Richard Spencer banned from 26 European countries.

Source: The Hill

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer has been banned from entering 26 countries in Europe, The Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Spencer said in an interview that he hasn’t received government confirmation about his ban from the more than two dozen countries in Europe’s visa-free Schengen area, including Poland, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Sweden.

“I’m being treated like a criminal by the Polish government. It’s just insane,” Spencer said. “I haven’t done anything. What are they accusing me of?”

Spencer said he would try and contest the ban, which would last for five years, according to the AP.

Spencer canceled plans to travel to Poland earlier this month after seeing reports the government was threatening to keep him out of the country, he said.

Spencer was previously banned from the Schengen zone for three years after his 2014 arrest in Hungary.

Spencer, a leader of the "alt-right" movement, has been a lightning rod for controversy in recent months. He helped organize a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, which turned violent and led to the death of one person.

His speeches have drawn raucous protests, and university’s and other venues have canceled his speaking appearances, citing public safety concerns.

Oh gee, Spencer. I wonder why Poland treated you "like a criminal", not like you back an ideology of a former government that oppressed Poland in any way...

Kinda nice that they have banned him again rather quickly after his previous ban ended.

Good.

Is he banned in Canada too?

I'm okay with this.

I dislike Richard Spencer...

But seriously? I say, unban him, Let him come to the countries so he can expose himself as the dip**** he is.

@Maroxad: He can already expose himself as an idiot over the internet. Doesn’t need to physically be in the country.

Thing is in most of the countries he's banned from, they'd take him to courts and possibly jail if he were to hold a speech to incite violence and/or hatred towards specific groups of people.
So a ban is better for him.

Not to mention there is a rise of fascism in several European countries that the governments are trying to subdue.

I have honestly no idea what qualifies for being banned.

Stupid ban and very pathetic of those countries, the fact that you would be afraid of Richard Spencer shows that you KNOW people in your countries are unhappy but you CHOOSE to suppress them.

If your government is worried that one person would influence a large population, doesn't that give you an idea of what people REALLY think? and in light of this do you honestly think banning Richard Spencer will change their minds? this is just out right suppression and it will only make people angrier.

Also as someone who lives in Europe, I wasn't aware that fascism is rising here, or are you perhaps one of those narrow minded fools who calls anybody who is an inch of right from the center a "fascist"?

Public Humiliation > Humiliation Online

On the social side, we are on the winning side, no need to be so insecure. We can let our superior ideas speak for themselves. No need to ban people with dissenting opinions.

Spoken like someone who clearly isn't a target for the kind of rhetoric that Spencer spews. Your bit about superior ideas that speak for themselves is incredibly naive lol. I bet you also think you'll change Spencer's mind or "beat" him by having a reasoned debate too.

Also, there is more to this than just "dissenting opinions". It's that Spencer and his ilk bring violence and rioting where ever they gather. Don't blame the countries at all for not wanting any of that and this can only be a net positive since Spencer and his followers have absolutely nothing of value to add to society.

Even if he did. I would support his right to freedom of speech.

What happened to, don't shoot the messenger?

Dude acts like a cult leader that exploits weak minded and ignorant people.

He's a national Bolshevik too.

He is a cult leader, a political cult is still a cult.

Every freedom has limits, especially in Europe. He certainly doesn't have the right to incite violence and racism.

No I don't, It's one thing to be wary and questionable on immigration policies and immigrants. It's something else if one portray them as less then human and in solely a negative light.

I say rising, Guess it's more correct to say they're more out in the public eye now rather then keeping it low key.

And if you are unaware of the couple of marches and groups that's sprung up then I'd have to say I'm a little surprised.

So racists and hate groups should be coddled?

Good for them. These countries aren't infringing on his free speech, they have every right to deny entry to a cancer. Spencer can keep spewing his shit online if he wants.

@nintendoboy16: Too bad the U.S. couldn't ban him also. Sick of his agenda. Makes no sense to actual "humans".

Spencer is not the only american banned from entering any Schengen eu country.

And it´s actually pretty simple, if one schengen country decides someone is unwanted in their country, that person will be stopped from entering at the schengen border. Since they are in a union.

Spencer tho can still enter any european country not a member.

I know how it works if one is banned. Border control within EU is pretty relaxed.

I agree with this. 2 or 3 years ago there was an imam planning to do a talk in the city I was living in Australia. A lot of people wanted him banned from coming into the country. He was very homophobic and sexist, but he never called for death or violence. I thought he should say what he wanted and let others laugh at him. I am no fan of islam, but apparently I was an isis supporter/apologist for saying that he had the right, and should be able to talk. I think banning people for differing opinions gives them more influence than they deserve. Meh, c'est la vie.

You don't think he's already been exposed for the dipshit he is without having to travel there to demonstrate it?

Funny how Europe is OK treating people that spew hateful nonsense "like criminals". Why, there has not been anyone within the last the last 80 years that said such drivel. And what's the worst that could happen? War? Genocide? Hah, not likely!

...

This part is 100% correct.

And I wonder how many of those people who called you an ISIS supporter/apologist also see themselves as "champions of free speech". So many free speech warriors I have met are absolute hypocrites. "Even free speech has its limits", or you know, "free speech is only fine with it is speech I agree with".

I think the suppression by the MSM is why the most despicable party in my country rose so fast. They refused to buy advertisements from them. They cried like little babies and now they are the second biggest party... sigh.

Why not let him expose his own stupidity infront of a whole new audience?

Now all they have done is brought attention to him. And odds are, he will reach a wider audience than he has already recieved before.

Yup, well in some areas

But my point was that the reason Spencer is banned from entering is not because all the 27 countries share the same opinion. It´s simply that the polish government has decided they do not want him in Polen.

and he is only the 2nd american so far i know about that has been banned from Europe.

I traveled through Denmark and up to Sweden when it was supposed to be strict border control. The airport no one ever saw at my passport. Crossing into Sweden, the control folks come aboard the train at one stop. Checks almost everyone. I get my passport ready, but they don't bother checking it. Checked the group of teenagers next to me though. :P

Freedom of speech is not an absolute and never has been. It also does not leave you free from consequence.

There is no one world gov't so countries are free to enact their own laws.

And countries often have different rules for citizens vs visitors.

These are the core dimensions at play. It is not hypocrisy on any side. It is what happens when more than one principle is at play, each of which is important in isolation, but when combined leave people with different perspectives because they rank order them differently depending on the scenario.

Defender of free speech? So, ISIS recruiters should be able to stand on any street corner and the police should be forced to defend them from those that would harm them. Right?

Believe that your perspective on laws regarding free speech are right and other countries should abide by them? Then you agree that all of your own country's laws should be reviewed and compared against best in class, right?

Believe visitors should be entitled to free speech? Should they also be entitled to all the rights and privileges afforded by the visited country? Perhaps they should be able to vote if their are in-country on election day?

There aren't absolutes. There is no universal correct answer. And most importantly it isn't hypocrisy. They are all judgement calls based upon competing principles.

So what you are saying is that you are ok with censorship as long as it goes your way?

And free speech is absolute , there is no middle ground , there is no way to give your side a easier pass and not also allow the opposite.

@Jacanuk: No country has freedom of speech as an absolute. And way to not understand a single thing I wrote.

If it was absolute, then a death threat wouldn't get you trouble with the police.

And that would just be silly