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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:13PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:13PM (#584182)

    You realize that "ignoring them" requires that they don't get prime slots on the university lecture circuit?

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:37PM (9 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:37PM (#584207) Homepage Journal

    No, it means you do not attend the lectures. Get a dictionary. Look up the word "ignore".

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:16AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:16AM (#584273)

      Depends who you are asking to do the "ignoring". If a university or business or church or mosque is not allowed to "ignore" people who want to exercise free speech in their building then let's open those flood gates, friend.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38AM (3 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38AM (#584288) Homepage Journal

        They take federal money, they have to abide by the prohibitions that go along with it.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:52AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:52AM (#584302) Journal
          Or state money. The state of Florida also has to observe the First Amendment.
        • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:15PM (1 child)

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:15PM (#584494) Journal

          Do you mean that US universities are required to rent out rooms to the general public, or that *if* they are renting out rooms to the general public, *then* they cannot reject folks based on the contents?

          The latter makes sense in terms of the first amendment. As well as a reason not to rent out rooms in general. (but you and I have had a similar discussion before)

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:06PM

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:06PM (#584762) Journal

        Private Universitys can ignore people. Public Universities don't have that right. Public churches are illegal so we don't even need to worry about that.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11AM (#584417) Homepage
      Why do you think that promoting a speaker and expecting the audience to not attend is a sensible way of preventing a speaker from being able to reach an audience?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:49AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:49AM (#584450) Homepage Journal

        Who ever said I wanted to prevent anyone from being able to reach an audience? That'd be stomping all over the rights of both the speaker and those who cared to listen to him.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:59PM

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:59PM (#584753) Journal

        If the university is a public university it has a duty not to deny the forum based on what is being said or likely to be said. Because that would be content-based speech discrimination. The government isn't allowed to do that, free speech 101.