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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:22PM (74 children)
I have zero damned empathy or sympathy for "protestors" who attempt to block a scheduled speaker from speaking. Don't care if that speaker is a lowlife skinhead, or Latino, or a Communist, or even a pedophile Catholic priest.
In this case, Kent State says, "No, we don't want you. You're not invited." Skinhead has no recourse. Get over it, Snowflake!!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:51PM (35 children)
Being opposed to a Skinhead does not make one a Snowflake. But name calling definitely helps boost your argument.
I am open to listening to opinions that I am predisposed to be opposed to, or that make me uncomfortable. But at my own choosing of whether or not to listen.
The university has some form of governance. That governance mechanism should have control of who they invite or even allow to speak.
It is a sad reality that there are lines to be drawn. All I have to do is put on my troll hat and imagine how I might troll the university with the most ridiculous, profoundly absurd, scientifically ridiculous, violence promoting, or any other type of subject matter. And I can imagine some pretty bad possibilities. Promotion of dead baby road kill. My point here is simply that the university must rightfully have authority to control university activities.
Promoters of my hypothetical dead baby road kill can still have their free speech. Elsewhere. Just like certain trolls or spammers are modded away right here on SN.
Furthermore promoters of certain ideas can and in actual fact do create real and genuine security problems that bring a certain cost with them. If you would deny the university the right to reject certain speakers, then at least give them the right to not have to pay the security costs. Otherwise, I think it is fair play that all conservative and right leaning venues should be required to both host and pay for the security of whatever outlandish speakers I can think of. After all, it is only fair. I have a few speaker ideas for, just to pick one, Liberty University.
If snowflake is the insult to use for someone with opinions you don't like, then your opinion of who is a snowflake makes you a snowflake.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM
More concisely: If you want to pull the trigger on forcing venues to host anyone and foot the security costs, I can definitely think of some ways that you will not like how the shoe fits on the other foot.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:13PM (1 child)
Did you even read what he wrote, or did you just kneejerk on "snowflake'?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:17PM
I did read it fully. I did misinterpret something, as I point out further below. The snowflake part could be interpreted to mean two very different things.
Still my point that Richard Spencer should not be able to force a venue to accept him.
And for those who want that to force that to happen I would point out that the Goose and the Gander have compatible ports without need of any kind of special adapter for compatibility.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:18PM (11 children)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:49PM
I agree.
In addition, it is not only Spencer who is entitled to have taxpayer funded security, but also the venue that might suffer massive property damage or worse.
Police security, sadly, may not be adequate (for either Spencer or the venue). So now who pays for security?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:33PM (9 children)
Spencer has no right to security paid for by taxpayers, when he is causing the need for security in the first place!
This is like saying that the city has provide me a squad of police officers to protect me when I walk up to a gang of bikers, and call them all "faggots".
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:00PM (5 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:11PM
Faggot!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)
He has a right to speak.
He does not have a right for force any venue to let him speak there.
He can to on FoxNews or InfoWars or wherever like minded people go. I'm sure they will welcome him with open arms.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:59PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:32PM (1 child)
So he needs protection from people heckling? Shouldn't use a public venue then. Damn bigots are the most sensitive little shits around.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 16 2018, @12:11PM
Yes. Anyone who tries to shout over a talk, should be escorted out by security. No-one seems to have the balls to actually do this, unfortunately - this childish misbehaviour is increasingly becoming normalised. I don't see that this changes just because it's a public institution. What would you expect to happen if you started screaming over the judge in court?
Picket outside, or even at the back of the lecture hall, but you don't get to shout over the speaker then whine if you get removed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:20PM (2 children)
The people who would do violence are causing the need for security.
You do not have a right to physically assault others just because you're offended by their speech, so yes, police officers should protect you if that biker gang attempts to assault you. Take responsibility for your own actions.
Oh, and the "fighting words" standard was invented entirely by the courts. It makes literally zero sense to blame a speaker because someone else make the individual decision to assault them for something they said. The first amendment has no exception for "fighting words" either. It's just another bogus limitation on our rights created by authoritarian judges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:39PM
Another faggot! Your mother smelled of elderberries!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:57PM
GENIUS!
I'm going to go into every city that voted for trump and trash talk him until someone takes a swing at me. Then I will sue the city and demand that a police squad follow me around to protect me from the violent public. I will repeat this process until I bankrupt the cities. MAGA!@!!
I'll just be glad that you're an insignificunt fly on four year turd being dropped on the U.S.A
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:24PM (14 children)
Why should a publicly funded university control who they allow to speak?
There are hundreds of empty classrooms and lecture halls that sit empty every evening. Rent them all out for the price of the janitorial services, arrest, fine, expel those who disrupt such speakers. After all, there is another dark empty lecture hall just down the corridor for those with opposing views.
More to the point, Universities ARE THEMSELVES a form of government, an arm of the government, funded by State and Federal funds. Their express purpose is to educate, encourage debate, and allow the free exchange of Ideas and to provide a forum for free speech. Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint.
For Universities to start unilaterally cutting off debate and the free flow of Ideas is directly counter to their function, and the First Amendment.
The problem isn't the speakers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:07PM
I pretty much agree with you up until the very last line. I'd change that to "The problem isn't just the speakers.".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Why should a publicly funded university control who they allow to speak?
Yeah, screw teachers! We should just let any random nutjob off the street teach classes. How dare they control who speaks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:25PM
What does that have to do with anything? The university has a process for inviting speakers, and if someone follows that process, I don't think a public university should be allowed to deplatform them after the fact because they don't like what they might say, or because other people might do violence in response to their words. Teachers have absolutely nothing to do with the system the universities have in place for inviting speakers. Either stop allowing anyone to give speeches or accept that bad people will give speeches sometimes.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:13PM (6 children)
I did say: It is a sad reality that there are lines to be drawn.
It is sad. But it is true.
Do you think the university should allow a person to speak advocating (insert the worst imaginable things I can think of here)?
I would agree with you that that line should be pretty far into letting all kinds of diverse speakers and viewpoints be heard. But I cannot seem to escape the idea that there is some boundary somewhere that the university must just insist NO WAY.
Sorry it is not as ideal as you or I might like. But we're talking about speakers and viewpoints stated by human beings. Therefore there MUST be some ultimate limits. Or so it seems. There is some line somewhere beyond crazy where nobody is actually being helped. It is not advancing human knowledge. Etc.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:33PM (4 children)
As an example taken to absurdity, I personally consider everything TheMightBuzzard writes to be 100% beyond the pale. I think he should be entirely prevented from speaking in public. How is your line, wherever you draw it, any more objectively true than mine? Can you draw any line that doesn't by definition disenfranchise somebody? Doesn't the fact that there are hypothetical humans to advance these hypothetically universally despised viewpoints imply that there is someone the statement helps?
. I am trying to be lighthearted here, but I really don't understand how you can advocate a limit on pure speech. No offense meant TMB, you are just an easy person to pick on, others here might take me seriously.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)
I consider everything TheMightyBuzzard writes to be perfectly fine to say in public. I am free to agree or disagree. On SN you can even mod if you wish. Or better yet, reply. I am thinking of a line that is far removed from most posters here on SN. The ones I would put outside the line generally are modded to oblivian before I even see their posts. And nothing they say contributes to the advancement of human knowledge any any way.
I AM NOT suggesting limiting speech itself. I am suggesting that any venue, even a state supported venue, should have some right and authority to exclude certain speech. Those speakers are perfectly free to speak. Just somewhere else. There are venues and platforms that would welcome them. Maybe 4chan. Or FoxNews. Or InfoWars. Or FaceTwit.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)
I think that you are putting a false reason behind free speech, we don't have freedom of speech so that we can advance human knowledge, we have it because anything else is tyranny
I referenced TMB precisely because he doesn't believe in censorship, even those comments that you claim are modded to oblivion, I can and sometimes do read.
If a venue can exclude "certain" speech, how can you define that as anything other that limiting speech itself?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @02:51PM
My remark about advancing human knowledge is merely an attempt to attach a level of value to certain 'speech' if you wish to dignify it as such.
I don't consider it disenfranchising anyone if venues are allowed to refuse to host them. They can still speak. People can still listen. That is the right you are so concerned about. People don't have to listen. Other people don't have to pay to host your speech or pay for security for it. You can speak all you want. People can listen all they want.
Certain venues might welcome you to speak if they aren't so utterly and complete repulsed by it, and the associated costs.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:04PM
This isn't about censorship, it is about not providing a platform. If you can't understand the difference then this is a stupid conversation.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:01AM
Thank God there’s some sanity on this site. I can’t stand the idea of imams being able to speak in public forums and it seems there are other like minded individuals here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:41PM (3 children)
That is called "tenure", and Spencer doesn't have it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:01PM (2 children)
Even non-tenured can speak. Just somewhere else.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:45AM (1 child)
Yeah, down at the local Pint & Jigger, with all the Jocks and Fratboys. Why doesn't Richard (Dick) Spenser just speak there?
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday February 16 2018, @05:52AM
After all, his model may well be The Beer-hall Putsch [wikipedia.org] Frumping drunk Nazis!
Of course, no real American would ever attempt such a treasonous act against the constitution, unless they somehow thought that white people were someone better or different than other people. Perhaps superior, and destined to Rule? And maybe, in the long run, authorized to liquidate all the "lesser" species of humans, like people who park in handicap stalls without a permit, or people who think they are superior, when in fact they do not know the difference between "rein" and "reign" (looking at you, VLM, you fucking Nazi Looser!). This is why we cannot have White supremacy, and it is also why all I want for Christmas is a White Genocide.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:04PM (4 children)
The problem is this is a state supported school.
This is a continual problem. To what extent should government money be used to determine what is available in the way of speech. The answer *ought* to be that it isn't, but this is wholly impractical. Only so many people can reasonably speak at the same time and place. And any selection is open to abuse.
A reasonable answer might be that any speaker allowed must be requested by the students or faculty, and that the size of venue should be determined by the number of students and faculty that sign a petition requesting that speaker. This, of course, has its own problems, and is open to various kinds of abuse. But with a lot of detail work it might become a reasonable approach. E.g., I haven't mentioned costs, but it's not desirable that venues be for sale to the highest bidder. But cost recovery is important. Lots of details.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:44PM (2 children)
No, that is not the problem at all. Do you think that Stanford, or Harvard, or Creighton should not have the same requirements for free speech, as universities? Catholic universities are Universities first, and Catholic second. The same applies to State Universities, they are not (well, should not be) propaganda instruments for the state.
Secondly, being this is an aristarchus submission, it behooves one to check out the original, where one might see that the opening snarky comment reads: "Weaponized free speech deployed in Ohio." These alt-right types are trying to force their way onto universities for a reason, and the reason is that having a place, even a non-official invited place, at an institution of Higher Learning confers a certain legitimacy to the admittedly bonkers position being expounded. The Flat-earthers and the "Electric Universe" people would give their eye teeth just to give a talk at a real university, as would most fundie Christians (so far, they have been trying to found their own "Universities", but they are not really fooling anyone).
So the alt-right finds some chumps, usually the College Republicans, since no one likes them anyway, to invite them on campus, and when the University community of scholars and Learned People suggest this is not a good idea, and the Administration says it is going to cost way more than it is worth, the Alt-wrongers can start crying "First Amendment", and threaten to sue, and still get all the press coverage, which is what aristarchus just helped them do. Win-win tactic for the alt-right.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)
Not many people know, there was something called Widmar v Vincent. Where some students at the State University were religious, they wanted to have religious meetings at the university. But VERY NASTY administrators told them "no." And our MAGNIFICENT Supreme Court gave those administrators a MAJOR SMACKDOWN!!!! Big time.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 17 2018, @04:59AM
Downmodders are VERY DUMB & VERY UNFAIR. Nothing REDUNDANT about this tweet!!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:54PM
Simple - privatise it for the day of May 4.
(GRIN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:52PM (30 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:48PM (29 children)
Not only he should be able to demand it, but he's demanding it, and he may yet win. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects Spencer's right to say absolutely anything, short of inciting people to break the law, or putting them in immediate danger. This protection fully extends to hate speech, whatever that is. If you are hailing from the left, then you surely want it to extend to the hate speech, because your constant whining about economic inequality is hate speech to 0.1% income percentile, and they will sew your mouth shut if the law lets them. So when a university starts discriminating against fascist speakers like Spencer, however hateful and abhorrent their views may seem, the speakers often sue, win, get reimbursed for the expense, and get the venue anyway.
I am so well-prepared today :) because I was just in a car listening to the UC Davis talk radio, and the guy there was talking about this whole issue and Spencer in particular, and he brought up some very depressing stats. The guy seemed very leftish, mind it. Sorry if I botch the survey questions, but he said:
When college students were asked, does the 1st amendment protect the right to hate speech directed at minorities? Something like 4 in 10 said no, which is completely false, with democratic-leaning students getting it significantly more wrong than republican-leaning ones. He conjectured it was due to how parents and grade schools approach the subject of hate speech and diversity. When asked, would it be legitimate for protesters to crash the event and shout so loud that the speaker can't be heard, a decent proportion of students, again around 40%, said yes, which is again incorrect in the sense that it's illegal, running afoul of the constitutionally protected right to free speech and peaceful assembly. I guess it could be worse :)
At the same time I think it's OK for venues to take the cost of providing the security into account. If a particular speaker or even topic has good stats behind it, supporting a conclusion that there will be a violent protest, then the venue should be able to put the burden of paying for security on the speaker, regardless of who is likely to instigate violence, or for what reason. Yes, it will make it much more expensive for Nazis to speak on campuses, but it won't be unfair, because it's not the universities' fault. Schools simply cannot do anything that is likely to induce violence towards the students and the staff.
An appropriate response from the administration should be, in my view, a constitutional literacy campaign together with scheduling a rebuttal speech following a controversial speaker, in the same venue and to the same audience, after a short break. It's not like it's hard to mount a vigorous defense against racial bigotry and fascism, especially when that side is presented by sleazy lunatics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:34PM (5 children)
Why?
That's just another form of government intimidation of unpopular views. You are essentially endorsing open warfare rather than discussion.
The proper response is to offer a second lecture hall for those opposed to any specific speaker. Protesters are free to carry on in that second lecture hall, but may not disrupt the proceedings they find abhorrent.
Any attempt to disrupt a speaker, when an alternative venue is made available, should be met with police who get to keep all the fines levied.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:12PM (4 children)
And who will be paying for the police work again? Police don't work for free. As you can plainly see, I am all for Spencer's right to express his political views, and I also believe that a university campus, out of all places, is a highly appropriate place to host someone expressing highly controversial views, even if the speaker is a poster of a troll. But I do not see how Spencer or anyone else can expect the taxpayer to foot his security bills whenever he purposefully hurls himself in the middle of a very hostile audience to present his views. We are not made of money, and there are rights, including this little number [wikisource.org], which also need protection.
Offering a second lecture hall to anyone won't do anything. The same 40% of college students who are prepared to infringe on Spencer's constitutional right to free speech, however hypocritical and wrong that is with respect to the US law, could not give less of a damn. They don't want to be heard because, let's be fair, they don't have anything particularly smart to say. They just want Spencer to shut up and go away. So I don't see why it would be unfair for schools to require speakers who were attacked in the past to hire their own security detail, or else go and express their views somewhere else, like the net.
I would concede that ideally, public venues should carry this burden. May be they should have a free-expression budget out of which to pay for the protection of free speech on campus, but I am trying to be realistic. As it stands, many public colleges and universities in USA lack sufficient funds to provide adequate instruction, and that for many complex reasons. So of course they can make a case that spending thousands of dollars to protect a visiting troll is a giant middle finger to their students. This money will certainly come out of the pile which would otherwise be spent on hiring another full-time political science faculty instructor, who certainly has her own opinions to share.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:03PM
I see absolutely no reason why universities should be a free-for-all, and freedom of speech != given a free soap box. If a student group reserves a location for whatever speaker they'd like then sure, but speakers don't just get to decide they'll have an auditorium on any state campus they'd like.
Speaking of trolls, you sure seem like one with your closing line: "This money will certainly come out of the pile which would otherwise be spent on hiring another full-time political science faculty instructor, who certainly has her own opinions to share."
UNDER THE BRIDGE FOUL BEAST!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:05PM (2 children)
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:48AM
Truly, arcx, you are dumber than a bag of hammers. Take your all caps, and stick them as magnets on your refridgerator door.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:22PM (2 children)
The 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects Spencer's right to say absolutely anything,
Not on my property it doesn't. Speak all you want. You don't get to demand the use of a private venue to do it, though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:21PM
That still does not necessarily have to mean that the governing body of a public institution should be required to host any speaker, regardless of cost.
If such a person is refused, then maybe you or like minded people should host this speaker that you think has so much to contribute to society regardless of cost.
All persons are free to speak. Nobody should be forced to listen, nor even forced to provide a venue for them to speak -- including the government.
The government cannot stop him from speaking. (but in fact government does take notice of certain kinds of speech!) But the government does not have to pay the bill for him to speak. (eg, other taxpayers do not have to pay for his ability to speak)
There is a difference from STOPPING someone from speaking and declining to provide a venue for them to speak.
Anyone can speak. And if their ideas are so great, there will hoardes of InfoWars, FoxNews, etc to provide them a megaphone.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:42PM (6 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:49PM (5 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:19PM
Look here mr. "what is hate speech anyway" nazi apologist, there is no reason anyone is guaranteed a speaking location at any school. You seem to be mixing up a pre-approved student group invited speaker with someone trying to force their own approval.
If some students invite Spencer to speak and then he is barred due to his ideological content, THEN you can argue its a free speech violation by a public institution. By your logic I should be able to walk into a court room during a trial and start spouting off nonsense because hey, its a public building right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by leftover on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:53PM (3 children)
IANAL but I believe that the grounds and facilities of the university are not 'public property' in the sense being used here. Note that Spencer is not trying to pull this off in the state capital building or in a state park. He is using the common misapprehension that a university is some sort of open soapbox.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:04AM (2 children)
God forbid unpopular opinions be heard at a public university.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:45AM (1 child)
It's a libertarian thing, isn't it? Yes, we have heard it all before. It is rubbish. You think either that we did not hear you the first time, or that by repeating your adolescent khallowian Ayn Rand positions repeatedly, we will somehow be convinced? No, we are not censuring you, we are just dismissing you. Much the same with neo-nazis, alt-righties, and Alex Jones. You're crazy. Get used to it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday February 16 2018, @06:11PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:07PM (12 children)
Are you trying to say that counter protesters don't have the same right to speech as the person they are protesting? How would one individuals free speech infringe on another's? How is it illegal? Isn't the constitutional protection of free speech to prevent government interference in speech, not private individuals?
Don't get me wrong, I find such counter protests intolerably rude, and I don't think they are beneficial on the whole, but I can't see how they are any less protected.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:49PM (8 children)
Remember when @charlesmurray [twitter.com] -- terrific scholar and one of my biggest fans -- came to Middlebury? The administrators were great, very welcoming. The President introduced him. She said she didn't agree with him. But she wanted him to be HEARD!!!!!!!!
But some of the students didn't want that, they SHOUTED HIM DOWN. He had to go to a VERY SPECIAL TV studio, he did an interview on Closed Circuit TV. He wanted to talk directly to the audience. You know, in the same room, right? But those HORRIBLE students wouldn't let him, they moved very strongly against him. They tried to shut him down. youtu.be/a6EASuhefeI [youtu.be]
Let me tell you, there's something they taught me at Wharton, at Penn. That our colleges don't teach any more, it's like they don't teach it. It's called tolerance, folks.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:17PM (6 children)
You know you are a real soylentil when you get a personalized realDonaldTrump rant. I would love to live in a world where Trump preaches tolerance.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:22PM (1 child)
Yep. I have no tolerance for intolerant people.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:36PM
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch. - Nigel Powers
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:00PM (3 children)
https://factba.se/search#tolerance [factba.se]
"When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate."
- President Donald J. Trump
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)
I would love few things more than to hear that sentiment from him more often. Though I hardly think 7 or so quotes that search found over his entire life qualify him as a "prince of peace", the rest of the results are about zero tolerance of various things. Even that very quote about inclusiveness in the military was seen as terribly hypocritical being given shortly after stating that transgendered people will not be allowed to serve in the military in any capacity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:10AM (1 child)
Face reality. If you send men into combat in a real war and they are captured they will end up in a POW camp. If you send women into combat in a real war and they are captured they will be raped, and then to cover up the war crime, probably shot.
Given the USA's current list of conflicts transgenders will be raped up the arse until they too loose to use, then summarily executed as a crime against allah.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday February 16 2018, @04:42PM
So you are saying I shouldn't send soldiers into battle because the enemy won't be nice to them? Really? Also notice his statement was "in any capacity", in other words that includes both combat and non combat roles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:50PM
From the realDonald Trump?
Not what any academic wants on their CV!
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @03:00AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday February 16 2018, @04:32PM (1 child)
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.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 16 2018, @08:54PM
Flag burning is quiet, so it does not prevent anyone else from stating their point of view at the same time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:36PM (6 children)
I'm honestly not sure if it's what you meant, but yes, Richard Spencer needs to stop acting like a special snowflake who's entitled to shit all over everyone else just because that's what he wants to do.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:54PM (5 children)
Well, yes - that is exactly what I meant. Spencer thinks he is special, that he has some right to spew his version of bullshit - a special little snowflake.
Snowflakes don't just come in SJW flavor, LOL! Skinhead epitomize the whole snowflake thing. They're afraid of all the rest of us, so they need their little protective snow white communities, etc ad nauseum. And, let us all remember - most white people aren't nearly white enough to be part of Nazi reality. Polski? You're out. Ukrainian? No way. Lithuanian? You lose! Italian? Maybe - I never quite figured that out. Romans/Italians were never Aryan, but Hitler liked that Mussolini guy for some reason. Probably would have stabbed the little Dego in the back as soon as the war was over, if they had won. Italians aren't any whiter than Eastern Europeans, after all!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:13PM (4 children)
I have to admit that I misinterpreted that in, what I now think, is the opposite of what you meant.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:48PM (3 children)
I just love it when Runaway agrees with aristarchus! It smells, . . . like victory.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 16 2018, @07:03AM (2 children)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, huh?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:12AM (1 child)
Which one is stopped and which one is a clock?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @06:11AM
Doesn't matter! I say we roll with it!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:17PM (10 children)
The types of followers he brings out are in favor of using violence to achieve their goals. The types of protesters he brings out are in favor of using violence to prevent his ilk from achieving their goals. The overall safety of the campus should be the priority. Let him go rent out the Foreign Legion hall or the VFW hall.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:15PM (9 children)
The types of followers he brings out are in favor of using violence to achieve their goals. The types of protesters he brings out are in favor of using violence to prevent his ilk from achieving their goals.
Last time [soylentnews.org] we talked about a Spencer speech we heard the same types of false equivalency and claims that there would be violence from the left.
Meanwhile, the only violence that occurred was three white supremacists shooting at the crowd. [cnn.com]
Sorry, one side is definitely worse. [salon.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:25PM (7 children)
I'm not disagreeing, nor am I equating both sides. But if either side leans toward violence Spencer's presence posses a risk.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:48PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)
That does not mean taxpayer provided security is at all adequate. Maybe you need to bring in the national guard instead of the local police.
Maybe other taxpayers have an opinion about whether they should be paying for considerably more security resources just to allow one individual to demand the use of a particular venue. Don't we want to save taxpayer money?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:50PM (1 child)
Bringing the National Guard? Onto the Kent State Campus? On May 4? Are you insane, or just incredibly insensitive?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:24PM
Insanely ironic.
Or ironically insane.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:57PM (2 children)
Is Spencer a resident of Ohio? Does he pay state taxes in Ohio? No and no. He is a resident of Virginia. Kent State is a public school in Ohio. Local police are paid for by local taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:49PM (1 child)
"Equal protection under the law"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:52PM
No law says the uni must give him a soap box to spew his nonsense
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:42PM
And just like that it turns out the piece of shit who murdered 17 kids yesterday was Trump supporter. [standard.co.uk]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:03PM
One thing to be aware of is that the university does everything it can to try to make the May 4 commemorations as non-political as they can be. For instance, the victims of the 1970 shooting that were random students on their way to class are given exactly the same attention as the protesters who were shot. They try to avoid statements about whether or not the Vietnam War or the invasion of Cambodia were justified. They also try to avoid discussions about whether or not the shooting was justified - for example, Alan Canfora, who was shot on that day, still lives in Kent, and has been at the forefront of trying to prove that the Guardsmen were ordered to shoot people they knew were unarmed, does not get a speaking slot to try to make his point.
So I'd be against Spencer speaking, not just because of the circus he's likely to bring with him, but also because his normal focus on race relations has absolutely nothing to do with what that event is about. A bunch of mostly white people shot another bunch of mostly white people, possibly while under the orders of yet more white people, in an event which didn't really discuss race relations in any substantial way.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:57PM (4 children)
Richard Spencer is probably worth supporting. I'd attend his event based on the reaction from aristarchus.
Of course, the funny thing is that aristarchus is probably the leftist version of those anti-gay republicans that get caught picking up men in airport restrooms. The hatred that aristarchus claims to have for KKK and Nazi stuff, wrongly projecting it on the alt-right, is probably rooted in having those feelings. I bet that aristarchus is struggling to suppress his own urge to go full Hitler and/or shoot up a black church.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:19PM (3 children)
Copy / pasting is fine with reddit, here you just look like a jackass spammer.
Look at me look at me! Validate my hatred!!!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:16PM (2 children)
I typed that up fresh. Sure, it resembles previous comments I've made, but it is 100% new text.
I'm totally serious too. What is with the obsession with the alt-right? Trying to paint them as KKK (which was democrats) and Nazi (which was socialist) is a pretty darn evil way to distort reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:44PM (1 child)
No need to explain things to a likely troll, and if not a troll then a willfully ignorant fool. Either way no answer for you until you stop being either of the previous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:28AM
I'm sorry, aristarchus does not know who you are, AC. He probably is not even aware you exist. Why do you exist, anyway?
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:14PM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:48PM
You might need to look up "morality" and get a clue about universities not being required to host any given speaker.
What will you do if you end up being wrong? Will you print out this whole discussion and eat it? Or perhaps just question your beliefs and maybe grow a little?
Nah, you'll double down on being wronged by the academic elitists or some crap.
If you are right then look forward to an increase in serious bullshit occurrences on campuses around the nation.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:57PM (3 children)
I have said this many times before, punching Nazis in the face is self-defense! Especially for white folks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)
Apparently goes double for arcz. I cannot wait for the day he is vindicated!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:08PM (1 child)
Please hold your breath
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:37AM
But. Lo! Arcz has posted a journal, wherein he undertakes to educate all Soylentils on the Law! So cute. Unfortunately, I believe arcz went to the same law school as Runaway1956! Hilarity will ensue!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 16 2018, @12:38AM (3 children)
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]
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by arcz on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:02PM (1 child)
But the 'time' and 'place' are still ... ummm... in place, right?
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
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.)