I don't know the details about that so I can't comment except that I'm inclined to believe you're right. Even so I doubt I could sit through an event with her and Clark Kissinger representing "the left."
Rothstein's case would have been better if he had discussed Dick Armey's suggestion that the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories be cleansed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/arts/23CONN.html
CONNECTIONS Hateful Name-Calling Vs. Calling for Hateful Action By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
Hate speech is a confused concept. It is impossible to defend crude name-calling and insensitivity, but is it so deserving of special oprobrium? Even ordinary speech, after all, can express hatred. And even the most brutish expression of hatred can be less injurious than deceitful expressions of good will. What about this approach: if speech offends, let it be freely attacked by opposing speech. If it does more than offend but argues for hateful action — well, that is more serious.
[clip]
The confusion over hate speech was also revealed in another recent controversy. The Stanford University Law School invited the lawyer Lynne Stewart to be a Mills Public Interest Mentor in a program the school says is meant "to provide public-interest students the opportunity to meet and learn from practitioners and scholars in public service."
But Ms. Stewart, a political radical who unsuccessfully defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for his responsibility in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was indicted last spring on charges of aiding a terrorist organization and illegally passing messages from the sheik's prison cell. In particular, in June 2000, she publicly confirmed for the sheik's fundamentalist followers in Egypt that he had called for an end to a cease-fire between those followers and the Egyptian government.
Ms. Stewart's assistance in that instance was not out of character. She said she believes in "violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions." In reacting to the civilian deaths of 9/11, she said she was "pretty inured" to the idea that "in an armed struggle, people die."
In the current issue of Monthly Review, a radical journal, she makes clear the extent of her ideological convictions: "I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous." In those cases, she argues, dissidence has often been used to "undermine a people's revolution." As for Muslim fundamentalists, they are, she suggests, "forces of national liberation" and thus presumably entitled to such violence.
When some of this became widely known, protests mounted and the dean of the law school stripped Ms. Stewart of the title Mills mentor. But her lectures and mentoring of students took place unhampered.
Yet Ms. Stewart's public service and proclamations may have caused violence (her declaration of the end of that cease-fire was indeed followed by deaths in Egypt) as well as encouraged it against American targets. Presumably, only acts of hate speech would have made her unwelcome at Stanford, but aren't her positions and actions already expressions of a virulent form of hatred? [clip]