How do you draw the line of "demoralizing" speech vs. protected opinion? If I say that Commander So-and-so is a screw-up or the Boots in Operation MacGuffin went too far, is that criminal "demoralization"? Or is it just my opinion?
You seem to think that I like or agree with what Churchill wrote, I don't. But I don't think that the man should lose his job over it.
People who want to shut up Ward Churchills stupid nonsense and stop him from corrupting and deceiving students are not harming this country one whit.
Yes, you are. The problem is that you either don't understand that you are, or you don't care.
The BS arguement you make that if the rights of perverts, traitors and scum are not protected then everyones rights are in danger is the lowest grade of fertilizer. It is simply amazing that even cretins like yourself still use it.
Plato once wrote that the best way to judge the true character of a society was to observe how it treated its lowliest members. Perverts, traitors, and criminals are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as you and I are. Otherwise the Constitution is meaningless and anyone, whether innocent or guilty who is accused of being a pervert, traitor, or criminal is up for what amounts to an extra-judicial lynching.
He should be fired because he lied and cheated and was caught.
You want this fraud to be "overlooked"? That is not practicing what this country was founded on: Everyone is equal under the law. It has NOTHING to do with the freedom of speech.
zerisanumber- blah, blah, blah (American subversive BS delted)
JFK_Lib - Tell it to the hand.
\oloo