Republican Rep. William Hurd disinvited from Black Hat conference | Hacker News Reader

Republican Rep. William Hurd disinvited from Black Hat conference

foxnews.com

42 pointsavinium112 comments

Seems an unfortunate state of affairs

Here's what the conference said on the matter: https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06142019-black-hat-usa-...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

I think lobbyists use money.

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

It probably looks like the conference supporting the people who are affected the most by Republican party policies...if you are one of those people. If you aren't one of those people then I can see why it would seem like it was just a political move. That being said, he and his party have materially affected the lives of people who are traveling to the con.

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.

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.

This happened because we saw that free speech on internet forums just let to people harassing women and yelling racist nonsense constantly. The forum you are on deletes garbage too.

free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.

Free speech is a principle based in rationality. Exercise of power should not overrule reason and independent thought.

Governments are notoriously powerful and prone to censorship, but private groups like corporations and busybody neighborhoods can also be heavy handed and net harmful.

I mean, its not just the tech industry, even people like Senator Cruz who used to `ostensibly` be for the constitutions has toyed with a ban on supporting BDS and regulating private companies speech.

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.

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.

Luckily, that spirited discussion with Nevil Chamberlain kept WWII from happening.

A problem I have with today's politics/politicians is that once you are part of a group (Republican or Democrat), you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around.

There's no compromise on either side, why talk about different points of view, if you are not going to change your mind.

> you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around.

Thank the removal of earmarks and Citizens United for that.

Legislators are dependent on those sweet PAC dollars (or more critically, dependent on someone else not getting them) in order to get re-elected and without an earmark to bring home to your district to please your voters with you can't risk losing goodwill with the party elites who control the purse strings by breaking from the party.

There is no compromise is the fringes of Twitter. I don't think it's true that literally nobody thinks things through.

The problem is not thinking things through. The problem is will enough people vote on something their political party is entirely against or even compromise a little.

Can't speak for everyone, but I do.

I didn't vote for either presidential candidate last time around especially because of the us-versus-them attitudes all around. Pretending folks like me don't exist isn't going to improve our culture.

> There's no compromise on either side

Over the last 10 years, only one side has been consistent in blocking and denying compromise to the other. The Democrats, sadly, naively, keep trying for compromise because they haven't yet quite grasped what's going on (although it finally seems to be filtering through - the Republicans are never going to compromise.)

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...

2. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-gun-control-belief...

3. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

5. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-americans-oppose-religio...

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

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

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.

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.

Let's be honest. Congress doesn't really try to do much these days. They're glorified pundits lately.

"Uninvited to speak at a major conference" != "ostracized"

People with Hurd's views are welcomed in most places in the country. Despite having minority viewpoints, they form the majority of elected officials due to the way districts are drawn. They're CEOs, board members, and prominent parts of almost every group. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that people like Hurd are ostracized in a general sense.

Also, having unpopular views as a lawmaker (so not just having them, but trying to enact them into law) means that a brand may not want to be associated with you.

That country doesn't, and never has, existed. All societies, no matter how free they may claim to be, have limits to what they will tolerate, and all will ostracize you for opinions if you move outside that box, be it through public shame or imprisonment.

When the US was founded, one would have been ostracized for being a loyalist to the Crown. Or an atheist. Or, depending on where one lived, believing that blacks shouldn't be slaves, or being a Protestant or Catholic in the wrong neighborhood. And as societies go, the US is incredibly laissez-faire compared to elsewhere, where unpopular opinions have gotten people killed for centuries or millennia.

So because people dosent like his peronal opnions, means his techinicals one are no good?

Probably not, but Black Hat (and any other brand) doesn't choose people only for merit. They also consider the effect on their brand.

"Why is this controversial?"

Because disinviting is stupid and getting way too common now. This is like the 5th case of this I've seen within the past year. If they is going to be a heckler's veto then get the heckler's permission before inviting.

> 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.

This glosses over some important nuance on the "religious freedom" side of that issue. In the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, for example, they didn't discriminate against gay people, per se - they served gay customers. They refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding specifically.

On the religious freedom side of the argument, they maintain that its a kind of compelled speech to require the baker to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. I'm not saying I buy it completely, but its an earnest argument advanced in good faith - and shouldn't be reduced to bigotry/prejudice.

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.

> 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.

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.

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'

It's not because of the disagreement, though. That's a creative interpretation of the comment you're replying to. This is the crux:

> 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?

I guess I must admit not seeing why the ACA directly relates to this cyber-security conference.

> exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics

One may agree or not, but I think his position is fairly clear, and not healthcare -specific.

It doesn't and I guess I must admit I'm having trouble seeing where you're getting confused with this concept. It honestly feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not the ACA that's the problem, it's the behavior of the Republican legislators regarding the ACA. It could have been any piece of legislation. It's the behavior that's the issue.

> 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?

Read that quote. Now read it again. It fully and clearly explains the issue without naming the ACA. That's because the fact that the behavior was bought to light by the ACA is irrelevant. The ACA isn't the problem, the behavior is. "It" in that quote could be any piece of legislation and the behavior would still be troubling. Does that help you see? Do you finally understand?

I believe I follow what you are arguing, something to the effect of repealing a law without an immediate replacement plan can demonstrate bad faith.

I would not necessarily agree with the above point, as depending on a given law, it is possible there would be those who would support its repeal with no replacement.

That is not to say I do or do not advocate such a course of action for any particular law, just pointing out the option exists.

It’s disagreement when it’s some person with political opinions. When it’s a legislator, it’s not disagreement, it’s someone working against you.

If it was about opinions he had that are not reflected in his legislative work, that would be different, but when lawmakers lawmake based on their opinions, it goes beyond just a difference of views.

> 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?

Well, it depends. Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Does America really have to take one for team while we go on another boneheaded "well, if we ignore governing and prioritize fucking over our opponents just this one time, it'll mean better governing in the long run" quest?

> Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work?

Could you help me understand—is "running against the ACA for a decade and then having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge" an example of 'punishing the other team' or an example of 'doing the country's work'?

> having no workable plan for its replacement when you're finally in charge

Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018? It seemed to me that there was not one united faction, nor any coalition, that on a number of popular issues could form a majority over that time period.

It seems like it is the normal course of things for the lower and upper representative houses to represent what they will, and for that either to produce or preclude new policy.

> Who exactly was "in charge" in 2017 and 2018?

Probably the party that controlled both houses of Congress as well as the White House.

Do people not widely know that until recently a huge proportion of Republicans in both houses were never-Trumpers?

That sure hasn’t stopped them from pushing his candidates through. Nor encouraged them to stand up to his political abuses.

There was a lot of that kind of talk after the last election.

now that we've blocked a record number of judicial appointments including a supreme court justice, literally took out an ad in the new york times to try an undermine the Iran deal, claimed that the president wasn't a citizen along with all kinds of other horrible stuff, now...now it's finally time for us to work together. This new guy he's president of all of us. Let's get together and make sure...

No thank you. At some point it's Charlie Brown's fault for even trying to kick the football.

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Such discussions are tediously predictable, making them off topic here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. Some political overlap is inevitable with the topics that get posted here, but battling opponents is incompatible with the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. When accounts are only or primarily doing that, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise such flames will take the site over completely.

I've posted about this a lot if you or anyone wants more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... The bottom line is, please use HN in its intended spirit, which is not this.

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.

> 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.

Even worse. The policies he advocates are keeping other people out entirely. Even Adi Shamir (the S from RSA) had trouble getting a travel visa a while ago.

So I think this claim is extremely overblown. One of the votes he was criticized for is a stem bill which I don't have the time to look up, and does not look defensible. The other things are abortion rights and he or the people he represents think that abortion is immoral. You aught to stop pretending like everyone who wants to put abortion restrictions in place wants to put women back in the kitchen, its not true and frankly it shows immaturity on the part of people who are unwilling to accept that people who disagree with you might not be corporate agents (even though congresspeople are on some issues).

In conclusion, your comment boils down to the idea that somehow half the country is just lying about their preferences and somehow magically the other half of the country knows exactly what they are really thinking.

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.

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?

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”

Incidentally, this is exactly what they’ll say if you do hear him out.

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.

Blacklists are the middle ground? There's probably a compromise somewhere, but this isn't a play for middle ground.

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.

He is not coming to blackhat to talk about those issues. This deplatforming is just punishment for wrong think.

You could likely find something anti-science about most people. For instance a mind boggling number of people believe in ghosts, should they be disinvited? With regards to a security conference, it’s no more harmful of a world view than believing the Earth is flat. What about anti-vaxxers? Ban them too? Maybe come up with a list of beliefs you think are ideologically pure enough for the conference?

I don't believe either are the subject of the conference. And you've created a caricature to argue against, which is at best disingenuous. It's not possible to have reasoned debate in such an environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com