Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean for it to exist as an actual rule, just as an recommendation by the institution in question. Such as a campus police department giving out safety tips.
The actual details are nuanced and the general line is 'freedom to swing your arms ends at my face' from general reciprocity and sustainability - freedom to cause harm unilaterally (distinct from self-defense) damages overall freedom as well in the same sense that a power vacuum can lead to less freedom as the strong dominate.
http://nixle.us/AMTQ6?fbclid=IwAR1pRErR6-CuOjvULJWJDSSKLISJ_...
So far this person hasn't committed any violent acts and I'm willing to stipulate that his stated grievance is founded in fact, though it may or may not have been his actual motivation. Have his free speech rights been infringed?
If they're under 21 probably, yeah. At 21 and above, like always, you have to be careful of what situations you put yourself in. That's not victim blaming, it's reality. Malicious people will always exist and women will always be at a physical disadvantage.
>What about saying that if they stay with a male guardian, they will be safer than if they don't? If that statement is true, should it be an official policy statement made to increase safety?
No, it should not be a rule because the government should not limit a woman's right to travel as they see fit. Don't you see the problem with this line of thinking? Safety at the cost of freedom is a mistake.