> While clearly legal, it's strikes me as a terrible precedent to require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test. It's funny, in some cou

> While clearly legal, it's strikes me as a terrible precedent to require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test. It's funny, in some countries you have laws against hate speech - it probably wouldn't be legal to write stuff like "blacks make good slaves because of their genetics" [sic] - but in the US because of the free speech thing society relies on all these extrajudicial lynch mobs. So... terrible precedent or common sense?