Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-cost-of-free-speech dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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 insanumingenium on Friday February 16 2018, @04:32PM (1 child)

    by insanumingenium (4824) on Friday February 16 2018, @04:32PM (#638876) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @08:54PM

    by melikamp (1886) on Friday February 16 2018, @08:54PM (#639035) Journal

    How is noise blasting any less speech than flag burning?

    Flag burning is quiet, so it does not prevent anyone else from stating their point of view at the same time.