Would all those making the free speech argument on his behalf have been as enthusiastic if this was an issue of, say, a university knowingly hiring a professor with the views of Philippe Rushton?
Notice we didn't say anything about firing Rushton - the University of Western Ontario prof who claims a scientific basis for his view that some races are more intelligent than others. Rather, would they endorse the hiring of someone with those views if they were known in advance? What's that we hear? Is it silence?
Which brings us to Hannon, the part-time Ryerson journalism instructor whose story, as they used to say of the dead parrot on Monty Python, isn't dead yet, it's just resting.
After all, Ryerson University has only suspended Hannon pending its investigation into his "alleged conduct and activities," a grievance is underway, and we shall see what we shall see.
While we certainly don't think Hannon should have been hired by Ryerson, we can certainly see the broad outlines of his defence.
That is, that his views endorsing pedophilia were well-known by the people in the journalism department who hired him (they agree), that he only brought up these views occasionally in a class of adults and only when it was appropriate to the discussion.
In fact, this whole controversy provoked by Heather Bird's sensible columns questioning Hannon's suitability as a teacher had just about played itself out until Hannon told the Sun (!) that he also happens to moonlight as a hooker.
Well with that, Ryerson's administration, having clearly had enough, suspended him. And Hannon got to hold his huge press conference "a la Norma Desmond" as Bird so perfectly put it.
As for these proponents of free speech, we're not quite sure what it is they mean to say given that no one has said Hannon isn't entitled to air his views. (May we suggest a soap box?)
Is the free speech argument here that a university, a tax-funded institution, is above all criticism when it comes to its hirings and that once someone is hired he can say whatever he likes?
Many of Hannon's academic defenders insist on precisely this - that it would have been appropriate for Hannon to expound on his views on pedophilia at any time in a class on freelance journalism.
Well, we disagree. Free speech, and Hannon, will survive.