There's liberalism as a political theory (with all its variations, from classical to Rawlsian), which is admirable and distinct from Maoism. But there's also the "liberalism" that's more accurately described as "the set of cultural, social, and political beliefs broadly held by the college educated, urban, professional class." And professing adherence to Maoism is entirely acceptable in that milieu, in a way that professing adherence to e.g. the Religious Right or Trumpism is not. (The fact that this judge's commitment to Maoism is purely symbolic verbal signaling and not linked to any actual activism is besides the point.)

Imagine a judge said he was a committed fascist who would judge students on that basis, regardless of the quality of their arguments. Would that be considered acceptable in the same way the Maoist judge is? Just last night I had dinner with a friend who was telling me about a family member's encounter with Maoist justice: he was murdered by being thrown down a well during the Cultural Revolution.

Or, take the other angle. Suppose you had a staffer on Fox News who spent his off hours writing racist screeds on white supremacist forums (this has actually happened IIRC). Would you take it as a single extreme example that's not worth thinking about, or would you take it as indicative of some deeply troubling aspects of the modern Right?

Then there's liberalism as a political tradition that advocates free markets, laissez-faire economics, civil liberties under the rule of law, and individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech.

In liberal democracy, an elected government cannot discriminate against specific individuals or groups when it administers justice, protects basic rights such as freedom of assembly and speech, provides for collective security, or distributes economic and social benefits.

What you called "liberalism" in the first part is probably libertarianism.

You wouldn't be from America, would you, where long-established English terms get corrupted?

Because it's a pretty standard political and social concept -> https://imgur.com/a/BdkeTf4

Not to mention -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Indeed I am. Thank you for the context. I wonder if we shouldn't describe these things with more granularity, like how "functional programming" may be used to mean "pure functional abstractions", "pattern matching", and many other things in varying combination.

> A single example chosen specifically because it is extreme isn’t the status quo,

This seems to be the lesson we're slow at learning.

A steady diet of extreme examples tends to shift one's perspective toward a bad position. The position is bad because it struggles to discern reality well - because bad inputs keep skewing the math.