Campus sued over security cost for white nationalist's visit

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Dan Sewell and Kantele Franko, Associated Press
 Updated 7:54 am, Tuesday, January 9, 2018

CINCINNATI (AP) — White nationalist Richard Spencer's campus tour organizer is suing the University of Cincinnati's president, saying the school wouldn't rent space for Spencer to speak on campus unless a nearly $11,000 security fee was paid.

An attorney for Spencer and tour organizer Cameron Padgett said requiring such payment because a speaker is controversial or prompts hostile reaction is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The federal lawsuit filed Monday seeks $2 million in damages for allegedly violating free speech rights, attorney fees, and an order requiring the school to rent the space for a "reasonable fee."

It names UC President Neville Pinto as the defendant. The school didn't immediately respond Tuesday to a message seeking comment.

The university announced in October that it would allow Spencer to speak. At the time, UC's board of trustees condemned hate, but cited the fundamental right to free speech at a public university.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/Campus-sued-over-security-cost-for-white-12483898.php

[dlk]

1. This is a Public Safety Issue

Spencer tries to wrap his calls to violence in the First Amendment. In reality, his speeches are public safety issues.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. If they're such a peaceful group

surely an insurance company would underwrite the riot risk?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. Sounds like Spencer is copying the Westboro Baptist business model.

Be obnoxious, get offended, sue for damages. Repeat.

[FSogol]

4. Yup, the Modus Operandi of the Whiny Nazis.

[The Mouth]

5. Does anyone else here, though, think that charging a security fee

is a dangerous precedent to set?

What if the fee was charged to AntiFa? the Black Panthers?, the ACLU... No love for that Nazi POS, *BUT* isn't the fee being charged because of the behavior of the people opposing them?

If that is the case (that the security fee is due to the potential violence of people showing up to disrupt) , what's to stop reich wing groups from starting to consistently instigating violence at a legitimate events by CAIR or Planned Parenthood with eventually people with whom we agree having to pay $10K because of the same reason?

Just playing devil's advocate here; charging *ANYONE* anything but a minimal fee for speaking at a public venue is a dangerous road, no matter how repellent their speech we should be aware of something that could be turned back on us.

[IronLionZion]

8. Sounds like a "both sides" argument

when this stuff doesn't quite happen on our side to nearly the same degree. Richard Spencer's group deliberately chooses diverse liberal college cities with lots of people who oppose Nazi views. They are deliberately wanting violence so they provoke it.

They aren't choosing conservative colleges and rural towns who might be more friendly to their cause.

[The Mouth]

9. Maybe not yet.

I just find the idea of *ANYONE* having to pay a 'security fee' in order to be able to speak in public worrisome.

I don't think labeling something "both sides" invalidates it. I ALWAYS look at things from the perspective of how they would apply to me/my causes/ my friends if situations were reversed, I reject that just because that forces one to see things from the Reich wing side that it shouldn't be a process we go through in looking at any law, norm or regulation. Think ACLU supporting the right of Nazis to march through even the most insensitive areas, those assholes didn't pick a place that would be sympathetic , they picked a place specifically designed to provoke, and yet, IMHO, the ACLU was completely right to support their marching. Unfortunately, I think there would be some supposed liberals these days who would think otherwise.

[The Mouth]

10. Can you clarify the phrase

"..doesn't happen on our side to nearly the same degree"?

I could be wrong, but isn't it the reactions *AGAINST* these RW assholes the reason for the security fee? My point is that if those are legit, then what is to stop right wing groups from causing frequent and severe disruptions when we progressives speak, resulting in *US* having to pay these fees. Yeah, slippery slope, but

[IronLionZion]

11. Are right wing groups causing frequent and severe disruptions for our side's events?

Our side generally doesn't go into conservative areas and provoke the locals.

[The Mouth]

12. Does 'free speech' only apply in places where the locals won't be provoked?

Should the choice of location really effect what we as a nation decide and implement regarding first amendment protections?

[IronLionZion]

14. All politics is local

We as a nation don't have much say in what a local university or city government charges for security costs. Blue/All lives matter don't you know.

Since it's a lawsuit, maybe the courts will rule on this issue and set a precedent.

[The Mouth]

16. I sure hope so

Since it's a lawsuit, maybe the courts will rule on this issue and set a precedent.

Like I said, I can only imagine how easy it would be for even a small group of disrupters to harass every meeting of CAIR, or planned parenthood, or BLM or some such group to the point that they can't afford the fees for a public place to hold their meetings. If the group being harassed resists violently then so much the better as far as making it less likely and affordable for them to have access to the public square.

[lagomorph777]

27. The troublemakers in this case are not the peaceful protesters from the LEFT.

The troublemakers are coming from the RIGHT - you're not going to trick anybody here by trying to reverse the facts, pal.

[The Mouth]

32. I see that neither reading nor logic is your friend.

If you can't respond, call it a 'trick., or the person a 'troll', etc.

Personally, I would expect the violent protesters to be agent provocateurs. Still doesn't make it right to charge a security fee or any other fee.

welcome to my ignore list.

[The Mouth]

13. Would you have supported the ACLU when they took the legal

side of the Nazis marching in Skokie?

[IronLionZion]

15. I oppose the ACLU on some issues,

especially their defense of Nazis, white supremacists, and anyone else who speaks in favor of having people like me killed for simply existing.

The Supreme Court drew the line on calls for violence.

[Yupster]

21. When Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University

there was a bit of a controversy because the reception was called "polite" applause rather than the ovation a guest speaker usually got.

That's about as far as the protests went.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. Who should pay for the extra security?

Or, should the university simply provide the venue without extra security, hoping that civilized people will act, well, civilized? The university might have to accept a level of property damage in order to host controversial speakers.

[The Mouth]

18. Personally,

Zero tolerance for disruptors.
Regardless of who is speaking
Regardless of the venue (if a publicly funded one)
Regardless of who is disrupting.

Zero. LONG sentences and heavy fines.
Be it white supremacists messing with Antifa or BLM or CAIR or Planned Parenthood
or vice versa.
No exception for anything except for a direct call to violence.
But maybe that's just my privilege speaking.

[Yupster]

20. You're absolutely right

There's no way it is reasonable to charge a speaker a security fee because people who don't like him might riot.

Besides the basic unfairness of it, it just encourages a group to riot as much as possible to stop the other side from speaking. That shouldn't be tolerated.

[lagomorph777]

23. The people who DO like Spencer are the rioters and terrorists; don't flip this on its head.

[The Mouth]

25. Maybe I am

Maybe I am 'flipping this on it's head', actually I damned well am..

I remember when hardhats attacked anti-war protesters. Should subsequent anti-war protests have had to pay a security fee?

ANY law, rule, regulation or tactic should be looked at exactly thusly, IMHO- if it were a group *I* belong to or support having to pay a fee because the other side might cause a riot, is that something that should happen?

[lagomorph777]

22. The fee is because Spencer's supporters are terrorists; they murder or assault the locals.

The locals have every right to charge a fee for the privilege of inciting violence.

[The Mouth]

24. OK, then

But who started the violence? Not who responded more violently, but who rioted- the Spencer supporters?

[lagomorph777]

26. Welcome to DU and the reality-based community.

When SPencer's Nazi/KKK terrorist murdered one person and grievously injured 19 more in Charlottesville, there was no ambiguity in who was to blame.

Please don't bother trying to convince anybody here that there were "very fine people on both sides." We believe in facts here, not Nazi/KKK propaganda.

[The Mouth]

30. Try reading comprehension.

Try actually responding to an argument.

Simple fact- if security fees are charged to speakers in public places because of the possible violent reaction ALL the other side has to do is to ensure violence happens, which is not hard. One terrorist act isn't the point, the point is that just because someone is provocative doesn't mean that they should be shut down.

[lagomorph777]

28. Who rioted? Who started the violence?

Are you aware that there is such a thing as video? Take your alternative reality elsewhere.

[The Mouth]

31. that was a terrorist attack,

pure and simple. It could have happened at any rally or event.

I am talking about CHARGING FEES TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC. that is wrong, has always been wrong, should always be wrong regardless of who, when, where, or what, or how you or I feel about the message.

[mercuryblues]

34. You can't yell fire

in a crowded theater and that is what Spencer does. He gives these speeches in liberal leaning areas, invites his followers from outside the area and then amps them up. They then march through town shouting "Jews will not replace us" While carrying guns and knives.

[lagomorph777]

36. It was a terrorist attack committed by one of Spencer's supporters.

Not random, and not committed by the other side.
Off to the blocked list with you. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Some people have to pay $50 in order to get a driver's license so they can exercise their free speec

At their polling place

[Gothmog]

7. Another bogus lawsuit

[Demonaut]

19. that was stupid, if it was a security deposit and it were equally applied then they might have a leg

but then again, maybe it was a security deposit and the right is claiming otherwise

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. My guess is that $11K is a standard fee charged to ALL speakers

The actual security costs were $600K. It says so in the article.

[The Mouth]

33. Seems to me that would disadvantage some progresive groups

for some reason(cough, Koch) the Reich wing always has money

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. It probably is, but should a university be expected to just absorb all costs?

Spencer wasn't invited BY the university. The university's auditorium was being rented out. If any group wants to rent an auditorium at a university or anywhere else they should just charge a nominal amount for tickets to cover their out of pocket cists. Either that or get sponsorship from a group at the school.