Gov. Rick Scott declares emergency ahead of white nationalist speech at UF

[Post]

I mean..at what point is it inciting a riot?

What a great tactic, just riot whenever your opponents speak, that way whenever they go to speak it's just considered inciting a riot and then they have no freedom of speech anymore.

[Wiyld]

What a great tactic, just riot whenever your opponents speak, that way whenever they go to speak it's just considered inciting a riot and then they have no freedom of speech anymore.

Who is not an opponent of Richard Spencer?



You think its EASY to get a riot going?? You think a thousand people will just show up for anybody?

How many people has this happened to in the past 10 years?? 4...5??

Way to try to blow this out of proportion.

[Kaleredar]

What a great tactic, just riot whenever your opponents speak, that way whenever they go to speak it's just considered inciting a riot and then they have no freedom of speech anymore.

Counter-protesting is fine and dandy. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom for people to respect your ideas, or freedom from having your ideas out-shouted by the opposition.

[Wiyld]

Look the whole point of this thread wasn't about if Spencer should be 'allowed' to speak.

It was about who should shoulder the cost.

Don't go all first amendment here, that isn't being debated.

[Grapemask]

Free as is the government doesn't automatically throw him in jail for being a Nazi.

Not free as you can walk into any place of your choosing and start screaming at people.

("Fighting words" intended to provoke an "immediate breach of the peace" are not free. There's a negative feedback loop involved with taunting people to hit you.)

Yep. A lot of people confuse the idea of free speech with the idea that other people have to like what you have to say.

[Post]

Who is not an opponent of Richard Spencer?



You think its EASY to get a riot going?? You think a thousand people will just show up for anybody?

How many people has this happened to in the past 10 years?? 4...5??

Way to try to blow this out of proportion.

It does kinda seem like people will riot for anything nowadays TBH.

Counter-protesting is fine and dandy. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom for people to respect your ideas, or freedom from having your ideas out-shouted by the opposition.

I didn't say it did, I just said it's a convenient tactic.

[Kaleredar]

It does kinda seem like people will riot for anything nowadays TBH.

Yeah, he's just a well-intentioned white supremacist advocating for "peaceful ethnic cleansing."

I mean for people to get incensed over that? They must be a bunch of pansies...

Look the whole point of this thread wasn't about if Spencer should be 'allowed' to speak.

It was about who should shoulder the cost.

Don't go all first amendment here, that isn't being debated.

The bastard should pay for it himself.

[Wiyld]

It does kinda seem like people will riot for anything nowadays TBH.

Does it really though?? I mean look at all the riots in the past 10 years...what have they been for?? Have they been over just 'anything' or has it been around just one or two pretty similar ideas or subjects?

[Theinquisition]

Did you watch the video of the cops at the event where the black guy lit a spray can and the white guy shot back at him?? How they just sit there and watch literal attempted murders and don't even get involved? The cops don;t want to be there, they aren't even going to get involved if things go south...they aren't protecting anyone anyway.

It's insane isn't it.

One of the concepts that keeps our society together, is the idea that the government has a monopoly on violence. This means that we empower the government exclusive powers to use violence to enforce the law, or keep the peace. When law enforcement refuse to use that power to protect those under their aegis. especially when it comes to political violence, people will begin to take measure to protect themselves and hurt those that mean them harm.

We can see this with the conflicts in Berkley over the past year. Police being told to stand down while people are beaten in the streets. Eventually, those that identify with groups being attacked, started bringing armor and weapons to rallies and speaking events.

We see a ratcheting up of violence, and it's only going to get worse.

At the end of the day, the government has one primary responsibility, to protect the citizens. Whether that be from domestic or foreign threats, that's their primary reason for existence. The government should spend whatever money necessary to protect peoples freedom of speech and arrest all those who would deprive someone of those rights by using intimidation or violence.

[Wiyld]

The bastard should pay for it himself.

I dunno, I've thought about it a little more and I'm settling pretty firmly on the University being responsible here. If Spencer was holding a rally on his own just out in a public place, then sure...the cost is on him. He isn't though, the University decided to host him and therefor assumed the responsibility of everything that goes with hosting any speaker. They get to decide if they pass the cost on to Spencer. They likely should treat all of their speakers the same, with a rule book that is fairly applied across the board, but then again they get complete control over who does or does not speak there so they can write the rules.

[IIamaKing]

Simply increase to cost for rent.

The ability to rally should not be cost prohibitive.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The ability to rally should not be cost prohibitive.

No but the cost should be covered by the guest.

[Wiyld]

It's insane isn't it.

One of the concepts that keeps our society together, is the idea that the government has a monopoly on violence. This means that we empower the government exclusive powers to use violence to enforce the law, or keep the peace. When law enforcement refuse to use that power to protect those under their aegis. especially when it comes to political violence, people will begin to take measure to protect themselves and hurt those that mean them harm.

We can see this with the conflicts in Berkley over the past year. Police being told to stand down while people are beaten in the streets. Eventually, those that identify with groups being attacked, started bringing armor and weapons to rallies and speaking events.

We see a ratcheting up of violence, and it's only going to get worse.

At the end of the day, the government has one primary responsibility, to protect the citizens. Whether that be from domestic or foreign threats, that's their primary reason for existence. The government should spend whatever money necessary to protect peoples freedom of speech and arrest all those who would deprive someone of those rights by using intimidation or violence.

I do agree that those actually breaking the law should be held accountable, on both sides. I think that institutions should carefully consider who they choose to host and that those who choose to be the extreme of the extreme should stop expecting extra ordinary protection of their speech commensurate with the level of extremism.

[Theinquisition]

Does it really though?? I mean look at all the riots in the past 10 years...what have they been for?? Have they been over just 'anything' or has it been around just one or two pretty similar ideas or subjects?

I think lately, it's been over bullshit. We can look back to the 50's and 60's and see legit reasons for mass protest, but in 2017?...meh.

[IIamaKing]

No but the cost should be covered by the guest.

I disagree, putting the onus on the presenter to pay for protection from a 2nd, uninvited party would hamper the ability to freely assemble.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I disagree, putting the onus on the presenter to pay for protection from a 2nd, uninvited party would hamper the ability to freely assemble.

Yes but you’re forgetting these are Nazi I’m not fair and I’d be just as ok with making up any excuse.

- - - Updated - - -

I think lately, it's been over bullshit. We can look back to the 50's and 60's and see legit reasons for mass protest, but in 2017?...meh.

The theory is protesting is supposed to be about being inconvenient to highlight a cause or issue.

[Theinquisition]

I do agree that those actually breaking the law should be held accountable, on both sides. I think that institutions should carefully consider who they choose to host and that those who choose to be the extreme of the extreme should stop expecting extra ordinary protection of their speech commensurate with the level of extremism.

Don't get me wrong, I think Richard spencer is a dirtbag.

With that being said, what message is it sending to the public that those who have a unpopular opinion can't be afforded the same protections as anyone else who wants to speak at a public venue? It's a slippery slope I don't think we need to be going down. If the police made their presence known and strictly enforce the law, eventually those that are creating violence and havoc would get he message and keep their protests civil.

The only reason we are seeing the violence at political rallies and speaking events now, is because law enforcement has taken a passive role in many instances and allowed violence to occur.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but you’re forgetting these are Nazi I’m not fair and I’d be just as ok with making up any excuse.

- - - Updated - - -



The theory is protesting is supposed to be about being inconvenient to highlight a cause or issue.

Your right to protest stops when it deprives me of my rights.

[Wiyld]

The ability to rally should not be cost prohibitive.

In today's world, communication 'speech' is as free as it has ever been. Take a gander at youtube to see just how many complete batshit nutjobs have reached tens of thousands of people with their complete bullshit theories. There are a variety of ways to communicate your message no matter how crazy or disgusting.

Now to your point....the cost to rally is completely prohibitive to almost everyone. Even with no security do you think a rally is free? These things are expensive, I already mentioned above that that cost is the reason behind a lot of political campaign contributions.

Americans love to 'vote with their dollars'. So when we support a persons message we contribute to their cause of spreading that message. We give money to our religious organization, we give money to our favorite politician so they can afford to go out and 'spread the good word'. If you can't find funding for your message that should be a message in and of itself. Spencer already paid $10,000 to the University to get a speaking slot...clearly he has funding.


If things worked the way so many people think it ought to, we would have a state funded forum, where every night a new speaker got to sit there and rail on about aaaaanything they want. It would be free of charge and anyone no matter how batshit would get to spread the message. But we don;t have anything like that...we have youtube and twitter and facebook and other such forums.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Don't get me wrong, I think Richard spencer is a dirtbag.

With that being said, what message is it sending to the public that those who have a unpopular opinion can't be afforded the same protections as anyone else who wants to speak at a public venue? It's a slippery slope I don't think we need to be going down. If the police made their presence known and strictly enforce the law, eventually those that are creating violence and havoc would get he message and keep their protests civil.

The only reason we are seeing the violence at political rallies and speaking events now, is because law enforcement has taken a passive role in many instances and allowed violence to occur.

- - - Updated - - -



Your right to protest stops when it deprives me of my rights.

Your right to not to be inconvenienced doesn’t exist.

[Wiyld]

Don't get me wrong, I think Richard spencer is a dirtbag.

With that being said, what message is it sending to the public that those who have a unpopular opinion can't be afforded the same protections as anyone else who wants to speak at a public venue? It's a slippery slope I don't think we need to be going down. If the police made their presence known and strictly enforce the law, eventually those that are creating violence and havoc would get he message and keep their protests civil.

The only reason we are seeing the violence at political rallies and speaking events now, is because law enforcement has taken a passive role in many instances and allowed violence to occur.

- - - Updated - - -



Your right to protest stops when it deprives me of my rights.

I'm not debating the level of protection they are offered. Everyone gets to call the cops and report a crime the same way. I'm addressing the fact that some people expect protection above and beyond what is standard, free of charge, and then they continually exacerbate the issue and expect ever increasing levels of protection.

I mean..if you shoot yourself...the odds are pretty good your insurance company is gonna cover the recovery and such. If you go and shoot yourself again...they will prolly cover you again...but at some point..they will simply stop covering you because you are obviously not going to learn and keep making things worse.