
Republican Rep. William Hurd disinvited from Black Hat conference - avinium
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rep-will-hurd-conservative-cybersecurity-black-hat-conference
======
nmstoker
Seems an unfortunate state of affairs

Here's what the conference said on the matter:
[https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-
usa-...](https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-
usa-2019-keynote-update.html)

It creates a healthier society if we can listen to people even when we don't
agree with their views, thus I am not be in favour of this becoming the norm.
It's also deeply impolite to withdraw an invite in this manner when no new
information has come to light, merely a change of mind. If he'd been
discovered to be dishonest or a criminal that's one thing, but "meh, thinking
about it, we don't think we want you to come any more, even though we asked
you before, when we did want you to come" doesn't cut it.

Will be interesting to see if they stick to the apolitical line consistently
with others.

------
kylnew
The amount of downvoting on opinions you disagree with in this thread is
disappointing. It’s funny that the discussion is about listening to others we
disagree with, but simultaneously valid ideas/comments are being grayed out
and pushed down into obscurity

~~~
humanrebar
I think downvoting for toxic tone is fair, especially if the tone is rooted in
bigotry.

------
finnthehuman
If hackers want to get involved with government policy, they’re going to have
to learn to have a conversation with elected reps when they disagree on
policy. Doubly so if the policy in question gets them hot under the collar.

~~~
humanrebar
Especially since both sides of the aisle have wrongheaded policies from a
hacker perspective.

Want to get progress on DRM laws? It probably won't happen solely by talking
to a coalition that includes Hollywood and the broader creative community.

------
finnthehuman
This kind of power move works when you’re disinviting bloggers nobody has
heard of. Disinviting a sitting representative just looks like burying your
head in the sand and expecting everyone to adapt to your point of view just
because you let it be known you’re cross.

How do you think lobbyists get the policy changes they’re after? By giving the
cold shoulder to any rep not already predisposed to voting in their preferred
direction?

~~~
onboardram
I think lobbyists use money.

~~~
taborj
Generally speaking, most governments run on favors. "You support this for me,
I'll support this for you."

------
RickJWagner
Shameful and counter-productive.

We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning
people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step backwards. If you disagree
with someone, hear them out and then explain why your idea is better.

~~~
cal5k
I can’t pinpoint exactly when the shift happened, but in the recent past the
tech industry was always the first to defend free speech and the open exchange
of ideas. Today it seems to be increasingly beholden to a loud minority of
employees with some very illiberal views about speech.

~~~
kristiandupont
I don't know about generally, but my own feeling is that I am more reluctant
about the whole thing because a lot of the people chanting about freedom of
speech seem to be destructive and ill-intentioned these days.

~~~
humanrebar
So free speech is guilty by association?

I understand the emotional reaction. I don't understand how nominally rational
people don't overrule their collective id on this one.

------
smt88
Why is this controversial? Black Hat is a private business that needs to
decide how best to make attendees happy and convince them to return. Hurd's
beliefs/votes are (as far as I can tell) uniformly in the
minority[1][2][3][4][5], which means his presence is likely to make most of
the attendees angry, perhaps to the point of boycotting the event.

The majority of Republicans want businesses to have the right to refuse
gays[5], so it seems logical that they (and Will Hurd) would support the right
to refuse to include someone based on ideology.

1\. [https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-
ga...](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-
marriage/)

2\. [https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-
belief...](https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-beliefs-las-
vegas-shooting-polls-surveys-2017-10/)

3\. [https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-
data/yc...](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-
us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county)

4\.
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

5\. [https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-
religio...](https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religious-
service-refusals-to-gay-and-lesbian-people/)

~~~
treesrule
It is controversial because I want to live in a country where I am not
ostracized for having unpopular opinions.

~~~
mikeash
As a member of Congress, he doesn’t merely _have_ unpopular opinions, he’s
trying to impose them on the rest of us.

~~~
Zarathustra_
This could be said of both sides. We elect politicians to pass laws to impose
opinions and values. While you may disagree with those, that doesn't make the
opinion of the large portion of the population which agrees with him invalid.
His opinions may be unpopular among the people who attend Black Hat, but not
so much so among the rest of Americans. Congressman Hurd is also well-known
for supporting cybersecurity initiatives in government, something we need more
of.

If you disagree with Mr. Hurd on many issues, but agree with him on
cybersecurity, why can't you just agree with him there and let him speak? The
politicians with whom I agree only in part are without end.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, this is why we elect representatives. So what? My point is that he
doesn’t merely _have_ opinions. The fact that this is true of all other
legislators just reinforces my point.

------
rndmize
What a joke. Another conservative politician calling for people to work
together, for "real debate". I suppose the eight years of Republican
stonewalling the Obama administration on literally everything, from
legislation to judges to executive branch appointees, to an unheard of degree
- is just supposed to be forgotten?

Perhaps we should have a look at where he stood on the ACA - I don't suppose
he was part of the Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then
didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took
control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?

> He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.[41] In
> 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care
> Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political
> quandary.[42] Hurd did not say whether he supported or opposed the
> legislation.[41][43] Ultimately, after the measure was declared dead and
> withdrawn from a planned vote due to insufficient support, Hurd "released a
> statement in which he appeared to oppose the overhaul."

Pathetic. The use of the ACA by Republicans for campaigning for _nearly a
decade_ and then their utter failure to repeal or replace it once they had
full control of the federal government will stain them forever in my eyes (or
at a minimum, the ones in federal office at the time).

It would be great to have a government that focused on policy problems and
policy solutions, that had reasoned, evidence-based debates on issues.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has done more than any other force to
destroy that (Office of Technology Assessment, anyone?). The fact that today,
in 2019, we have a Republican president who refuses to admit global warming is
a thing, is another exemplar of Republican policy and strategy - which is not
to debate, but to avoid it; to hide and ignore and defund evidence when
inconvenient; to focus on emotions instead of logic and reason.

There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain
on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.

~~~
smush
> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain
> on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you
disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a
similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a
general rule.

~~~
dariusj18
I think the perceived issue is not that they disagree on the subject, but that
they fundamentally don't trust them to be working with you in good faith.

~~~
smush
I agree.

If I were to place myself in the position of this congressman, I don't have a
good answer to as how to convince them that I'm arguing in good faith.

If the criterion for arguing in good faith is too narrowly defined, it can
turn into 'agree with me on everything or else you are arguing in bad faith'

------
youdontknowtho
He seems self-aware enough to realize that he was disinvited because of his
conservative voting record. That's the point. The things he's voted for a bad
for the country and its people.

He is exhibiting a common tactic for right-wingers. Break norms, assault
liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when someone calls them on it.
Some of the people that will be at black hat are threatened by the policies
they advocate.

~~~
microcolonel
> _Break norms, assault liberal republican democracy and then cry foul when
> someone calls them on it._

Most people in the U.S. do not think elective late term abortions should be
lawful. Opposition to elective late term abortions is the norm, whatever you
think about the issue.

------
moomin
Conservatives don't want freedom of speech. They want freedom from
consequences. Everyone knows what Will Hurd thinks. That's why he got
disinvited.

Call me back about the chilling effects of this when he can't get onto Fox
News with those views.

------
netsharc
I don't know what his viewpoints are, but what if the person's viewpoint is
"climate change is fake" and "the earth is flat". Wouldn't hearing them out
just be a waste of time?

~~~
cglace
Not hearing him out will mean “They are trying to hide the truth. They are
afraid he will convince more people that the flat earth is flat”

~~~
dudleypippin
There needs to be a middle ground between shutting down actual dialog and
allowing flatearthers to suck all the air from the room. We all have limited
time on this (roundish, mind you) earth and it sucks to have to rehash
arguments. “No, no, just hear me out” is a hard thing to stomach from someone
you know is yammering just to waste your time.

~~~
cglace
I think the worst thing you could do is invite a flat earther(or anyone else
you disagree with) and then disinvite them. You have now given them a larger
audience and new reason to say they are being censored.

