I followed the posts a bit but must admit that the significance eludes me. The main complaint seems to be that some feel that Chomsky's move may or may not have been principled (I feel it was but feel that no one will be convinced either way with the type of evidence offered) and that either way he should have known better and should admit to it. Doesnt seem like a big deal to me; quite possibly he made a principled decision with which some wouldnt have agreed. Give him the benefit of the doubt on the basis of his history (or not) and then maybe say he has a different approach than some. Period. I dont frankly see much point to your article on him though I appreciate work you have done in the past and I feel that his article in the Nation is entirely coherent and defensable. Further, no one apologises for free speech support for former East European dissidents who have made and make racist or fascist statements etc...why not? Should they have known with absolute certainty about the speaker in that and all the other cases regarding free speech and how much time do they have to spend on follow ups etc? I dont think that is the point of this debate such as it is
Perhaps there are as they say, two weights and two measures here...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com