• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

University of Florida rejects Richard Spencer's campus event, cites public safety

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SolidSnakex

Member
DrArchon said:
Yeah, describing your next speaking location as "The Next Battlefield" sounds to me like shouting fire in crowded space. If you're even hinting at large scale violence as a result of your gathering, I see no reason that the University should've been forced to let you speak.

I wish they'd have come out and said "No you can't come here because you're Nazis and we hate everything you stand for" but I'll take what I can get I guess.
Click to expand...

They likely would've preferred to say something like that, but this way puts them in better legal standing.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
DrArchon said:
Yeah, describing your next speaking location as "The Next Battlefield" sounds to me like shouting fire in crowded space. If you're even hinting at large scale violence as a result of your gathering, I see no reason that the University should've been forced to let you speak.

I wish they'd have come out and said "No you can't come here because you're Nazis and we hate everything you stand for" but I'll take what I can get I guess.
Click to expand...

I wish people stopped using this, because it's not actually a standard in free speech cases and hasn't been for the better part of a half-century, and I think most people would have disagreed with the verdict in question that used that metaphor anyhow (imprisoning socialists for opposing a war.)

The relevant caselaw is Brandeburg v. Ohio, and the criteria that the limit of free speech is that which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Therefor, especially with past protests in balance, you can argue that at the least Spencer's speech violates the latter part of that test, and possible the former.
 
D

DrArchon

Member
Fuchsdh said:
I wish people stopped using this, because it's not actually a standard in free speech cases and hasn't been for the better part of a half-century, and I think most people would have disagreed with the verdict in question that used that metaphor anyhow (imprisoning socialists for opposing a war.)

The relevant caselaw is Brandeburg v. Ohio, and the criteria that the limit of free speech is that which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Therefor, especially with past protests in balance, you can argue that at the least Spencer's speech violates the latter part of that test, and possible the former.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, I had no idea. I'll definitely stop using it from now on. The case you posted sounds much more relevant.

Learn something new everyday I suppose.
 
B

bionic77

Member
SAD!

There are a lot of wonderful people that like to stand next to angry Nazis who are definitely not racist and who legally secured a permit to be there.
 
R

RMI

Banned
The likelihood of violence and potential injury – not the words or ideas – has caused us to take this action.
Click to expand...

who said violence never solves anything!

this is a pretty weak condemnation and it's shameful that people need to literally die so that we can prevent actual nazis from holding their fucking hate rallies.
 
L

Lunar15

Member
Slayven said:
Took the murder of a person for people to get commonsense
Click to expand...

It's going to get worse before it gets better. It's easy and fun to yell at Nazis and act all shocked as if this isn't something you ever expected, it's a whole different ball game to look deep inside and realize that at some point, you were likely complicit with something that lead to where we are today. This is the thing many white people have been unable to do for hundreds of years despite the existence of both heinous and praiseworthy events in the evolution of civil rights.
 
M

Montresor

Member
Do we know the name of the person that punched Richard Spencer? This guy is going to be legendary. Maybe 10-20 years from now people will still be using that gif.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Lunar15 said:
It's going to get worse before it gets better. It's easy and fun to yell at Nazis and act all shocked as if this isn't something you ever expected, it's a whole different ball game to look deep inside and realize that at some point, you were likely complicit with something that lead to where we are today. This is the thing many white people have been unable to do for hundreds of years despite the existence of both heinous and praiseworthy events in the evolution of civil rights.
Click to expand...

White Supremacy is a motherfucker
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
Viewt said:
I wish he'd made a stronger condemnation of the group itself, but it's great that they won't be allowed to spew their garbage on UF's campus.
Click to expand...
I'd like it too, but it's bad idea legally speaking as it would give ammunition to any potential lawsuit claiming they shut the event down over ideology and not safety. When the group in Charlottesville fought the city over revoking their permit, one of the things cited by the judge when he ruled in favor of restoring the permit were anti-rally social media posts by city officials. Read this post on Lawfare for more analysis on the decision.


nynt9 said:
Inb4 the ACLU sues them since they seem to be the new defender of Nazis.
Click to expand...
There's nothing new about the ACLU fighting against unconstitutional efforts to suppress the speech of bigots and assholes. That's been part of their mission for decades. It's also far from the only thing they do, so please don't cherry pick a handful of cases and act like that's all they stand for these days.
 
T

Tecnniqe

Banned
nynt9 said:
They did fight for "unite the right" to be able to protest in downtown Charlottesville, and we know how that turned out...
Click to expand...

"The ACLU is primarily a legal organization. That means they defend people's rights in court, under principles of law. One of the governing tools of courts is precedent: the application of prior rulings to current cases. If the ACLU allows the state to suppress the free speech rights of white nationalists or neo-Nazi groups — by refusing to defend such groups when the state tries to censor them or by allowing them to have inadequate representation — then the ACLU's ability to defend the free speech rights of groups and people that you like will be severely compromised."

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13...-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

I've also read into the opposite side of it, those who think they are to blame and my stance is that while I think it's wrong to give them a platform, the law seem to allow hate speech under the "free speech" argument which puts the ACLU in a spot where they come out as defending Nazi's, while what they seem to be doing is just trying to uphold the current laws by making sure the government cant suppress anyone.

That being said, from the other side and as something I agree with

"We reached out to the ACLU of Virginia for comment, and they directed us to the statements posted on their site: ”What happened today had nothing to do with free speech," they wrote in a statement posted early this week. ”It devolved into conduct against individuals motivated by hate that was initially thuggish, and ultimately, deliberately murderous."

But it was clear from the beginning that this was not a protest but a provocation — when your free speech comes dressed in paramilitary gear, violence is not a possibility. It's a promise."

https://www.good.is/articles/aclu-defends-milo-and-neo-nazis
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._clashed_in_charlottesville_the_guns_won.html

It's disgusting that carrying the swastika and spewing hate is allowed, but sadly it is what it is. Hate speech and free speech is not the same, this needs sorting out.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Seems like the perfect response to me. They don't want any legal issues given it's a public uni. They condemned them and gave a legal reason for denying it.
 
C

Captainbojanglesiii

Banned
.
Aug. 16, 2017

Dear Campus Community:

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
President
University of Florida
Click to expand...

Fuck Spencer. Glad the university is taking a stand
 
K

~Kinggi~

Banned
Florida is a powder keg. Very easy access to guns, and completely mixed population down the middle. Im in S. Florida so im a bit safer but you go 1-2 hours north and it could be bad.
 
K

King Tubby

Member
I wonder if Charlottesville affects legal arguments down the line regarding whether Spencer and other alt-right organizers still have a platform at these spaces. It's not really freedom of speech when you have an assembly that is inherently violent.
 
F

Felix Lighter

Member
Never understood the desire to give these people a platform. Being in favor of free speech and rolling out the red carpet and providing the audience are two completely fucking different things.
 
H

Hazmat

Member
The danger demonstrated last weekend probably gives public universities and cities/towns legal cover for denying this bullshit. Let's stamp this out.
 
T

TwilightPrincess

Member
DrArchon said:
Yeah, describing your next speaking location as "The Next Battlefield" sounds to me like shouting fire in crowded space. If you're even hinting at large scale violence as a result of your gathering, I see no reason that the University should've been forced to let you speak.

I wish they'd have come out and said "No you can't come here because you're Nazis and we hate everything you stand for" but I'll take what I can get I guess.
Click to expand...

Did Spencer say the "battlefield" sentence or did this come from the opposing side?

Well, good for the University cause it would have been a battlefield for sure.
 
G

Gordon Shumway

Banned
tim-tebow-gator-chomp-o.gif
 
L

Lunar15

Member
As UF is my alma mater, I was outrageously depressed at the initial response. To see the university develop this work around is promising, and it's made me feel a bit better about the whole thing, and at least a little more proud that I graduated from there.

That said, it's not perfect. And it's legally tricky. And it's probably not as hard and decisive as I'd like. It doesn't really make up for the initial cowardly response. But to see some action taken in the light of the absolutely horrible events that happened last weekend makes me feel like some good can come out of this.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Tecnniqe said:
"The ACLU is primarily a legal organization. That means they defend people’s rights in court, under principles of law. One of the governing tools of courts is precedent: the application of prior rulings to current cases. If the ACLU allows the state to suppress the free speech rights of white nationalists or neo-Nazi groups — by refusing to defend such groups when the state tries to censor them or by allowing them to have inadequate representation — then the ACLU’s ability to defend the free speech rights of groups and people that you like will be severely compromised."

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13...-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

I've also read into the opposite side of it, those who think they are to blame and my stance is that while I think it's wrong to give them a platform, the law seem to allow hate speech under the "free speech" argument which puts the ACLU in a spot where they come out as defending Nazi's, while what they seem to be doing is just trying to uphold the current laws by making sure the government cant suppress anyone.

That being said, from the other side and as something I agree with

"We reached out to the ACLU of Virginia for comment, and they directed us to the statements posted on their site: “What happened today had nothing to do with free speech,” they wrote in a statement posted early this week. “It devolved into conduct against individuals motivated by hate that was initially thuggish, and ultimately, deliberately murderous.”

But it was clear from the beginning that this was not a protest but a provocation — when your free speech comes dressed in paramilitary gear, violence is not a possibility. It's a promise."

https://www.good.is/articles/aclu-defends-milo-and-neo-nazis
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._clashed_in_charlottesville_the_guns_won.html

It's disgusting that carrying the swastika and spewing hate is allowed, but sadly it is what it is. Hate speech and free speech is not the same, this needs sorting out.
Click to expand...
The ban of speech that promotes or leads to imminent violence is essentially the only restriction on free speech.

The law is a blunt instrument, and case in point, it's likely that the current administration would use any laws that curtail the first amendment to bludgeon the groups it was designed to protect.
 
P

PlayALLtheGames

Banned
That's my Alma Mater, y'all.

My man Kent with a resounding "Fuchs" you to white nationalist dickheads and their rhetoric.

Stay the fuck off our campus!

FYI, it's pronounced like "fox."
 
E

Eusis

Member
I know the ACLU is all for free speech even at its ugliest, but I do kind of imagine that once violence is part of the equation they'll be a little cold and more careful about defending these situations. Especially when it's done on the ground of danger, it's an established possibility as of less than a week ago!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satya Nadella: Annual letter to stockholders. Content on new platforms will continue
4 5 6 7 8
352
19K
noob smokes replied
  • Poll
Alt-Right Speaker Richard Spencer Denied Space to Speak at UF
0
953
Captainbojanglesiii replied
Florida gov. declares state of emergency before Richard Spencer speech
2 3 4 5
204
34K
ChainedMaster replied
  • Locked
Richard Spencer may be rallying at Univ. of Florida next...what is the way forward?
2 3 4 5
232
21K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Texas A&M Cancels White Nationalist Rally Set for 9/11 (Richard Spencer)
2
52
7K
ModBot replied
Top Bottom