Republicans are not mad at Ward Churchill for calling the 9-11 victims

[Tony_FLADEM]

little Eichmann. They are mad at him for criticizing the economic elites and corporations for having too much influence on our foreign policy.

I don't like Ward Churchill, but I think that is the true motivation for wanting to get rid of him

[Eric J in MN]

1. The rightwing wants to destroy academic freedom, and hyping

Ward Churchill, who made comments I found offensive, is seen as a way to accomplish that.

[Disturbed]

2. It sure would be nce if...

people would actually read what Ward Churchill wrote on the day of 911 Attack.

[Goldmund]

3. I'll tell you what the main purpose of the Churchill faux outrage is

To communicate the idea that you must watch what you say or you may lose your job; because "you're entitled to freedom of speech, but not to a microphone!". It is to shrink the spectrum of valid applications of the First Amendment in the public consciousness.

[intheflow]

5. Here in Colorado the stink is that he works at a State University.

The Republicans don't think their tax dollars should go to him for "hate speech and inciting violence." :eyes:

This about the man who just this last October helped organize a peaceful act of civil disobedience in protest of the annual Columbus Day parade. The American Indian Movement negotiated with the police for months about just what the police could expect during the non-violent protest. It all went down as peacefully as it had been planned. Over 200 people were arrested, and it all went down without a hitch, just as Churchill and the others had said it would.

[Goldmund]

6. I don't think I understand you --

-- what does this have to do with the current "outrage" around Churchill? (your latter part)

As far as the former part, then they should amend the First Amendment: you can speak freely, but only if you work for a private corporation.

[intheflow]

7. That point is my point exactly.

They take one sentence out of context and condemn a man for his entire life's work. Then they *say* they're not against free speech, but speech that incites violence. My story illustrates that Churchill is not out advocating violence, if he were the Columbus Day demonstratons would have been violent.

The RW is taking him out of context and trying to push their "liberal-professors-will-polute-my-child's-mind" BS to get him fired.

[applegrove]

4. Him and a million others. There is nothing special about Ward except

his exceptional Nazi remarks. Why is he still a story on this board? I get tired of the same old threads again & again.