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

[Paul Rumelhart]

I  would in no way place myself in the same class as Noam Chomsky, a man 
whose work on formal grammars inspired me greatly as a student of 
computer science in college.

But, honestly, this isn't all that complicated.  Either people support 
freedom of expression, or they don't.  Supporting it necessarily means 
that you end up supporting the freedom of people to express things that 
you personally disagree with or are offended by.  It necessarily follows 
that it doesn't matter what they expressed, or whether or not you are 
familiar with it, for you to support it's expression.  This isn't rocket 
science.

My comment about the proper way to respond to the NSA website was not 
intended as a code with which you should live your life.  It was one 
method of dealing with Internet trolls.  One I've sometimes found 
successful in my past Internet forum interactions.  Please, if anyone is 
actually trying to live by my example, you don't need to roll your eyes 
at every Internet troll!  You have my permission to sometimes engage 
them in debate.  It can be satisfying, and a fate worse than death at 
other times.  And if you are trying to live your life by my example, 
seek medical help quickly before it is too late. 

Paul

Ted Moffett wrote:
> "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
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>