That’s not what I said either, @Ohiodad51
Institutions decide to dis-invite speakers fairly often, OP starts a thread on them most every time.
I notice none was started when Harvard-Kennedy dis-invited Manning, though, That doesn’t fit the narrative of a certain type of free speech champion and a certain type of oppressive censor I suppose.
I don’t think I am any more intellectually limited than the next guy, but I honestly don’t see the relationship here. If you want to make the point that not making Manning a fellow is like disinviting Condi Rice (off the top of my head), then that is a different debate.
Why are you spreading miss-information? Manning was never dis-invited.
@zinhead Was Manning initially invited to be a visiting fellow? Was that invitation then withdrawn under pressure from various government officials?
I think that’s what makes it extra scary - that government officials caused the invite to be rescinded. Not protesting students, who have little power to censor speakers in the grand scheme of things.
@OHMomof2 - It would be helpful if you actually became acquainted with the facts before posting so I do not have to transcribe the article linked in post 22.
Manning was initially invited to speak as a visiting fellow. After the invitation was made public, Mike Pompeo, director of the CIA, cancelled his speaking engagement at Harvard. At the same time, the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell, also resigned from his fellowship at Harvard’s Belfer school over Manning’s invitation. You can easily google Pompeo’s letter with his reasons for withdrawing.
Subsequently, Harvard withdrew the Manning’s designation of visiting fellow, but maintained Manning’s invitation to visit and speak at the school. Manning then sensed a publicity coup, and decided not to accept the invitation to speak.
With the exception of your editorial comment at the end, those are the facts, yes.
Does that make Pompeo and Morell snowflakes? 
Lewandowski isn’t a convicted felon who was sentenced to 35 years in prison, and there are lots of Democrats who absolutely despise Manning.
Regardless of his politics, Corey is pretty useless IMO.
No, because they didn’t show up at a speech by Manning and hurl inane insults, rush the stage, pull fire alarms, blow air horns, or demand safe spaces from the off chance that a rouge thought would some how make its way past their mental defenses.
No one tried to stop Manning from speaking. That is inarguable. The effort to argue past that fact, like similar previous efforts to assert that the videos taken at places like Yale didn’t actually show what they recorded, is very puzzling to me. Facts remain facts. Events occur or they do not.
More broadly, I do not understand how people think it is persuasive to argue that protests of all kinds that fit their world view or which are undertaken by ideological allies are noble and good (remember “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”?), but that any effort other than full throated approval by the “other” side is out of bounds.
Well sure, they didn’t have to. All THEY had to do was express their displeasure by withdrawing their own speaking engagements and threaten to do worse.
They’re not kids, they have far more power, and they obviously felt threatened enough to use it. The world IS their safe space and they made sure it stayed that way.
[quote @roethlisburger …there are lots of Democrats who absolutely despise Manning.
[/quote]
Exactly. These free speech issues are not about political affiliation.
^ I admire the zeal with which you are attempting to grasp a very greasy thread at least.
But no, I don’t agree that Morrell and Pompeo are required to acquiesce to your preferred result.
And like most people I believe there is a huge difference between refusing to participate in something with which you disagree and actively attempting to silence different opinions.
And though you continue to blow right by the most salient point, for others who may be reading, neither Morrell nor Pompeo “threatened” anyone, or took any action to prevent Manning from speaking. The decision not to speak was Manning’s alone.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/pompeo-cancels-harvard-speech-over-manning-appointment/article/2009674
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/cia-michael-morell-quits-harvard-chelsea-manning-242738
IDK how you define “action” but to most people, these are actions, protests if you will, designed to effect a change.
Let’s imagine for a moment this headline:
Harvard withdraws invitation to Scooter Libby after backlash
Attorney General Loretta Lynch withdraws from speaking slot and former CIA Director John Brennan quits Harvard post over hiring.
I also think that would be worth calling Harvard out on.
Here is a copy of Pompeo’s letter to Harvard:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/DirectorPompeoLettertoHarvard.pdf
Note the sentence in the third paragraph which states:
No. Morrell and Pompeo are entitled to decide who they will associate with, and it is wrong of you to state that their decision to withdraw their association with the program was a threat. No one ever told Manning that she couldn’t speak, or in any way interfered with her accepting the invitation to do so. It is also wrong to intimate that they did. Period.
Personally, and as I have said countless times, I think more speech is better then less. But I understand how individuals who have devoted their professional lives to intelligence would object strongly to being associated with someone who pled guilty to treason and whose actions in disseminating tens of thousands of pages of secret material inarguably put American and other lives at risk.
How Manning became a rock star to the left simply because she is trans has always puzzled me.
And equating Manning with Scooter Libby? Please.
You can nitpick about Manning and Libby, but I used him as an example because both leaked state secrets, both could have endangered undercover agents and both were later pardoned. And if we care about free speech the nuances do not matter anyway, right?
My point is when a conservative speaker is shut down by students, there is a very predictable outcry here, but when powerful conservatives shut a speaker down that they do not like, crickets.
Manning is a great example of speech being chilled by powerful government officials. Harvard didn’t want to lose those two (and likely more) prestigious and powerful affiliated fellows/whatever over this, so they made it basically impossible for Manning to come. “Oh you can still speak” is a little bone they threw out to cover themselves after they took a very public position against her.
I’m not surprised you don’t see it this way.
With respect to freedom of speech, opposition to such is certainly not unique to college students, since a prominent older adult politician has been calling to revoke the broadcast license of a major television news network based on the content of what it airs.
Libby was never pardoned.
Libby didn’t leak state secrets either (Richard Armitage leaked Plame’s identity), nor did he plead guilty to treason (he was convicted of obstruction and making false statements to a grand jury) , or put American or allied lives in danger.
And how exactly did Harvard make it “impossible” for Manning to speak?
And yes, I do not think that everyone must universally accept the most leftward position on any given issue. You are right about that.