'It’s basically a powder keg right now': Florida braces for Spencer speech

lowendlinux

Contributor
Original poster
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,309
North Country (way upstate NY)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/it’s-basically-a-powder-keg-right-now-florida-braces-for-spencer-speech/ar-AAtFDAO?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

UF, the state's second-largest university with more than 52,000 students, initially denied Spencer’s request to speak here in September, but in a letter to the UF community, president Kent Fuchs said the First Amendment required the university to allow the event.

The National Policy Institute, which Spencer runs, paid $10,564 to rent the 1,700-seat Curtis M. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. No UF organization invited Spencer, the university said.
So the man is paying to be there, his application was initially denied but the Fox said yes.

UF said it and law enforcement agencies will spend more than $500,000 on security for the event. At the request of Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell, Florida Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency Monday.
So UF gets 10K and the Florida tax payers get a 500K bill..yup taxpayers get the short end of the stick again.

All of this just seems wrong
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
While I think it's true the first amendment prohibits this public institution from blocking the speech based on content, they can require Spencer to put up a bond to cover expected costs of security and clean-up. If security and clean-up ends up costing less, he can be refunded the difference.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,364
UK
While I think it's true the first amendment prohibits this public institution from blocking the speech based on content, they can require Spencer to put up a bond to cover expected costs of security and clean-up. If security and clean-up ends up costing less, he can be refunded the difference.
Not sure that’s OK. Otherwise you could riot to stop people with different views from speaking.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Not sure that’s OK. Otherwise you could riot to stop people with different views from speaking.
Yes. What's that saying? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If your speech such that people would riot to stop it, then why shouldn't you bear the expense? Afterall, Citizens United said that money is just a megaphone for speech. Put another way, why should the state bear the expense of your speech when the first amendment requires the state only to give you the time and place.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,364
UK
Yes. What's that saying? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If your speech such that people would riot to stop it, then why shouldn't you bear the expense? Afterall, Citizens United said that money is just a megaphone for speech. Put another way, why should the state bear the expense of your speech when the first amendment requires the state only to give you the time and place.
Interesting argument :)
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,143
3,909
Toronto
Interesting argument :)
It is an interesting argument with @oneMadRssn's proposal/idea. I see the police (in this case) as the socialized buffer between counter groups to keep the peace. Essentially taxpayers on both sides are paying to protect their freedom of speech and paying the police to ensure the consequences don't overstep lawful discourse. However for any personal security that should be covered by the speaker; consequence is the payment for free speech.

Edit... I just remembered that Florida is a Stand-your-ground state... yipe
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
While I think it's true the first amendment prohibits this public institution from blocking the speech based on content, they can require Spencer to put up a bond to cover expected costs of security and clean-up. If security and clean-up ends up costing less, he can be refunded the difference.
This is essentially limiting free speech by mob, and this sword can cut both ways.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,009
10,088
Let the far right extremists do their thing. They should all party together, get drunk and play with guns. It'll be a riot.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
This is essentially limiting free speech by mob, and this sword can cut both ways.
Yes, it is. Mobs aren't government, mobs aren't limited by the first amendment. And so what? If someone's speech is so reprehensible than it would cause a significant number of people to take time out of their day to organize, form a mob, and go block that speech, then that's the way it is. The mob has free speech rights too. If the original speaker wants to overcome that mob, they can either bring their own mob, or pay for security.
 

Phonephreak

macrumors 6502a
Aug 24, 2017
580
493
Here and there
The police should just arrest anyone who get violent. Charge them with 1st degree felony assault.. Maybe some time in prison will make them reevaluate their choices. This goes for both sides
 
Last edited:

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,076
I see no point to giving these people a tax payer funded venue like a public University to spout off their ********. I don't care if it's the Alt-right or the United Communist party of the USA.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Yes, it is. Mobs aren't government, mobs aren't limited by the first amendment. And so what? If someone's speech is so reprehensible than it would cause a significant number of people to take time out of their day to organize, form a mob, and go block that speech, then that's the way it is. The mob has free speech rights too. If the original speaker wants to overcome that mob, they can either bring their own mob, or pay for security.
First off you are assuming any of these losers have anything better to do during the day than sleep in their parents basement. Secondly, anyone with enough money can rally people to shut down an event in your scenario.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,128
Yes. What's that saying? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If your speech such that people would riot to stop it, then why shouldn't you bear the expense? Afterall, Citizens United said that money is just a megaphone for speech. Put another way, why should the state bear the expense of your speech when the first amendment requires the state only to give you the time and place.
Why should expressing your freedom of speech bear the expense? Rioting does not mean freedom from consequences. Since rioting is what's really causing the damages, let them bear the expense.