U of F president: Richard Spencer hoping for violence to build movement

Lmao about being a target for being a white conservative in California.

That's beyond rich to even start as a debating point shows how entitled, bubble ridden, and tone deaf you are to people who are true targets of bigoted violence. What company do you keep to give that whopper a pass?

Don't worry @StupidMoniker, it's so PC in the west, they have great tolerance for the slow people. You can stop living in fear, and come out of that log cabin closet. Rent is so unbelievable someone might even live in it for you.

Signed,
The radical America destroying Left who is not-so-secretly persecuting you

 

You specifically brought up hate crimes.

As I said, hate is thoughts and emotions. I don't get into thoughtcrimes. People can think or feel whatever they want. Actions is where other people start having a stake.

Actually, I specifically said that you can have another event to counter their event. The correct solution to speech you disagree with is more speech you do agree with. My response to neo-Nazis is to pay them no mind, because no one who is worth anything thinks we should kill all the Jews, send the blacks back to Africa, or whatever the Nazis are pushing. If you think that the idea that the Jews are going to replace white Christians (as they were chanting in Charlottesville) is an idea that has a lot of traction and you really need to put a counter message out there, go ahead. Just don't physically attack them or try to prevent their exercise of free speech and I take no issue with it. So no, I don't act like the only two ways to deal with Nazis are to accept them or jail them. Oppose them in the marketplace of ideas, as I said from the beginning.

I would argue that this is mostly true, there have been genocides based on competition for resources as well that were not really about hate.

The issue is that the vast majority of hate doesn't lead to genocide. You may as well say genocide starts with birth, because there is no genocide without people being born or genocide starts with heterogenous populations, because there are no genocides in homogeneous populations. Some things are necessary but not sufficient. Until the hate progresses to violence, I oppose using violence or intimidation as a counter to the hate.

Yes, they also spoke about being willing and prepared to defend themselves and the propensity of violence from their opposition.

Good. Condemn away. As I said from the beginning, have your own counterprogramming event. Attacking them, whether by actual physical violence, by intimidation, or by disrupting their speech is not the way to do it. That just makes them feel attacked and drives more sympathy their way. Present ideas counter to theirs.

Didn't I specifically say to fight them in the marketplace of ideas? Is your objection to the use of the word marketplace instead of arena?

If hate against you is coming up in your day to day life, you are living around the wrong people.

Yes. Here's how it would go. The Nazi spews his propaganda about Jews. Then another person points out all the positive contributions Jews have made to our society and how few positive contributions Nazis have made to our society (and those having nothing to do with their ideology). The audience (or what audience bothers to show up to listen to someone advocating for the extermination of the Jews) gets to be educated that Jews are a much more positive force for our society than Nazis. Also, I don't know if you don't realize it or what, but the extermination (and/or ethnic cleansing) of the Jews in Israel IS put forward as a solution to the Mid-East impasse.

 

People have the right of free association and to peaceably assemble. They also have freedom of speech. So in addition to people having hateful thoughts, they can get together with like minded people and talk to each other about it.

Yes, a public university should refrain from using content of speech as a determining factor in how that speech is treated. You are getting into that which is literally protected by the first amendment.

You seem to be radically expanding the definition of hate.

Drunk driving DOESN'T always lead to an accident. The difference is, driving while intoxicated is not a fundamental right that is being infringed upon. Speech and assembly are. There are ways in which to go after organizations if they are violent enough (see injunctions against the gathering of criminal street gang members). There should not be rules against them, be they laws, getting barred from college campuses, or whatever, unless and until they are actually engaged in violence or incitement to violence.

I have never said no one can speak against them, quite the opposite. They should also not be intimidating people. Wherever you previously read violence, include being barred from speaking, people shouting down speakers, protesters storming the stage of speakers, pulling fire alarms, etc.

What I have seen from Spencer and his followers specifically is that they have been the targets of violence, and then sometimes responded with violence. I guess this is why I keep mentioning violence. The protesters are the ones causing violence. Look at the difference between the first and second marches in Charlottesville. First march, there were massive protests, violence ensued in both directions, and some Nazi nutjob drove his car into a crowd of people and killed a woman. Second march, same morons with white Polos and tiki torches with the same chants, but no massive protest against them and no violence ensued. They didn't go find people on the street to beat up or kill. They did their march and went home. Why is that not the better response?

Any response that is a denial of their rights to speak and assemble, whether physical violence or otherwise (see above).

Congress shall pass no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. A public university is constitutionally forbidden from putting content restrictions on speech. Separate from the constitutional argument, the University, like the forum in ancient Rome, is THE place to debate and discuss ideas of culture and philosophy. If these discussions cannot be has at a public university, where could the possibly be appropriate. Banning unpopular speech from campus stands in direct opposition to the very concept of a liberal arts education.

I disagree.

Yes, I do. How many people do you think would attend such an event? What do you think the outcome of such a conference would be? Do you think the speaker would be attacked? Would there be rioting and burning of property? I would react the same way I reacted to Spencer speaking, I would ignore it.

 

I don't think you understand the exceptions to first amendment free speech protections. Incitement to violence has to be fairly explicit. For example, if someone goes to Harlem and wears a sandwich board that says, "I hate niggers" like in Die Hard With A Vengeance, that is not unprotected, even though it is likely to result in violence. The incitement to violence exception actually requires a call to violence, and one that is imminent. Forwarding a political philosophy that may eventually result in violence is still protected speech. That is why communism can still be promoted.

LOL, my professional life is largely devoted to keeping minorities out of prison. My prejudices are that people's rights are more important than feelings.

 

good people on both sides folks.

 

The "fighting words" exception has been fairly limited. The Supreme Court actually addressed a similar in RAV v. St. Paul, 505 US 377. The city of St. Paul tried to pass an ordinance reading: "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The court specifically held against the very sort of content based restrictions you are advocating here, noting that you cannot ban speech based on content, just because that speech may also constitute "fighting words".

I think the case law shows that your application of the first amendment to Spencer speaking on campus is in fact unconstitutional and it is clear as day.

You have suggested I am a racist and provided zero evidence to support your accusation. I have provided evidence against your accusation (which is not something I am required to do against your baseless accusations) just because the very idea is silly to me. I will thank you not to disparage me further without evidence.

 

And ordinance against hate speech has the same issues as your proposed barring of "hate speech" from public universities. You cannot single out specific content for disparate treatment. St. Paul could accomplish their goal by reference to arson laws or vandalism laws. Picking out "hate speech" was not allowed, because restrictions based on the content of the speech, even though they tried to couch it in the language of the "fighting words" exception, exactly as you are.

I've never said racism doesn't exist in America anymore. I see racism at least once a month (sometimes more). I said I disagree with your assertion that black Americans are subject to constant racial hatred from all other Americans (ie that being around Americans is what subjects them to constant or daily racial hatred). Racism is neither as widespread as you are claiming, nor as limited in it's origins and focus. I witness more racism coming from black people directed at white people, though no color has a monopoly on either racism or being subjected to racism.

 

You can't ban Spencer because the ban would be based on the content of his speech. Content based restrictions are not allowed, even if you try to pretend they are really relying on some recognized first amendment exceptions. It is hard to attribute to Spencer an intent to provoke a violent response. It is also a very slippery slope. Essentially you are asking for the first amendment rights of people to be taken away based on how violent those who disagree with them are. If a bunch of Nazi thugs started attacking everyone at BLM events (and therefore creating a situation where having a BLM event would lead to violence) would you support banning the BLM events? You are essentially arguing in favor of allowing a heckler's veto to the worst actors. You acknowledge that violence is not the appropriate response, but then say to ban him based on the violent response.

As to banning him based on the agenda of the hate group, now you are striking at the heart of the first amendment. Unpopular political speech is the very speech most in need of protection. Brandenburg v. Ohio is directly on point. There the government arrested a KKK member for making a speech in which he advocated, among other things, the return of blacks to Africa and Jews to Israel. The court said that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Spencer (so far as I know, again, I am not a fan) doesn't tell the audience of his speech to leave the building and attack people. So there was a hate group, advocating for a white ethnostate within the US, including advocacy of the use of force in promotion of that goal. What distinction are you drawing with Spencer that you think allows his speech to be silenced?

Yes, racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races, as well as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

 

Was Spencer burning a cross? How is this relevant?

Is he calling for the violent overthrow of the US government? At this specific speech? I didn't watch the speech, but from the description it sounds exactly the same as the speech from Brandenberg v. Ohio.

So? The internal thoughts behind why someone gives a speech are irrelevant. If I give a speech about how catcalling should be rewarded with cash and prizes, but my secret goal is to rile up feminists in the hope that they will react violently and damage the cause of feminism, that doesn't make my speech unprotected.

The president of the University of Florida disagrees with you. He stated that public universities are compelled to allow him to speak by the First Amendment.

Took it twice. The first time said no bias, the second time said slight bias in favor of blacks and against whites.

 

I would think that if that legal approach had a snowball's chance, U of F or Berkeley would have pursued it. I'd rather spend a half-million once on a lawyer to solve the problem for good than a half-million on security every time the problem resurfaces. That they have not suggests to me that their legal counsel doesn't see merit in that argument.

 

If speech literally endangers or compromises the safety of the public, it crosses a line. Yelling "fire" in a theater is a problem if there's no fire. As is yelling "bomb!" in an airport. But where you're correct is that in both of those established examples, the internal thoughts of the idiot are irrelevant. They are in trouble.

Overall, I agree with the idea that these morons should be allowed to speak, (if students on campus have invited them). But if they cross a line to inciting violence against other citizens, that's clearly not protected, by precedent.