Sarkeesian cancels speech after mass-shooting threat due to cop refusing to ban gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

massoluk

Banned
http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...esian-cancels-utah-speech-20141014-story.html

“Anita Sarkeesian has canceled her scheduled speech for tomorrow following a discussion with Utah State University police regarding an email threat that was sent to Utah State University," the announcement on the university website said. "During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.”

Shortly after the announcement, Sarkeesian took to Twitter to criticize the gun policy.

"Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event," she tweeted. "Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches."
Click to expand...

I think this is kinda nuts there. One of the tweets expressed my thought that apparently Right to 2nd Amendment trumped over the Right to the 1st Amendment.
 
I don't think any violation of 1st or 2nd amendments happened. The death threats wouldn't fall under the 1st and she still can say what she wants. She can use Skype. Until we ban guns completely, this can be replicated.

And the first relates to making any law that restricts free speech. Two citizens telling each other to be quiet doesn't violate your first amendment rights.
 
i understand recreational shooting or home self defense, don't really understand the value of being legally allowed to bring a gun without anyone knowing to watch someone give an academic lecture. just a totally pointless freedom, except it means that the talk has to be canceled as they can't make it safe.
 
That open carry policy sounds nuts, you can't have a public event with no guns allowed?

Fucked up that people are still sending her death threats.
 
Really awful stuff to hear. Everything related to Gamergate is just horrible to watch and hear.

And that's seriously messed up they wouldn't allow a search.
 
Just because it's high law doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Also, if that's the case do high-ranking officials make speeches in Utah? How does that work?
 
Somnid said:
Just because it's high law doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Also, if that's the case do high-ranking officials make speeches in Utah? How does that work?
Click to expand...

I presume they deal with the tiny chance of there being an actual threat, and a cop or two are probably around.

When's the last time there was a town hall/gathering/debate/speech shooting in Utah?
 
I'm more surprised that you can open carry on campus. Even here in Texas, you'd be arrested (I've seen the alert emails) for open carry even near UT.
 
Anton Sugar said:
Wha?

How does this resolve this? Does she tell all the registered attendees to join her on Skype? If only she Skypes into the event and the audience still attends, how is that any safer for the audience?
Click to expand...

Prominent speakers can appear via video link (in a sell-out venue) and the appear on projector. I've seen it before, but not due to safety issues.
 
Hari Seldon said:
The law doesn't revolve around you. Either suck it up and give the talk, or just whine about it on the internet.
Click to expand...

Pretty much have to agree here, although I don't really agree with how you put it. If you don't feel safe, you can cancel and explain your reasoning and that's completely fine. But the law doesn't revolve around her, so I don't think they did anything wrong in allowing people to have guns there.
 
Somnid said:
Just because it's high law doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Also, if that's the case do high-ranking officials make speeches in Utah? How does that work?
Click to expand...
Its my understanding that they just take their chances. I dont think political speeches are hugely common there.
 
Hari Seldon said:
The law doesn't revolve around you. Either suck it up and give the talk, or just whine about it on the internet.
Click to expand...

People made death threats alluding to a mass shooting, would you feel comfortable giving a speech after that when guns will be allowed in the building? Just suck it up, right?
 
Hatchtag said:
Pretty much have to agree here, although I don't really agree with how you put it. If you don't feel safe, you can cancel and explain your reasoning and that's completely fine. But the law doesn't revolve around her, so I don't think they did anything wrong in allowing people to have guns there.
Click to expand...
You receive threats of violence at the event if you speak, and you think it's ok not to take preventative measures?
 
crowphoenix said:
You receive threats of violence at the event if you speak, and you think it's ok not to take preventative measures?
Click to expand...

If she's received legitimate death threats and they refuse to enforce a no-weapons policy at the speaking venue that's kind of whack. On the other hand she's letting the terrorists win by not speaking. I disagree with her on many things, but she should be allowed to speak. But I've never received a death threat from someone who wasn't drunk at a bar so I have no idea how she must feel.
 
"Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.”
Click to expand...

Utah is fucked up. Even if there wasn't this whole controversy going on, I still wouldn't feel safe in this environment.
 
BadHand said:
Prominent speakers can appear via video link (in a sell-out venue) and the appear on projector. I've seen it before, but not due to safety issues.
Click to expand...

Right but that doesn't solve the issue of someone threatening to come to the conference itself and shooting up the audience. It was a mass-shooting threat, not an assassination.
 
Holy shit Utah.

So stalkers and creeps are literally allowed to hunt down their victims on campus because ALL GLORY TO THE GUN
 
massoluk said:
I think this is kinda nuts there. One of the tweets expressed my thought that apparently Right to 2nd Amendment trumped over the Right to the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
Isn't the 1st Amendment just about the state not preventing you from voicing your opinions etc.? Not that I overall agree with how they handled it, but the police seems to hold up both rights.
 
That's not how it works, the school is private property. Even in open carry state, the school can simply state that no weapons are allowed and that is that. Just because it's open carry, does NOT mean you can take your weapon anywhere and any place can tell someone that they don't want the weapon on property.
 
crowphoenix said:
You receive threats of violence at the event if you speak, and you think it's ok not to take preventative measures?
Click to expand...

If the venue doesn't want to take preventative measures, it's completely fine for her to cancel. At the same time, the venue has every right not to take preventative measures if they don't feel it's a legitimate threat, just like she has a right to cancel if she feels it is.
 
AkuMifune said:
If she's received legitimate death threats and they refuse to enforce a no-weapons policy at the speaking venue that's kind of whack. On the other hand she's letting the terrorists win by not speaking. I disagree with her on many things, but she should be allowed to speak. But I've never received a death threat from someone who wasn't drunk at a bar so I have no idea how she must feel.
Click to expand...
Honestly, in her place I would have done the same, and the threat was to perform the bloodiest school shooting in American history, so the threat wasn't against her but the attendees.

However, I agree that it is letting them win.
 
BattleMonkey said:
That's not how it works, the school is private property. Even in open carry state, the school can simply state that no weapons are allowed and that is that. Just because it's open carry, does NOT mean you can take your weapon anywhere and any place can tell someone that they don't want the weapon on property.
Click to expand...

Utah State is a public university.
 
Pastry said:
People made death threats alluding to a mass shooting, would you feel comfortable giving a speech after that when guns will be allowed in the building? Just suck it up, right?
Click to expand...

Between the amount of death threats and the amount of actual shootings the odds are so low that it will actually happen that why bother even worrying?
 
Hari Seldon said:
Between the amount of death threats and the amount of actual shootings the odds are so low that it will actually happen that why bother even worrying?
Click to expand...
Have you ever had an anonymous source threaten to rampage kill dozens of women with guns and pipe bombs if you showed up somewhere? No? Then I don't think you get to make these calculations on behalf of people who do.
 
crowphoenix said:
Honestly, in her place I would have done the same, and the threat was to perform the bloodiest school shooting in American history, so the threat wasn't against her but the attendees.

However, I agree that it is letting them win.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. WTF? It's not like she gave Twilight Princess an 8.5.
 
Anton Sugar said:
Right but that doesn't solve the issue of someone threatening to come to the conference itself and shooting up the audience. It was a mass-shooting threat, not an assassination.
Click to expand...

No you're right. I misunderstood your initial comment. I thought you were confused how such an event could be arranged.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Between the amount of death threats and the amount of actual shootings the odds are so low that it will actually happen that why bother even worrying?
Click to expand...

Completely sensible, having someone fear for their life isn't worth the offense gun owners would take if they can't have their gun on them for an hour.
 
I'm not familiar about Gamergate, though I think I know who she is. Since she had death threats, she can have security around her right? or did the Police refused that also?
 
Hari Seldon said:
Between the amount of death threats and the amount of actual shootings the odds are so low that it will actually happen that why bother even worrying?
Click to expand...

I'd figure the line is drawn between me being brave in spite of a threat against myself and me being brave in spite of a threat made against an entire school and putting potentially dozens of lives at risk. 'Suck it up' is not a great way to justify the latter possibility, minuscule as it might actually be.
 
I'm confused. If security is there preventive measures were taken. She isn't suddenly above the law. Politicians deal with death threats all the time and give speeches with security present. I don't disagree with her deciding not to give it if she felt unsafe, but calling out the law because it didn't fit your specific needs is bullshit.
 
Alienous said:
Wait, she thinks someone might shoot at her? Or is it a moral stance about weapons? I'm not quite getting it.
Click to expand...

Someone literally threatened to commit mass murder at the event if she didn't cancel the speech.

She didn't "think" it, it was an actual threat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

17 dead due to an accident in Lisbon
News 
7
281
Nankatsu replied
  • Poll
Who is the best triple threat actor?
36
652
daffyduck replied
South Korean goverment loses 858 TB of data due to fire at single datacenter site
2
56
254
nush replied
Tom Holland Rushed to Hospital After ‘Spider-Man 4’ Stunt Mishap
29
411
DKehoe replied
Does Janet Jackson’s threat still exist?
17
821
Just_one replied
Top Bottom