[Vision2020] Chomsky's Free Speech Defense of Holocaust Denier Faurisson Re: "Southern Slavery As It Was" Discussion

[Ted Moffett]

"But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic
freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and
that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally
despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously
defended."
-------------------
"One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special
responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views
expressed. I have, for example, frequently gone well beyond signing
petitions in support of East European dissidents subjected to
repression or threats, often knowing little and caring less about
their views (which in some cases I find obnoxious, a matter of
complete irrelevance that I never mention in this connection)."
--------------------
"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to
debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of
free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the
memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of
their murderers."

Quotes above from:

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981
--------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that the recent strong advocacy for free speech regarding
statements on the New Saint Andrews' website, and the book "Southern
Slavery As It Was," is exactly comparable to the international
firestorm over academic and activist Noam Chomsky's free speech
defense of holocaust denier Faurisson in 1979.  If I understand
correctly, Faurisson was facing censur and retaliation to a degree
that New Saint Andrews and Wilson, co-author of "Southern Slavery As
It Was," are not and have not faced.

In fact, Rumelhart might apply his own standard regarding the behavior
of NSA, Christ Church and Wilson (
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html
: "point, laugh, roll your eyes and move on"), a standard that states,
if I summarize correctly, unless they are taking action to do harm
based on their ideology (directly harming secularists or gays, for
example), they should not be singled out for major public criticism,
and apply this standard to criticism of NSA, CC and Wilson on
Vision2020: unless someone on Vision2020 is violating NSA, CC or
Wilson's rights, don't make a major issue out of  the NSA, CC, Wilson
critics, just "point, laugh, roll your eyes and move on."

However, given Rumelhart was criticised for not having read "Southern
Slavery As It Was" it is an interesting parallel that Chomsky faced
similar criticism for not having studied Faurisson, while defending
Faurisson's free speech rights.  Chomsky's response to this specific
criticism might be used as a defense of Rumelhart's not having read
SSAIW.  I am sure that some would describe Faurisson's holocaust
denial as "hate speech."

The Chomsky/Faurisson controversy is an important chapter in the
history of free speech rights.  A few longer excerpts from Chomsky's
1981 "Nation" article on this subject are below, the whole article is
at the website:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian
socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of
totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure
Robert Faurisson's "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."
The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies" (he denies the
existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews
and questions the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary, among other
things), apart from noting that they were the cause of "efforts to
deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression."
It did not specify the steps taken against him, which include
suspension from his teaching position at the University of Lyons after
the threat of violence, and a forthcoming court trial for
falsification of history and damages to victims of Nazism.

The petition aroused considerable protest. In Nouvel Observateur,
Claude Roy wrote that "the appeal launched by Chomsky" supported
Faurisson's views. Roy explained my alleged stand as an attempt to
show that the United States is indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. In
Esprit, Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition "scandalous" on the
ground that it "presented his 'conclusions' as if they were actually
discoveries." Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition
that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor
Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite
neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings
public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The
petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was
irrelevant to the issues raised.

Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil
libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as
he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit that I would not
discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it
(and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to
the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it
was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M.
le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make
it possible for you to continue to write."
-------------------------
Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of
free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a
strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of
civil rights for unpopular views. Faurisson does not control the
French press or scholarship. There is surely no lack of means or
opportunity to refute or condemn his writings. My own views in sharp
opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said. No rational
person will condemn a book, however outlandish its conclusions may
seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case, checking
the documentation offered, and so on. One of the most bizarre
criticisms has been that by refusing to undertake this task, I reveal
that I have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism
which, if valid, applies to everyone who shares my lack of interest in
examining Faurisson's work. One who defends the right of free
expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be
acquainted with the views expressed. I have, for example, frequently
gone well beyond signing petitions in support of East European
dissidents subjected to repression or threats, often knowing little
and caring less about their views (which in some cases I find
obnoxious, a matter of complete irrelevance that I never mention in
this connection). I recall no criticism of this stand.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett