Anyone who believes Churchill's claim that the suit was about free speech did not follow the trial closely or fact-check the "Indian's" testimony to find that he was flagrantly lying to the jury. Pacifica's Amy Goodman and other reporters who did not analyze the testimony, but jumped on the case after the jurors rendered their decision, and reported only on that, are misrepresenting facts they have made no effort in the least to sort out. The University of Colorado is NOT stepping on Churchill's free speech rights. UC attorneys simply know, because they are privy to the factual details of the case - as opposed to his defenders - that the proceedings were a complete farce, the ultimate frivolous lawsuit. Churchill isn't a martyr - he's a provocateur (consistent, please note, with the statement that brought him to public attention), like is friend Bill Ayers, and many native activists were aware of this fact long ago. Do a thorough Google search of his history and this becomes clear. I challenge any objective person to fact-check Churchill's testimony and walk away supporting him. CU was obviously poorly prepared, failed to challenge Churchill's sworn statements, or the jury would have known that he had repeatedly perjured himself. That is the extent of the university's culpability, IMhO. Should Churchill be foolish enough to follow up on his threat to appeal, however, they will be prepared, and the manipulative "native" provocateur will go down in flames.
The university faced pressure to fire Churchill over an essay in which he likened some Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism victims to a Nazi who helped orchestrate the Holocaust. University officials concluded it was constitutionally protected expression. However, Churchill was fired in 2007 after a review of his other work concluded he had plagiarized.
A Denver jury ruled in April that CU unlawfully fired Churchill but awarded him only $1 in damages. His lawyer has said he'll appeal a judge's ruling denying Churchill reinstatement at CU.