It's not tho. I think he should be able to host events without getting "cancelled" even if he is a grifter. That is the whole point with having free speech to b

It's not tho. I think he should be able to host events without getting "cancelled" even if he is a grifter. That is the whole point with having free speech to begin with. If you are not on board on that, you are not on board with free speech at all. Besides that, your counter-argument falls short because the one that is suggesting something have the burden of proof. If you say he is a grifter, the burden of proof is up to you. If I say water is wet, the burden of proof is up to me. Also even if you think he is a grifter, I may perhaps not agree and thus someones opinion either have to be valued higher OR we just let everyone speak and host events like we do with free speech. If you do not like the guy, don't attend his event. Why is that so hard?