Even though Eugene Volokh (Law, UCLA) managed to get the constitutional and academic freedom issues right on the Churchill case, one of his lesser co-bloggers, David Kopel--another putative libertarian--gets it wrong, with a vengeance worthy of, well, Paul Campos:
What the links make clear is that the Churchill case is not about the freedom to express unpopular views about U.S. policy; it's about a consummate fraud and bully, who advocates and provides instructions for Americans to commit murderous terrorist attacks within the United States.
What planet is Mr. Kopel on? The only reason Churchill's professional career has been subjected to withering scrutiny is because he "express[ed] unpopular views about U.S. policy." It is no more, and no less, complicated than that. All the latecomers charges about academic and resume fraud (and now allegations about advocacy of violence) arose in consequence of his expressing moral and political views that were offensive to the majority. Surely even Mr. Kopel understands that, but for Churchill's essay on 9/11, no one would be calling for his job: which is to say, but for his political speech, he would not be at risk of losing his job; which, by the way, isn't supposed to happen in a free society.
One factor that will contribute to the rise of authoritarianism in the United States is that even the putative friends of freedom and liberty are so quick to rationalize political persecution of dissent.
Recent Comments