I can also hold a position that it is irresponsible.
If you wish to refer to it as “mob” and “moral panic” you can. But I don’t see the need.
* basic academic norms of liberalism
* academic freedom
* free speech
* accusations are worthless
* don’t overturn ENTIRE HERITAGE of western liberal institutions
* spirit of the federalists
* think about precedent
* refer to [something / someone] as a mob
These are your bullet points as best I can extract them.
I would suggest that the moral panic is coming from authors such as the one from this piece.
Is it possible that the reduction in the scope of the lecture in a particular case might actually be justifiable in this case?
Or is it always an example of some kind of mob mentality?
Must it always be a case of mob mentality?