Utah is a very conservative state with some of the most liberal gun laws (oxymoron alert!) Obvious the current president is not going to be in a hurry to go speak there.
Hardly material to my point whether it's ever the president per se
. It could just as well instead be a small Senate inquiry panel into some crisis of the day, a representative of the ACLU perhaps, any given anti-war campaign... Or maybe just one lone feminist invited by some university. You do seem to be supporting my point in another way: If it is less than a favorable environment for liberal politics, is it more
likely that someone's going to threaten them with violence in order to keep them out? Particularly now that it's been established that on any state campus (at least), there will be no protection?
That said, I would also still maintain that if it were the president or some federal agency, that law would soon find its limits and/or security of some form would find its way there in droves. I don't think that's a shocking assertion. But the point is, one may well wonder what exactly can
be said and get done there by just whom
precisely, in such an environment.
While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.
This isn't "no" publicity and you very well know it. This is not getting to speak. I assume you're partly right - that this still gives her an example to use to champion a cause. And you're partly wrong: Because she doesn't get to speak before people there, some of whom might not know a whole lot about the issues at all, or might be swayed by hearing her. Even red states are not all or forever red... Particularly, not youth on university campuses.
... The Uni is then out of an engagement they are taking a lot of heat for with a slightly plausible excuse for not being paragons of free speech.....life is now good for them.
Eh. Maybe if you assume their enrollment priorities are to get a higher proportion of kids from conservative or even misogynist backgrounds. The others may well take notice, if they are researching the background of where they go to school at all, and look for someplace that people can actually speak on such issues as part of their educational environment. Of course some won't have the family resources to decide based on such things. But quite a few may at least consider it over the next couple years.
Ms. Sarkeesian is in the business of being polarizing.
I think she is trying to raise a topic so people are more aware of it and perhaps reform it. While Rush might think
he's doing the same thing, I rather doubt his rhetoric would do as well on objective measures of stuff he's talked about.
And this sort of wording you're using suggests to me more, that you think she deserves everything she gets. Death threats and all. That is how that sort of conversation typically goes on the far and ugly right. Whoever points out a deep, ongoing problem with evidence and enough fire to be called "emotional" (works double duty when applied to women) is "too excited" or "too biased" or "polarizing." Uh huh, sure.
Her scheduled appearance in a very conservative state is just that. Life is good for her. Threat is called in and even more publicity is generated and life gets even better for her! The University uses this lame ass excuse to instruct the University Police to tell her they cannot protect her. Even more controversy! Hell look how much we are talking about her and I had never even heard of her before. And as a side bonus she gets to throw rocks at the anti gun control crowd and all they can really do is take it and smile. Life is now utterly blissful for her!!
Oh but the gun nuts are
smiling with good reason. They have just been given carte blanche to call up and threaten academics out of speaking at universities whenever they want. That's a hell of a precedent to be smiling over. I highly doubt it is one that Sarkeesian would have planned in advance. It would be one hell of a Pyrrhic victory, if she is at all concerned about related causes as you seem to suggest. Granted maybe you
think she's simply that clueless.
And you really think life is "utterly blissful" for someone who was already, previously
receiving death threats and being forced to move out of her home before all this? Really now.