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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:24PM (38 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:24PM (#584136)

    Have a bunch of highly-controversial people have speeches every day. Before long, the government will run out of funding for all the security.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:35PM (9 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:35PM (#584143)

    Clearly works: The last highly controversial figure to have his speeches broadcast live essentially every day, is trying very hard to bankrupt the whole country.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:48PM (8 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:48PM (#584157)

      Remember, every nation gets the government it deserves.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:50AM (7 children)

        by edIII (791) on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:50AM (#584325)

        Yeah, you know that we both highly disagree on that.

        Just like Trump, I don't take any responsibility for it. I've not enabled the corruption, and I vote with what really counts in this world; My Wallet.

        I find it awfully harsh to put the blame on the people. If we truly took it into our hands to do what is required, it would mean rising up and killing every politician, banker, and other member of the ruling class. At that point, I will agree with you that we get what we deserve. However, the reason why the people are oppressed, is that most people just don't have the sociopathic makeup to do it. We live in a world where regular people, that are people you could trust to act decently with humanity, are literally surrounded in a sea of sociopathic/psychopathic assholes hellbent (spiritually) on taking from the world whatever the fuck they want.

        Otherwise we get what they decide we are getting. Or are you going to try to convince me that the Electoral College is actual democracy? That we actually choose our political candidates again? You're right, it's not one big game of power, and the little people actually have sway ;p

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 19 2017, @02:59AM (6 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday October 19 2017, @02:59AM (#584343)

          The blame always lies with the people. The people have the ultimate power, since they have the numbers. If the government isn't the peoples' responsibility, then whose is it? Some other country's? Aliens? Countries with good governments have them because their people took whatever actions needed to be taken to get to that state. Joseph de Maistre was absolutely right when he said that every nation gets the government it deserves.

          We live in a world where regular people, that are people you could trust to act decently with humanity, are literally surrounded in a sea of sociopathic/psychopathic assholes hellbent (spiritually) on taking from the world whatever the fuck they want.

          Yet there's plenty of countries where the government actually works reasonably well: there's a good rule of law, crime is low, public services are good and efficient, etc. Just look at Japan: excellent public transit, excellent infrastructure, no trash anywhere, violent crime is almost unheard of, great healthcare, extremely high standard of living, etc. And it's not just them, the Scandinavian countries have world-leading standards of living. None of these countries have high levels of corruption.

          Or are you going to try to convince me that the Electoral College is actual democracy?

          No decent country has direct democracy, unless you count Switzerland which still has a representative system, just with more referenda. In every highly-developed nation, they don't elect their executive at all; that position is elected by the parliament. Only countries with crappy governments even have "presidents": Russia, Turkey, El Salvador, etc. The Electoral College isn't the problem here, broken American culture is. (After all, if we were any good at governing, we would have fixed the EC problem somehow long ago, but instead we run around talking about how perfect and holy our Constitution is.)

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:42AM

            by driverless (4770) on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:42AM (#584478)

            No decent country has direct democracy, unless you count Switzerland which still has a representative system

            And only allowed women the vote in the 1980s and 1990s, and even then it was rigged so that men could override the women's votes (I can't remember the details, it was explained to me by a Swiss woman). In addition, women needed a man's permission to go out and buy things, and faced various other restrictions. In the 1970s, it was easier to be a woman in Iran than in Switzerland.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38PM (#584504)

            Your example of Japan is not a good one.
            You point out their country NOW, but remember the atrocities they committed during WW2?
            Did the Japanese people suddenly change post WW2, or is it different leadership that is the result (plus the constitution the US forced on them after the war)?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:44PM (#584654)

              FWIW, the Japanese Government changed drastically after the war (e.g. your example of the constitution). I'd assume their culture changed quite a bit too, but that's a less easily defined question.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:47PM (2 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:47PM (#584513) Journal

            So Americans should revolt, then? We agree.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:28PM (#584950)

              So Americans should revolt, then?

              Aren't they already? Surely the president is...

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 20 2017, @12:35AM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday October 20 2017, @12:35AM (#585018)

              They *did* revolt: they elected Trump (plus GOP politicians in a sweep at all levels). So as I said before, every nation gets the government it deserves.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by arcz on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:03PM (27 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:03PM (#584175) Journal

    Or maybe, just maybe. The government could buy security cameras, collect evidence, and arrest, indict, and charge the hecklers with a crime, whereafter they are convicted and locked up instead of allowed to cause more disruption.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:11PM (#584181)

      What?? Follow the rule of law? But then how can governors and presidents declare martial law for no good reason? What happens when at the next million man march? We just let em invade a city with no heads busted????

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:50PM (25 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:50PM (#584216)

      arrest, indict, and charge the hecklers with a crime

      Except for one teensy weensy little problem: heckling isn't a crime. I know there are lots of people who would like to make it into a crime for all kinds of reasons, but it is a constitutionally protected right to heckle somebody in public to your hearts' content.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by rylyeh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:11PM (3 children)

        by rylyeh (6726) <{kadath} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:11PM (#584236)

        I used to play in rock bands. I would have gladly jailed the next idiot who shouted out: "Play some Skynyrd!!!"
        SO, I'm guilty of 1A oppression - clearly.

        --
        "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:24PM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.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
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:25PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.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"

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:49AM (11 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:49AM (#584298)

        In Clown World it apparently is so, in a sane one it isn't, In a Sane World you eject the hecklers and get on with the program people went to the bother of obtaining tickets to attend. Because the authorities are usually on the side of the hecklers though, this never happens when the speaker is on the Right. Not even the Alt-Right mind you, plenty of ordinary cucked National Review type Republicans get shouted down now. Yet it never happens to the Left, when someone on the Right gets the idea to return the favor they discover the police do know how to do their job, it is a matter of the orders being different depending on the event.

        And we aren't even discussing hecklers buttmunch, you don't even contemplate declaring a State of Emergency because someone might be about to be heckled. Antifa riots, burns, maims and destroys. As does Black Lives Matter and the rest of the militant Left, while their pet politicians declare a safe space for the rioters to "express themselves." Meanwhile the businesses looted and burned discover their insurance does not cover acts of insurection, civil disorder, war or terrorism so they are shit outta luck.

        The solution is obvious. If you don't like what somebody says you disagree. That can involve attending and asking a question intended to make them look like a fool, it can involve standing outside with protest signs, the media is certain to give you at least equal coverage if you are on their side. It might even involve a speech of your own, a lecture, an article.

        What it can't include is the "shut it down!" attitude and behavior we see now. Anyone who is a student caught disrupting a speaker should be expelled, no appeal, no refund and no application for readmission for at least two years while they are encouraged to undertake a study of what a life of the mind involves and the expected behavior for a scholar. Anyone identified participating in an act of violence / riot should be arrested, jailed and generally have their life screwed over as an example to others that free speech and civil order will both be maintained. Anyone caught looting during a riot, insurrection or natural disaster (other than life critical supplies) should simply be shot on sight.

        Do those obvious things, which used to be standard procedure, and civilization would suddenly be restored to much of the stability which has recently been lost.

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:08AM (3 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:08AM (#584346) Journal

          Get off the fuckin' cross, J-Mo, we need the wood.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:20PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:20PM (#584527)

            Has J-Mo got wood? And Azuma wants it?

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:27AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:27AM (#584444) Journal

          jmorris need an editor. I offer my services, gratis.

          In Clown World it apparently is sane one it isn't, In a Sane World you get on with the program bother of obtaining to attend. Because authorities are usually the hecklers though, this never happens when the speaker. Not even the plenty of ordinary cucked Republicans get shouted now. Yet it never happens when someone on the Right gets the idea to favor the police, it is a matter of the orders different depending event.

          See, jmorris? You could have said the exact same thing with only 1/3 as many words, and made more sense. As for the rest:

          And hecklers buttmunch, don't contemplate, because someone about to be heckled burns, maims and destroys. As does the rest of the militant pet politicians declare a space for riots Meanwhile businesses loot and burn discover cards and equifax does not cover acts of insurection, so they are shit outta luck.

          We all get what you are saying, jmorris, sort of. But remember, brevity is the soul of wit! And nobody likes a right-wing air-bag. Not even Seah Hannity's mother.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:50PM (1 child)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:50PM (#584514) Journal

          I agree with you. Everyone needs to smurf up their courage and speak, instead of trying to prevent others from speaking.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:13PM

          by arcz (4501) on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:13PM (#584768) Journal

          So you really think that stripping away the constitutional right to due process is a good way to protect the constitutional right to free speech? You're a special kind of idiot.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @03:01PM (2 children)

          by urza9814 (3954) on Friday October 20 2017, @03:01PM (#585250) Journal

          In a Sane World you eject the hecklers and get on with the program people went to the bother of obtaining tickets to attend.

          In a private venue, absolutely. But in a government building (like a public university), the hecklers have a constitutional right to speak their minds. There are limits of course, the first amendment requires you to speak "peacefully", and if you don't you'll get a charge like disturbing the peace...but that generally only applies to speech intended to "incite violence" and does not cover actions that "merely annoy".

          http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html [findlaw.com]

          If this guy wants to give some grand speech free from interruption or opposition, he can go hire a private venue for that. But if he's going to have his speech partially supported by our tax dollars, then we've got every right to be part of that conversation too. If you're gonna use my own money to insult me, the least you have to do is gimme a chance to tell you to go fuck yourself too.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:48PM (1 child)

            by jmorris (4844) on Friday October 20 2017, @05:48PM (#585345)

            You aren't even trying to debate in good faith. Sad.

            So you are wanting people to believe that you are serious when you claim that if a building is public there can be no scheduled events, no public speakers because anyone, absolutely anyone, is free to simply stand and speak there? You assert that I can walk into my local city council during a meeting and begin speaking and there is nothing they can do, that when they have the large armored gruff policeman drag my ass out they are violating my rights and should sue? Really. And if I want to go to a university, walk into an occupied lecture hall and begin holding forth they simply have to accept that I am exercising my right to speak instead of calling campus security?

            Or are you are so utterly convinced of the rightness of your cause and the utter wickedness of the speaker in this case that you simply can't imagine anyone being against "shut it down!" Or more bluntly: Fascism is good when YOU do it. SJWs Always Project. Always.

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @07:02PM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Friday October 20 2017, @07:02PM (#585373) Journal

              So you are wanting people to believe that you are serious when you claim that if a building is public there can be no scheduled events, no public speakers because anyone, absolutely anyone, is free to simply stand and speak there? You assert that I can walk into my local city council during a meeting and begin speaking and there is nothing they can do, that when they have the large armored gruff policeman drag my ass out they are violating my rights and should sue?

              There are different laws against interrupting a public meeting...but this isn't a public meeting, it's a lecture.

              And if I want to go to a university, walk into an occupied lecture hall and begin holding forth they simply have to accept that I am exercising my right to speak instead of calling campus security?

              Yes. When I was at Penn State that happened several times; nobody ever got arrested or expelled for it. If it's a frequent, persistent campaign you could maybe get them arrested for harassment, but single incidents are perfectly acceptable.

              Or are you are so utterly convinced of the rightness of your cause and the utter wickedness of the speaker in this case that you simply can't imagine anyone being against "shut it down!" Or more bluntly: Fascism is good when YOU do it. SJWs Always Project. Always.

              Oh sure, and I suppose the priests that weren't students or in any way affiliated with the university that would still come around every week shoving giant posters of aborted fetuses in everyones' faces were leftist SJWs, huh? Because tons of people complained but nobody could ever get them booted off campus either because that too is protected speech. Not that I disagree with that decision either, of course they have that right, no matter how much I would have preferred to not have to look at that every goddamn week...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:11PM (4 children)

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:11PM (#584766) Journal

        Heckling is not the same as protesting.
        Heckling involves violence and is illegal. It's considered ordinary assault, battery, and disorderly conduct.
        Heckling is not protected by the first amendment. You have no right to assault people because you disagree with them.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @02:12PM (3 children)

          by urza9814 (3954) on Friday October 20 2017, @02:12PM (#585234) Journal

          Heckling is not the same as protesting.
          Heckling involves violence and is illegal. It's considered ordinary assault, battery, and disorderly conduct.
          Heckling is not protected by the first amendment. You have no right to assault people because you disagree with them.

          What exactly do you think heckling is? Heckling is basically just shouting something. How is speech assault? How is speech not protected by the right to free speech?

          https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=define%3A+heckle&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 [yahoo.com]

          heck·le
          /ˈhek(ə)l/
          verb

          1. interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse: "he was booed and heckled when he tried to address the demonstrators"
          synonyms: jeer, taunt, jibe at, shout down, boo, ...
          antonyms: cheer

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by arcz on Monday October 30 2017, @09:54PM (2 children)

            by arcz (4501) on Monday October 30 2017, @09:54PM (#589717) Journal

            We have the legal sense of heckling vs the common meaning of the word. Sometimes these definitions are different.

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday October 30 2017, @10:33PM (1 child)

              by urza9814 (3954) on Monday October 30 2017, @10:33PM (#589737) Journal

              We have the legal sense of heckling vs the common meaning of the word. Sometimes these definitions are different.

              This does not appear to be one of those times:

              https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/heckling [thefreedictionary.com]
              http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/heckler/ [lawin.org]

              • (Score: 2) by arcz on Wednesday November 01 2017, @04:20PM

                by arcz (4501) on Wednesday November 01 2017, @04:20PM (#590625) Journal

                Oh I'm sorry I referred to the word in the way that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken of the word instead of some random "dictionary" run by who knows who. Because a dictionary is more authoritative than the Courts.