White nationalist Richard Spencer attempts to troll Libertarian conference and is promptly rejected

Brandon Morse Feb 20, 2017 7:05 pm

Richard Spencer, who leads a movement that mixes racism, white nationalism and populism, raises his fist as he speaks Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station, Texas. Texas A&M officials say they didn't schedule the speech by Spencer, who was invited to speak by a former student who reserved campus space available to the public. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

43Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

According to Reason’s Robby Soave, white nationalist and alt-right leader Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian gathering in Washington D.C., but after a heated argument with one of its famous attendees, Spencer was escorted out.

The incident happened Saturday night during 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference at the the Marriott Wardman in Woodley Park where the event was being held. Spencer reportedly attempted to host an “unscheduled and unwanted conversation” at the bar of the hotel regarding his pro-white nationalist views with attendees.

According to economist and author Steve Horowitz, the group “Hoppe Caucus” — a group of “alt-right libertarians” named after philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe — intended to bring Spencer to the hotel at the same time as the ISL conference as an intentional troll, even including a sign that said “Richard Spencer ISFLC 17.”

Soave gives more details of Spencer’s time at the hotel, and his inevitable departure.

Eventually, Jeffrey Tucker—an influential libertarian thinker—confronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he “did not belong” at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

It’s not completely clear whether Spencer departed of his own accord: he seems to think he was forced to leave, while others say he asked security to see him out safely, even though he was in no danger. But it hardly matters: the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Horowitz says that when conference attendees heard Spencer was at the bar, and number went to confront him. At first there was an attempt at rational discussion, but as the crowd grew in size, and the shouting match between Spencer and Tucker grew heated, the hotel staff saw fit to kick everyone out of the bar. Spencer reportedly asked to be escorted out for his own safety, though Horowitz denies that Spencer was ever in any danger.

You can watch video of the exchange between Spencer and Tucker below:

One common theme many of the Libertarians discussing this incident share is that Spencer, and the alt-right are not welcome amongst the Libertarians. As the Libertarians of SFL demonstrated, and Soave writes into words, “the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-right’s racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.”

As well, the SFL President Wolf von Laer said in a statement that his organization did not invite Spencer, and that they “reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology.”

Penn Jillette on Liberty.

Why Net Neutrality Matters

We must be allowed to Insult each other

Rowan Atkinson: we must be allowed to insult each other

Rowan Atkinson has launched a campaign for a change in the law that bans "insulting words and behaviour".

Rowan Atkinson Photo: REX FEATURES

7:53AM BST 18 Oct 2012

The Blackadder and Mr Bean star attacked the "creeping culture of censoriousness" which has resulted in the arrest of a Christian preacher, a critic of Scientology and even a student making a joke, it was reported.

He criticised the "new intolerance" as he called for part of it the Public Order Act to be repealed, saying it was having a "chilling effect on free expression and free protest".

Mr Atkinson said: "The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult."

Police and prosecutors are accused of being over-zealous in their interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, which outlaws threatening, abusive and insulting words or behaviour, the Daily Mail reported.

What constitutes "insulting" is not clear. It has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Related Articles

• DPP supports scrapping law against insults
  10 Dec 2012
• Let’s do away with this insult to free speech
  10 Dec 2012
• Blackadder could have been Queen's love child
  16 Oct 2012
• Rowan Atkinson's brother criticises 'Left-wing' Olympics ceremony
  29 Jul 2012
• Elected police commissioners: a criminal waste
  18 Oct 2012
• Rowan Atkinson: Goodbye, Mr Bean?
  21 Nov 2012

They include a 16-year-old boy being held for peacefully holding a placard reading "Scientology is a dangerous cult", and gay rights campaigners from the group Outrage! detained when they protested against Islamic fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir over its stance on gays, Jews and women.
Mr Atkinson said he hoped the repeal of Section 5 would pave the way for a move to "rewind the culture of censoriousness" and take on the "outrage industry - self-appointed arbiters of the public good encouraging outrage to which the police feel under terrible pressure to react".
Speaking at the Westminster launch of the campaign, he added: "The law should not be aiding and abetting the new intolerance."
He was joined by Lord Dear, former chief constable of West Midlands Police, and former shadow home secretary David Davis.
Mr Davis said: "The simple truth is that in a free society, there is no right not to be offended. For centuries, freedom of speech has been a vital part of British life, and repealing this law will reinstate that right."
The campaign has united an unlikely coalition of support including The Christian Institute and The National Secular Society as well as Big Brother Watch, The Freedom Association and The Peter Tatchell Foundation. 

Your laptop, phone and camera may be searched within 100 miles of the Border

Court Upholds Willy-Nilly Gadget Searches Along U.S. Border

• By David Kravets
• 12.31.13
• 2:59 PM
•  Edit

Image: US Customs and Border Protection/Flickr

A federal judge today upheld a President Barack Obama administration policy allowing authorities along the U.S. border to seize and search laptops, smartphones and other electronic devices for any reason.

The decision (.pdf) by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York comes as laptops, and now smartphones, have become virtual extensions of ourselves, housing everything from email to instant-message chats to our papers and effects.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge nearly three years ago, claiming U.S. border officials should have reasonable suspicion to search gadgets along the border because of the data they store. But Judge Korman said the so-called “border exemption,” in which people can be searched for no reason at all along the border, continues to apply in the digital age.

Alarmingly, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

The judge said it “would be foolish, if not irresponsible” to store sensitive information on electronic devices while traveling internationally.
Korman ruled:

Laptops have only come into widespread use in the twenty-first century. Prior to that time, lawyers, photographers, and scholars managed to travel overseas and consult with clients, take photographs, and conduct scholarly research. No one ever suggested the possibility of a border search had a chilling effect on his or her First Amendment rights. While it is true that laptops may make overseas work more convenient, the precautions plaintiffs may choose to take to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel.

The ACLU said it was mulling an appeal.

“We’re disappointed in today’s decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans’ laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing,” said Catherine Crump, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case in July 2011. “Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.”

The case was brought on behalf of 29-year-old Pascal Abidor, whose laptop was seized for 11 as he was traveling by rail from Canada to his parents’ New York residence in 2010. He was an Islamic studies graduate student in Canada.

At an Amtrak inspection point, he showed his U.S. passport to an agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained to the agent that he was earning a doctoral degree in the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon.

He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer, according to the suit. Numerous agents questioned him, the suit says.
They released him and kept his laptop, until his lawyer complained.

Plaintiffs in the suit also include the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Press Photographers Association. The lawyers’ group maintains search policy exposes privileged communications. The photographers say the policy interferes “with their ability to do their work.”

The decision supports a conclusion 10 months ago from the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog that said that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.

The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data.

More FBI Hacking: Feds Crack Wi-Fi to Gather Evidence

• By Kevin Poulsen
• 04.17.09
• 11:52 AM
•  Edit

Buried in the 150 pages of CIPAV spyware-related documents released by the FBI Thursday is a tantalizing nugget that indicates the bureau’s technology experts have more than one way to hack a suspect.
In early 2007, FBI agents with one of the bureau’s International Terrorism Operations Sections sought hacking help from the FBI’s geek squads. The agents were working a case in Pittsburgh, which is not described in the documents, and wanted to know "if [a] remote computer attack can be conducted against [the] target."
The FBI’s Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis Unit, CEAU, responded with two options. One of them was redacted from the released document as a sensitive investigative technique. The other is described this way:  "CEAU advised Pittsburgh that they could assist with a wireless hack to obtain a file tree, but not the hard drive content."
Wi-fi hacking has featured prominently in some big cybercrimes, including the attack on TJ Maxx that exposed at least 45 million customer credit card numbers and other data. In that case, Albert "Segvec" Gonzalez and associates allegedly cracked the retailer’s WEP key and used it to gain entry to the corporate network, where he planted packet sniffers to scoop up the data.
But this is the first evidence that the FBI is using the same tactics. Presumably, suspects using one of the better encryption options — like WPA-2 — are immune.
It’s not clear why the FBI said it could only obtain a file tree — a hierarchical list of directories and files. It could be to avoid the risk of a judge later ruling that the search warrant was unconstitutionally over-broad, and consequently throwing out the evidence. Or maybe the bureau’s hackers don’t want to consume all of a target’s bandwidth while copying his entire porn directory into the FBI van on the street.
Homebrew "cantenna" photo courtesy Clicknmiken

Smoking Ban: Banning Freedom