| The endorsement is implicit, not explicit. Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a compelling presentation on topic W." Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z, which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?" Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical." PA: "If you feature this speaker, you will cause some people to be reluctant to associate with your conference as well." Conf: "We understand that, but speaker A is discussing topic W, not topics X, Y, or Z. We choose to feature the speaker because of their presentation on W." By taking this position, the conference associates itself with the speaker. Possible attendees will see this association and draw the conclusion that the conference endorses the speaker, even if that endorsement is only about non-controversial things that are within the topic of the conference. Dryly stating that there is no endorsement of any off-topic position does not remove that association and the implicit endorsement. Implicit endorsement by association is a real effect. Go talk to any major politician about how they can't be seen talking to anyone remotely controversial, because of how associating with that person might be seen as endorsement. |
This is totally wrong.
To take a trivial example, criminal defendants (even obviously guilty ones) are allowed to speak in court.
You're saying that this is an "implicit endorsement" of their crimes by the court? Are you really claiming that?