OSU refuses to allow white nationalist to speak on campus... [Archive]

LDAHL

9-11-17, 8:33am

Thoughts on this?

https://www.thelantern.com/2017/09/ohio-state-denies-richard-spencers-request-for-campus-space/

I don't like OSU being the arbiter of free speech. I think it is a mistake to refuse Spencer.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. We need to expose him to the blistering sun of better ideas and crest him that way.

You are absolutely right. If universities use the public safety excuse, they basically assign a veto power to the alsofascists or anyone else who wants to make threats.

jp1

9-11-17, 9:42am

As long as they don't let his supporters drive to the event I don't see a problem.

Ultralight

9-12-17, 7:14am

Williamsmith

9-12-17, 8:30am

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.

gimmethesimplelife

9-12-17, 8:34am

I have been talking to many friends on the left about this. They all agree with the university.

I am frightening that the totalitarians will win this culture war and our freedoms of speech will be curtailed and clipped.

How in the hell did free speech become a conservative value?
I am flabbergasted.

I was accused of "hiding behind free speech" when I said that I thought OSU should let the dumbass speak and that we should protest, engage him in debate, challenge his ideas, and rhetorically take him down.I'm on the left (quite obvious by now, no?) and I don't side with the university. I might not agree with the speaker but I find it too much like the days of Hitler in my homeland (Austria) to veto the speaker from appearing at university just because what they have to say may not be liked by one and all. I don't believe in white supremacy personally - I married a Mexican national as an example, and most of my best friends and the people I trust the most overall are of a different race than my own - but I also am turned off by the University rejecting this speaker.

To me, free speech means just that - free speech. I don't apply any limitations or qualifiers to it and I also don't believe in being "triggered" or in "safe spaces" at universities. Scary thought - do I have latent conservative tendencies here? It's so simple to me - if you don't want to hear what this speaker has to say - duh? You don't go listen to them speak. How hard is that? Rob

gimmethesimplelife

9-12-17, 8:51am

You are absolutely right. If universities use the public safety excuse, they basically assign a veto power to the alsofascists or anyone else who wants to make threats.Please don't go into toxic shock......I may be a hard core liberal but I agree with you completely here. Rob

LDAHL

9-12-17, 9:04am

How in the hell did free speech become a conservative value?

More or less by default.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

- William F. Buckley, Jr.

To be fair, could you really call the current climate on campus "liberal"? Leftist, perhaps. Authoritarian, perhaps, with a dash of fascist tendencies. Maybe a sort of fundamentalism built around identity politics. To such thinking, there can be no marketplace of ideas. Just a sort of single-payer prescriptive orthodoxy.

I wouldn't call that "liberal" in the classic sense of the word. More like militant snowflakery.

Interestingly enough, NR has a recent piece on the difference between liberalism and leftism:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451267/leftism-liberalism-have-almost-nothing-common

LDAHL

9-12-17, 9:09am

Please don't go into toxic shock......I may be a hard core liberal but I agree with you completely here. Rob

I can respect that. You may want to relieve me of some of my property "for the common good", but at least you'll allow me to complain about it.

bae

9-12-17, 2:25pm

I can respect that. You may want to relieve me of some of my property "for the common good", but at least you'll allow me to complain about it.

We just haven't reached the mandatory-reeducation-camp stage yet.

Lainey

9-12-17, 6:05pm

Alan

9-12-17, 6:16pm

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.

Williamsmith

9-12-17, 6:25pm

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.

ApatheticNoMore

9-12-17, 6:39pm

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)

LDAHL

9-13-17, 8:34am

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.

Williamsmith

9-13-17, 9:07am

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.

Zoe Girl

9-13-17, 9:14am

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.

iris lilies

9-13-17, 9:27am

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.

Williamsmith

9-13-17, 9:33am

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?

LDAHL

9-13-17, 9:53am

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?

iris lilies

9-13-17, 10:05am

My question then is, would you attend?

This specific protest, Michael Brown paean in Ferguson, nope. Because I don't share their sentiment.

Would I attend a speech by Skinheads on campus? nope. i havent attended any other skinhead event, why start now? But philosophically, now that this free speech/safety in the public square issue is a current focus, I might be curious about the skinheads or Milo for that matter, but would stay away because I now consider that my responsibility to make life easier for policing agencies.

This begs the question of audience, though. Can sunshine exist if no one gathers in the public square to hear the cranks?

Williamsmith

9-13-17, 10:12am

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?

I agree, but it is useful in pointing out that the ham and eggs breakfast analogy applies here. Who is involved..the chicken and who is committed....the pig. I have been the pig too often and can tell you it sucks.

The idea of free speech is a wonderful idea. In practice, we encroach on it at every turn. We have laws limiting it. We have community standards encroaching on it. Free speech comes with consequences that sometimes are working against our ideal. That includes the threat of violence, and the safety which we are also entrusted to preserve. I agree that we should advance free speech wherever prudent and reasonable but not at all costs. Not when there are viable alternatives.

The universities are taking a practical look at it and they don't want to be the crucible for the firestorm that can be foreseen. No doubt, they have used this as an excuse to exclude certain ideologies before, but this one has concrete evidence to draw from.

If you permit it once, in the name of free speech, do you have to let's say allow him back once a month .....once a week.... I think they are looking at it on a purely logistical viewpoint and not ideological at all even though they have publicly denounced his views.

Williamsmith

9-13-17, 10:14am

This specific protest, Michael Brown paean in Ferguson, nope. Because I don't share their sentiment.

Would I attend a speech by Skinheads on campus? nope. i havent attended any other skinhead event, why start now? But philosophically, now that this free speech/safety in the public square issue is a current focus, I might be curious about the skinheads or Milo for that matter, but would stay away because I now consider that my responsibility to make life easier for policing agencies.

This begs the question of audience, though. Can sunshine exist if no one gathers in the public square to hear the cranks?

Audience is an issue.....but I refer to those who are drawn to events like this. They are more tolerant of violent or "expressive" behaviors. When such are concentrated bad things happen. You would not attend because you think it prudent not to....those attending do so because they don't care about being prudent.

LDAHL

9-13-17, 10:31am

I agree, but it is useful in pointing out that the ham and eggs breakfast analogy applies here. Who is involved..the chicken and who is committed....the pig. I have been the pig too often and can tell you it sucks.

The idea of free speech is a wonderful idea. In practice, we encroach on it at every turn. We have laws limiting it. We have community standards encroaching on it. Free speech comes with consequences that sometimes are working against our ideal. That includes the threat of violence, and the safety which we are also entrusted to preserve. I agree that we should advance free speech wherever prudent and reasonable but not at all costs. Not when there are viable alternatives.

The universities are taking a practical look at it and they don't want to be the crucible for the firestorm that can be foreseen. No doubt, they have used this as an excuse to exclude certain ideologies before, but this one has concrete evidence to draw from.

If you permit it once, in the name of free speech, do you have to let's say allow him back once a month .....once a week.... I think they are looking at it on a purely logistical viewpoint and not ideological at all even though they have publicly denounced his views.

The flaw in your analogy is that the pig didn't sign up for the job.

I understand that there are practicalities involved, but I think it is a very bad idea to set up public employees, whether university bureaucrats or law enforcement, as the arbiters of when speech becomes "too dangerous".

Williamsmith

9-13-17, 11:04am

The flaw in your analogy is that the pig didn't sign up for the job.

I understand that there are practicalities involved, but I think it is a very bad idea to set up public employees, whether university bureaucrats or law enforcement, as the arbiters of when speech becomes "too dangerous".

Each decision stands on its own merit. Administrators and law enforcement are the arbitors of this decision because of its venue. Depending on the circumstance it could be a bad decision because it matters what their motivations are. Here, I think it is for the right reasons and just happens to also serve a less noble agenda. One outweighs the other. More in the view of some not so much in the view of others.