability to speak)
There is a difference from STOPPING someone from speaking and declining to provide a venue for them to speak.
Anyone can speak. And if their ideas are so great, there will hoardes of InfoWars, FoxNews, etc to provide them a megaphone.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:42PM (6 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:49PM (5 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:19PM
Look here mr. "what is hate speech anyway" nazi apologist, there is no reason anyone is guaranteed a speaking location at any school. You seem to be mixing up a pre-approved student group invited speaker with someone trying to force their own approval.
If some students invite Spencer to speak and then he is barred due to his ideological content, THEN you can argue its a free speech violation by a public institution. By your logic I should be able to walk into a court room during a trial and start spouting off nonsense because hey, its a public building right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by leftover on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:53PM (3 children)
IANAL but I believe that the grounds and facilities of the university are not 'public property' in the sense being used here. Note that Spencer is not trying to pull this off in the state capital building or in a state park. He is using the common misapprehension that a university is some sort of open soapbox.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:04AM (2 children)
God forbid unpopular opinions be heard at a public university.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:45AM (1 child)
It's a libertarian thing, isn't it? Yes, we have heard it all before. It is rubbish. You think either that we did not hear you the first time, or that by repeating your adolescent khallowian Ayn Rand positions repeatedly, we will somehow be convinced? No, we are not censuring you, we are just dismissing you. Much the same with neo-nazis, alt-righties, and Alex Jones. You're crazy. Get used to it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday February 16 2018, @06:11PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:07PM (12 children)
Are you trying to say that counter protesters don't have the same right to speech as the person they are protesting? How would one individuals free speech infringe on another's? How is it illegal? Isn't the constitutional protection of free speech to prevent government interference in speech, not private individuals?
Don't get me wrong, I find such counter protests intolerably rude, and I don't think they are beneficial on the whole, but I can't see how they are any less protected.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:49PM (8 children)
Remember when @charlesmurray [twitter.com] -- terrific scholar and one of my biggest fans -- came to Middlebury? The administrators were great, very welcoming. The President introduced him. She said she didn't agree with him. But she wanted him to be HEARD!!!!!!!!
But some of the students didn't want that, they SHOUTED HIM DOWN. He had to go to a VERY SPECIAL TV studio, he did an interview on Closed Circuit TV. He wanted to talk directly to the audience. You know, in the same room, right? But those HORRIBLE students wouldn't let him, they moved very strongly against him. They tried to shut him down. youtu.be/a6EASuhefeI [youtu.be]
Let me tell you, there's something they taught me at Wharton, at Penn. That our colleges don't teach any more, it's like they don't teach it. It's called tolerance, folks.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:17PM (6 children)
You know you are a real soylentil when you get a personalized realDonaldTrump rant. I would love to live in a world where Trump preaches tolerance.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:22PM (1 child)
Yep. I have no tolerance for intolerant people.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:36PM
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch. - Nigel Powers
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:00PM (3 children)
https://factba.se/search#tolerance [factba.se]
"When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate."
- President Donald J. Trump
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)
I would love few things more than to hear that sentiment from him more often. Though I hardly think 7 or so quotes that search found over his entire life qualify him as a "prince of peace", the rest of the results are about zero tolerance of various things. Even that very quote about inclusiveness in the military was seen as terribly hypocritical being given shortly after stating that transgendered people will not be allowed to serve in the military in any capacity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:10AM (1 child)
Face reality. If you send men into combat in a real war and they are captured they will end up in a POW camp. If you send women into combat in a real war and they are captured they will be raped, and then to cover up the war crime, probably shot.
Given the USA's current list of conflicts transgenders will be raped up the arse until they too loose to use, then summarily executed as a crime against allah.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday February 16 2018, @04:42PM
So you are saying I shouldn't send soldiers into battle because the enemy won't be nice to them? Really? Also notice his statement was "in any capacity", in other words that includes both combat and non combat roles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:50PM
From the realDonald Trump?
Not what any academic wants on their CV!
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @03:00AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday February 16 2018, @04:32PM (1 child)
How is noise blasting any less speech than flag burning? Speech doesn't extend solely to direct verbal or written communication. And I, by my definition of free speech, have to support all speech, whether I agree with it or not. The problem here is you don't censor somebody by shouting over them, you censor them by silencing them, usually with threat or application of force. How exactly do you remove a noise blaster that isn't also censorship? On the other hand, the noise-blasting doesn't involve force.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @08:54PM
Flag burning is quiet, so it does not prevent anyone else from stating their point of view at the same time.