UF denies Richard Spencer

[CommuterBob]

Amid serious concerns for safety, we have decided to deny the National Policy Institute’s request to rent event space at the University of Florida.
This decision was made after assessing potential risks with campus, community, state and federal law enforcement officials following violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va., and continued calls online and in social media for similar violence in Gainesville such as those decreeing: “The Next Battlefield is in Florida.”
I find the racist rhetoric of Richard Spencer and white nationalism repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for.
That said, the University of Florida remains unwaveringly dedicated to free speech and the spirit of public discourse. However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others.
The likelihood of violence and potential injury – not the words or ideas – has caused us to take this action.
Warm Regards, W. Kent Fuchs

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yeah! Free speech wins again!

 

[UCFKnight85]

Let's be clear here:

1. Richard Spencer is a vile little racist shithead that bitched out of showing up to his own rally this past weekend
2. He has a right to protected free speech and UF is a government institution
3. The "threat of violence" is due to the fact that Antifa-esque left wingers would again show up to brawl, just as they did with earlier Spencer speaking gigs and basically any time Milo attempted to speak somewhere

And while Fuchs referenced "The Next Battleground" has chose to omit the fact that Antifa was already spreading their own call to arms and slogans of violence while recruiting people to show up here.

Just a pathetic debacle at every turn.

 

[UCFWayne]

this isnt over. legal battle in 3... 2... 1...

 

[reddog4720]

Good for UF. While Spencer has the right to free speech, UF also has the right to protect the students, the employees, and the campus property.

Spencer can surely find another establishment private or public in the greater Gainesville area that will welcome in crappy message of hate.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Good for UF. While Spencer has the right to free speech, UF also has the right to protect the students, the employees, and the campus property.

Spencer can surely find another establishment private or public in the greater Gainesville area that will welcome in crappy message of hate.

Can he? If these Antifa thugs are vowing to show up anywhere he speaks to fight, what venue is going to be free of violence?

 

[NinjaKnight]

My question is: how disgusting do your views have to be before a public institution has no obligation to host you? I'm not talking about Spencer, but a hypothetical hate group. For example say there is a group that believes everyone except for their own group are literal pieces of shit, should be killed/expelled etc (this is an extreme example). Can they be rejected by a public institution and then sue and claim they have a right to freedom of speech? Obviously there is a cut off point where people just have to say "no, you are not speaking here because you are just plain wrong" without fear of violating their rights.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Yeah! Free speech wins again!

Agree. I absolutely despise Spencer and his message, but you either have Free Speech or you don't. When others suppress your speech through violence, they're infringing on his Constitutional Rights.

People seem to get confused in this argument. Should he be saying these things? No. Does he have the right to say these things? Absolutely.

 

[reddog4720]

Agree. I absolutely despise Spencer and his message, but you either have Free Speech or you don't. When others suppress your speech through violence, they're infringing on his Constitutional Rights.

People seem to get confused in this argument. Should he be saying these things? No. Does he have the right to say these things? Absolutely.

But don't the people on the campus and the property paid for by tax payers have a right to protection as well?

The right action by the state/university would have been denying him access to the university but then helping him secure another public location that would allow him to speak. This ensures his constitutional right, but also the safety of those on a public university.

I'm sure they could secure an open park or field for him to speak.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

My question is: how disgusting do your views have to be before a public institution has no obligation to host you? I'm not talking about Spencer, but a hypothetical hate group. For example say there is a group that believes everyone except for their own group are literal pieces of shit, should be killed/expelled etc (this is an extreme example). Can they be rejected by a public institution and then sue and claim they have a right to freedom of speech? Obviously there is a cut off point where people just have to say "no, you are not speaking here because you are just plain wrong" without fear of violating their rights.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't know how you bound it to prevent it from being exploited and used to suppress legitimate speech. If I say, "Communism has no place in America". Can you take that as a call to action to expel all known communists in the US? Am I inciting violence? Who decides what ideologies are good and bad? I think It's just too fluid to be able to adequately control without it getting out of control.

For most things, I'm willing to give in a little and introduce the possibility that it expands beyond the initial intent. For free speech, it's far to valuable to take that risk.

 

[btbones]

My question is: how disgusting do your views have to be before a public institution has no obligation to host you? I'm not talking about Spencer, but a hypothetical hate group. For example say there is a group that believes everyone except for their own group are literal pieces of shit, should be killed/expelled etc (this is an extreme example). Can they be rejected by a public institution and then sue and claim they have a right to freedom of speech? Obviously there is a cut off point where people just have to say "no, you are not speaking here because you are just plain wrong" without fear of violating their rights.

I'm not sure how the courts view it but any group threatening violence or clearly associated with it should not be protected by the constitution in any way shape or form other than their Miranda rights

 

[UCF11and1]

Free speech or not, UF is not required to rent him a space inside the university. He may be able to stand under a tree and give his talk.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

But don't the people on the campus and the property paid for by tax payers have a right to protection as well?

The right action by the state/university would have been denying him access to the university but then helping him secure another public location that would allow him to speak. This ensures his constitutional right, but also the safety of those on a public university.

I'm sure they could secure an open park or field for him to speak.

Increase the security presence to protect their peaceful demonstration. If counter protestors come and incite violence against any person or property, arrest them for any crime committed. If the peaceful demonstration itself turns to a call for violence or is inciting a riot, shut it down and arrest as necessary. It's incumbent upon the media to not spin this as the government protecting hate speech but instead as the government protecting free speech.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Free speech or not, UF is not required to rent him a space inside the university. He may be able to stand under a tree and give his talk.

I think it should be based on demand, if enough people are interested in seeing any certain speaker UF (or any public institution) should be required to allow them to speak. This would keep out the completely deranged hate groups that are just looking for a soap box to spew from.

 

[UCFKnight85]

My question is: how disgusting do your views have to be before a public institution has no obligation to host you? I'm not talking about Spencer, but a hypothetical hate group. For example say there is a group that believes everyone except for their own group are literal pieces of shit, should be killed/expelled etc (this is an extreme example). Can they be rejected by a public institution and then sue and claim they have a right to freedom of speech? Obviously there is a cut off point where people just have to say "no, you are not speaking here because you are just plain wrong" without fear of violating their rights.

There are few instances where rejecting free speech rights SHOULD be legal under the 1st Amendment. We have perhaps the most absolute guarantee of free speech in the world.

The only instance where free speech could be considered incitement or illegal, is if that speech is implicitly calling for a crime to be committed or using language that enters into the realm of terrorism by words. Such as screaming "I have a bomb" on an airplane. Or using a speech to outline the reasons for and method to carry out the murder of someone.

Other than that, we have a legal obligation to allow any heinous group to access public institutions to exercise their free speech. It is the obligation of the rest of society to use their own free speech (note: not violence) to counter the views of those groups and/or disprove their bigotry.

It's actually a fantastic legal principle since otherwise you open an extremely slippery slope. Banning hate groups one day becomes Interest Group A demanding to silence someone, and Interest Group B demanding the same thing the next day.

 

[CommuterBob]

And while Fuchs referenced "The Next Battleground" has chose to omit the fact that Antifa was already spreading their own call to arms and slogans of violence while recruiting people to show up here.

And with this sentence, you just stated why it needs to be shut down. Which is cheaper for the university, hiring a campus-wide police-state security team to quell the anticipated violence, or cancelling a room reservation? Fuchs doesn't need to state anything more than he did. It was very apparent that Spencer was gearing up for a physical fight with his own actions and words. That goes beyond free speech.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I think it should be based on demand, if enough people are interested in seeing any certain speaker UF (or any public institution) should be required to allow them to speak. This would keep out the completely deranged hate groups that are just looking for a soap box to spew from.

This is not a requirement nor should it be. Free speech shouldn't be measured by how many people listen to you.

UCF used to have a single lunatic who would stand near the library, cursing at girls and insisting that God thought they were sluts and harlots. He was a nut and a dick but he had a legal right to be there.

 

[UCFKnight85]

And with this sentence, you just stated why it needs to be shut down. Which is cheaper for the university, hiring a campus-wide police-state security team to quell the anticipated violence, or cancelling a room reservation? Fuchs doesn't need to state anything more than he did. It was very apparent that Spencer was gearing up for a physical fight with his own actions and words. That goes beyond free speech.

So, in other words, threats of terrorism works. The terrorists win.

 

[NinjaKnight]

There are few instances where rejecting free speech rights SHOULD be legal under the 1st Amendment. We have perhaps the most absolute guarantee of free speech in the world.

The only instance where free speech could be considered incitement or illegal, is if that speech is implicitly calling for a crime to be committed or using language that enters into the realm of terrorism by words. Such as screaming "I have a bomb" on an airplane. Or using a speech to outline the reasons for and method to carry out the murder of someone.

Other than that, we have a legal obligation to allow any heinous group to access public institutions to exercise their free speech. It is the obligation of the rest of society to use their own free speech (note: not violence) to counter the views of those groups and/or disprove their bigotry.

It's actually a fantastic legal principle since otherwise you open an extremely slippery slope. Banning hate groups one day becomes Interest Group A demanding to silence someone, and Interest Group B demanding the same thing the next day.

I do agree with this, and think UF should set a minimum number for people interested in any given speaker or group. If that number of interested people is met, then that speaker or group should be allowed to speak there. This would ensure there is no censoring based on ideologies and keep out the extreme fringe nutjobs who no one is interested in anyway.

 

[NinjaKnight]

This is not a requirement nor should it be. Free speech shouldn't be measured by how many people listen to you.

UCF used to have a single lunatic who would stand near the library, cursing at girls and insisting that God thought they were sluts and harlots. He was a nut and a dick but he had a legal right to be there.

Yes for single speakers in the little "free speech zones" I agree, I thought we were talking about renting out an auditorium and forcing UF to host him there, wasting the universities time/money on a speaker no one wants to hear. By all means if it's just a guy wanting to talk on the lawn then yes anyone should be allowed to.

 

[UCFWayne]

And with this sentence, you just stated why it needs to be shut down. Which is cheaper for the university, hiring a campus-wide police-state security team to quell the anticipated violence, or cancelling a room reservation? Fuchs doesn't need to state anything more than he did. It was very apparent that Spencer was gearing up for a physical fight with his own actions and words. That goes beyond free speech.

why dont you just come out and say it? you dont believe in the 1st amendment.

 

[CommuterBob]

why dont you just come out and say it? you dont believe in the 1st amendment.

Lulz. I totally believe in the 1st amendment. However, speech is not free from consequences, nor is it free to infringe on the rights of others. Spencer has the right to peaceably assemble, but he's shown that in this instance, he is doing more than just holding a speech. He is inciting his followers to come to a brawl. That's not a peaceable assembly.

 

[CommuterBob]

So, in other words, threats of terrorism works. The terrorists win.

It's coming from both sides here, chief. Spencer is no angel. And sadly, mob rule via social media is fueling fringes on both sides. mob rule works against a lot of things. The vocal minority is asserting itself in many cases.

 

[UCFWayne]

Lulz. I totally believe in the 1st amendment. However, speech is not free from consequences, nor is it free to infringe on the rights of others. Spencer has the right to peaceably assemble, but he's shown that in this instance, he is doing more than just holding a speech. He is inciting his followers to come to a brawl. That's not a peaceable assembly.

i will reiterate, hes a pos scumbag. but to say you believe the 1st amendment is bs and youve proven you dont. as long as he and his group remain peaceful at his assemblies its not the governments job to say who can and cant speak.

that doesnt include the counter protesters throwing rocks and jumping barricades to attack his group who are lawfully assembling. they are literally the ones breaking the law and committing violence. obviously spencer's group is going to fight back. hint, thats exactly what they want. that is literally how they are growing their numbers.

if no one showed up to counter protest, it would show up on the cliff notes of the local paper. it wouldnt help the nazis grow their numbers in any meaningful way. however, shutting these events down and starting brawls does.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's coming from both sides here, chief. Spencer is no angel. And sadly, mob rule via social media is fueling fringes on both sides. mob rule works against a lot of things. The vocal minority is asserting itself in many cases.

You're again using things that weren't said to make points that don't make sense.

No one said Spencer was an angel. In fact he's already been called a racist shithead. That doesn't detract whatsoever from the fact that he has a legal right to speak on government property. In this instance, the reason he is being denied that right is because the opposition is not coming in the form of speech, but promised violence and mayhem. Why you can't just admit that, I don't know.

Saying "shut down Spencer or we'll make UF a warzone" is no different than Jihadis threatening to kill anyone affiliated with Draw Mohammad days. It's terrorism.

 

[Happy Hands]

Can't the White studies department set him up as a guest lecturer?

 

[CommuterBob]

i will reiterate, hes a pos scumbag. but to say you believe the 1st amendment is bs and youve proven you dont. as long as he and his group remain peaceful at his assemblies its not the governments job to say who can and cant speak.

that doesnt include the counter protesters throwing rocks and jumping barricades to attack his group who are lawfully assembling. they are literally the ones breaking the law and committing violence. obviously spencer's group is going to fight back. hint, thats exactly what they want. that is literally how they are growing their numbers.

if no one showed up to counter protest, it would show up on the cliff notes of the local paper. it wouldnt help the nazis grow their numbers in any meaningful way. however, shutting these events down and starting brawls does.

How have I proven I don't believe in the 1st amendment? That's a ludicrous statement. Spencer has every right to say what he wants, even if I don't believe in what he has to say. That's his right - until he incites and advocates for violence against others, or his speech crosses into slander. Neither of those are legal forms of free speech.

 

[UCFKnight85]

How have I proven I don't believe in the 1st amendment? That's a ludicrous statement. Spencer has every right to say what he wants, even if I don't believe in what he has to say. That's his right - until he incites and advocates for violence against others, or his speech crosses into slander. Neither of those are legal forms of free speech.

You believe in free speech- until a group threatens violence unless that person is squelched and succeeds. Which you seem fine with.

 

[CommuterBob]

You're again using things that weren't said to make points that don't make sense.

No one said Spencer was an angel. In fact he's already been called a racist shithead. That doesn't detract whatsoever from the fact that he has a legal right to speak on government property. In this instance, the reason he is being denied that right is because the opposition is not coming in the form of speech, but promised violence and mayhem. Why you can't just admit that, I don't know.

Saying "shut down Spencer or we'll make UF a warzone" is no different than Jihadis threatening to kill anyone affiliated with Draw Mohammad days. It's terrorism.

You're right. It's terrorism from the antifa crowd.

You're right Spencer is a racist shithead.

You're right that he has a legal right to speak, unless he incites violence against others or promotes anything other than peaceful assembly.

UF also has a responsibility to protect its students from violence. The fact that Spencer is not promoting peaceful assembly gives UF the right to restrict his assembly, based on the safety of the students. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[CommuterBob]

You believe in free speech- until a group threatens violence unless that person is squelched and succeeds. Which you seem fine with.

I'm not fine with it. I'm somewhat disappointed by UF here, but I understand their logic.

 

[UCFWayne]

carbob, you are literally for removing their ability to lawfully assemble and have a rally. wow is that not against their 1st amendment?

 

[CommuterBob]

carbob, you are literally for removing their ability to lawfully assemble and have a rally. wow is that not against their 1st amendment?

I didn't realize I was the President of UF! I haven't done shit. UF made this decision. As for their ability to assemble, the First amendment calls for peaceable assembly as a right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Given the results of the assembly in Charlottesville and the language used by Spencer and his followers regarding the UF rally ("the next battlefield is Florida"), I think it's safe to judge that the assembly would not be peaceable. The First Amendment does not give people the free ability to organize a brawl.

 

[UCFWayne]

I didn't realize I was the President of UF! I haven't done shit. UF made this decision. As for their ability to assemble, the First amendment calls for peaceable assembly as a right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Given the results of the assembly in Charlottesville and the language used by Spencer and his followers regarding the UF rally ("the next battlefield is Florida"), I think it's safe to judge that the assembly would not be peaceable. The First Amendment does not give people the free ability to organize a brawl.

by and large the kkk's rallies are peaceful for the past few years. i think there was one here in orlando a few years back unfortunately. only recently when these counter protest groups that have been showing up to start something have they turned violent. of course their talking points are terrible and such, but they often arent the ones striking first....

 

[CommuterBob]

Don't fret. Spencer's group is vowing to sue UF.

https://apnews.com/2833455c302f44b4aa20a0e4c49e1b66

 

[CommuterBob]

by and large the kkk's rallies are peaceful for the past few years. i think there was one here in orlando a few years back unfortunately. only recently when these counter protest groups that have been showing up to start something have they turned violent. of course their talking points are terrible and such, but they often arent the ones striking first....

No doubt. And those physically attacking groups over what was said are worse than the hate speech itself.

 

[UCFWayne]

No doubt. And those physically attacking groups over what was said are worse than the hate speech itself.

now you are getting it. so you cant stop the kkk form having their rally because of another groups violence. uf needs to allow them to have their stupid assembly and potentially ask the city/county/state to provide additional security measures.

 

[CommuterBob]

Here's what was written two days ago regarding the event:

http://www.news-press.com/story/new...nationalist-leader-richard-spencer/566792001/

“Governor Scott has spoken with University of Florida President Kent Fuchs and Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell to offer any support from the state, if needed. Regardless of how the university decides to move forward, Florida has zero tolerance for violence of any kind. Safety is always the governor's foremost concern,” John Tupps, Scott's communications director, said in an email Monday when asked about the Gainesville situation.

Like other speakers, Spencer would have to pay for the rental of the space as well as security costs, which had not been determined as of Monday, according to Sikes.

“GPD is aware of a possible appearance by white nationalist Richard Spencer at UF on September 12th. We are also aware of information online through multiple forums and blogs surrounding the event,” the Gainesville Police Department said in a Facebook post. “We will continue to closely monitor the planning of this event and any peripheral protests/counter protests that are expected to arise if Mr. Spencer does appear.”

And from five days ago:

http://www.gainesville.com/news/20170815/gainesville-weighs-options-on-richard-spencer-visit

On social media and white supremacist websites, commenters express their eagerness for the UF event, some posting discriminatory remarks and advocating violence.

Poe said he took notice of a widely shared online forum that declared Florida the next battlefield, while also promoting Spencer’s Gainesville visit.
“Yes, Florida’s gun laws are f****** insane. If there was a time for a false flag this would be it, you can basically open carry and pop someone for saying “I’m going to kill you” so…. Words = getting shot in Florida legally,” wrote one anonymous commenter.

Nancy Dowd, a constitutional law professor at UF, said the First Amendment protects free speech, including obnoxious and hateful speech, whether public universities support the cause or not.
“Saying, “You can’t come to talk here because of what you’re going to say,′ is called viewpoint discrimination,” she said.
However, public officials hold the right to place time, place and manner restrictions on any speaker and could impose limits on any speaker if safety is a major concern, Dowd said. Using recent events and evidence could strengthen one’s case, she added.
“If your speech causes mayhem and any reasonable person would know that, then you can regulate or restrict that,” she said.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Good for UF. While Spencer has the right to free speech, UF also has the right to protect the students, the employees, and the campus property.

Spencer can surely find another establishment private or public in the greater Gainesville area that will welcome in crappy message of hate.

I'm okay with that line of thinking as long as I can call up and threaten UF to stop the next liberal speaker.

 

[The Branch]

It's kind of funny that nobody really cared about or even mentioned the KKK anymore until the BLM guys got started.

My hate is better than your hate is always a good place to start.

 

[UCFWayne]

It's kind of funny that nobody really cared about or even mentioned the KKK anymore until the BLM guys got started.

My hate is better than your hate is always a good place to start.

Id say it was more of antifa and their tactics to stop conservative speakers on college campuses. It has only gotten worse over time and it will likely continue to get worse until something really bad happens.