text: If such a lawsuit had merit, it would not be necessary to crowd-fund the lawsuit. I don't agree with the SPLC that Nawaz belongs on its list, but the facts it includes on its extremists page are recitations of claims made in any number of publications and are also found on his Wikipedia page. Their opinions are protected by the First Amendment. To me, crowdfunding a lawsuit comes across as a grift -- which, it would seem, would be counterproductive to Nawaz's stated goals.
  
  Is Maher, a man who holds himself out as a defender of free speech, a guy who has himself been the subject of frivolous litigation, a guy who magnifies every instance of campus speech intolerance, no matter how extreme the speaker, as an opportunity to lecture liberals, really on board with this lawsuit?