One of the articles speaks about a guy who spoke at Defconf and promoted giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time.
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
Did you read the same article I did? IN the article I read, the security showed up and sat next to him during his diatribe and only removed him AFTER one of the spectators appeared to be on the verge of violence toward the speaker(and this was during or after the Q&A portion of the presentation).
"Suddenly one of the conference organizers who goes by the name Priest appeared with two or three additional goons. They made their way to the stage and Priest took a chair not far from the speaker's. He was heard to tell the young man, "We are here for your protection." After listening for a couple of minutes, Priest took a mic and announced that Defcon did not advocate criminal activity of any kind. "
Was this needed? Didn't this interfere with his right to free
The safety of the attendees and speakers is the responsibility of the organizers, So the "goons" job is to protect defcon from liability.
The fact that they allowed him to continue his tirade about burning down the RNC showed remarkable restraint. And obviously, they were there for his protection if an attendee appeared ready to do violence on his person.
But thanks for quoting the article and making my point perfectly clear.
Once again, I see nothing in Priest's or the "gorrillas" behaviour that wa
About one of the articles posted... (Score:1, Interesting)
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
As far as I can tell f
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:0)
"Suddenly one of the conference organizers who goes by the name Priest appeared with two or three additional goons. They made their way to the stage and Priest took a chair not far from the speaker's. He was heard to tell the young man, "We are here for your protection." After listening for a couple of minutes, Priest took a mic and announced that Defcon did not advocate criminal activity of any kind. "
Was this needed? Didn't this interfere with his right to free
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:1)
The fact that they allowed him to continue his tirade about burning down the RNC showed remarkable restraint. And obviously, they were there for his protection if an attendee appeared ready to do violence on his person.
But thanks for quoting the article and making my point perfectly clear.
Once again, I see nothing in Priest's or the "gorrillas" behaviour that wa