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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:41PM (24 children)
Especially using words alone as justification. Words you don't like are among the least justifiable reasons possible to commit violence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday October 20 2017, @12:07AM (15 children)
Yet incitement remains the chief pretext used to justify censorship
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @08:12AM (14 children)
You claim that "incitement" is the deceptive excuse for imposing censorship. Government (and those in bed with it) are the only ones forbidden under the Constitution from censoring speech.
Given that you wrote that government and its associates are deceptively attempting illegal censorship, what do you propose to do about the problem? If your answer is "vote", please explain how your reasoning that leads you to believe that approach will work when using it over the preceeding generations government power has only grown.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 21 2017, @07:28PM (13 children)
The majority votes for bigger government. Where's the mystery?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @05:56AM (12 children)
The mystery is how you can reconcile your statement here, that suggests voting to stop illegal government activity doesn't work, with your previous statement [soylentnews.org] that claimed voting was the only answer to the question of what people should do when told to "do something!" to resist.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 22 2017, @12:00PM (11 children)
I never claimed that voting doesn't work. You're just making shit up. You have the government you voted for.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:11PM (10 children)
Then explain what you meant by "The majority votes for bigger government. Where's the mystery?". The plain language you used indicates that 1. most people vote for bigger and thus more criminal government, and 2. *I* obviously didn't, and therefore voting both does not work for me and also doesn't work to keep government from acting criminally. Did you intend some hidden, coded meaning?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:52PM (9 children)
No. And again you continue to make shit up. I never said voting doesn't work. The government you have shows that it works like a charm. It exists in its present form by the voters' choice. Couldn't be more obvious. This "hidden, coded meaning" thing is entirely in your head, serving as nothing but distraction.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:44AM (8 children)
It kinda sucks when you have an inconsistent belief and someone points it out to you using your own words bearing your own signature, eh?
People followed your "do something!" advice [soylentnews.org] and voted out [soylentnews.org] the establishment republicans during the Tea Party revolution a few years ago. What happened? Voting got us another crop of lying, criminal weasels which only served to expand the power and criminality of government.
Because of that, one of your two assertions are wrong: either voting does NOT work as a means to "do something!" to stop illegal actions by government, or voting "works" but still doesn't do anything to stop illegal government actions. Do you care to re-evaluate your positions?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @05:05AM (7 children)
No
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:57AM (6 children)
I thought not, since it seems literally incomprehensible for you to even entertain the idea that you could be wrong - even when you are demonstrably shown to be wrong.
For most readers, though, it isn't incomprehensible that you are wrong. It is obvious.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @02:16PM (5 children)
Sorry, I'm not wrong. You are, making things up in a rather banal fashion with your typical blame passing. Maybe it can't be helped. I'll never know in my lifetime. Whatever, do what you like. I don't mind the attention.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:23PM (4 children)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Would you like some more rope?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @10:53PM (3 children)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
:-) Exactly! Apply that to yourself, enlightenment, and maybe comprehension, shall be yours. Or you can carry on in denial and projection. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)
I've had more original [soylentnews.org] and honest conversations with cleaning rags
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:02AM (1 child)
Yet you choose waste your time on little ol' me, talking some inane jibber jabber that doesn't relate to what I posted. How strange... Your cleaning rags are missing you
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:40AM
The fact that you choose not to understand when small words are used to show you that your own statements contradict each other - requiring that at least one of your statements be incorrect - does not change the simple demonstrated fact that at least that one of your two conflicting statements is wrong. Using weak, limp-wristed tricks such as calling that which you do not like "jibber jabber" is something I'd expect to encounter in an insulated little child, and one not very bright.
I am more interested in your past and present environments than you at this point, ones that allowed and possibly even cultivated the laughably dictatorial mindset you exhibit along with your habit of attempting to deem something ludicrous into reality. My current guess has it being something involving government schooling, possibly a day-care.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @03:43PM (7 children)
The US justice system says otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States [wikipedia.org]
If the police claim that words alone justify violence on their part, then they ought to recognize that same attempt at justification from others.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 20 2017, @04:05PM (6 children)
The US justice system also says it's perfectly okay for the NSA to spy on citizens without a warrant. They view the Constitution as a suggestion or rough guidelines; I do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @07:05PM (4 children)
I agree...but you're the one that was calling for the justice system to take action:
So, if law enforcement is going to say that words justify violence, and you want them to go after anyone who claims that words justify violence...then they ought to be spending all their time investigating THEMSELVES for terrorism, shouldn't they?
Although that probably WOULD be a better use of their time...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 20 2017, @10:27PM (3 children)
You're misunderstanding. Either deliberately or accidentally but you're definitely misunderstanding. Antifa and BAMN do not stick to words. They're happy to crack people in the head with blunt objects, pepper spray people, set things on fire, and worse for the crime of disagreeing with them. If the police know ahead of time that this might be an issue, it behooves them to be on site to make any necessary arrests.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:33PM (2 children)
I think you are the one who is not understanding. I'm not saying that Antifa uses only words; I'm saying that Antifa responds to words the same way the police do, yet here you are supporting the police in the same sentence that you criticize Antifa!
You say the cops should respond to that violence because words alone do not justify that violence. But those cops themselves claim that words alone CAN justify violence. I don't think the cops are *correct* in that belief, but if you're going to call for them to take action, you have to accept their rules. And their rules are that shutting down extremist rhetoric by any means necessary *is* sometimes justified. It's not "progessives" or "leftists" pushing that belief; it's a very conservative, established idea. It's how humanity has behaved throughout all of recorded history. It's the one idea that Antifa, the KKK, and the US government all agree on. You can't criticize Antifa for sucumbing to these insticts while simultaneously supporting others whose behavior fits the exact same pattern.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
Where have you seen me support the policing of speech by anyone, exactly? Like I said, you're misunderstanding.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:21PM
Forti et alietum sibi loquitur.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 21 2017, @06:39PM
Is there a difference between "fighting words" and "incitement"? That seemingly singular exception to free speech is still up for grabs.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..