This aspect is acknowledged in the article. I.e. that criticism of Chomsky's linguistic theories are seen as an attack on this political views. But that's har

This aspect is acknowledged in the article. I.e. that criticism of Chomsky's linguistic theories are seen as an attack on this political views. But that's hardly a justification for attacking Everett who has never expressed an opinion on Chomsky's politics. Surely these aspects of Chomsky's work are completely independent? For example, I can appreciate Watson's work on DNA but abhor his racism. Similarly I can question Chomsky's linguistic theories while agreeing with (aspects of) his politics. Also, I must say that I find the ad-hominem nature of the attacks on Everett to be quite ugly.