> I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent.
No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.
Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.
But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.
> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.
I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.
No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.
Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.
But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.
> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.
I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.