I think there is a privilege here, and I think the privilege sometimes gets drawn in what appears to be an ad hoc manner. But my job is to find where to put the line down in this case. To traipse into the area of why they selectively used a quote as opposed to not using other things that were said I think is to get on a very slippery slope. It really almost precipitates a bias line of questioning, and I'm not going to allow it. I am trying to narrowly draw this.
The speaker is against what happened.
Reason:  The language is strongly negative.  Why:  There's no mention really of what happened or the speakers views.
( z1 oppose :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 speak ) ) :ARG1 ( z4 event ) )