Richard Spencer told by MSU that he and his fellow Nazis are not welcome in East Lansing

Yesterday, Michigan State University confirmed that the National Policy Institute, a fascist think tank led by white supremacist Richard Spencer, had requested the opportunity to have Spencer speak on campus. Today, the university’s president, Lou Anna K. Simon, issued the following statement, making it clear that he and his organization are not welcome.

“After consultation with law enforcement officials, Michigan State University has decided to deny the National Policy Institute’s request to rent space on campus to accommodate a speaker. This decision was made due to significant concerns about public safety in the wake of the tragic violence in Charlottesville last weekend. While we remain firm in our commitment to freedom of expression, our first obligation is to the safety and security of our students and our community.”

This, by the way, comes the day after both Texas A&M University and the University of Florida uninvited Spencer from their campuses citing safety concerns in the wake of what happened in Charlottesville.

The proposed event in East Lansing, according to reporting by Lansing City Pulse was to have been co-hosted by “the Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas and the white nationalist group Identity Europa,” the first of which was just recently launched by 2009 MSU graduate Kyle Bristow, who can be seen in the image above with Spencer. [Richard Spencer is a board member of Bristow’s Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas. Other board members, according to Lansing City Pulse, Include “people like California attorney William Daniel Johnson, who in 1985 proposed a Constitutional amendment to revoke the citizenship of every non-white person in the U.S; Jason Robb, son of the national director of the KKK; and Ryan Sorba, a writer who claims that being gay is a ‘hoax’.”]

While I don’t want to link to Bristow’s website, here’s a clip from a recent post about how, in the wake of Charlottesville, the far right is under attack. It would appear that, like some of the commenters on this site, Bristow believes that the deadly chaos in Charlottesville was orchestrated by what Trump would call the “alt-left” in order to justify a crackdown against the civil rights of Nazis.

I’d like to ramble on for a few hours about freedom of speech, and why I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t extend to Nazis, but I’m falling asleep. So, instead, I’d like to leave you with this clip from a recent National Review piece by Kevin D. Williamson titled “Angry White Boys.” [Thank you, Jcp2, for making me aware of it.]

…What does an angry white boy really want?

“A girlfriend,” comes the mocking answer, and there’s probably more to that than mockery. The proprietor of one of the nation’s premier websites for neo-Nazi knuckleheads advised his colleagues in Charlottesville that, after the protest — which included a murder — “random girls will want to have sex with you.” I ran this proposition past a few random girls, and I suspect that the apfelstrudelführers are going to go home disappointed. There are many shades of white, and Mom’s-basement white is the least popular crayon in the box.

Of course we should mock them, criticize them, lament them, and, in the case of James Alex Fields Jr., the trust-funder from Ohio charged in the death of Heather Heyer, prosecute them. What does James Alex Fields Jr. want? A transcript of a 911 call from his mother describes him beating her after she told him to stop playing a particular video game. She is disabled and uses a wheelchair. That wasn’t the only 911 call she made in fear of her son.

The angry white boys do not have a serious political agenda. They don’t have any straightforward demands like the Teamsters or PETA do, and they do not have a well-developed ideological position like the Communists do, though it would be inaccurate to say that they lack an ideology entirely. Their agenda is their anger, an anger that is difficult to understand. Middle-class white men in the United States of America in anno Domini 2017 have their problems, to be sure. Life is full of little disappointments. But their motive is not to be found in their exterior circumstances, which are pretty good.

Maybe too good: A great many of these young men have an interest in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary sociology — they like to think of themselves as “alpha males,” as though they were living in a chimpanzee troop — but it never occurs to them to consider their own status as rejects and failed men in that context. Online fantasy lives notwithstanding, random girls do not want to have sex with them. How do we know this? Because they are carrying tiki torches in a giant dork parade in Charlottesville. There’s no prom queen waiting at home. If we credit their own sociobiological model, they are the superfluous males who would have been discarded, along with their genetic material, by the pitiless state of nature. The fantasy of proving that they are something else is why they dream of violence and confrontation. They are the products of the soft liberal-democratic society they hold in contempt — and upon which they depend, utterly. James Alex Fields Jr. is angry at the world, and angry at his mother, probably for the same reason.

What does an angry white boy want? The fact that they get together to play dress-up — to engage in a large and sometimes murderous game of cowboys and Indians — may give us our answer. They want to be someone other than who they are. That’s the great irony of identity politics: They seek identity in the tribe because they are failed individuals. They are a chain composed exclusively of weak links. What they are engaged in isn’t politics, but theater: play-acting in the hopes of achieving catharsis. Their online personas — knights, Vikings, reincarnations of Charles Martel — will be familiar enough to anybody with a Dungeons and Dragons nerd in his life. But sometimes, role-playing around a card table isn’t enough: Sometimes, you need a stage and an audience. In the theater, actors and audience both can forget ourselves for an hour or two. Under the soft glow of the tiki torches, these angry white boys can be something else — for a night…

[note: The Southern Poverty Law Center has a fascinatingdossier on Kyle Bristow.]

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Michigan, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

92 Comments

  1. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    So this is progress? Show up in large numbers and create a violent counter demonstration to any speech you disagree with and you can effectively silence your opposition. Led by those who hide in ivory towers, the Snowflakes will succeed in eliminating all public discourse of any controversial topic. With the grading system, the professors already control classroom discussions. Pull down all the statues, blow up Mt. Rushmore, change the names of all the streets and parks – to what end? As if you can alter history and erase memories. I think it is ironic that those who strive to reduce free speech call themselves anti-fascists. Sure, there’s a lot of support to eliminate neo-nazi’s and white supremists. But if this is effective, they will come for your group next.

  2. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 5:13 am | Permalink

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

    https://medium.com/@juliaserano/free-speech-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance-e0547aefe538

    Society is changing. Sorry.

  3. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.

    https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

  4. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    So a small minority of BLM and antifa activists can decide for us all what is tolerable?

  5. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    Jcp2,

    You don’t think it is better to expose the half-baked, ugly, hateful ideas out in the sunlight?

  6. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

    Do you believe this statement is necessarily true?

    Or,

    Is this just some cold-blooded shit you say to some motherfuckers before you become intolerant on their asses?

  7. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Would you invite these groups to your house to give a talk? I wouldn’t, and I guess MSU, in exercising their groups’ freedom of speech and expression, feel likewise.

  8. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Yes, but just because the faculty is 100% Democrats, do they have the right to deny any conservative speech? I’m not referring to hate speech, just an alternative view.

  9. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    A private residence is not publicly funded. Does the publicly funded aspect change the equation in your mind?

  10. M
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Just so that I’m clear, EOS and Mr. Flakes, are you arguing that there’s no end to free speech? Are you arguing that, if a radical Muslim cleric, for instance, wanted to come to U-M and give a speech about the necessity for jihad, it should be accepted? Would it be OK, in your eyes, if he were to go into detail as to how to kill Christian babies, blow up churches, etc? Assuming the answer is “no,” you agree that there is a line. The question is to where that line should be.

  11. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    The limits to free speech are defined through court action, not by self-appointed activists or university administrators. The courts, correctly interpreting the Constitution and not legislating, decide where the line should be. I’ve heard speeches supporting killing babies and the necessity for jihad on the U-M campus in the past. Both offended me but I felt no need to prevent ideas from being discussed.

  12. Meta
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Inside Higher Ed: “Legal Grounds to Turn Away White Supremacist Speakers”

    When Auburn University said it would block Richard Spencer from speaking on campus in April, the white nationalist sued — and won.
    A federal judge in Alabama rejected Auburn’s argument that the speech would be unsafe, and it took place.
    This precedent has not deterred the University of Florida or Texas A&M University, both of which this week have canceled plans for events where Spencer was slated to speak on their campuses, citing the violence at white supremacist events last weekend in Charlottesville, Va.
    Legal experts say that though public institutions are obligated to preserve campus free expression, the tragedy that played out in Virginia over the weekend likely gives presidents more concrete grounds to bar Spencer and his affiliates — at least in the short term. They warn, however, that the reasoning the institutions gave for canceling — ensuring student and locals’ safety — should be applied as judiciously possible.

    Read more:
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/17/public-universities-are-solid-ground-cancel-richard-spencer-events-legal-experts-say

  13. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
    Do you believe this statement is necessarily true?
    Or,
    Is this just some cold-blooded shit you say to some motherfuckers before you become intolerant on their asses?

    Ahahaha, FF! That is some funny shit. You have to really twist your mind just to read that statement on tolerance.

  14. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    I would be interested in the cleric’s interpretation of the term “jihad”.

    Free speech is an ideal. There are real world practical impediments toward achieving that ideal.

    Is it ok with you if I question jcp2 on his method for drawing the lines? As far as I can tell, jcp2 wants to draw the lines of who gets to talk based upon whether or not a potential speaker is the type of person he would invite into his home to give a talk.

  15. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Spencer is another plant. I don’t know what the worst things are that he has said but shouting hail Trump around the inauguration was bad enough. Not too many people knew who Spencer was at that time. I had barely heard of him. After that everyone knew. He seems to have a connection to the Bush family. Maybe it is just because they were neighbors in Texas. Just a lil neighborhood get together.

    https://youtu.be/ldQGwGxq6b8

  16. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    If you ask why would there be plants stirring up trouble well it is pretty obvious if you think about it at all. Who does it benefit? People who want to restrict free speech. Do you really trust the government with the power to decide what is hate speech? If you are not attacking someone based on current laws or credibly inciting someone to attack then you have the right to say what you like. It’s the First Amendment. Creating a class of illegal hate speech that prosecutes people who are not breaking any current laws is a major step to totalitarianism. We should all challenge ourselves to understand that.

  17. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    My interest in the cleric’s interpretation of the term “jihad” would lead me to want to listen to the cleric speak. Is that weird? Or are we supposed to assume we all know what the “radical” muslim cleric means before he gives a talk on “jihad”? Who knows, maybe I disagree with his interpretation and can offer a few well placed “boos”. Maybe I even do something really brave and challenge his position in the question and answering period.

  18. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    I am thankful for the opportunity to attend MSA events on local campuses. Their free speech ensures that other religious views can be expressed as well. The are very appreciative of having others attend their events and will answer questions and debate for hours and feed you with delicious food. There are multiple Christian groups who welcome Muslims to their events in a similar fashion. “Jihad”, as expressed on campus, is a personal journey towards holiness and does not include suicide bombings.

  19. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Spencer has announced that he will be filing suit against University of Florida and perhaps the others, and, indeed, this will be decided by the courts eventually. Free Speech protection has historically been limited at the point of ‘incitement’– the ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ standard. It will be interesting to see how this case is determined, and on what grounds the incitement standard is applied.

    Meanwhile, I’m happy that MSU has taken this stand. If anyone wanted to rent any hall– even a publicly owned one, and it was known that the proposed event would require considerable police presence, it seem reasonable to weigh that burden against it’s usefulness to society.

    I believe strongly in free speech. Richard Spencer has not been banned from campus, he just has not been allowed to rent a facility. He is still free to spout his hatred from the streets. I don’t see any compelling reason to afford him the protection from massive counter demonstration in situ, which is what a hall provides. If things get violent on either side, then the police are obligated to respond. Something they did not do in Charlottesville for reasons that are unclear, and many would like to know.

    There is still accountability for violence. Is there accountability for incitement? Does Spencer’s rhetoric amount to the same? Would EOS, FF,HW etc feel the same if it was a Muslim cleric calling for violence against Christians?

    PS the word ‘jihad’ translates to struggle. It can imply an internal struggle or an struggle with external forces. It does not mean holy war but was hijacked by terrorist organizations to that end. We’ve seen a lot of words hijacked to political ends lately, but the word jihad is core to the Islamic faith and means different things to different people. It’s similar in that way to the words ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ as interpreted in America.

  20. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    EOS– “So a small minority of BLM and antifa activists can decide for us all what is tolerable?”

    Nope. It seems that MSU has decided in this case what is tolerable, knowing that they will likely have to defend that position in court. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But more generally, culturally, intolerance of Nazis and white supremacists seems to extend well beyond the ranks of the Antifa and BLM.

    Lastly, since you would like a minority of Americans to decide for the rest of us what is tolerable re women’s bodily agency, I don’t think this is a strong line of argument for you.
    http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

  21. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    For those inclined to see a way past this moment that is more proactive and applies principles of compassion to all, even the profoundly lost, I found this group’s work to be encouraging. https://www.lifeafterhate.org/

  22. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    @ Jean,

    Several passages in the Koran call for violence against Christians and other “People of the Book”. Should the book be banned for this reason?

  23. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I don’t support the banning of any book. Ever. Apples to Oranges.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

  24. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    “Woman’s bodily agency’? No, my concern is with the innocent human life she is murdering. I am intolerant of those who would kill others. That’s a step beyond mere speech.

  25. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Jesus was supposed to have smote the money changers with cord in the temple so that is anti-semitic. I see how religion itself could be on their trajectory.

    Be careful people. Don’t morph into the red guard of communist China. Don’t encourage it. Millions of young people tearing down everything historic and carrying out atrocious violence changing society into something unrecognizable and terrible.

  26. M
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Life After Hate is indeed a good organization. Too bad Trump aide Katharine Gorka, wife of white nationalist Sebastian Gorka, has fought to cut funding.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katharine-gorka-life-after-hate_us_59921356e4b09096429943b6

    From the Huffington Post:

    Weeks before a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, led to three deaths and 19 injuries, the Trump administration revoked a grant to Life After Hate, a group that works to de-radicalize neo-Nazis.

    The Department of Homeland Security had awarded the group $400,000 as part of its Countering Violent Extremism program in January, just days before former President Barack Obama left office. It was the only group selected for a grant that focused exclusively on fighting white supremacy. But the grant money was not immediately disbursed.

    Trump aides, including Katharine Gorka, a controversial national security analyst known for her anti-Muslim rhetoric, were already working toward eliminating Life After Hate’s grant and to direct all funding toward fighting what the president has described as “radical Islamic terrorism.”

    In December, Gorka, then a member of Trump’s transition team, met with George Selim, the DHS official who headed the Countering Violent Extremism program until he resigned last month, and his then-deputy, David Gersten.

    Gorka told Selim and Gersten she didn’t agree with the Obama administration’s approach to countering violent extremism ― particularly the way the administration had described the threat of extremism, according to Nate Snyder, an Obama administration DHS counterterrorism official who was an adviser on Countering Violent Extremism efforts and was given a readout of the meeting. The Trump administration has repeatedly criticized the previous administration for avoiding terms like “radical Islam” out of concern that it could alienate Muslims in the U.S. and abroad.

    “That was sort of foreshadowing what was going to come,” Snyder said of the December meeting.

    Gorka and Selim did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    “Katharine Gorka has been integral in helping the Department broaden efforts to focus on all forms of extremism. Her work includes efforts to address everything from global jihadists threats to domestic terrorists,” Anna Franko, a DHS spokeswoman, wrote in an email.

    Gorka and her husband, Sebastian Gorka, also a Trump White House official, have collaborated on numerous writings about the threat of radical Islam. Though they have a large following within far-right circles ― they both have bylines at Breitbart News ― mainstream national security experts are either unfamiliar with or critical of their work.

    The day after Trump won the election, Sebastian Gorka said, “I predict with absolute certitude, the jettisoning of concepts such as CVE.”

    Once Trump entered the White House in January, the office of then-DHS Secretary John Kelly ordered a full review of the Countering Violent Extremism program. Kelly’s office wanted to re-vet the groups receiving a portion of the $10 million Congress had appropriated for the program — even though DHS had already publicly announced the grant recipients.

    While that review was underway, DHS and the FBI warned in an internal intelligence bulletin of the threat posed by white supremacy. White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement,” the two agencies wrote in a May 10 document obtained by Foreign Policy. Members of the white supremacist movement “likely will continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the next year,” they concluded.

  27. Germaine Gebhard
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    A comedian friend and MSU alumni wrote the following letter to the president of MSU about this. I am sharing it with his permission.

    So my alma mater, the greatest academic institution in the world, Michigan State University, told Richard Spencer to shove it up his ass. Very proud to wear the green and white. Below is an email I sent the president of the school that singlehandedly made this happen. Go green, go white , go O’Keefe.

    Dear President Simon,

    I am a proud Spartan. The lessons I learned and the time I spent attending our great university shaped me into the professional and the man that I am today. I will never forget the free wheeling and open discussions that were a daily occurrence in my time as a professional writing major. That course of study introduced to me students of a variety of different cultures, religions, ethnicities and backgrounds, some of which I am proud to call my friends to this day. Everyone respected and cherished not only those differences but also each other’s thoughts, opinions and emotions. It truly was the enriching experience that college was supposed to be. And for that, I thank you.

    The ability to think, speak and act whatever way you feel should be a hallmark of our educational institutions, but only if it comes with that respect and celebration of our individuality.

    Richard Spencer’s “National Policy Institute” doesn’t know the first thing about respect.

    They spew hate speech, pure and simple. They crave a white-centric ethno-state. They zeig heil. They refer to their opposition as “savages” and renounce anyone who is against them as such.

    Does that sound like the open-minded, free wheeling discussion that you and your administration have worked tirelessly to make a hallmark of our campus?

    In this day and age, to think that my alma mater, a place I grew, learned and evolved is even paying lip service to a man who doesn’t think most of my classmates belong in this country or on this planet is an absolute disgrace. Don’t be fooled by their seemingly innocuous name and Mr. Spencer’s Grand River Ave. on Friday night haircut, they are nothing more than a hate group that knows how to use twitter, and they have no place at Michigan State.

    If you allow them to spout their vitriolic and pathetic excuse for “rhetoric”, I will be forced to withhold any and all donations and support. This includes our beloved football and basketball games. Furthermore, I will also be forced to donate all of my Spartan gear as I cannot in good faith continue to wear the green and white knowing we allowed something like that to happen on the banks of the Red Cedar.

    Best,
    Mike O’Keefe
    Class of 2012

  28. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    This is what the courts are for. There is a serious disagreement as to the appropriate action, and it will be litigated according to rule of law as it exists at the time of litigation. Since we’re all members of the same society, I think this is the best solution, since we’ve all implicitly accepted that this is the appropriate adjudication methodology.

  29. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Jean,

    What in your mind is so magically different about written communication, that it is somehow not analogous to limits/ freedoms we might as a society decide to put on oral communication? I am not advocating the banning of books but written language is already “said”. Banning a speaking engagement by group x,y,z assumes what “might be said”.

    Sometimes shit needs to be shut down. I think everybody knows that. The plug sometimes needs to pulled from the podium regardless of whether or not that which is “incited” (violence) is completely unjustified violence. The fact of a particular instance of violence is not a proof that there was a justifiable reason for that violence. The fact that a municipality might find it necessary (for practical purposes/because of a lack of sufficient resources) to disallow a speaking engagement because they are worried about their capacity to keep the peace says something about their resources but does not necessarily say anything about type of speech that *ought* to be protected. Ideally everyone can speak. What can we do as a society to shoot for that ideal. The jcp2 test for what constitutes free speech does not work for me. The “we just don’t have enough resources to guarantee safety so no talking for you” also does not work for me.

    We have prisons for a reason.

    Inmate 1: What are you in for?

    Inmate 2: Dude, I got locked up because I got violent with some guy, who I never wanted to invite into my home to speak, and then, I saw that same guy speaking on MSU’s campus.

    Inmate 1: No fucking way, dude. Bummer.

  30. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    My nonfriend who is not welcome in my home can go to the park and talk to themselves. I guess MSU feels the same way. Being publicly funded doesn’t mean open public space, like a street or park. Even then, there may be rules for assembly. But again, whatever the court decides, I’ll go with. Will you?

  31. Erin Morrison
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Glad to hear MSU is being “intolerant of intolerance,” as Karl Popper might have put it. BTW I am totally stealing Kevin D. Williamson’s line: “There are many shades of white, and Mom’s-basement white is the least popular crayon in the box.”

  32. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

    There’s just some stuff one doesn’t have to put up with.

  33. Lynne
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    I think the ACLU is drawing a good line with their recent statement that they will no longer defend those organizations who choose to march with guns. That makes sense to me since the only real purpose of marching with guns is to intimidate the counter protesters and thus shut down their speech.

    I also think it is ok for even public universities to choose who to have speak on their campuses and who they will rent space too. I might have allowed Spencer but I would have estimated the amount of security needed and added that to the rent, banned guns from the event, and added the cost of metal detectors and airport style security to the rent as well.

    I generally feel that having ideas in the open is the way to go because it gives people the opportunity to speak out against those ideas. I feel that tolerance in the form of allowing a group to speak is not the same thing as tolerating their ideas and that intolerance of an idea is something which can be shouted loudly and widely while still being tolerant of the individuals expressing those views.

  34. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    The law is that public spaces that rent rooms to groups cannot practice viewpoint discrimination. The expression of unpopular beliefs is as protected as the expression of more widely accepted beliefs.

  35. Jcp2
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    If that’s the law, then the courts will rule against MSU. I’d be ok with that.

  36. Taco Farts
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    This comments section is a prime example of what happens when you resist creating standards for participation in open forums: the loudest, most offensive users dominate the space, and many reasonable people – who might otherwise actually create progress – are discouraged from speaking.

  37. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    EOS– The can’t practice viewpoint discrimination, but they can consider safety concerns. The question is at what point does a viewpoint amplify risk to an untenable point. Please note MSU cited police safety concerns, not point of view, as the reason for declining.

  38. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    FF– The obvious difference between printed matter that one reads alone and public speech to a large group of people is that only one is capable of meeting the standard of incitement as previously mentioned.
    Except maybe the Bible.
    But that’s not the bible’s fault; thats the fault of the nutbags misinterpreting it.

  39. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    There is no right that exists without some bearer responsibility. These are not absolute rights. All rights are subject to suspension for certain individuals under certain circumstances.

  40. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Good point, Jean.

  41. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Thanks FF. You are no troll (see some other thread today). I can see you are thinking these things through as conversations progress. And I think your questions are legitimate, not rhetorical. I appreciate that. Always happy to disagree (or agree) with someone who is not just spouting ideology.

  42. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    EOS: ““Woman’s bodily agency’? No, my concern is with the innocent human life she is murdering. I am intolerant of those who would kill others. That’s a step beyond mere speech.”

    So that means you support the limitation of White Supremacist speech?

    Because they certainly do regularly advocate for the killing of actual sentient people (v future ones) who committed the crime of not looking like them or practicing their religion.

  43. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    I think you have to use quotes to judge whoever said it. You can’t tar someone for what someone else said.

  44. EOS
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Jean,

    I don’t support the white supremacists at all and I abhor their speech and ideas. I also don’t support anyone who thinks it is acceptable to beat someone with sticks and rocks because you disagree with them. I don’t support limiting anyone’s speech. I do support prosecuting criminal actions.

  45. Jean Henry
    Posted August 18, 2017 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    The idea that People of Color faced with White Supremacists are merely provoked because someone disagrees with them is absurd. If someone denies your humanity, threatens your right to remain in your country and even to exist, when someone calls for your extermination, that is more than a disagreement.

    Sometimes pacifism is a function of privilege.

  46. wobblie
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 3:55 am | Permalink

    EOS you are a vile hypocrite it is mind boggling. You state, “The law is that public spaces that rent rooms to groups cannot practice viewpoint discrimination. The expression of unpopular beliefs is as protected as the expression of more widely accepted beliefs.”
    But if you are a baker and offer your services to the public you can discriminate against who ever you want if it violates your “religious” beliefs. If you hold yourself out to the public it means you are available to the “public”. Universities do not hold their public spaces out to the public. I can not go and rent space at UM or MSU. I must get a student organization to host my event. The student in this capacity is not the “public”, but rather more like the Universities children (there is the concept of loco parintis). And as a good parent they have the duty to keep harm from its children.

  47. Bob
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    EOS, I’m pretty sure the faculty at MSU isn’t 100 percent Democrats.
    20/20 did a show last night featuring interviews with both Spencer and some antifa leaders. The woman spokesperson for antifa isn’t as creepy as Spencer, but she’s close. I just assumed the charges of violence by the counter protesters was largely bullshit, but clearly many of them don’t believe nonviolence is enough for dealing with white supremacy. I think it would be interesting if those nazi creeps threw a rally and absolutely nobody showed up. A hundred dimwits standing around pulling their puds, to audience whatsoever.

  48. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    This my opinion: Best case scenario is that people show up, ask questions, and try to hold back the laughter,disdain, and disbelief. We should show a little compassion too, not because of they are white victims in our society but because they are for whatever reason committed to ugly ideas which are leading nowhere. The stupidity on both/ multiple sides is evident–it should be pointed out constantly. The counter protestors who show up with anger, disruptive outrage, and violence–are giving these people real world power and just confirming in the minds of separatist the “logic” behind their white separatist impulse. The best and most powerful chant I heard in Charlottesville was “white separtists are boring.”

  49. Jean Henry
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    This offers an interesting perspective on the impacts of Germany’s hate speech prohibition: http://www.dw.com/en/germany-treads-thin-line-between-hate-speech-and-free-expression/a-19199024?fref=gc

  50. Jean Henry
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    For what it’s worth, the SPLC is recommending that counter protests take place in separate locations from White supremacist rallies. This would create the scenario Bob imagines while also not allowing complacency. I’m not interested in prescribing to the oppressed how to respond to open hatred and violent threat against their person. It seems many responses are warranted and valid. Calling the actions of BLM and the Antifa stupid really ignores the significant impact they are having on the public conversation. Sometimes you need to throw an elbow to get heard. Since no one person speaks for any of these decentralized groups, each individual who speaks is open to actual critique (which is NOT calling them ‘stupid’) of course, but they should not be seen as singly representative of the whole.

    PS Decentralizing these movements is a way to avoid what happened to the Black Panthers in the 70’s. The leadership was taken out and incarcerated by the State and the group integrity fell apart. These groups are anything but stupid.

  51. EOS
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    That anyone thinks physical assault is an appropriate response to offensive speech is disturbing. That so many on the Left condone it is alarming.

  52. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    I believe, on this blog a commenter applauded when Spencer, while giving a street interview, was sucker punched by someone in a mask. The punch was bad obviously, but the expressed approval on mm.com was way worse. Immoral and counterproductive.

  53. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    “The idea that People of Color faced with White Supremacists are merely provoked because someone disagrees with them is absurd. If someone denies your humanity, threatens your right to remain in your country and even to exist, when someone calls for your extermination, that is more than a disagreement.
    Sometimes pacifism is a function of privilege.”

    You can’t use guilt by association by attributing statements to that effect by people who have not said them. If an organization makes an official statement or an individual says something then that is on them, not anyone else. You can’t just say white nationalists or Trump supporters or anyone is fair game to beat on.

  54. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    attributing statements to that effect *to* people who have not said them.

  55. Jean Henry
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    The cheap moralism here by people who face no such threat is predictable, corrupt and boring. You all should try harder not to be everything exactly that the left accuses you of being.

  56. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    There are never threats to white people in our society, Jean? That is what you are saying?

  57. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Cheap? Corrupt? MM.com is not unique. Who is currently paying the debt incurred from this communities constantly pulling the lever on the moral-liberal-checklist-cha-ching machine?

  58. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Are you saying it is morally cheap to not accept violence against people who have committed no crime? How do you figure? You’ll have to provide some justification. Just stating it flat doesn’t do much.

  59. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    George Soros’ first job as a young man during WWII was confiscating fellow jews’ property. He said it was the best time of his life. Soros funded Hillary Clinton to the tune of 8 million dollars.

  60. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 19, 2017 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    This was in Hungary when he was 14. He was passed off as a gentile under the care of a bribed official. Incredible! So isn’t that a war crime and wouldn’t Hillary be complicit by taking money from an admitted war criminal??? Not even playing at all. Look…

    https://youtu.be/UG1GglKod0g

  61. wobblie
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    The anit-Nazi anti-white supremacy rally in Charlottesville was several blocks away at Justice park. The Nazi were in Emancipation park. Local faith leaders held a silent vigil at one of the entrances to Emancipation park. The Nazi’s attacked them. The Antifa asked the faith leaders if they wanted help.
    Heather Heyes was murdered and 18 others injured at Justice park blocks away from the fighting between the Nazi and Antifa.
    The police declared the rally in Emacipation park to be illegal after an hour or so the Nazi and Antifa fighting. The police then forced the Nazi and Antifa to disperse. Groups of Nazi then roamed through town beating up black folks. One was beaten on video in a parking structure. Others were attacked while walking on the street.
    This does not include the violent attack against some 30 peaceful demonstrators the night before when the torch carrying Nazi marched through the university.

  62. EOS
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/an-exclusive-look-at-how-virginia-police-emptied-emancipation-park/

  63. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    I may have miscounted but I feel it would be cheap of me to form a moral opinion based upon any paragraph on markmaynard.com that fails to use the term “the Nazi’s” at least 13 times.

  64. Jean Henry
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    It’s all because we didn’t empathize enough with the White Working Class.

  65. Citywatch
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    It is because the Democrats have no policy other than opposing Donald Trump and thereby make him even bigger and more present in the news and elsewhere through that vocal opposition. Democrats need to focus on what they believe in and advocate in a positive way for things that have real meaning to real people in real places.

  66. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    I’ll give you another one. Obama supported a Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine. In his words it was brokering a deal to transition power. They really are Neo-Nazis. Look it up.

    https://youtu.be/1QAXmf5_EOs

  67. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I mean holy fucking shit.

    https://youtu.be/kFAOfYQ7130

  68. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Is there a more ironic, hypocritical thing ever?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-are-no-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-and-the-obama-administration-does-not-support-fascists/5370269

  69. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    No Jean. It is human nature. When people smell the bullshit in the air they walk away.

    Wobblie mentioned the beating in a Charlottesville parking garage. Please watch a fuller video that is 8:31 seconds long titled: “#BLM Vs #Altright parking garage fight”. It shows what leads up to the violence. There is about 15 seconds of video (starting around 5:31) that requires about 15 minutes of your time of starting, pausing and reversing to get a good sense of what happened. I am curious what people think of the video compared to Wobblie’s description of “Groups of Nazi’s walked around town beating up black folks. One was beaten on video in a parking structure.”

  70. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    It is strangely quiet around here at the moment and I’m not just talking about the board. Ypsi could be ground zero for the hundredth monkey effect! Whoah!!!

  71. wobblie
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Watching the video. At 3.27 a Nazi walking down center of street with only jeering folks on side walk turns and attempts to pepper spray a person he was walking by, a few seconds later some thing is thrown at the Nazi. At 5:34 a club wielding shield carrying “alt-right” demonstrator launches himself at a person standing on the side walk, others threw the alt-right attacker to the ground. Other shield carry club wielding alt-right demonstrators rushed to their fallen comrades assistance a general melee began. What is your point FF. You ignore the reality of the attack against non-violent folks attempting to “witness” both on Friday night and Saturday. You also ignore the terrorist attack that was conducted in conjunction with this “unite the right” rally. That killed one and injured 18.

  72. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Use pause more.

    What do you hear at 5:33?

    Proceed frame by frame.

    What do you see the man in the pink shirt doing at the early part of 5:34?

    Who is standing directly behind the man in the pink shirt at 5:34? (Hint: In an interview this man said “I just walked into the parking garage and then….”)

  73. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    It is interesting that you brought up the mace at 3:27.

    What do you hear at 3:24?

    Rewind and proceed frame by frame.

    What is the man in the pink shirt from 5:34 doing at 3:25?

  74. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Right after the altercation 3:24-3:30…..At 3:45 through 3:57 you can hear someone yelling “Yea, Yea, Yea, Yea, Yea, let’s go nigger, let’s go nigger, Yea, Yea, Yea”.

    Pause at 3:57.

    Who is that yelling? What is he carrying?

    Only interesting if you know that there were reports that someone was hit with magnate flashlight at the end of the line in the front of the parking garage. I wonder who hit someone with magnate?

    I wonder what was happening off camera at 5:33–right in the vicinity of the guy with a pink shirt.

  75. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    *maglite

  76. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 20, 2017 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Go back to 5:34.

    Go frame by frame.

    Instead of focusing on the guy in the pink shirt who is hitting the men with their shields already raised, focus on the guy standing next to him. The guys with the shields spray pepper spray in their faces and the two men stumble back, out of the street, past the sidewalk and into the entrance of the parking garage. Notice there is an Alt-Right/white separatist/Nazi type-whatever-you-call-it in the left of the frame with white helmet and a flagpole (5:35) and he comes from out of the garage. He does not come off the street. He comes from behind and he hits Deandre Harris from behind and continues to focus all of his aggression on Harris even though the guy in the pink shirt was next to him and was caught on film hitting the marching men with shields. My question is: Why the focused aggression on Harris when he had the choice between attacking Harris and the guy in the pink shirt? Did the AltRight guy see something from inside the garage that is not caught on camera?

  77. wobblie
    Posted August 21, 2017 at 4:10 am | Permalink

    Let’s watch the attack from inside the garrage.

    http://www.eurweb.com/2017/08/watch-video-deandre-harris-horrific-beating-shaun-king-offers-10k-reward-ids-assailants/

  78. Sad
    Posted August 21, 2017 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    This reminds me of something I saw at the three minute mark in the Zapruder films.

  79. wobblie
    Posted August 27, 2017 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-white-nationalist-busted-beating-charlottesville-article-1.3445333?cid=bitly

  80. Jean Henry
    Posted August 27, 2017 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    good.

  81. Jean Henry
    Posted August 27, 2017 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    FF, who thinks violence is never justified, sure seems to be looking for justification in this case. Why though?

  82. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 27, 2017 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Violence is never justified? What in the world gave you that impression Jean?

    When talking about the heat of the moment and the perception of delivering justice in the moment:

    Turn the other cheek?

    Eye for an eye?

    Put two on it, with a foot on the neck and shoe on it?

    I think most people are going with Snoop. I am no exception. I think it is normal.

    I do wonder why people are not “interested” in answering basic questions about the ordering of events. Wobblie failed miserably.

  83. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 29, 2017 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie and Jean and Sad and NotJean,

    There is now some crystal clear video footage of what Deandre Harris was doing off camera at 5:33.

    Why don’t you look for it on the internet and report back to us.

  84. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 30, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Some say the man getting hit over the head with a maglite was a senior citizen. I think that assessment is an example of people’s right wing biases affecting what they see, according to the narrative they want to believe, because the guy getting hit over the head with a maglite looks more like 60 years old to me.

  85. Lynne
    Posted August 30, 2017 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn’t a 60 year old be considered a senior citizen?

  86. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 30, 2017 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure. I thought 65 is when someone is considered a senior citizen.

    What is the real answer? This is a good question for one of the awesome team of mm.com-unbiased-liberal-real news-Research-robots. What say you guys?

    As a follow up maybe NotJeanHenry could offer insight into the approximate age of the guy getting clubbed in the head with a maglite?

  87. Jean Henry
    Posted August 31, 2017 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    FF–There are multiple videos out there. If you want us to see something, please include the link. Is this what you meant, showing HArris holding a stick or maybe maglite as you suggest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viBmXF7L7ss&t=0s
    If I were a Black man confronting armed Neo-Nazi’s I’d carry a maglite or stick or whatever too. When I left on my first solo cross country trip, my dad handed me a stanley thermos of coffee and a maglite, demonstrating how to hold it over one’s shoulder. “Shine it in their eyes and then knock them over the head.” Only advice I got.
    I’m not super interested in searching endless conspiracy theory laiden and selectively edited videos. I have learned not to follow news stories as they evolve on the internet because they are almost always misdirected for the first few days. I’m ok with waiting for more information.

    In the meantime, I have no idea how you can look at the footage of the assault on Deandre Harris and think there could be any possible justification for it, period, no matter what he or his friends did beforehand.Why does it matter so much to you? What’s your motivation?

  88. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 31, 2017 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie gave interpretations of two specific events on this blog.

    The video footage I used to show Wobblie was inaccurate in his interpretations of those events was taken from a leftist livestream video that was put on youtube NOT some right wing conspiracy blog.

    If anybody is interested in quickly knowing what Deandre Harris was doing off camera at the 5:33 mark of “Duerst the worst” livestream then they should google “Proof that @ShaunKing lied” and click on the third image/video.

  89. Frosted Flakes
    Posted August 31, 2017 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    I just tried those search terms and it was not specific enough. Apparently Shaun King is accused of lying a lot. Try being more specific about the thing Shaun King is lying about. Search: “Proof that @ShaunKing lied, Deandre Harris.”

  90. Frosted Flakes
    Posted September 2, 2017 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Jean,

    Pragmatic reason: It is important to know the facts not just because it is important to know the facts but also because it is likely that Deandre will get sued and arrested. The guy Deandre hit is an attorney. The Southern separatists are playing not just a legal game but a media game. It will look like the left is winning the media game until the full videos are released, you know after the uproar of his arrest (!). The left is not winning. The left sucks at this stuff. We can do worse than Trump, please realize this…. It really doesn’t matter if you believe Deandre is unjustified. You are not the target audience. The timed release of the videos will prove to be about “uniting [and expanding] the right”–What a fucking surprise! Getting the facts straight now helps to mitigate the future losses. Are we sick of losing yet?

    I am not going to go into the philosophical reasons as the importance of knowing the truth is and supporting free speech should be self-evident….Reminder: This conversation is occurring under a post about how it is generally considered a good thing, by the mm.com community, that the threat of violence is a fine way to silence speech that we/they do not agree with….The opinions expressed in this thread are fucking disturbing….

    Antifa is now considered a domestic terrorist group by Homeland Security….

  91. Frosted Flakes
    Posted September 2, 2017 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    I apologize for the very sloppy writing^^

  92. Frosted Flakes
    Posted September 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    John Jay Professor, Michael Isaacson, recently stepped forward, as a member/leader of Antifa, to attempt to offer some very interesting justifications for Antifa’s violent tactics.

    Not shockingly, Isaacson appears to be some kind of complete idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Orson Welles