As far back as the Groom of the Stool, it’s one of the oldest rules in politics. To retain your status as ‘above it all’ you get an underling to do the dirty work.

To us ‘commoners’ these people may appear to be ‘great nobles’ etc. But they know how their bread is buttered and their role in the larger scheme. To make their superiors look good and to advance political objectives they have to look bad.

Objective: slip in some precedents underming free speech but do it in a way that forces free speech advocates to get behind the most unlikely and unappealing of ‘champions’.

Would you defend this guy?

You may not want to but, in relation to free speech, you should (IMHO).

Free speech means being able, without restraint, to say ridiculous and controversial things and allowing the public to make up their own minds how much credibility to ascribe the author.

Free speech is there to expose the absurdities of hierarcical, priveleged class bound bigotry. Before leaping into the open trap of supporting this character’s demise consider the real target – your free speech. These ‘elites’ are more crafty than you might expect.