petergriffin999 t1_iuignaw wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:05 PM

Reply to comment by warren_stupidity in Dartmouth cancels live event due to fear of protesters by Hilarias_Glucose_Cup

Attempting to prevent, by breaking laws, whether successful or not... others from hearing the opposing viewpoint, is unacceptable.

You can have your opinion. You can organize your own public speaking event at the school to express your viewpoint. You can stand to the side and not impede others from entering the building, just like the anti abortionists are required to, and shout till your heart is content, without breaking any laws, and be free from persecution by the govt.

If you glue yourself to the doors, pull fire alarms, call in threats, or, like many loony liberals do: assault, throw concrete milkshakes, etc -- you should be arrested and prosecuted.

warren_stupidity t1_iuihy6d wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:14 PM

OK. But none of that happened here. In fact it was the event organization itself that cancelled the event. No assaults occurred, no protest happened. It wasn't even Dartmouth that cancelled. These snowflakes decided that there was more to be gained by playing the victim than by presenting their shitty case for bigotry.

Hilarias_Glucose_Cup OP t1_iuipymw wrote on October 31, 2022 at 5:07 PM

You are just being a disingenuous. Dartmouth forced the cancellation of the event by adding insurmountable roadblocks. If the original logistics had been allowed by Dartmouth the event would have proceeded. Why do think it is justified that Dartmouth limits the event to students only when they had previously said it was okay for the public to attend? Why do you think it is acceptable to screen questions? Why would they want to insert an unaffiliated speaker ahead of the event? None of that makes any sense unless you look at it from the perspective of wanting to force the event organizers into not coming.