4 ms·

> The right to face one's accuser and cross-examine Sorry, you don't have the "right" to attend a conference -- and as long as it's not based on things that ar

> The right to face one's accuser and cross-examine Sorry, you don't have the "right" to attend a conference -- and as long as it's not based on things that are prohibited (sex, race etc) -- a conference can exclude you for any reason, or no reason at all. Honestly, I only heard about this a while back because Hadnagy made a fuss about it. DefCon, on the other hand, hasn't said too much. If the root of this was a criminal action, then you'd be right about facing accusers and cross examination. But this isn't that. You don't have constitutional rights to attend a conference.

hansvm 4y ago
> If the root of this was a criminal action, then you'd be right about facing accusers and cross examination. Defamation is criminal in some places, and you have a right to cross examine accusers wrt civil infractions anyway. Maybe that bar doesn't get met in this case, but TFA was pretty clear that the alleged issues aren't just not attending a conference.
- cloudsec9 4y ago
  > right to cross examine accusers Except no, you don't. Criminal cases involve losing your liberty or worse, so defendants have rights, including examining witnesses and evidence, and a high standard of proof. In civil cases, the penalty is usually monetary. There is discovery and depositions, but there are more limits on who might have to be deposed or testify. Also, importantly: Who are the accusers here? Hint: In the court case, it's the Plaintiff. My opinion here is the plaintiff is trying to frame it otherwise, but as I said earlier, as long as the conference didn't ban someone for illegal reasons, they can. > pretty clear that the alleged issues aren't just not attending a conference. IANAL, but I've read some lawyer reviews of the case, and it doesn't seem to be strong and might not go very far. Did he get all of his customers from just this conference? (If so, that seems to be a poor biz decision) But I don't think it helps the case that the Plaintiff has been trying to draw attention to the case, including accepting a "surprise" speaking engagement on cancel culture. If you are suing for lost business, I'm pretty sure you have to actively try to mitigate, and leaning in is the opposite of that.

hansvm 4y ago

> If the root of this was a criminal action, then you'd be right about facing accusers and cross examination. Defamation is criminal in some places, and you have a right to cross examine accusers wrt civil infractions anyway. Maybe that bar doesn't get met in this case, but TFA was pretty clear that the alleged issues aren't just not attending a conference.

cloudsec9 4y ago
> right to cross examine accusers Except no, you don't. Criminal cases involve losing your liberty or worse, so defendants have rights, including examining witnesses and evidence, and a high standard of proof. In civil cases, the penalty is usually monetary. There is discovery and depositions, but there are more limits on who might have to be deposed or testify. Also, importantly: Who are the accusers here? Hint: In the court case, it's the Plaintiff. My opinion here is the plaintiff is trying to frame it otherwise, but as I said earlier, as long as the conference didn't ban someone for illegal reasons, they can. > pretty clear that the alleged issues aren't just not attending a conference. IANAL, but I've read some lawyer reviews of the case, and it doesn't seem to be strong and might not go very far. Did he get all of his customers from just this conference? (If so, that seems to be a poor biz decision) But I don't think it helps the case that the Plaintiff has been trying to draw attention to the case, including accepting a "surprise" speaking engagement on cancel culture. If you are suing for lost business, I'm pretty sure you have to actively try to mitigate, and leaning in is the opposite of that.