1. I don't think it's accurate to say that MSU having to pay for the additional security necessary to protect controversial speakers is due to “threats” by FIRE toward the university. MSU, like any other government agency, is forbidden to pass on the cost of that security to the group needing protection by the law; FIRE merely reminded the university that they could not do so. And this law is good law, necessary for the first amendment to have meaning. The reason that governments cannot pass on the costs of protection of controversial speakers and events is because the government has historically used that to squash the free speech rights of Americans.

When governments in the South wanted to deny civil rights groups the right to march, they often did so by requiring them to pay for police protection or requiring them to buy hugely expensive insurance policies or bonds that would pay for that protection if there was any violence. This gave those who opposed such marches a simple way to make sure they never took place – show up and cause trouble and the cost of police protection goes up and up and up so they can no longer afford to march. This isn't hypothetical, it happened all over the country until the courts stepped in and said that it couldn't happen anymore. So this was not the result of some empty or unjustified threat by FIRE; it is necessitated by the Constitution itself. Allowing the government to charge people for the protection of their right to free speech effectively eliminates free speech (except, of course, for the wealthy, who can afford to pay the cost). This is not something progressives should be complaining about, no matter how heinous we may find the content of the speech in this particular case.

2. I don't think it's accurate to call FIRE a “conservative” group. FIRE was founded by one conservative and one liberal and its boards of directors and advisers are likewise a mixture. Their leadership includes people like Nat Hentoff, Wendy Kaminer, Nadine Strossen and Harvey Silvergate (who co-founded FIRE). All are longtime ACLU activists and board members. They defend the free speech rights of left and right equally. The fact that they have often defended the free speech rights of conservatives does not make the group conservative, any more than the ACLU's defense of the KKK makes them white supremacists. What they are defending is the liberal principle of freedom of speech regardless of the content of that speech.

3. It really needs to be said that no matter what the cost was for MSU to provide that protection, they are legally required to pay it and legally forbidden to pass it on to those who needed the protection. The real fault here, I would argue, lies with those who have attempted to disrupt such events, pulling fire alarms, trying to drown out speakers and even physically harassing speakers and event organizers – in at least one case reported here, chasing them into a parking garage. That's why the heightened protection is necessary. If everyone would recognize that these people have precisely the same right to speak that they themselves do and respect that, there would be no need for such costly law enforcement measures. But that clearly is not the case. And again, historically this has far more often been used to shut down the free speech rights of the left, not the right. It is no less an affront to liberty, however, when it is used to shut down speech by conservatives rather than liberals. Free speech is one of the core ideas of liberal democracy. If we do not protect that principle even when it is used to broadcast ideas we find vile, we put our own freedom at enormous peril.

And yes, this is ripe for FOIA, and you just need to get better at specifying and doing the second follow-up FOIA in the no document situation, or taking a different angle to getting them.  The key in FOIA is always the follow-up/second effort – like running the ball on 4th and 1 and bouncing off that first tackle and still lunging for the first down.

And yes, this is ripe for FOIA, and you just need to get better at specifying and doing the second follow-up FOIA in the no document situation, or taking a different angle to getting them.  The key in FOIA is always the follow-up/second effort – like running the ball on 4th and 1 and bouncing off that first tackle and still lunging for the first down.

1. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that MSU having to pay for the additional security necessary to protect controversial speakers is due to “threats” by FIRE toward the university. MSU, like any other government agency, is forbidden to pass on the cost of that security to the group needing protection by the law; FIRE merely reminded the university that they could not do so. And this law is good law, necessary for the first amendment to have meaning. The reason that governments cannot pass on the costs of protection of controversial speakers and events is because the government has historically used that to squash the free speech rights of Americans.

When governments in the South wanted to deny civil rights groups the right to march, they often did so by requiring them to pay for police protection or requiring them to buy hugely expensive insurance policies or bonds that would pay for that protection if there was any violence. This gave those who opposed such marches a simple way to make sure they never took place – show up and cause trouble and the cost of police protection goes up and up and up so they can no longer afford to march. This isn’t hypothetical, it happened all over the country until the courts stepped in and said that it couldn’t happen anymore. So this was not the result of some empty or unjustified threat by FIRE; it is necessitated by the Constitution itself. Allowing the government to charge people for the protection of their right to free speech effectively eliminates free speech (except, of course, for the wealthy, who can afford to pay the cost). This is not something progressives should be complaining about, no matter how heinous we may find the content of the speech in this particular case.

2. I don’t think it’s accurate to call FIRE a “conservative” group. FIRE was founded by one conservative and one liberal and its boards of directors and advisers are likewise a mixture. Their leadership includes people like Nat Hentoff, Wendy Kaminer, Nadine Strossen and Harvey Silvergate (who co-founded FIRE). All are longtime ACLU activists and board members. They defend the free speech rights of left and right equally. The fact that they have often defended the free speech rights of conservatives does not make the group conservative, any more than the ACLU’s defense of the KKK makes them white supremacists. What they are defending is the liberal principle of freedom of speech regardless of the content of that speech.

3. It really needs to be said that no matter what the cost was for MSU to provide that protection, they are legally required to pay it and legally forbidden to pass it on to those who needed the protection. The real fault here, I would argue, lies with those who have attempted to disrupt such events, pulling fire alarms, trying to drown out speakers and even physically harassing speakers and event organizers – in at least one case reported here, chasing them into a parking garage. That’s why the heightened protection is necessary. If everyone would recognize that these people have precisely the same right to speak that they themselves do and respect that, there would be no need for such costly law enforcement measures. But that clearly is not the case. And again, historically this has far more often been used to shut down the free speech rights of the left, not the right. It is no less an affront to liberty, however, when it is used to shut down speech by conservatives rather than liberals. Free speech is one of the core ideas of liberal democracy. If we do not protect that principle even when it is used to broadcast ideas we find vile, we put our own freedom at enormous peril.