Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: OSU refuses to allow white nationalist to speak on campus...

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    beyond the pale
    Posts
    2,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    The First Amendment as far as I know doesn't dictate ones right to free speech at the venue of choice of the speaker. Just the right to speak no matter how stupid the principles. Provided OSU is genuine in its reasons for denial of venue, and based on their evaluation of risk to safety it appears they are.....OSU not only has the right of denial but the duty to maintain a safe environment for its students and faculty as well as visitors. Given the events at Charlottesville and the history of events like this at Berkeley etc. I think the schools have made a wise and prudent decision. Perhaps Spencer should petition Tuskegee University or Xavier for a speech ...I'm sure they would be mighty kind and bless his sweet little heart.
    +1

  2. #12
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    The First Amendment as far as I know doesn't dictate ones right to free speech at the venue of choice of the speaker.
    I don't think of it as a First Amendment issue for exactly that reason. I think of it as one segment of society shielding an entire generation from the burden of critical thinking and objective comparisons. It's stupid.

    OSU not only has the right of denial but the duty to maintain a safe environment for its students and faculty as well as visitors.
    Which is just another means of enabling the march of fascism by the "anti-fascists" by denying opposing viewpoints a venue, making OSU an example of institutional fascism. Otherwise, their duty would be to enforce a safe environment for all speakers.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #13
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I don't think of it as a First Amendment issue for exactly that reason. I think of it as one segment of society shielding an entire generation from the burden of critical thinking and objective comparisons. It's stupid.
    The last time Spencer was involved in a rally one woman was run over and killed, another group of unpermitted trouble makers wreaked havoc and two State Troopers died in a helicopter crash that otherwise wouldn't have been airborne if it weren't for Spencer.

    I don't think any of the administrators or board of directors wants to be asked why they let something like that happen on their campus when they were fully aware of the previous incident and what it cost in terms of lives and resources. There is much inter agency coordination that has to be done to provide security and do contingency planning for an event like this , not the least is riot control and putting in harms way many enforcement officers who are needed elsewhere.

    Permitting it would be foolish, First Amendment notwithstanding.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,401
    How in the hell did free speech become a conservative value?
    I am flabbergasted.
    because they mostly want to use it to advance their agenda. Most of the liberals you talk to are probably perfectly aware of that. Of course the racist agenda is an agenda of it's own ...

    And was there ever any such golden age when white supremacists were welcome to discussions on campus for only the most golden reasons of free speech mind you? I doubt it.

    who is paying for all these speeches and their security anyway? (free speech isn't free! afterall).

    (he should have free speech in terms of he shouldn't be sent to jail for speaking? Well yes, unless he's actually inciting violence. But that is different than universities having a minimal standard - and not being a white supremacist is scrapping rock bottom minimum indeed - for who they host)
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Which is just another means of enabling the march of fascism by the "anti-fascists" by denying opposing viewpoints a venue, making OSU an example of institutional fascism. Otherwise, their duty would be to enforce a safe environment for all speakers.
    Exactly. This is a public institution denying a venue for no other reason than they are afraid the speaker will attract violence. There have been many cases of violence after NBA championship games, but if a city were to ban basketball as a result, they would come in for well-founded criticism. For a public space dedicated to the transmission and debate of ideas to decide that some ideas are too loathsome or incendiary to discuss means that that institution has decided to shirk its core responsibility. It cedes that public space to whoever wants to make threats, real or imagined.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Exactly. This is a public institution denying a venue for no other reason than they are afraid the speaker will attract violence. There have been many cases of violence after NBA championship games, but if a city were to ban basketball as a result, they would come in for well-founded criticism. For a public space dedicated to the transmission and debate of ideas to decide that some ideas are too loathsome or incendiary to discuss means that that institution has decided to shirk its core responsibility. It cedes that public space to whoever wants to make threats, real or imagined.
    I think as a general rule regarding the process of implementing free speech what you say here is true but I don't believe Spencer's request for civil action at Michigan State University for his denial of renting a space will be successful. The caveat is that public safety must be utmost in mind and to the extent that law enforcement and the administration can speak precisely to that concern citing other incidents of violence and specific rational and reasonable inferences that violence would erupt again.....and add the cost of putting down a riot in terms of injuries, death and destruction, Spencer will lose. It's an easy call. Maybe Spencer would agree to pay for the cost of riot control, hospitalization of anyone injured as a result and repair all damaged property...we can talk.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    The last time Spencer was involved in a rally one woman was run over and killed, another group of unpermitted trouble makers wreaked havoc and two State Troopers died in a helicopter crash that otherwise wouldn't have been airborne if it weren't for Spencer.

    I don't think any of the administrators or board of directors wants to be asked why they let something like that happen on their campus when they were fully aware of the previous incident and what it cost in terms of lives and resources. There is much inter agency coordination that has to be done to provide security and do contingency planning for an event like this , not the least is riot control and putting in harms way many enforcement officers who are needed elsewhere.

    Permitting it would be foolish, First Amendment notwithstanding.
    Yes, i really don't like what some people have to say however after Charlottesville we need to seriously have some olans to keep people safe. It seems that somehow we have more than enough security in some situations, but I wouldn't trust this situation. And it is directly from the events, you want to talk then maybe discourage your followers from violence and keep it to free speech.

  8. #18
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Girl View Post
    Yes, i really don't like what some people have to say however after Charlottesville we need to seriously have some olans to keep people safe. It seems that somehow we have more than enough security in some situations, but I wouldn't trust this situation. And it is directly from the events, you want to talk then maybe discourage your followers from violence and keep it to free speech.
    Yes, all who attend these this, both sides, need to chill in acting in violence.

    In the Ferguson riots here which were well contained despite criticism of law enforcement, well intentioned people protested during the day, supported and protected by law enforcement. Police suggested that people go home at night because that is when the rioters, burners of buildings, smashers of windows, shooters of guns, came out. Cops cannot "keep people safe" in those situations and it pizzes me off that people like you expect that.

    Hence, Williamsmith's admonition to shut it down. That has been, in my experience, the reaction of policing agencies in many situations around here, and that is not the highest and best action for society. Some allowence for cranks to come and and speak is good for society. Sunshine and all that.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Yes, all who attend these this, both sides, need to chill in acting in violence.

    In the Ferguson riots here which were well contained despite criticism of law enforcement, well intentioned people protested during the day, supported and protected by law enforcement. Police suggested that people go home at night because that is when the rioters, burners of buildings, smashers of windows, shooters of guns, came out. Cops cannot "keep people safe" in those situations and it pizzes me off that people like you expect that.

    Hence, Williamsmith's admonition to shut it down. That has been, in my experience, the reaction of policing agencies in many situations around here, and that is not the highest and best action for society. Some allowence for cranks to come and and speak is good for society. Sunshine and all that.
    My question then is, would you attend?

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    I think as a general rule regarding the process of implementing free speech what you say here is true but I don't believe Spencer's request for civil action at Michigan State University for his denial of renting a space will be successful. The caveat is that public safety must be utmost in mind and to the extent that law enforcement and the administration can speak precisely to that concern citing other incidents of violence and specific rational and reasonable inferences that violence would erupt again.....and add the cost of putting down a riot in terms of injuries, death and destruction, Spencer will lose. It's an easy call. Maybe Spencer would agree to pay for the cost of riot control, hospitalization of anyone injured as a result and repair all damaged property...we can talk.
    But if we impose such additional burdens on unpopular speakers in public spaces, aren't we in effect saying that public safety is a privilege to be paid for rather than a publicly funded benefit that applies equally to all? We don't impose additional taxes for police protection for people who live in dangerous neighborhoods. Shouldn't the same apply to people who hold dangerous opinions? Aren't we also at least indirectly saying that "law enforcement and the administration" get to make the call on who can and can't speak by setting a high price for speech?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •