Orlando officials say they reject the antisemitic conduct reported at the Kia Center, but maintain that a public venue cannot exclude an event solely over political views. Critics accept the constitutional constraint while arguing that policies and security practices should be tested more rigorously.

The dispute centers on whether the city’s denunciation is enough after a combat-sports event allegedly featured an antisemitic slur, Nazi gestures and a swastika flag inside one of Orlando’s most prominent publicly owned venues.

At Saturday’s Duel: Arena event, fighter Paul Miller used an antisemitic insult against opponent Ben Azoulay over the arena microphone, according to reports. Miller also appeared to make Nazi salutes after the bout, while a spectator was reported to have displayed a swastika flag before being removed.¹

Orlando Venues said the conduct did not represent the city or its staff and declared that it “unequivocally condemn[s] all forms of hate speech, discrimination, antisemitism, racism and any message that encourages hatred or violence.”¹ Its central argument, however, was legal: as operator of a public venue, the city said it could not deny access because it disagreed with a group’s ideology or perspective.²

Mayor Buddy Dyer similarly rejected the incident’s message, saying that “hate will never be welcome here” and pledging that Orlando would stand against antisemitism and other forms of hate.² Kia America, the arena’s naming-rights partner, said it did not control operations or security but supported venue personnel’s response.²

State Representative Anna Eskamani, an Orlando mayoral candidate, drew a sharper distinction between protected expression and conduct she said could invite or incite violence. While saying she took the First Amendment seriously, she called for the Kia Center and other public venues to reassess their rules and explore ways to prevent a repeat.²

Both accounts describe broad condemnation of the display. Their difference lies in what should follow: city officials stress constitutional limits while promising a policy review; critics question how the flag entered and whether existing safeguards were adequate.¹