|
|
|
|
#1
11-01-2014, 11:43 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
But look, every constitutional right has limits: I'm a staunch defender of the 1st amendment, but even I want to see some asshole who yells "fire" in a crowded theater go to jail. Same deal here: are your rights also violated because the government won't let you bring guns in your carry on luggage? The whole way rights work is based on this idea of a sphere of autonomy. Each of us has a little bubble around us that's our rights, and no one can fuck with that bubble normally. But when your bubble and my bubble collide, those rights have to adjust. For instance, I have every right to swing my arm around as much as I want ... until I stand next to you and swinging my arm would actually mean punching you: at that point I've lost my right to swing my arms around. But if I'm wrong, by all means show me the Supreme Court ruling where they say that banning guns in a particular event for safety reasons is a constitutional violation. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#2
11-01-2014, 12:04 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
"Given that she had received many of the same sorts of threats and none of the threats had materialized into anything specific, that was part of the context of the investigation," Vitale said. "That led us to believe that the threat was not imminent or real." USU officials also pointed to a 2004 state law preventing public universities from restricting guns. Sarkeesian said she asked for metal detectors or pat-downs at the entrance of the Taggart Student Center auditorium, but USU police said they could not prevent those in attendance from carrying weapons into the lecture if they had concealed weapons permits. Though she said, "in hindsight, I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with any weapons in the auditorium." Police instead promised more officers and a backpack check at the doors. Sarkeesian said she asked whether police could screen the audience for guns and let them in if they had permits, but Vitale said campus law enforcement officers believed that would have been needlessly invasive for the audience. "If we felt it was necessary to do that to protect Miss Sarkeesian, we absolutely would have done that," Vitale said. "We felt the level of security presence we were putting into this was completely adequate to provide a safe environment." But, Vitale said, that determination doesn’t replace Sarkeesian’s own judgment, noting that "she’s the one who is standing in front of the audience; she’s the one who has been receiving death threats." Sarkeesian said the threats were specific, with one claiming, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." "It’s unacceptable that the school is unable or unwilling to screen for firearms at a lecture on their campus, especially when a specific terrorist threat had been made against the speaker," she said. USU always has allowed guns at campus events, including speeches by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 and actor and activist Danny Glover, whose commencement address in 2010 was targeted by hate mail but nothing rising to the level of a death threat, Vitale said. So a famous actor and a supreme court judge can still give their speeches with guns allowed, but I guess they aren't special little snowflakes like a raging feminist is. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
11-01-2014, 12:28 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
But I also don't think Anita did anything wrong: she has every right to chose when, where and if she speaks. If I got death threats for weeks, and then specific ones for that event, I might be concerned about speaking there too. When you're worried about a crazy psycho trying to kill you, the idea of an audience full of gun-bearers can be a little intimidating. All I was saying was, had the school decided to ban guns at the event because they wanted to placate their speaker, it wouldn't have been a constitutional violation. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
11-01-2014, 01:26 PM
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you look closer into the event though, you'll see that it was going to be an open forum with an unfiltered Q&A session, Anita has a history of only doing closed speeches and pre-approved questions. This is the real reason she canceled. Quote:
Would it be stupid? Absolutely. Gun free zones don't work, this has been quantifiably proven over the past twenty years. Mass shootings only happen in gun free zones, the most violent cities in the country have strict gun free policies. If anything, disarming the bystanders only invites someone to come in and do damage. If you were planning an attack and you found out the speaker just disarmed all of your targets... do math. Quote:
| ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
#5
11-01-2014, 02:03 PM
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Similarly, when someone fears for their life, they don't think "am I more likely to be killed by lightning or a psycho killer?" (By the way, that's a dumb comparison people keep making because the rate of people who die after getting death threats is very different from the rate of people in the general population). Most people, when they get a death threat, think "OMFG someone is trying to kill me BECAUSE THEY SENT ME A LETTER SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO KILL ME!" Now I don't care how much you disagree with her point of view, her PR strategy, or her career as a "professional victim" (whatever that even means). I personally don't have strong feelings about her one way or the other. What I do have strong feelings about is that no one should have to put up with death threats because someone disagrees with their point of view, whether that person is Salmon Rushdie, President Obama, or Anita. And anyone who does get those threats definitely shouldn't have to go anywhere that they've been specifically targeted with a death threat if they don't want to. Quote:
| |||||
|
|
||||||
|
#6
11-01-2014, 02:08 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#7
11-01-2014, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
