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?
How many times are you going to repost that same text? If you'd spent more time RTFA, you'd see that the panel was over, and they took him out the back way to defuse a situation. (Regardless of his safety, it was getting in the way of setting up the next panel.)
Nope, it was not. I suggest you go back and re-read the article yourself.
In fact, half way through his speech, the goons came over and took the mic over to reassure everyone that they did not agree with the speaker's opinions.
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:1)
Re:About one of the articles posted... (Score:0)
In fact, half way through his speech, the goons came over and took the mic over to reassure everyone that they did not agree with the speaker's opinions.