As many of you know, Richard Spencer is making his rounds to different college campuses and it's causing quite an uproar of protests. Yesterday he was at University of Florida and the University chose/had to pay an additional $600,000 in security to keep things peaceful.

 

Richard Spencer is waiting to hear if he will be granted access to Ohio State and I believe if he doesn't get that access, he will go after the school on the basis of denying his 1st Amendment rights. He's been granted access to UC but they haven't announced the date that he will be on campus.

 

It got me thinking, I don't think the University's should have to fit the bill for all that extra security. Should Richard Spencer? Is that still 1st Amendment rights by saying that you can come to our campus but you must fit the bill for the extra security that will be needed? Should he even be responsible for the extra security or is it actually needed because of the protesters? But it's not like you can collect money from the protesters for the security.

 

Thought it would be an interesting discussion.

He wants to incite the masses and cause tensions and violence. You can't tell him he's responsible for the security, because he'd just not have any, outside of maybe a couple personal bodyguards.

 

I liked what the Florida brewery did, although I don't know how successful it was. Basically they said it was his right to speak, but it was also their right to try to make the place as empty as possible. So they offered a free beer in exchange for a ticket to hear him speak. Believe they said they were burning all tickets they received. Would love to see Rhinegeist, Madtree, Braxton, etc. come together and do something similar when he comes to UC.

I liked what the Florida brewery did, although I don't know how successful it was. Basically they said it was his right to speak, but it was also their right to try to make the place as empty as possible. So they offered a free beer in exchange for a ticket to hear him speak. Believe they said they were burning all tickets they received. Would love to see Rhinegeist, Madtree, Braxton, etc. come together and do something similar when he comes to UC.

 

That would definitely be awesome and I could see them coming together and doing something like.

 

I just think its ridiculous that the University should have to foot an expensive security bill all because someone wants to use their first Amendment rights.

That would definitely be awesome and I could see them coming together and doing something like.

 

I just think its ridiculous that the University should have to foot an expensive security bill all because someone wants to use their first Amendment rights.

 

I agree.

 

I don't know enough about it, but would it really be a 1st Amendment violation if they declined allowing him on campus to speak?

If you rent campus facilities there are cost for that, I dont know why the person renting out campus to give the speech wouldnt pay said cost.

I agree.

 

I don't know enough about it, but would it really be a 1st Amendment violation if they declined allowing him on campus to speak?

 

If it is tax funded institution, he has the right to speak there. We have the right to not show up to listen or to show up and drown out his message like they did last night at UF.

 

There would not be the need for so much security if people today knew how to protest without being violent.

If it is tax funded institution, he has the right to speak there. We have the right to not show up to listen or to show up and drown out his message like they did last night at UF.

 

There would not be the need for so much security if people today knew how to protest without being violent.

 

Perfection.

I don't know enough about it, but would it really be a 1st Amendment violation if they declined allowing him on campus to speak?

 

If it is tax funded institution, he has the right to speak there. We have the right to not show up to listen or to show up and drown out his message like they did last night at UF.

 

There would not be the need for so much security if people today knew how to protest without being violent.

 

Wish I could remember some of my Student Government days at NKU, but lets be honest, I just did it so it looked good on a resume. I don't think they'd have to allow him to use the auditorium or anything like that, but I don't think they can prevent him from speaking outside.

Wish I could remember some of my Student Government days at NKU, but lets be honest, I just did it so it looked good on a resume. I don't think they'd have to allow him to use the auditorium or anything like that, but I don't think they can prevent him from speaking outside.

 

UC rents out their facilities for numerous activities including weddings/receptions and charity events so I don't see how they could deny anyone the use of their auditorium as long as that group pays the required fee and has the required proof of insurance.

If it is tax funded institution, he has the right to speak there. We have the right to not show up to listen or to show up and drown out his message like they did last night at UF.

 

There would not be the need for so much security if people today knew how to protest without being violent.

 

Thanks. That’s exactly where I was going to go with this thread. The guy speaks and no one shows up there is no need for security. Protestors show up and cause a need for police. Now who is to blame?

Food for thought.

 

It is costing us $700 for 2 security officers (Law enforcement) to rent Bryan Station Saturday, for 12 hours.

 

 

Why shouldnt those holding a speech have to pay for security as well.

Thanks. That’s exactly where I was going to go with this thread. The guy speaks and no one shows up there is no need for security. Protestors show up and cause a need for police. Now who is to blame?

 

Well that's why I said you can't really have the protesters pay. But what do you do? I don't like that the University has to pay $600,000 for security. Not saying it's the speakers fault.

Just to think we have a thread about this shows that society has decided that they do not have to follow the rules and obey the laws of the land. This is the most troubling thing for me.

Well that's why I said you can't really have the protesters pay. But what do you do? I don't like that the University has to pay $600,000 for security. Not saying it's the speakers fault.

 

You know what I would hate more? For the University to deny this guy access and have to pay even more $$ for the lawsuits that would follow. A Cincinnati city councilman actually said that's what he would prefer. What an enormous waste of tax dollars when the end result would be the same.

That would definitely be awesome and I could see them coming together and doing something like.

 

I just think its ridiculous that the University should have to foot an expensive security bill all because someone wants to use their first Amendment rights.

 

What is even more ridiculous is the fact that there needs to be any security at all. I can't understand why people just can't ignore someone that the disagree with. I don't get the need to set stuff on fire, block traffic, etc. because you don't like what someone is saying.

 

Let him speak to whatever crowd shows up, and just go about your day. Without protestors I can't imagine that the crowd would be more than a couple dozen.