They said no to a white nationalist. Now Penn State, Ohio State are being sued.

[TexasTowelie]

Penn State and Ohio State might be adversaries in Saturday's game, but as of Monday, they have a common opponent.

Both universities are being sued in an attempt to force them to allow a speech by white nationalist leader Richard Spencer.

Cameron Padgett, 29, a Georgia State senior who says in court documents that he “subscribes to identitarian philosophy,” filed a lawsuit against Penn State on Friday.

Ohio State got the same treatment Sunday, with more documents in that case following Monday morning.

Read more: http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/12869498-74/they-said-no-to-a-white-nationalist-now-penn-state-ohio-state

[beachbum bob]

1. free speech has a cost, let any body speak anywhere as long as they post a cash bond

of $1-$5 million bucks ahead of time to pay for security and potential damages....

[obamanut2012]

6. SCOTUS has found that illegal

You cannot make them pay for security in any way.

[beachbum bob]

19. I don't think that is true, no place has an obligation to give "free security"...

[Demsrule86]

8. There is no reason they need to speak at either of these colleges ...an alternative site

could be provided with security.

[X_Digger]

12. A perhaps separate but just as.. equal place, right?

[ClarendonDem]

29. Very good point

[Ilsa]

2. If the universities have the right to charge to cover security,

they should do it.

Also, How much of the crowd was protestors, how much was WS at the last Spencer event at UF? The audience did not look even close to full.

[LunaSea]

3. The Westboro Baptist approach.

Sorry, God hates nazis.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Lawyers Of DU

Does this guy have standing or is this just a publicity stunt?

[former9thward]

11. Maybe both.

If Spencer is being denied solely on ideology (or how the University thinks people will react to that ideology) then there is a case at a public university. That said, lawsuits about being denied speaking privileges are good for fund raising appeals.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Thanks

I'm guessing it's the latter, because public safety is a powerful argument for the university
Yeah, I get the Nazis in Skokie, but ACLU, which has clout, isn't coming to the rescue of groups that espouse violence after Charllotsville!

[blueinredohio]

5. If they want to speak at these venues they should have to pay for their own security or

suffer the consequences

[obamanut2012]

7. SCOTUS has ruled that illegal

You cannot force them to do that.

[Demsrule86]

9. There can be restrictions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in Christian Knights of KKK v. District of Columbia10 that when using a public forum, "...speakers do not have a constitutional right to convey their message whenever, wherever and however they please."11

Accordingly, the government may regulate a marcher's use of the streets based on legitimate interests, such as: 1) Accommodating conflicting demands by potential users for the same place; 2) protecting those who are not interested onlookers, like a "captive audience" in a residential neighborhood, from the adverse collateral effects of the speech; and 3) protecting public order.

The court emphasized that a permit process cannot be used to "...impose even a place restriction on a speaker's use of a public forum on the basis of what the speaker will say, unless there is a compelling interest for doing so, and the restriction is necessary to serve the asserted compelling interest."12

The court ruled the city's denial of a permit request from the Ku Klux Klan to march 11 blocks and the resulting decision to limit the march to only 4 blocks was unconstitutionally based on anticipated listener reaction, which turns on the group marching, the message of the group, and the extent of antagonism, discord, and strife the march would generate.13

However, the court also held that a restriction based on the threat of violence could be constitutionally justified if that threat of violence is beyond reasonable control of the police.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm

[dalton99a]

10. +1

[alarimer]

13. Free speech, yes, but nobody is required to give you a venue.

Somebody punch Richard Spencer again. I think he failed to get the message. His followers tried (or planned, maybe) to commit murder at UF last week. So he should be denied because he is a threat to public safety.

[X_Digger]

21. If this venue is made available to other speakers, then yes, they have to allow shitstains like this

The government (and yes, these are state-ran schools, not private institutions) cannot make non-content neutral restrictions on speech.

Funny you decry that idiot's call for violence by encouraging violence.

The irony, I think, is lost on you.

[alarimer]

23. I don't care.

Fuck Nazis

[X_Digger]

24. Not a fan of the first amendment, I see.

Ah well, now I know that it's a preference for you, not a principle.

Luckily, our courts usually do a pretty good job of protecting it.

Because popular speech needs no protection- it's popular. If the first amendment means anything, it has to protect the most ugly speech.

[atreides1]

28. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment

But not a fan of those who would take it away, should they come to power!

And I don't trust all of our courts and I definitely don't trust the SCOTUS...the court that gave us Citizens United and will possibly decide that religious beliefs allow bigotry and racism!!!

[X_Digger]

31. You're a fan of the first, but not when it applies to *some* people?

Hrmm.. so not a die-hard fan, more like a casual one, eh?

[WinkyDink]

36. Who says?

[Initech]

14. This will not end well.

[dlk]

15. Calling for "Ethnic Cleansing" is Hate Speech

Spencer is being more than disingenuous. He preaches violence and ethnic cleansing or genocide -- hate speech. These are not protected under the First Amendment, just as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Instead, they all threaten public safety. Penn State and Ohio State are correct.

[GulfCoast66]

16. Hate speech is speech

And is protected. He will win these suits and be allowed to speak.

[mythology]

17. Hate speech is legal

There are very specific limits around direct and specifically targeted incitement to violence. My guess is people like Spencer are very well versed in that line.

[Dr. Strange]

18. But still protected by the First Amendment.

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

[beachbum bob]

20. true, but inciting people to riot or committ criminal acts is not covered as "free speech"

[VOX]

27. Correct. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.

You cannot incite a riot or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.

[X_Digger]

34. Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

[WinkyDink]

35. Yes, WE ALL KNOW THIS. Is such inciting what Spencer does?

[lagomorph777]

22. Spencer's followers commit murder or attempted murder every time he speaks.

Free speech doesn't apply to terrorist groups. Spencer should be arrested.

[ClarendonDem]

30. Arrested for what?

What crime did Spencer commit?

[lagomorph777]

39. Inciting homicide

[WinkyDink]

37. His actual, real, explicit speech would need to be determined as "inciting a riot." Otherwise, no

personal liability for an auditor's actions.

[underpants]

26. Ped State and Spencer seem like a natural match

Ped State.

[WinkyDink]

33. Oh, how funny. Never mind the crimes were a generation ago, and confined to certain men.

[WinkyDink]

32. Can I speak there, too? Because EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME EVER, AMEN.

*HEAVYSARCASM,PEOPLE*

Universities are free to invite OR NOT INVITE any speaker they want. FGS, otherwise they would HAVE TO ALLOW A MILLION SPEAKERS A DAY.

[struggle4progress]

38. ... On Saturday, Spencer appeared at the University of Florida, where police say

three white nationalists heckled protestors with Nazi chants and salutes before one of the men pulled out a gun and the other two encouraged him to use it and he did. All three are charged with attempted murder ...
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article180478026.html