[emilfihlman]

>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.”

I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right?

Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security

Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship.

The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.

[emilfihlman]

Yes I agree that it's quite silly, of course if we assume they acted in a reasonable way (which I can't say for certain if the security had to result to forcefully ejecting them).

It very badly damages credibility to misrepresent what happened. It doesn't further the cause, only damages it.

[ModernMech]

That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?

[emilfihlman]

It reduces their credibility if they misrepresent the story.

[mcphage]

> given the opportunity to cease this behavior

What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?

[40four]

Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?

[throwaway173738]

No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules

Now I’m actually curious for names. One of the people thrown out is an (the?) editor of the ADA’s journal. Who in the chain of command made this call?