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

[A dot Ham]

Begs the question about whether free speech is really free, and who really pays for free speech? Guys on walls (Col. Nathan Jessup) or just the taxpayers?


Gov. Rick Scott has declared a state of emergency as hundreds of law enforcement officers from across the state gather at the University of Florida in advance of a Thursday event by white nationalist Richard B. Spencer.

Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell had asked Scott to declare the emergency as the university prepares for Spencer's visit. The governor's executive order places the state agency usually responsible for hurricanes at the front of the effort to preserve order during the event. It also places the Florida National Guard on standby.
"I find that the threat of a potential emergency is imminent and hereby declare a state of emergency in Alachua County," Scott wrote in an executive order he signed on Monday.

University officials said the price tag for security at Spencer's event will be $500,000. Spencer's National Policy Institute paid the school $10,000 to rent the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. At least 500 law enforcement officers are expected to be on hand.

Kinda reading it as declaring a state of emergency ahead of white nationalist speech - so that state law enforcement can protect the nazis.

There are certain budgetary contingencies in place purposed for additional personnel beyond what is budgeted for in a given year. This is why the Sheriff asks the Governor for assistance... he doesn't have enough in his budget to adequately staff for any event that may occur, as a result of the gathering.

This has a way simpler explanation than you guys are making it out to be. But ya sure protect the Nazis... I'm curious though what would they need protection from? From people who would drag them in to the street and brutally murder them for what they believe? That sounds a little ass backwards don't you think?

Here's a thought. White supremacists are a dying breed. There would be no need to "re-brand" themselves as "alt right" or "alternative right" if they weren't losing numbers. They have to hide and disguise their message of hate because any direct engagement would be rejected by the majority of the white population.

You act like us ignorant white folk are so easily swayed... you have to be a special kind of stupid to adopt the symbol of a party that actually LOST a war, and was/is hated by people throughout the world for the atrocities committed against mankind.

I can't think of a better way to handle that small group of ignorant retards, than to simply ignore them... and let them die off.

[primalmatter]

What about the first question. You have avoided answering it many times:

Do you know anyone who went to the Charlottesville rally in support of it? If so, did they stay after the white supremacists started shouting their racist garbage?

Nope not at all it is in another country after all.

- - - Updated - - -

It's right what it says on the tin, what's confusing about it?

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to speak wherever they want. So the University absolutely has a chance to fight in court if they're sued for telling white nationalists to fuck off.




In fact, we've had court cases about this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics...460-us-37-1983

The First Amendment does not, in fact, guarantee that any speaker has a platform at a university just because the university is a public space.

Not really no unless they never permitted to start it. Granted that is assuming the university is on private property I am not certain if it is or not.

You do not have the right to disbar people from a public space just because you dislike them.

[Macaquerie]

It's right what it says on the tin, what's confusing about it?

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to speak wherever they want. So the University absolutely has a chance to fight in court if they're sued for telling white nationalists to fuck off.

What's sad is that white nationalists are effectively the whole idea of "free speech" a bad name by pretending to support it, which if you think about it is really their goal all along, because since when were fascists actually in favor of free expression?

[primalmatter]

What's sad is that white nationalists are effectively the whole idea of "free speech" a bad name by pretending to support it, which if you think about it is really their goal all along, because since when were fascists actually in favor of free expression?

I am confused by what you believe free speech means. It makes sense that the group most suppressed would be fighting for it...

[Garnier Fructis]

Not really no unless they never permitted to start it. Granted that is assuming the university is on private property I am not certain if it is or not.

You do not have the right to disbar people from a public space just because you dislike them.

Not for general dislike, no. But in limited cases a university can block a speaker, if they think that that speech will incite violence. And given that Spencer's a white nationalist, and white nationalist speech is essentially hate speech, they can make that argument.

There's grey areas, it's not a definitive yes or a definitive no.

Which is exactly why the UF president should fight it in court. Because he has a chance, and because financial concerns are rather trivial given how many people in this country would readily pony up cash to fight white nationalists in court.

[Independent voter]

In fact, we've had court cases about this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics...460-us-37-1983

The First Amendment does not, in fact, guarantee that any speaker has a platform at a university just because the university is a public space.

collective bargaining agreement with a union (PEA) provided that PEA, but no other union, would have access to the interschool mails and to teacher mailboxes.

The case you posted was about union access to school email.

Trust me, if they have those crazy evangelists yelling at college people, which they likely do, then they have to let any group demonstrate.

There's nothing to be afraid of.

[Garnier Fructis]

collective bargaining agreement with a union (PEA) provided that PEA, but no other union, would have access to the interschool mails and to teacher mailboxes.

The case you posted was about union access to school email.

Trust me, if they have those crazy evangelists yelling at college people, which they likely do, then they have to let any group demonstrate.

There's nothing to be afraid of.

See post right above yours.

[Machismo]

Nope not at all it is in another country after all.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really no unless they never permitted to start it. Granted that is assuming the university is on private property I am not certain if it is or not.

You do not have the right to disbar people from a public space just because you dislike them.

Very well, what country do you live in?

[primalmatter]

Not for general dislike, no. But in limited cases a university can block a speaker, if they think that that speech will incite violence. And given that Spencer's a white nationalist, and white nationalist speech is essentially hate speech, they can make that argument.

There's grey areas, it's not a definitive yes or a definitive no.

Which is exactly why the UF president should fight it in court. Because he has a chance, and because financial concerns are rather trivial given how many people in this country would readily pony up cash to fight white nationalists in court.

I honestly don't know if the university can honestly do it on suspicion i highly doubt it but I admit I am unsure of the law. That being said we should not be in support of suppressing free speech it ends badly..

- - - Updated - - -

Very well, what country do you live in?

One where simply not speaking out against something perceived as racist can lead to hefty fines. So lets leave it at that.

[Machismo]

I honestly don't know if the university can honestly do it on suspicion i highly doubt it but I admit I am unsure of the law. That being said we should not be in support of suppressing free speech it ends badly..

- - - Updated - - -



One where simply not speaking out against something perceived as racist can lead to hefty fines. So lets leave it at that.

That doesn't even make any sense.

[A dot Ham]

The First Amendment does not, in fact, guarantee that any speaker has a platform at a university just because the university is a public space.

As a public institution a university doesn't actually have a say in the matter.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

But that's just basic bitch jurisprudence.

[kail]

Damn, they going to my old Uni. Wonder how many will attend such a speech, most of the students there I remembered can be summed up as geek skateboarders.

[Reverb256]

What's the difference between "a nationalist who happens to be white", and "white nationalism"?
One is normal and adheres to rational values, the second one is ethnocentric/racist.

Richard Spencer is the second one.

[Garnier Fructis]

As a public institution a university doesn't actually have a say in the matter.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

But that's just basic bitch jurisprudence.

That case is about a ban of speech in the city. That's quite a huge difference from not allowing it at a specific venue.

[Jimusmc]

so the liberals gonna come instigating fights again?

[Machismo]

so the liberals gonna come instigating fights again?

And Nazis will continue being the racist, authoritarian asshats they've always been. It's good to know you are such a strong supporter of white nationalists.

[Mormolyce]

Well I don't agree with what they are saying and it pains me as it will set back national socialism but I will defend their right to say it.

And furthermore pretend that they didn't actually say it.

[primalmatter]

And furthermore pretend that they didn't actually say it.

I am sure some did say it. They should still be protected.

[Garnier Fructis]

so the liberals gonna come instigating fights again?

I think your morality is out of whack when your first reaction is to insult liberals instead of insulting the white nationalists.

[Machismo]

I wish it wasn’t so far away. No interest In Listening to a Nazi (assuming this person actully is one I have no idea who the name is) but I would love to stand in solidarity with fellow Americans to stop liberals from continuing to hurt innocent people.

Rishard Spencer is a white supremacist who supports ethnic cleansing. If you want to go stand in solidarity with such men, good luck with that.