Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Richard Spencer Threatens to Sue Kent State

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-cost-of-free-speech dept.

aristarchus writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Richard Spencer Threatens to Sue Kent State | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 102 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @12:38AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @12:38AM (#638557) Journal

    People who think spencer doesn't have the right to speak are suggesting that the police shouldn't protect him from people attacking him. Why should the police not protect anyone?

    He has the right to speak, just not everywhere or anytime he wants.

    If one adopts the positions of Kent State University is to be equated as government because they receive public money then here's a consequence you may not like but is current: Free speech zone [wikipedia.org]

    The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.

    .

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by arcz on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:52PM (#639789) Journal
    Except that speech zones don't really exist because there is a thing called intermediate scrutiny that applies to "time place and manner" restrictions. Actually, in Reed v. Gilbert the supreme court basically eviscerated the "manner" limitation and moved that to the strict scrutiny category instead of the intermediate scrutiny category... Of course, none of you actually read the damn law and so wouldn't know something this basic. So, sorry you don't know the difference between what the government does (illegally) and they don't get held accountable for because nobody sues them and what the law actually requires.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:02PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:02PM (#639838) Journal

      Actually, in Reed v. Gilbert the supreme court basically eviscerated the "manner" limitation and moved that to the strict scrutiny category instead of the intermediate scrutiny category...

      But the 'time' and 'place' are still ... ummm... in place, right?

      Of course, none of you actually read the damn law and so wouldn't know something this basic. So, sorry you don't know the difference between what the government does (illegally) and they don't get held accountable for because nobody sues them and what the law actually requires.

      But of course I'm not gonna read it, otherwise I'd have no time to post comments (large grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday March 01 2018, @10:44PM

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday March 01 2018, @10:44PM (#646057) Journal

        Well, they are. But intermediate scrutiny still applies which is diffferent than no scrutiny. So, the government needs less of a justification for content neutral regulations, but it still must requires:

        1. an important government interest,
        2. a narrowly tailored regulation to meet that interest, and
        3. must leave ample alternative means for communication.
        Protest zones probably don't further an "important government interest" and so would be unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny.

        If the government regulates protesting, that's a content based regulation subject to strict scrutiny because you cannot determine if someone is protesting without reference to what they are saying. Someone carrying a sign could be advertising a business or having a sign that provides directions. Since you cannot distinguish them without regard to the content of the speech, it's subject to strict scrutiny which usually invalidates the law. (government loses in 2/3rds of strict scrutiny cases, which is very impressive given how biased our courts are in favor of the government.)