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

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Who invited this person to speak to begin with?

I don't know the answer.

My first impression upon reading this story is that he more or less spammed a bunch of colleges with requests to speak on campuses. Information to the contrary welcomed.
................
Edit: Ahhh. I see an answer to this upthread. Thanks. So, yeah, just somebody intent on stirring up trouble is what was behind this. Apparently, a bunch of you want to see trouble stirred up. Guess what: the rest of us know why.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

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

Yeah. You more or less self-identified here ages ago.

 

[DandyDonII]

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 for him to come to your campus. Believe me, he wants confrontation. He wants hundreds of Berkleys. He wants to taunt and spit in the face of a multi cultural society. It just reinforces his fake message of "white genocide". For that matter Bannon wants exactly that too. They want pitched street battles between the left and right because it all serves their vision of tearing our government and our society apart.

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

I know nothing about this guy...However, the European Union is not exactly a bastion of free speech...

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right

 

[lionlurker]

I'm glad about this. We are at a time in this country when this is necessary.

 

[Pardlion]

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right

So they surveyed racists and found out that they favor their own race and don't like others? Duh.

 

[indynittany]

Fair enough....you get to decide who and who does not get to speak! It is settled then!

I think his point is the exact opposite of that.

 

[indynittany]

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.

How is congress making a law?

What is the motive of those inviting him to speak?

Free speech is free speech. Inciting a riot is not free speech.

I would prefer everyone had a platform and I believe college campuses are the perfect place. Let any man's ideals stand or fall on their own merit. But when violence is the desired outcome, words mean nothing.

 

[N&B4PSU]

Given what happen at UVA, it's hard to argue with this. The right to free speech and assembly does not include the right to show up armed for a riot, as was the case in Charlottesville. This applies not only to Spencer and his affiliated groups, but all groups regardless of where their beliefs fall on the political spectrum.

probably naive (lol) but had no one from the opposition shown up to do battle (oh my, they were equally prepared) in the public park where no permit was required (hence their "legal:" right to assemble), i doubt there would have been any violence. Both sides showed up ready and armed to rumble... but simply keep them apart and it's just a day of free speech and little more. Lotsa anger and fist shaking, but it stops there.

That is where the priority to protect and serve applies.

Apparently that was asking too much of the great state of Virginia and its. ummm. governor and/or the local mayor (lol's all around). Had either had the stones, this was a simple fix.

 

[BobPSU92]

I prefer Downy

DETERGENT. LIVES. MATTER.

FABRIC. SOFTENER. LIVES. MATTER.

 

[mOOse_44]

Yeah. You more or less self-identified here ages ago.

Important to note that the ACLU is representing this guy and his group. So they are convinced their right to peacefully assemble has been denied.

Why can't we act like adults, let them speak their minds, then intelligently and respectfully explain to them why we think they are wrong? Then we can all peacefully go on our way and apply critical thinking skills to form our opinions on the matter.

 

[mOOse_44]

probably naive (lol) but had no one from the opposition shown up to do battle (oh my, they were equally prepared) in the public park where no permit was required (hence their "legal:" right to assemble), i doubt there would have been any violence. Both sides showed up ready and armed to rumble... but simply keep them apart and it's just a day of free speech and little more. Lotsa anger and fist shaking, but it stops there.

That is where the priority to protect and serve applies.

Apparently that was asking too much of the great state of Virginia and its. ummm. governor and/or the local mayor (lol's all around). Had either had the stones, this was a simple fix.

I fear it was more sinister than you even imply. I suspect the good mayor and gov ordered the police to stand down knowing the violence would ensue and they could paint the opposition as hate mongering violent racists. But it went too far and someone got killed. Now they have blood on their hands.

 

[Blueblood4eva]

Is there actually a football game this Saturday? It seems like a good time to divert and discuss something we love and NOT hate.

 

[BBrown]

Important to note that the ACLU is representing this guy and his group. So they are convinced their right to peacefully assemble has been denied.

Why can't we act like adults, let them speak their minds, then intelligently and respectfully explain to them why we think they are wrong? Then we can all peacefully go on our way and apply critical thinking skills to form our opinions on the matter.

Have you met any humans yet or are you new to earth?

 

[indynittany]

...But it went too far and someone got killed. Now they have blood on their hands.

Did it really go too far? I think both groups are pleased with the outcome. This was a fund raiser!

 

[Pardlion]

Important to note that the ACLU is representing this guy and his group. So they are convinced their right to peacefully assemble has been denied.

Why can't we act like adults, let them speak their minds, then intelligently and respectfully explain to them why we think they are wrong? Then we can all peacefully go on our way and apply critical thinking skills to form our opinions on the matter.

The ACLU is going to sue Penn State for violating free speech?

 

[mOOse_44]

The ACLU is going to sue Penn State for violating free speech?

The ACLU is currently representing them and their right to peacefully assemble in Charlottesville and at Texas A&M. Nothing on the PSU front yet. Strange how the MSM doesn't report this stuff.

 

[PSUSignore]

I like to share this every time there is talk of someone "being offended." The basic message is, deal with it.

 

[lyndj]

So you pay the required speakers fee and keep it moving. Much ado about nothing in my opinion.

 

[lyndj]

Sooo you think this decision was made in a vacuum? Really? I'd better to guess that several were consulted prior to release of this statement.

And I work in s field where speakers cancel or are cancelled all the time. Depending on the reason you pay the cancellation fee life goes on. Not difficult to do and the ACLU isn't going to split hairs over this.

 

[lyndj]

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".

WTF. Every damn thing is NOT about Joe Paterno and statue. Good grief get a freaking life!!!

 

[KnightSlayer]

So I assume all the defenders of this guy are cool with people burning the American flag and kneeling during the national anthem.

 

[Sharkies]

So I assume all the defenders of this guy are cool with people burning the American flag and kneeling during the national anthem.

Can you be upset and disgusted by all of those things, yet defend the right of someone to do so? Yes, I think I can.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Can you be upset and disgusted by all of those things, yet defend the right of someone to do so? Yes, I think I can.

Good for you but, I've seen people violently attack people who burn the flag and I've read 100s of comments from people online claim they would violently assault someone if they witness them burning a flag. Some of them on this very board.

 

[BobPSU92]

Can you be upset and disgusted by all of those things, yet defend the right of someone to do so? Yes, I think I can.

But I bet you can't like O'Brien and Franklin.

 

[SmithtonLion]

So I assume all the defenders of this guy are cool with people burning the American flag and kneeling during the national anthem.

We agree that the government should not restrict those people's rights. Period. End of story.

People are also free to hate Kaepernick and to hate this Spencer character, and to tell others that they are vile.

I truly do not think you understand the first amendment - a restriction upon government's powers to curtail individual speech.

 

[indynittany]

Good for you but, I've seen people violently attack people who burn the flag and I've read 100s of comments from people online claim they would violently assault someone if they witness them burning a flag. Some of them on this very board.

I respect someone's right to express himself and I think the burning of the flag is speech. I also respect his willingness to get beat up for his beliefs. He's not a victim. He's an agitator.

 

[Sharkies]

I respect someone's right to express himself and I think the burning of the flag is speech. I also respect his willingness to get beat up for his beliefs. He's not a victim. He's an agitator.

I respect those who are able to view such a dispicable act and yet not react in violence.

 

[pandaczar12]

I respect those who are able to view such a dispicable act and yet not react in violence.

Reacting in violence when you see an alleged despicable act is never the answer. You should call your dad, chat about it with his doctor friend, and then tell the local football coach the next day. You might even become a millionaire in the process!

 

[razpsu]

How is congress making a law?

What is the motive of those inviting him to speak?

Free speech is free speech. Inciting a riot is not free speech.

I would prefer everyone had a platform and I believe college campuses are the perfect place. Let any man's ideals stand or fall on their own merit. But when violence is the desired outcome, words mean nothing.

Free speech is free speech. It is astonishing. That the left of all people now have a definition. If it is not physical then it is verbal. Free speech. Amazing colleges not allowing free speech only from the right.

 

[AWS1022]

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.

Why not just deny anyone the right to show up to protest? Why is that right so much more sacred than the right of free speech? If you're going to trample on one right, trample on another that will lead to safety.

 

[indynittany]

Why not just deny anyone the right to show up to protest? Why is that right so much more sacred than the right of free speech? If you're going to trample on one right, trample on another that will lead to safety.

'Anyone' or 'everyone'. If it's 'anyone', then there's no equality under the law. You don't want the government deciding who's rights are deserving of protection.

And we also have the right to assemble.

 

[AWS1022]

'Anyone' or 'everyone'. If it's 'anyone', then there's no equality under the law. You don't want the government deciding who's rights are deserving of protection.

And we also have the right to assemble.

And we have the right to free speech. People are quIck to shit down someone's right to free speech but not someone's right to assemble. Why is one right more sacred than another?

 

[Pardlion]

Coming soon to a courthouse near you . . .

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36360/

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Coming soon to a courthouse near you . . .

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36360/

Really going to depend on what a court decides is the definition of a 'public' university (Auburn is). If private, then they can tell anyone they want to pound sand. I remember when my wife was in law school and interned with JAG and at the time, the military wasn't allowed to recruit at certain schools (mostly the elite, private law schools - Harvard, Yale, etc.) because of their discrimination against homosexuals (this was during W's second term and I'm not sure if that changed...). I also remember there being a big to-do about whether or not those schools should lose federal funding, and again, can't remember if it happened. But, wouldn't denying federal funding to a private school exercising it's right to free speech (by determining who can, and can't recruit on their campus) also be unconstitutional?

Let the guy speak and charge him $100,000 for the room.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Coming soon to a courthouse near you . . .

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36360/

Don't you see? That's the scam: sue and hope for some cash and a bunch of publicity. Both are worth something to pukes like this guy and his buddies.

I bet you don't see it. Amirite? Sooner or later you are just gonna have to fix your head. (Do it for the ones you love...if you have ones you love.)

 

[kgilbert78]

Unless you allow what most consider reprehensible speech as free speech then you don't have free speech at all. It's pretty simple.

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.​

No law means NO LAW.

That's what the antifa's are doing. Making any speech they don't like reprehensible and doing so with violence. It's easy to go along when it's the Nazis they are attacking. But you have to remember that to an antifa, most Americans are facists--including both the Dems and Reps. I find them far more dangerous than the neo-Nazis.

 

[Pardlion]

Don't you see? That's the scam: sue and hope for some cash and a bunch of publicity. Both are worth something to pukes like this guy and his buddies.

I bet you don't see it. Amirite? Sooner or later you are just gonna have to fix your head. (Do it for the ones you love...if you have ones you love.)

I really don't care what you think his "scam" is. I'm more interested in what the actual law says and how the courts apply it, and so far, this guy turns out to have been right.

I would also prefer if PSU would avoid paying/wasting attorneys fees and damages for being on the wrong side of 1st Amendment claims.