OT: At Risk of this Thread Getting Banished to the Test Board

[Pardlion]

That's it...the cure is worse than the disease. Letting bad people say awful things isn't good but having someone or something get to decide who gets to say what is even worse. Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for everything else." A corollary to that is "Free speech for everyone (except for direct calls for violence) is the worst way for societies to discuss matters except for everything else."

I like hearing bad people say awful things. It reminds me how good I am.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Denying Spencer's request at this time is not an attack on free speech. The guy was just involved in a rally where his supporters showed up in armor with weapons. This, by itself, is reason enough for Penn State to deny his request. He can fight it in court. He may or may not win but regardless, it will be months down the road before a decision would be made. Hopefully, at that point, he will show up and leave without much fanfare.

 

[sluggo72]

Rome was a complete turd there but he won in the big picture by goading Everett into responding. Rome is still a star today and nobody even knows who Jim Everett is except for those old enough to remember this clip. I wonder if Rome disavows his behavior in this interview today or if he ever talks about it.

I thought his name was Chris??

 

[Raffycorn]

Cut the BS. Your cute little comment clearly supports violence against the speaker who (according to you) would be "calling for" the "deaths" of PSU students. Do I hope that PSU students would counter Spencer's words with violence? No, I don't, because they would go to jail.

I absolutely believe that any student caught acting unlawfully should be arrested, charged, and tried before a jury. You'll get zero argument from me there.

 

[Pardlion]

Denying Spencer's request at this time is not an attack on free speech. The guy was just involved in a rally where his supporters showed up in armor with weapons. This, by itself, is reason enough for Penn State to deny his request. He can fight it in court. He may or may not win but regardless, it will be months down the road before a decision would be made. Hopefully, at that point, he will show up and leave without much fanfare.

It won't be months; he will get an injunction just like he did in Auburn.

I guess that PSU's argument will be that Charlottesville changes everything. The counter to that would be that there was no reasonable security in place in Charlottesville, and PSU could accommodate any concerns simply by holding the event indoors.

But, don't worry--PSU's crack legal team will be on the case.

 

[Op2]

I thought his name was Chris??

I bet you won't say that again.

 

[Raffycorn]

Denying Spencer's request at this time is not an attack on free speech. The guy was just involved in a rally where his supporters showed up in armor with weapons. This, by itself, is reason enough for Penn State to deny his request. He can fight it in court. He may or may not win but regardless, it will be months down the road before a decision would be made. Hopefully, at that point, he will show up and leave without much fanfare.

It smacks of lawsuit-baiting. Apparently, this request that Penn State denied didn't come any student organization or even from Spencer himself - the request was made by a Georgia State student, who is probably the same Atlanta resident who made the request that led to the lawsuit at Auburn. The difference is that Auburn initially accepted the request and cancelled it just before the event was to take place, while Penn State denied the request. The requester is likely trying to force courts to continue to broaden the decision made down at Auburn, and eventually forcing schools all across the country to allow Spencer to advocate for genocide on their campuses with no recourse.

I would be willing to wager that this Spencer adherent is making these requests across the country hoping that schools will deny them so he can sue them. That's the endgame.

 

[Op2]

It smacks of lawsuit-baiting. Apparently, this request that Penn State denied didn't come any student organization or even from Spencer himself - the request was made by a Georgia State student, who is probably the same Atlanta resident who made the request that led to the lawsuit at Auburn. The difference is that Auburn initially accepted the request and cancelled it just before the event was to take place, while Penn State denied the request. The requester is likely trying to force courts to continue to broaden the decision made down at Auburn, and eventually forcing schools all across the country to allow Spencer to advocate for genocide on their campuses with no recourse.

I would be willing to wager that this Spencer adherent is making these requests across the country hoping that schools will deny them so he can sue them. That's the endgame.

Why would PSU bother taking requests on speakers from a Georgia State student? I would've thought all speakers on the PSU campus would come from (a) requests from an officially sanctioned PSU student group or (b) the PSU administration.

 

[Howie'81]

Read about the "Nazi Lynch Law". The Nazi hierarchy didn't lynch allied airmen. The civilian populace did but they planted the seed and created the legal framework that tolerated it.

Providing Spencer with a platform is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

And? Who decides what is good speech versus bad speech? You? A speech czar? Many people who argue against speech also believe that there are no absolute truths. So I guess they can't decide good versus bad. So who's it going to be? That's your slippery slope my friend. By the way, it was the Nazi's who ultimately curtailed free speech.

 

[BBrown]

It smacks of lawsuit-baiting. Apparently, this request that Penn State denied didn't come any student organization or even from Spencer himself - the request was made by a Georgia State student, who is probably the same Atlanta resident who made the request that led to the lawsuit at Auburn. The difference is that Auburn initially accepted the request and cancelled it just before the event was to take place, while Penn State denied the request. The requester is likely trying to force courts to continue to broaden the decision made down at Auburn, and eventually forcing schools all across the country to allow Spencer to advocate for genocide on their campuses with no recourse.

I would be willing to wager that this Spencer adherent is making these requests across the country hoping that schools will deny them so he can sue them. That's the endgame.

Eerily similar to how Westboro Baptist operates.

 

[nitanee123]

Cancelling a speaker has legal ramifications, which is what I was addressing. You are confusing what PennState should do morally vs. what they should do legally.

1. Barron is the President of the university, perhaps the views expressed not only represent his views but the views of the majority of the university body?

Legally: The decision to cancel a speaker should have nothing to do with anyone's opinion/views on the speaker. But more importantly, his memo should state nothing as to his opinion. He is opening a can of worms.

Otherwise: Legalities aside, I wouldn't want Barron speaking for me or anybody else on campus. Is he the moral authority on such matters? But assuming he was speaking for a majority, how do you propose he arrived at that? Did he send out a questionnaire? And on what matters should Barron make such decisions? Should he be the only person who determines who can and can't speak on campus? We saw how many millions of dollars wasted by the BOT. Do you honestly trust any lackey of this BOT to do something the right way?

2. You don't wait until you think a threat is imminent on a college campus to act--you prevent the threat from even becoming a possibility. As a parent with a student on that campus, if something went down I'd be furious and the one suing the school for not protecting my child to the best of their ability. I know stuff happens, but when you invite it, you become responsible.
I'm all for the ACLU but since when do they determine who can/can't be invited to a university campus? Particularly with the possibility of inviting unrest at that campus? crazy talk.

Legally: You do wait unless you want a lawsuit on your hands. I'm not sure what legal standard would apply in this case, however, how can anybody state with certainty that this speaker or any speaker would pose an imminent threat in 2 months? We don't know the content of the speech, the audience, the format, etc... If the speech were to be tomorrow then I could understand.

Otherwise: First of all, the ACLU is not determining anything. You are just clearly off base with that comment. Secondly, you don't shut down any and all speakers just because there may be a threat. If that were the case, there would never be any protests ever. Ever. Third, the odds of something happening to your child are slim. I'd guess he/she has a better chance of being struck by lightening. But just to be safe, I'd tell my kid to go to the library during the event. Why give the nutjob an audience? And if he/she really wants to hear the speech, I'm sure it will be on Youtube the next day.

 

[lj4heisman1]

No, I support threatened students' right to self-defense to the extent permitted by law. Don't you?

self defense from words?

 

[Howie'81]

@Nittany Ned2

You said that "Providing Spencer with a platform is a very dangerous and slippery slope." Thank God you have the right to say so and that he can't take that away. Get my drift?

The true slippery slope, to use your words, is the curtailing of speech.

 

[Raffycorn]

Why would PSU bother taking requests on speakers from a Georgia State student? I would've thought all speakers on the PSU campus would come from (a) requests from an officially sanctioned PSU student group or (b) the PSU administration.

Couldn't tell you. But as far as I know, anyone can put in a request to rent a university facility if they're willing to pay the rental fee - and that rented facility can be used to have Richard Spencer speak just like it can be used to host a family reunion. It's the same thing that this Georgia guy did at Auburn, except Auburn initially granted the request and then rescinded it shortly before it was to take place. It's baiting the school to reject the request so he can sue over it.

 

[Raffycorn]

self defense from words?

Not quite - more along the lines of Spencer's white supremacist supporters showing up with body armor, mace, and torches prepared for a battle like they did in Virginia, or like the Milo supporter who shot people outside his talk at the University of Washington earlier this year.

 

[Pardlion]

Couldn't tell you. But as far as I know, anyone can put in a request to rent a university facility if they're willing to pay the rental fee - and that rented facility can be used to have Richard Spencer speak just like it can be used to host a family reunion. It's the same thing that this Georgia guy did at Auburn, except Auburn initially granted the request and then rescinded it shortly before it was to take place. It's baiting the school to reject the request so he can sue over it.

I don't know if there is a baiting element to this. The guy wants attention, and he will get it by speaking, suing, or causing an uproar.

If everybody just ignored him, he would never come again.

 

[83wuzme]

self defense from words?

I am against Spencer speaking, mainly because our Constitution does not guarantee the right to violently riot, and that's what is likely to happen at PSU with the alt right and left after what we saw in Charlottesville.

But words are not " violence ". That is the language game that is being played out on campuses, that offended feelings are just the same as lacerations, broken teeth and fractured skulls. Well, they aren't. It doesn't say much for this generation that they draw no distinction between words and actual violence.

 

[kgilbert78]

I believe in free speech, just not 'that' speech!!! Is what I hear in most of these releases.

Which means those folks really don't believe in, agree with, or understand free speech at all.

Berkeley's been like that for years.

To their credit, the ACLU has stood up for free speech of all types--though I do admit to being puzzled as to how they decided that panhandling and begging is "free speech" (an effect of recent rulings nationally has led to the point in our town that you cannot stop folks from this activity).

 

[kgilbert78]

I am against Spencer speaking, mainly because our Constitution does not guarantee the right to violently riot, and that's what is likely to happen at PSU with the alt right and left after what we saw in Charlottesville.

But words are not " violence ". That is the language game that is being played out on campuses, that offended feelings are just the same as lacerations, broken teeth and fractured skulls. Well, they aren't. It doesn't say much for this generation that they draw no distinction between words and actual violence.

The rioters should be held responsible. Not the speaker.

That's what BOTH sides are trying to get into. Not far off the street battles in Berlin and other German cities after the First World War between the left and the right.

 

[nitanee123]

Couldn't tell you. But as far as I know, anyone can put in a request to rent a university facility if they're willing to pay the rental fee - and that rented facility can be used to have Richard Spencer speak just like it can be used to host a family reunion. It's the same thing that this Georgia guy did at Auburn, except Auburn initially granted the request and then rescinded it shortly before it was to take place. It's baiting the school to reject the request so he can sue over it.

Is there any way to get the name and address of the guy who sponsored Richard Spencer? If so, I'd like to set up a Go Fund Me page so that people can donate $ to buy the house next door so that a refugee from an African country can be his neighbor. Who knows...if this guy has a daughter then perhaps we can help make a love connection!

 

[Pardlion]

His "vile", "nonviolent" message is so popular that he is banned from the entire European Union.

That's not saying much. They don't have the free speech tradition that we do.

 

[sluggo72]

Which means those folks really don't believe in, agree with, or understand free speech at all.

Berkeley's been like that for years.

To their credit, the ACLU has stood up for free speech of all types--though I do admit to being puzzled as to how they decided that panhandling and begging is "free speech" (an effect of recent rulings nationally has led to the point in our town that you cannot stop folks from this activity).

My wife in a University setting, was part of a committee on something, doesn't matter, but they wanted a diverse group, from 'all walks of life, social settings' etc. So they round up the usual suspects (I'll let you fill in the blanks) Somebody asked, 'Do we have any Republics on this diverse committee?' the answer was, 'we don't need/want any of them.' Now substitute any other class for republicans, and see what reactions you get.

 

[Howie'81]

And so it goes...one viewpoint pitted against another. He has PLENTY of forums that his viewpoints have been trumpeted on. If you want to hear his message you don't have to wait to come to your campus. Believe me he wants confrontation. He wants hundreds of Berkleys. He wants to spit in the face of a multi cultural society. It just reinforces his fake message of "white genocide".

His "vile", "nonviolent" message is so popular that he is banned from the entire European Union.

Berkley was a mess because of many violent people opposed to legitimate speakers. Question for you? If you are right in that he wants confrontation, and you probably are, I don't disagree with that aspect of your argument, why give it to him? Are you saying that we as a society are composed of a bunch of dullards that don't know how to react to a guy like this? For me, the right reaction is no reaction. It strips him of his power. I think using your own argument, you'd agree with that.

One last point. The last thing we should do as a country is pattern ourselves after Europe. The United States is not Europe. We separated from Europe and should remain so. Too many people look to Europe for answers when clearly they have none.

 

[83wuzme]

The rioters should be held responsible. Not the speaker.

That's what BOTH sides are trying to get into. Not far off the street battles in Berlin and other German cities after the First World War between the left and the right.

Agree about holding only those who resort to violence responsible. But what would it cost to secure a campus the size of PSU for something like this ? Are we talking about a sizable National Guard contingent ?

Sociologists say that when a country has an overabundance of overeducated and underemployed young people, civil turmoil always follows.

 

[Pardlion]

Agree about holding only those who resort to violence responsible. But what would it cost to secure a campus the size of PSU for something like this ? Are we talikng about a sizable National Guard contingent ?

Just have him give his speech inside a building that is easy to secure. In that case, most protestors wouldn't even hear his speech, and therefore, if they got violent, it wouldn't be because of anything he was saying at the time.

 

[psuro]

He has freedom of speech and most people have freedom to ignore. Whether they choose or not is up to them. And if Spencer's words create an action by others, he may have to deal with those consequences.

 

[Pardlion]

"...What I would ultimately want is this ideal of a safe space effectively for Europeans. This is a big empire that would accept all Europeans. It would be a place for Germans. It would be a place for Slavs. It would be a place for Celts. It would be a place for white Americans and so on.

For something like that to happen and really for Europeans to survive and thrive in this very difficult century that we're going to be experiencing, we have to have a sense of consciousness. We're going to have to have that sense of identity." - Richard Spencer.

So weird . . . I just read what you wrote and did not go punch anyone. My thought was: this is nonsense and this guy is a nutjob not worth listening to.

 

[Pardlion]

College students have better things to do with their time.

LOL.

 

[denniskembala]

Why don't we leave the decision up to the people in charge of creating the safe environment? Oh, wait...

The same idiots gave us the lynching of Paterno, trying to bury the FB program, and appointing aholes as HC GMs. I wouldn't trust them to take me on a moped ride on a closed course.

 

[lurkerlion]

I am afraid that psu has to refuse the request for practical reasons not ideological reasons. Granting the request risks being branded sympathetic to him. If a judge orders it, then psu won't be blamed.

The easy argument is that his supporters showed up with weapons in charlolttesville. Psu could delay any decision by requiring assurance that would not happen again. Practicality not ideology.

 

[denniskembala]

These are the same peeholes who gave police protection to Bernie the Bozo, sent the police to oversee removal of a Paterno tribute, stole the Joe Statue when Campus was largely empty, sequestered Alumni at BoT meetings, and sent the police to Bot meetings/sequestration "to protect themselves".

There are numerous names for bums like these, most of them foul. Yes, I trust their level of "protection".

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

We have to face the fact that we have our fair share of fascist and Nazi sympathizers at BWI and at PSU. Even if they want to deny it or be disingenuous about it. Nazis gonna Naz. Nazis gonna stir up trouble every chance they get. It is their nature.


Barron is doing the right thing. People against the right thing being done ought to be marginalized here and at PSU.

 

[Obliviax]

He has freedom of speech and most people have freedom to ignore. Whether they choose or not is up to them. And if Spencer's words create an action by others, he may have to deal with those consequences.

Agree...but would only add that if this creates "action by others" (assuming you mean physical) they are breaking the law and should be arrested.

 

[Pardlion]

We have to face the fact that we have our fair share of fascist and Nazi sympathizers at BWI and at PSU. Even if they want to deny it or be disingenuous about it. Nazis gonna Naz. Nazis gonna stir up trouble every chance they get. It is their nature.


Barron is doing the right thing. People against the right thing being done ought to be marginalized here and at PSU.

Spoken like a true free-speech-hating, safe-space-needing snowflake.

 

[Sharkies]

I am afraid that psu has to refuse the request for practical reasons not ideological reasons. Granting the request risks being branded sympathetic to him. If a judge orders it, then psu won't be blamed.

The easy argument is that his supporters showed up with weapons in charlolttesville. Psu could delay any decision by requiring assurance that would not happen again. Practicality not ideology.

I think that's fair, and also that PSU would lose if it ever goes to court.. but if you're saying they have to refuse for practical reasons, and not ideological, then aren't they really being sympathetic to him ideologically?

 

[kgilbert78]

We have to face the fact that we have our fair share of fascist and Nazi sympathizers at BWI and at PSU. Even if they want to deny it or be disingenuous about it. Nazis gonna Naz. Nazis gonna stir up trouble every chance they get. It is their nature.


Barron is doing the right thing. People against the right thing being done ought to be marginalized here and at PSU.

The trouble is that this is a slippery slope.

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.​

This has served us well for over 200 years. I would not be quick to abandon it now. But I fear we are heading in this direction.

 

[Pardlion]

I think that's fair, and also that PSU would lose if it ever goes to court.. but if you're saying they have to refuse for practical reasons, and not ideological, then aren't they really being sympathetic to him ideologically?

I agree that PSU is looking for cover, and wants to be able to say that they were forced by a mean judge to allow this speech. I am sure that PSU does not expect to win in court, because . . . well . . . they have never won anything in court.

 

[lurkerlion]

I think that's fair, and also that PSU would lose if it ever goes to court.. but if you're saying they have to refuse for practical reasons, and not ideological, then aren't they really being sympathetic to him ideologically?

Not really. Ideologically psu should encourage free speech. Unfortunately that would include some hate speech--alt right and alt left.

Practically psu cannot afford to be accused of anything politically incorrect right now. Psu simply has no poliltical capital right now.

 

[AWS1022]

Free speech means he has the right to speak his mind without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't guarantee him the right to speak any place he pleases.

Barron has a responsibility to keep his campus safe. If Spencer came to speak at PSU and someone got hurt, you can bet PSU would be facing a negligence lawsuit as a result.

Would he do the same if a BLM member wanted to come speak? That could lead to violence too.

 

[dalions81]

fwiw...my view, he has right to be heard, BUT we have been through the media buzz saw and I don't want anymore of it...for awhile