[dpkendal]

> Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

“Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a conference to which you were invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.

[SwellJoe]

Who decides which conferences I will be forced to attend in order to avoid hurting the feelings of white supremacists?

Conferences are private entities that choose their speakers using a variety of metrics. No one is entitled to a speaking spot at a tech conference; the organizers look for speakers that will attract attendees, generate (positive?) buzz, provide good talks, etc. If the people attending the conference and helping with the conference don't want to hear someone who has written in favor of white supremacy speak at length on some topic unrelated to his white supremacist beliefs, why should conference organizers offer him a speaking spot? Who decides who gets to speak, if not the conference organizers?

And, in this case, the conference has decided to ignore the history of the speaker, and the opinions of some conference attendees, and have him speak. That is, again, their choice. I think it's gross, but I'd never suggest they should be prevented from allowing this person to speak. I would not attend a conference with this person as a speaker; not because I'm afraid he'll infect my mind with his peculiar and anachronistic brand of racism (I've read a number of his essays, it would not be exposure to some novel idea), but because I think white supremacists should be shunned. Literally. They should be ignored so hard in our communities that they opt out of them, seeking spaces more friendly to their positions.

Lambda Conf has every right to have someone who thinks slavery is a rather nice idea speak at their conference. Other people have every right to criticize that decision and opt not to participate in that conference.