No, it was a strong NO arrived at precisely by the use of reason.
Good. Explain the reason.
It falls more in the category of “attractive nuisance.” With all the Calvinball going on by the administration, we don’t even have a good view into whether Beck et al. are doing the legally verboten, and let’s say we make the charitable assumption they aren’t. They’re still setting up a situation that eggs it on, like walking around a slum with pockets visibly stuffed with cash and no personal protection. It’s, at best, carried out in a foolish manner.