Wow! How disappointing each one of them was. I'm most disappointed in Peterson and Saad because I'm familiar with them. This was a whole lot of rationalization of a decision that they KNEW was WRONG. They used the spurious argument that Faith didn't act properly as a journalist and that they needed to protect the venue from Leftists disruption. They basically conceded to every argument that the social media giants and Leftists criticism that censored them or labeled them as right wing extremists.
They admit to realizing the irony but that doesn't stop them from caving to the irony. They allowed outside forces to make their decision for them.
They owe Faith an apology a mia culpa, We have sinned. Please forgive us. They told her that she wasn't one of them, not quite in their league.
This is a stain on their position of leadership in the IDW community that they started. Sometimes our leaders are shown to have feet of clay.

I just had a look around the daily stormer website, headlines with terms like "Colored subhuman..." and "imagine choosing a nigger over your own family". It is a racially needlessly antagonistic forum with some token disclaimer about non violence. I am not surprised she was uninvited. While the terms racist and other 'ists' are thrown around too easily today, this website is where it is justified.

This is a serious panel of respectful thinkers opting not to undermine the content of their important talk with the presence of someone who surprised them by getting involved with nazis - and again in this instance that term is not unfair.

And of crucial importance I think, is that when someone does appear on the daily stormer and is therefore seen as sympathetic to their clearly nazi views, that would then further the damaging assumption that free speech is becoming an excuse to broadcast far right wing views. That really would not be good, as to win any battle for free speech, plenty on the left need to be onside too, and plenty always have been and still are, but they won't be if it becomes too conflated with far right outright hate.

If she couldn't look around that website, with headings like "Race War" and the "Jewish Problem;" and see that it is about the most hateful corner of the internet you can find and that therefore associating oneself with such views paints a worrying picture of oneself to their audience , then it is her problem if not only she is uninvited from speaking engagements, but her career suffers too.

She has had no infringement of her free speech and can say whatever she wants, just not there and then on that stage. Presence at pretty much every event on any topic anywhere in the world comes with some caveats, whereby if you cross whatever line, you might not get to participate.

We wouldn't invite a Stalinist communist to a free speech event, I see no reason either to invite someone who gave the panel plenty of reasons to suspect she is a fascist (I am not saying she is - I really don't know much about her - just that she gave them a that conundrum by her involvement with them).

The Streisand effect: I have subscribed to the Faith Goldy YouTube channel.

I don't all the drama about this, when creating a panel you have to careful about who is on that panel so that it goes in a productive direction and doesn't get bogged down by a dynamic with one of the people.
There were LOTS of people to consider inviting on the panel and it's a careful decision.
Faith Goldy was uninvited due to some of the drama she has created and they didn't want that to seep into their panel discussion and distract from a greater conversation.

Hopefully they will include Faith Goldy in future discussions but this is a rational decision and not about throwing her under the bus or caving to the SJWs.

I would have been happy to see Faith Goldy included and a little disappointed she was not there nit I totally get why and not blaming anyone or creating more drama than is necessary.

Very happy with the responses, I would like to add that while Jordan says she could have asked some better questions, so since she didnt we decided to bar her. (yes not all he said but its a summary), wasn't she the only journalist on the panel? the fact that she has been attacked and vilified should have been a ticket to speak. its funny that they said they didnt want the talk shut down, well they've all dealt with the crazy sjws protesting their events and such before, why did they care about this one so much? hmmm anyway, keep em coming, curious what other arguments there may be that I or others haven't thought of. thx

Yes, I went to several sources, none of the fake media. Yes, she bills herself as a journalist and political commentator, among other things. And yes, I watched the interview, if you can call it that, that got her fired by Rebel Media. Then I went and watched a few of her videos.

First the video that got her fired. Was that really an interview? Sounded more like an NPR gabfest where the interviewer and the interviewee sit and pat each other on the back. Hardly professional journalism, might as watch Rachael Madcow.

Her videos are hardly earth shaking commentary. She pontificates and little more. I am of the opinion after hearing and seeing her that she is greatly in love with the sound of her own voice. Sorry boys and girls, you love her, you keep her, waste of my time.

Was she thrown under the bus? No, she created her persona and must now live with it. When the one who funded the panel appearence and had to reschedule once because of threats of shutdown (meaning that money would have been down the tubes and no panel held if she was a member) then accusing everybody and their brother of being in on the great conspiracy is out of line. I bothered to listen to a good number of videos on the whole thing and it all boils down to one thing. The students wanted a panel debate and didn't want it shut down due one person's appearence. Sorry boys and girls, this whining just won't wash, in my opinion.

I have no knowledge of Faith Goldy, I have only the explaination by the four on the panel in question of why she was removed from consideration for bing on that panel. What I heard from those four was their questioning of her competence to be a journalist. This was not censorship of her views, political or personal, but a judgment on her ability to ask hard questions in relationship to what those four individuals conceive journalistic competence to be.