@Tom H, Hypocrite Hitchens preaches Absolute Free Speech on one hand, and on the other states "I'm against the burning of any books, except the Koran".

Pointing out that Pinker disagrees with Chomsky is meant to establish what exactly?

Shug: Chomsky outlined the character of the man in general terms, not by the one point which was the most headline grabbing. Chomsky stated that he does not agree with the man’s views, so why does he need to express it again in this particular sentence to satisfy you and Oliver Kamm? Should Chomsky be hung for not calling Hitler a genocidal maniac every time he utters his name? Of course not. Your argument is ridiculous.

I want to see Chomsky's opinion about Zimbabwe. If we can't get some African nation to intervene, than should we allow a reprise of British Imperialism, that this Cholera Epidemic might be ended, that Mugabe might be replaced by the democratically-elected opposition? Of course, the reason his opinion on Zimbabwe is so necessary is that it will once and for all prove his allegiances: is it to liberal ideals of free expression, free exercise of religion, and the even more basic right to life? Or is it to national sovereignty, that dirty half-sibling of our more high-minded notions? In the end, Chomsky must choose one or the other; the convenience in estimating Hitchens is that he unapologetically approves of intervention, especially if it is to defend liberal ideals. Chomsky, on the other hand, loathes intervention and uses only those cases that strengthen his argument as straw-men to paint with tar and to feather.

JK, Linguists are actually divided into many diferent camps. If you want to know what Kamm means when he says that they are no longer 'close' you should read the Pinker and Jackendoff papers.

Perhaps Chomsky did make a mistake. However, to say that one cannot be an apolitical liberal +of some sort+ if one denies the Holocaust is a prime example of a non sequitur... Surely everyone agrees that Kamm's obsequious defence of Bush and Blair is far more deplorable than anything Chomsky has ever said. NB: Sorry for the typos! I'm using a dodgy mobile.

Mark Flynn, since Chomsky describes journalists as being complicit in war crimes when they do not condemn US foreign policy as trenchantly as he does, is it not merely equitable to condemn Chomsky when he describes a Holocaust denier as an apolitical liberal sort?

I can't decide about Chomsky. Is he ideologically predisposed towards Third world dictatorships or merely credulous about the lies that they tell and are told on their behalf?

Christopher Hitchens defended Robert Faurisson too. His speech (below) is a thing of beauty: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

I find it unfortunate that the very bases on which Chomsky is criticized are reproduced in this article. Accusations of fighting dirty and being selective are made by the author himself being quoting other opinions (appeal to authority?) and by being selective in what he quotes. It is difficult to ascertain whether Chomsky does fight dirty or whether his disparagements are made after a long sober criticism. (It is okay to call Thomas Friedman a racist and megolamaniac if one has just written an article explaining why for example). The author also does not justify any assertions of hypocrisy he makes, nor does he seek out the specific reasons Chomsky holds views he does (on the question of refugee accounts for example). The author assumes that Chomsky contradicts himself (with Faurrison for example) rather than actually making an argument for it. This article is one of the worst I have seen recently in terms of its scholarly rigour. It is full of assumptions, appeals to authority, selective readings, and generalizations. I say this while I myself am not a fan of Chomsky and have much to criticize of him. I do see him as an ally on the left, however.