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).
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @02:17PM (#9870326)
Here are the relevant parts of the article:
"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 speech and undermine his message? I must admit that I think it takes guts to continue speaking after having three gorillas around you whose intentions you do not know. In fact, if I had been the guy I would have been nervous the minute they told me that they were there for "my protection".
"The talk ended shortly thereafter and a swell" of people crowded near the stage to engage the speaker. One attendee got right in the speaker's face -- literally only inches apart -- and the two exchanged heated words. It looked like there was going to be physical violence. Priest told the goons to take the speaker out of the room the back way and to take him to a safe place until things calmed down a bit. The removal of the speaker was quick, deft, and probably the only thing that prevented a bad situation from becoming a lot worse. Kudos to Priest and his goons for their quick action. I mention this only because the speaker and one of his crew seemed not to appreciate having been hustled out of the area."
Well, I woulnd't either. It is my own responsibility to take care of myself and I wouldn't be happy about being forcibly removed from anywhere. And the article doesn't say that he threatened anybody in the audience with violence, even if there were heated words.
"I spoke briefly with Priest an hour later and asked how he happened to come upon the scene so quickly. He said:
We got the call for trouble in the room. The gentleman, I was told, was preaching sedition. I knew that we had to take some steps quickly preventing that. Defcon is definitely for free speech, definitely for legal civil disobedience. But not anarchy, not psychopathic destruction of property."
Legal civil disobedience is an oxymoron as somebody else has pointed out and having some goon decide what is or isn't appropriate speech makes me nervous.
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 speech and undermine his message? I must admit that I think it takes guts to continue speaking after having three gorillas around you whose intentions you do not know. In fact, if I had been the guy I would have been nervous the minute they told me that they were there for "my protection".
"The talk ended shortly thereafter and a swell" of people crowded near the stage to engage the speaker. One attendee got right in the speaker's face -- literally only inches apart -- and the two exchanged heated words. It looked like there was going to be physical violence. Priest told the goons to take the speaker out of the room the back way and to take him to a safe place until things calmed down a bit. The removal of the speaker was quick, deft, and probably the only thing that prevented a bad situation from becoming a lot worse. Kudos to Priest and his goons for their quick action. I mention this only because the speaker and one of his crew seemed not to appreciate having been hustled out of the area."
Well, I woulnd't either. It is my own responsibility to take care of myself and I wouldn't be happy about being forcibly removed from anywhere. And the article doesn't say that he threatened anybody in the audience with violence, even if there were heated words.
"I spoke briefly with Priest an hour later and asked how he happened to come upon the scene so quickly. He said:
We got the call for trouble in the room. The gentleman, I was told, was preaching sedition. I knew that we had to take some steps quickly preventing that. Defcon is definitely for free speech, definitely for legal civil disobedience. But not anarchy, not psychopathic destruction of property."
Legal civil disobedience is an oxymoron as somebody else has pointed out and having some goon decide what is or isn't appropriate speech makes me nervous.
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