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.
Attorney Kyle Bristow announced later that the visit was planned for March 14, during spring break, but UC had said there was no contract yet.
Authorities estimated security costs at $600,000 for Spencer’s Oct. 19 appearance at the University of Florida, where counter-protesters far outnumbered Spencer supporters and booed him off stage. Spencer was a scheduled speaker at a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August that led to deadly violence when a man struck and killed a protester with his car.
The lawsuit blames “violent left-of-center political terrorists” for such high security costs for appearances by right-wing speakers.
“If security costs could be passed on … by universities to event organizers who espouse politically right-of-center political ideas, then such would result in de facto censorship insofar as fewer — or no — right-of-center political events could occur on American college campuses due to the massive security costs,” the lawsuit contends.
Spencer uses the term “alt-right” to describe a mix of racism, white nationalism and anti-immigration views.
Bristow has lawsuits pending against several other schools, including Ohio State University, for not allowing Spencer to speak.
They are provocateurs, and their previous events on campuses have led to violence. Really, colleges should just decline to host on the grounds of public safety.
Uh, no. Right-leaning groups speak all the time on college campuses without any violence. Spencer isn’t right-of-center. He’s not there to discuss tax brackets, gay marriage or abortion rights. He’s a Nazi looking for a fight and he should be treated as such. Either bill him for security or let the masses beat the shit out of him.
One would think that reasonable Republicans would shout long and loud that the vicious mix of racism, white-nationalism, and bigotry that Spencer stands for would is not a “right of center political ideology” to be confused with the GOP brand of politics. Unless, of course, most a just fine with it…which may just be the case?
Why should a university assume the risk of hosting an event wherein the main speaker is a self-professed provocateur and, in effect, openly inviting of risk? The answer is self-evident.
Never heard of Richard Spencer, but now I have. A speech that might have gone unnoticed, even by most students on the campus, is now national news. I guess ANTIFA never heard of the Streisand effect.
I heard Diane Feinstein speak about free speech on CSPAN. She seems to think that any time thugs threaten violence on campus, administrators should just cancel the event. Her formula is a recipe for the the end of free speech. All you need to “de-platform” a speaker is a group like ANTIFA to threaten, and spineless college administrators to cave. ANTIFA is a terrorist group, they are a national threat; why isn’t homeland security neutralizing them, arresting their leaders, arresting anybody who shows up at a speaking event in their “uniform” with a mask, and keeping track of who donates to them as terrorist sympathizers?
My disappointment with Democrats grows worse. You’ve got to wonder what country they grew up in. They’ve demonstrated contempt for free and fair elections, contempt for due process, and contempt for free speech; all core values that have served us well for over 200 years. What does the Democratic party stand for? Are there any rights Democrats would defend?