We are currently led to believe that the early invitation to speak issued to Mr. Crockford has been rescinded due to some horrible and recent behavior on the part of Mr. Crockford, sufficient to warrant taking said secret allegations seriously enough to both rescind the invitation AND maintain the secrecy of both the allegations AND the identities of the accusors.
While we, the rubber-necking public, are not "owed" any explanation, it's not a reasonable position to not provide one.
The pastebin conversation suffices, meanwhile to show us, the rubber-necking public, the paucity and weakness of evidence being used to dis-invite Mr. Crockford.
This is seriously some stupid shit.
It's not advancing humanity at all, and it's not EVEN worthy of the label "Social Justice Warrior" as it's more American cultural colonialism, forcing the world at large to behave like a stupid American television series of 30-minute-episodic-duration, often set in a domestic kitchenette... but I digress...
The actual Social Justice Warriors are concerned about real issues.
Regarding the other meaning, I could only repeat myself: they state that some other speakers have big problems with Crockford, and that they chose them over him. I think it's totally ok for them to do that, even without providing more information.
In fact, it's totally conceivable that revealing more information could hurt more people, or the same people more, or Crockford himself, or all of this. I fail to see how it would "advance humanity" if they did such a thing.
innuendo ALSO says something...
it says: these charges are big enough and serious enough to grant anonomity to said "other speakers" and grant secrecy to the stated charges.
Bottom line: they are a private entity and can do whatever they wish to, more or less, however, I don't consider their petty behavior reasonable in any way, especially given the context and further info released, inadvertently or otherwise...(pastebin of Slack conversation)
"The correct thing for the organization to do" is also not really a matter of our public concern. They have already made their move, and it's shameful and wrong, IMO.
Our public concern (that which WILL advance humanity) lies in crucifying such behavior as this conference organizer has displayed, to discourage further disgusting displays of intellectual cowardice and perversion of REAL social justice issues.
Once you let privileged bullies grasp a bit of power, they don't tend to let go. It's really quite oppressive, and makes me uncomfortable. (and yes, the ability to get a keynote speaker thrown-off in a public and last minute fashion is a kind of power and privilege wielded like a true oppressor.)
It's certainly not an environment conducive to the safe spaces they seem to be verbally wishing to achieve...
(censorship via an insulting combo of an invitation and then rescinding it in order to no-platform said speaker based upon flimsy evidence of flimsy charges that don't hold-up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Were "everyones" comfort actually considered in the slightest, the organizers would already have developed a tactic for dealing with troublemakers as such.)
If you believe the organisers' reasons to disinvite him were not "good enough" (whatever that is), well, then just don't go there or get a refund.
Alternatively if they don't want to say because, let's say he did do something awful and saying why would give the victim away, then why the original insinuation in the first place? Instead they should have went the professional route of simply saying he's no longer coming or something.
Ultimately we, while allowed to say almost anything,need to mind what we say about others. If someone is saying unsubstantiated things regarding someone else that could be career ending in this current climate. If it is substantiated then it should be brought to the attebtion of police or perhaps the public depending on what it is.