Some People Push Back

My initial reaction to the vitriolic writing of Churchill was based upon the impolite delivery of his message. Although some may think this assessment of decorum is irrelevant, I believe that delivery, practicing courtesy and politeness, can significantly impact the way a message is received. It is hard to respect one who adopts a condescending and accusing attitude for the entirety of their speech or writing. Even if I disagree with content, I am even more willing to listen and read attentively if I am addressed respectfully
My second reaction was to question the legality of Churchill's accusations. Did he have the right to say what he said how he said it? Pondering the issue, I would tend to grant him that right as an American citizen who enjoys the privelege to exercise freedom of speech. On these grounds, I would say that he should not lose his job. The complication, which is inherent in the right itself, is encountered when one attempts to place boundaries on the freedom by claiming that in attacking the institution granting the right as well as those practicing it Churchill has violated a boundary. Can freedom of speech be bound and still be a liberty?
My third reaction, germinating with my uncertainty of how to interpret certain comments and references in the piece and flowering after I read the response of Churchill to critics, was this: when evaluating the content of Churchill's message, one must wonder what it means if the author must so extensively explain themselves outside of the text. In a purely objective and analytical judgment, I feel that a work is rhetorically lacking if allusions and definitions are unclear. Has not the author somehow failed if they have been unable to establish a connection with the audience? How can they expect favorable action if the material was not clearly and consistently understood?