# American vs. non-American conceptions of free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2014, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017 "2014-12-01T07:27:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/81 "2014-12-03T00:33:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The concept of just what hate speech is doesn’t seem to be well understood by some, judging from some of the examples cited – to meet the threshold requires a lot more than just stupid bigotry or a vague insult. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought part of the point was that with these kinds of laws, it’s pretty much up to the state what that line is, and that drawing it in that particular place makes it easier to nudge? ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/82 "2014-12-03T00:45:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Well firstly I applaud the OP for describing it as American vs non-american conceptions of free speech. > Too often the situation is described as America having free speech and other countries not having free speech. When in fact of course, no country gives people the right to say whatever they want in any situation, and when you list all the kinds of restricted speech, the difference is really not so great. I’m afraid this is nonsense. The inability to speak freely is not freedom of speech. The Europeans know they don’t have it, and don’t claim to have it. Words have meanings, whether you like it or not. > [@](#): > > When in fact of course, no country gives people the right to say whatever they want in any situation Actually, the first amendment (applied against the states via the 14th, BTW) does this almost 100% You literally can say anything you want and it’s illegal for any federal or non-federal governmental body to stop you. The fire at a movie theatre thing is no exception. You can be hedl LIABLE AFTER THE FACT for damage your words have caused, but it isn’t actually directly illegal to say such things. There’s literally never been someone who’s been outright barred, by order of a judge or gov agent, from saying stuff that wasn’t either part of an ex-con situation or part of an injuction during a libel or Intellectual Property dispute, both of which are temporary. Other than that there’s threats, which can land you in jail. But threats involve implied violence. It isn’t exactly purely speech. On the subject, I’m curious as to how conditional threats are treated. As in “If you do BLANK ever again I’ll kill you”. Is it not illegal to make such a threat if the threat is actually a legal action to stop someone from performing an illegal action against the speaker, like burglary or mugging or assault (i.e. legally, you actually in fact CAN attack or kill someone who breaks into your house or attacks you or whatever). I wonder how that’s treated. Whether being liable for damages for speaking libelously or saying things that cause damage is actually part of something “being illegal” is an odd semantic philosophical matter. Is it illegal if you’re punished for it by being forced to pay damages, even if broadly the act isn’t illegal, there are only repercussions when you abuse it? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/83 "2014-12-03T01:11:17Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Legaly, you aren’t , but morlly, do you think you didn’t commit any fault by inciting him to do so? It seems to me you’re certainly to blame for the result, and the relatives of the deceased (and probably the media and the general population) will blame you for it too. Which means that there is a general feeling that what you did was wrong. You sai it yourself : you’re an asshole. First, to be honest, i do think that someone who incites another to violence bears some morally responsibility if that person acts on the incitement. But while our society draws connections between moral and legal culpability, the relationship is not always perfectly aligned. That is, there are cases where you might bear some moral responsibility for something, but not legal responsibility. And it’s pretty well established in most societies that there are plenty of ways to be an asshole without running afoul of the law. If an old lady crosses the street too slowly in front of you, you might not be breaking any laws if you stick your head out the car window and tell her to move her retarded wrinkled ass, but you’re definitely being an asshole. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And the only reason why you’re not sentenced for it is because the society in which you live has decided that the harm of not allowing you to speak your mind was greater than the harm you can do by causing a death. It doesn’t mean that you caused no harm. Nor than another society can’t decide that the harm you caused is greater than the harm incurred by intimidating you into not telling people to beat up other people. First, you’re precisely right that the absence of legal penalties reflect particular societal priorities regarding freedom of speech. In fact, that’s exactly the point of this whole debate: that while speech can be ugly and upsetting and can incite hatred, speech itself is not usually the proximate cause of actual harm. Also, you’ve made a small but important rhetorical slip in your language. You talk about “causing a death,” but the fundamental basis of my argument is that, by simply speaking but not acting, i have NOT, in fact, caused a death. The person who wielded the knife or the gun (or whatever) caused a death. No coroner is going to find that the person died of harsh language, or of hatred. Look, i understand WHY people argue for hate speech laws. I have some sympathy with the idea, and i have enough friends who are women and minorities and gay to know that hateful speech causes some people genuine grief and even fear. And the thing is that, if laws against certain types of hateful speech went no further than prohibiting direct exhortations to violence, i could probably get on board with them. But they go beyond that in many cases, criminalizing speech that is not an exhortation to anything except unpleasant thoughts and ideas of superiority and inferiority. Take laws against holocaust denial, for example. I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky, who said that anyone who denies the Holocaust has moved so far beyond the realms of civilized and rational debate that they don’t even deserve to be engaged with. But that doesn’t mean that we should criminalize their ignorance or prejudice or stupidity or whatever it is that causes them to be so blind to the obvious truth. As a historian, i would love it is fewer people were historically ignorant, but i don’t think that historical ignorance (willful or otherwise) should be subject to criminal sanctions. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The presumption is that certain extreme forms of hateful speech against particular well-defined groups, particularly vulnerable minorities, is not consistent with a peaceful and just society. I thoroughly reject the idea that trying to get the new black neighbors to move out by burning a cross on their front lawn and threatening them should be protected by free speech. 😕 I don’t know if i’ve missed something here, or if you’re just constructing a straw man, but i don’t recall anyone arguing that direct threats should be protected. I certainly have not argued that; in fact, earlier in the thread i gave a link to the story of the Elonis case currently in front of the Supreme Court, and said that i hoped the court found that Elonis had, in fact, committed an illegal act. Are you under the impression that direct threats are protected in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/84 "2014-12-03T01:20:59Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought part of the point was that with these kinds of laws, it’s pretty much up to the state what that line is, and that drawing it in that particular place makes it easier to nudge? Not sure what point you are referring to or trying to make. The establishment of laws is always the business of the state, and specifically the legislature, but is subject to oversight by the judiciary. The reference to “nudge” seems once again to raise the fictitious specter of the fabled slippery slope. What I’m trying to say is that some don’t seem to understand that a racist comment or some other insult directed at someone because of race or religion isn’t hate speech as defined by any laws I’m familiar with. I’m thinking of comments like the one upthread, “I’m reminded of Henry Louis Gates, the Chair of the African-American Studies Department commenting that if Chicago ever passed hate speech laws the first people arrested would probably be three black women for referring to a police officer as a “dumb Polack” after they saw him arresting a man with the police officer’s grandmother tearfully discussing the history of anti-Polish bigotry in the US.” This is nonsense. To use Canada as an example, this wouldn’t come within a mile of running afoul of hate speech laws. Here is how [hate speech is defined](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada) in Canada – as an example of how it can be done: First and foremost, it must be consistent with the Charter of Rights, which under Section 2 “… grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media.” Section 1 “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” With those guarantees and limitations, the hate speech laws were formulated as follows: > [@](#): > > Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an “identifiable group.” The Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” > > Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. > > Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. One might note that the first part deals only with advocating genocide. The second part deals with “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group, and because of its relative generality comes with a long list of qualifications in its details which basically make it not prosecutable unless it’s a malicious attempt to incite immediate violence against a specific minority group – that would likely include things like the cross-burning by a mob of bigots trying to scare away a black family from the neighborhood that I mentioned earlier. The laws are rarely used but when they are they have generally been used to good effect to, for instance, deport a virulent anti-Semite neo-Nazi and holocaust denier back to Germany where, I believe, he was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. If that application of law did any social harm it’s hard to see what it was. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/85 "2014-12-03T01:47:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Take laws against holocaust denial, for example. I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky, who said that anyone who denies the Holocaust has moved so far beyond the realms of civilized and rational debate that they don’t even deserve to be engaged with. But that doesn’t mean that we should criminalize their ignorance or prejudice or stupidity or whatever it is that causes them to be so blind to the obvious truth. As a historian, i would love it is fewer people were historically ignorant, but i don’t think that historical ignorance (willful or otherwise) should be subject to criminal sanctions.😕 The repetition of falsehoods, especially when done in well-funded organized campaigns, can lead to their widespread acceptance. PR campaigns are particularly good at hiding their funding origins, giving the impression that the beliefs being advocated have wide grassroots support. This a general pervasive problem we have in society on all kinds of issues, and in general there’s not much we can do about it. So we have to put up with anti-science propaganda denying climate change and lying political ads and that’s life. But there’s no doubt that disinformation campaigns of persuasion are effective. The question now is, when the campaign in question starts to deal with issues of genocide, perhaps suggesting that a particular race or ethnicity is the source of all our troubles and must be liquidated, is it in the best interests of society for that to be stopped? Should free speech be absolute or be subject to reasonable limits, and which approach leads to the best outcomes? You and I disagree on the answers to those questions. So be it. > [@mhendo](#): > > I don’t know if i’ve missed something here, or if you’re just constructing a straw man, but i don’t recall anyone arguing that direct threats should be protected. I certainly have not argued that; in fact, earlier in the thread i gave a link to the story of the Elonis case currently in front of the Supreme Court, and said that i hoped the court found that Elonis had, in fact, committed an illegal act. Are you under the impression that direct threats are protected in the United States? The “impression” I’m under is that an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment can make such threats exceedingly difficult or impossible to prosecute. [Virgina v. Black](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black) and [RAV v. City of St. Paul](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul) are not “strawmen”. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/86 "2014-12-03T02:41:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > First, to be honest, i do think that someone who incites another to violence bears some morally responsibility if that person acts on the incitement. But while our society draws connections between moral and legal culpability, the relationship is not always perfectly aligned. That is, there are cases where you might bear some moral responsibility for something, but not legal responsibility. > > And it’s pretty well established in most societies that there are plenty of ways to be an asshole without running afoul of the law. If an old lady crosses the street too slowly in front of you, you might not be breaking any laws if you stick your head out the car window and tell her to move her retarded wrinkled ass, but you’re definitely being an asshole.First, you’re precisely right that the absence of legal penalties reflect particular societal priorities regarding freedom of speech. In fact, that’s exactly the point of this whole debate: that while speech can be ugly and upsetting and can incite hatred, speech itself is not usually the proximate cause of actual harm. > > Also, you’ve made a small but important rhetorical slip in your language. You talk about “causing a death,” but the fundamental basis of my argument is that, by simply speaking but not acting, i have NOT, in fact, caused a death. The person who wielded the knife or the gun (or whatever) caused a death. No coroner is going to find that the person died of harsh language, or of hatred. > > Look, i understand WHY people argue for hate speech laws. I have some sympathy with the idea, and i have enough friends who are women and minorities and gay to know that hateful speech causes some people genuine grief and even fear. And the thing is that, if laws against certain types of hateful speech went no further than prohibiting direct exhortations to violence, i could probably get on board with them. But they go beyond that in many cases, criminalizing speech that is not an exhortation to anything except unpleasant thoughts and ideas of superiority and inferiority. > > Take laws against holocaust denial, for example. I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky, who said that anyone who denies the Holocaust has moved so far beyond the realms of civilized and rational debate that they don’t even deserve to be engaged with. But that doesn’t mean that we should criminalize their ignorance or prejudice or stupidity or whatever it is that causes them to be so blind to the obvious truth. As a historian, i would love it is fewer people were historically ignorant, but i don’t think that historical ignorance (willful or otherwise) should be subject to criminal sanctions.😕 > > I don’t know if i’ve missed something here, or if you’re just constructing a straw man, but i don’t recall anyone arguing that direct threats should be protected. I certainly have not argued that; in fact, earlier in the thread i gave a link to the story of the Elonis case currently in front of the Supreme Court, and said that i hoped the court found that Elonis had, in fact, committed an illegal act. Are you under the impression that direct threats are protected in the United States? It’s a bit odd that you’re bring up Chomsky since certainly does believe that Holocaust deniers should be “engaged with”. He strongly defended the French historian Robert Faurrison who was fired for academic fraud when he denied the Holocaust. Chomsky even went so as to write a long-winded defense of Faurrison against the charge of anti-Semitism whom he claimed was “a relatively apolitical liberal” which he allowed to be the introduction to Faurisson’s book. Chomsky would then later on double down by insisting in interviews that not only did he not think Faurrison was an anti-Semite but that he saw “no hint of anti-Semitism in denial of the gas chambers or the Holocaust.” For that matter I’m sure he’d chide people who refused to “engage” with Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PA who wrote his P.hD dissertation claiming the Holocaust only took a few thousand Jewish lives. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/87 "2014-12-03T03:44:36Z")
That’s not an accurate representation of Chomsky’s statements and involvements. See [here](http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/88 "2014-12-03T03:52:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The “impression” I’m under is that an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment can make such threats exceedingly difficult or impossible to prosecute. [Virgina v. Black](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black) and [RAV v. City of St. Paul](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul) are not “strawmen”. Then respectfully, if you think that either case means that a mob of bigots can burn a cross on a black families lawn then you clearly didn’t understand either case. Neither case said anything like that. What both cases did was strike down laws that the Supreme Court felt, properly IMHO, that the laws in question were far too over broad. In the St. Paul case, the law in question declared. > [@](#): > > **Whoever places on public or private property** , a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeano One will notice the law doesn’t limit this to placing a swastika or burning a cross on someone’s lawn or house, but even on one’s own property. For example, under that law, the skinhead who wears a swastika on his jacket is violating the law just as much as someone who spray paints a swastika or the slogan “slaughter the Zionist pigs” on a Synagogue. In fact, just a few years ago, a couple of decades after the case in question, people in the area who engage in racist vandalism or similar activity are prosecuted. That’s why the Supreme Court struck down the law. Not because the people arrested in that case, who had burned a cross on a black family’s lawn hadn’t engaged in illegal activity, but because the law they were cited under was too over broad. Had they been accused of harassment, vandalism or similar crimes SCOTUS would have kicked the case out of court. In fact from your very own link SCOTUS declared. > [@](#): > > Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. **But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire** Similarly the Virginia case struck down a law that banned cross burning anywhere, even on one’s own property(I.E. if one held a Klan rally there) while at the same time the Court did rule that Cross burning that was clearly designed to intimidate was not automatically protected. Now, perhaps you feel that the UK should have locked up Muslim protester who held aloft signs explicitly calling for the murder of people they felt had somehow insulted the Prophet Muhammad or abandoned Islam, but I myself think it would have been wrong for the UK to lock up people holding aloft signs declaring “Behead those who insult Islam” or “Behead those who insult the Prophet” despite the fact that since I am a Muslim who doesn’t believe in God they would happily do that to me if they could. > [@](#): > > The laws are rarely used but when they are they have generally been used to good effect to, for instance, deport a virulent anti-Semite neo-Nazi and holocaust denier back to Germany where, I believe, he was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. If that application of law did any social harm it’s hard to see what it was. Ok, since you’re defending laws punishing those who engage in “Holocaust Denial” then if Mahmoud Abbas or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ever wanted to travel to Canada to attend a conference or give a speech at a University then I assume you’d feel that they should be stopped upon entry and then immediately ejected since they have both engaged in “Holocaust Denial”, unless your definition of “Holocaust Denial” is substantially different than most people’s? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/89 "2014-12-03T03:55:18Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > That’s not an accurate representation of Chomsky’s statements and involvements. See [here](http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm). Yes it was. BTW, Chomsky is not a reliable source so I’d strongly recommend taking him at his word. You’re talking about a guy caught manufacturing quotes and falsely attributing them to Harry Truman. That said, are you seriously trying to deny that Chomsky didn’t A. Deny Faurrison was an anti-Semite. B. Allow Faurrison to print one of his essays as a foreword to his book. and C. Claim in an interview that he saw “no hint of anti-Semitism in denial of the Holocaust”. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/90 "2014-12-03T04:02:38Z")
Look, Chomsky can be pedantic, and he said some pedantic things which, slightly altered and removed from their narrow pedantic context, resemble those things. He explains himself at some length, at the linked bit and elsewhere. [Quote=Noam Chomsky] Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler’s anti-gypsy genocide are an “exploded fiction.” In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler’s treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the [South American] continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties [resulting from the Vietnam War] is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., “scholarship,” etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies. [/quote] If you don’t find Chomsky a reliable source on his own views, then I’m going to ask you for _your_ unimpeachable cite. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/91 "2014-12-03T04:50:16Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Look, Chomsky can be pedantic, and he said some pedantic things which, slightly altered and removed from their narrow pedantic context, resemble those things. He explains himself at some length, at the linked bit and elsewhere. > > If you don’t find Chomsky a reliable source on his own views, then I’m going to ask you for _your_ unimpeachable cite. You seem at this point to be admitting that yes Chomsky did in fact repeatedly defend Faurrison against the charge of anti-Semitism, did in fact write an essay which he allowed Faurrison to publish as the foreword to his book and in an interview with an Australian newspaper declare: > [@](#): > > “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” Am I correct or do you deny that he ever gave that interview, wrote the foreword to Faurrison’s book or insisted that Faurrison wasn’t an anti-Semite? BTW, since you accuse me of “altering” one of his statements which seems to be an accusation of lying outside the Pit of extremely close to it, could you point out which statement I “altered” and how? If I misinterpreted you, I withdraw the question and sincerely apologize. I also note in neither of those insipid, long-winded explanations does Chomsky deny making the statements defending Faurrison or denying that he said he saw no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the Holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/92 "2014-12-03T05:16:34Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You seem at this point to be admitting that yes Chomsky did in fact repeatedly defend Faurrison against the charge of anti-Semitism, did in fact write an essay which he allowed Faurrison to publish as the foreword to his book and in an interview with an Australian newspaper declare: > > Am I correct or do you deny that he ever gave that interview, wrote the foreword to Faurrison’s book or insisted that Faurrison wasn’t an anti-Semite? > > BTW, since you accuse me of “altering” one of his statements which seems to be an accusation of lying outside the Pit of extremely close to it, could you point out which statement I “altered” and how? > > If I misinterpreted you, I withdraw the question and sincerely apologize. > > I also note in neither of those insipid, long-winded explanations does Chomsky deny making the statements defending Faurrison or denying that he said he saw no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the Holocaust. Upon second look, my question about whether or not you were accusing me of “altering” Chomsky’s statement was was clearly jumping the gun. I apologize and withdraw that question, but not the others. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/93 "2014-12-03T05:18:56Z")
It’s “Faurisson.” Pedantically, Chomsky did not defend _him_ from the charge of anti-Semitism (I’m guessing if pressed he would say he doesn’t or didn’t know Faurisson’s mind), rather he said that denial of _gas chambers_ was not necessarily Holocaust denial, or anti-Semitism. [Quote=Noam Chomsky] I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. **A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way** without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it. [/quote] Yes, it was all rather ridiculous, and not reflecting well on him, but the abbreviated, decontextualized representation is not a fair impression of the man’s character and views. The story of these few curious remarks has been kept alive and embellished since the 1980s for the purpose of discrediting him in any/all unrelated contexts. Disagree with Chomsky any way you like (I do, on points), but don’t trot out this “anti-Semitic” story reflexively whenever you see his name. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/94 "2014-12-03T05:28:40Z")
Oh, and to say Chomsky “wrote the foreword to Faurisson’s book” is definitely misleading. Chomsky’s essay predated the book, was not written for the purpose, and in fact was (thread tie-in!) a general defense of free speech. It is true that Chomsky allowed Faurisson to use it; I don’t know if he appreciated at the time the attention this would likely draw, but I expect he would have similarly authorized it for any number of purposes, as a matter of principle. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/95 "2014-12-03T05:35:22Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > It’s “Faurisson.” Pedantically, Chomsky did not defend _him_ from the charge of anti-Semitism (I’m guessing if pressed he would say he doesn’t or didn’t know Faurisson’s mind), rather he said that denial of _gas chambers_ was not necessarily Holocaust denial, or anti-Semitism. > > Yes, it was all rather ridiculous, and not reflecting well on him, but the abbreviated, decontextualized representation is not a fair impression of the man’s character and views. The story of these few curious remarks has been kept alive and embellished since the 1980s for the purpose of discrediting him in any/all unrelated contexts. Disagree with Chomsky any way you like (I do, on points), but don’t trot out this “anti-Semitic” story reflexively whenever you see his name. “Few curious remarks”? Err… He wrote an essay defending the man and insisted he “was not anti-Semitic” but merely “a relatively apolitical sort of liberal” and then allowed that essay to be used as the foreword Faurisson’s book. For someone who began by rather foolishly and stupidly insisting that I’d somehow mischaracherized Chomsky you seem to be desperately trying to minimize what Chomsky said. Now, for the final time let me ask you the question you’ve repeatedly dodged. Are you denying Chomsky wrote the foreword to Faurisson’s book? Are you denying that Chomsky defended Faurisson against the charge of anti-Semitism? Are you denying that in an interview with an Australian newspaper Chomsky didn’t declare "I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/96 "2014-12-03T05:39:55Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Oh, and to say Chomsky “wrote the foreword to Faurisson’s book” is definitely misleading. Chomsky’s essay predated the book, was not written for the purpose, and in fact was (thread tie-in!) a general defense of free speech. It is true that Chomsky allowed Faurisson to use it; I don’t know if he appreciated at the time the attention this would likely draw, but I expect he would have similarly authorized it for any number of purposes, as a matter of principle. Thank you very much for admitting that I was telling the truth abou Chomsky and that Chomsky did in fact write the foreword to the book. As for why wrote it, he was very clear. He did it because he felt Faurisson was “anti-Zionist not anti-Semitic”. Do you think that’s an accurate representation of Faurisson, that he was not actually “anti-Semitic” but merely “anti-Zionist”? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/97 "2014-12-03T05:43:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > It’s a bit odd that you’re bring up Chomsky since certainly does believe that Holocaust deniers should be “engaged with”. He strongly defended the French historian Robert Faurisson who was fired for academic fraud when he denied the Holocaust. Precisely. He defended his free speech rights. He did not defend Faurisson’s denial of the Holocaust; indeed, he did not even engage in the debate regarding whether or not the Holocaust had occurred. He has said, on numerous occasions, that to even enter debate over that issue is beyond the pale. For example, in a 2003 [Q&A with Washington Post](http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20031126.htm) readers: > [@](#): > > **Alexandria, Va.:** Some years ago during the Faurisson matter you were quoted in the New York Times as saying that personally you believed that the Holocaust had occurred. > > Are you comfortable stating that the Holocaust occurred without qualifying it with an “I believe”? > > Do you believe that the question of whether or not the Holocaust occurred is one over which reasonable minds can differ? > > **Noam Chomsky:** I don’t recall anything that idiotic in the New York Times, and if there was such a statement, it’s slanderous, because it suggests that there is some possibility to the contrary. Anyone who’s looked at what I’ve written, since my first published political writings almost 40 years ago, knows that any such suggestion is about on a par with my saying that I read a statement in the NY Times that you are personally opposed to torture of children. > > I’m comfortable with saying exactly what I wrote almost 40 years ago, and have often repeated: the Holocaust was the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we even agree to enter into debate with those who try to deny Nazi crimes. Of course, every factual statement – e.g., that the moon is not made out of green cheese – has an implicit “I believe” before it. That’s what it means for a statement to be empirical – and if we are serious about it, the conclusions extend even to a large part of mathematics. But that’s utterly irrelevant here. This restates a position that he had laid out a bunch of times before. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Chomsky even went so as to write a long-winded defense of Faurisson against the charge of anti-Semitism whom he claimed was “a relatively apolitical liberal” which he allowed to be the introduction to Faurisson’s book. Chomsky would then later on double down by insisting in interviews that not only did he not think Faurisson was an anti-Semite but that he saw “no hint of anti-Semitism in denial of the gas chambers or the Holocaust.” None of that is evidence that he engaged with Faurisson over the issue of Holocaust denial. He did indeed describe Faurisson as “a relatively apolitical liberal.” I’m not sure what to make of that, because i’ve never read Faurisson’s work. Nor do i know whether it would be more accurate to describe him as anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. As a rule, i don’t seek out the writings of Holocaust deniers, so i can’t claim any expertise in his overall political philosophy. I think, as a general proposition, that it’s probably possible to be a liberal and still be sufficiently ignorant or stupid or evil or whatever to believe that the Holocaust didn’t occur. As a left/liberal myself, i’d like to think that someone with otherwise-liberal views would not also be a denier, but there are all sorts of people in the world. As for allowing his essay to be published as the introduction to a book by Faurisson, that’s a misrepresentation of what happened. Of course, the only evidence i have of this is [Chomsky’s own words](http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm), but that seems to be more evidence than you have about the matter, so until you can refute it with actual evidence of your own, it will serve well enough: > [@](#): > > 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.” > > Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the holocaust as “the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history”). 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. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. > > I later learned that my statement was to appear in a book in which Faurisson defends himself against the charges soon to be brought against him in court. While this was not my intention, it was not contrary to my instructions. I received a letter from Jean-Pierre Faye, a well-known anti-Fascist writer and militant, who agreed with my position but urged me to withhold my statement because the climate of opinion in France was such that my defense of Faurisson’s right to express his views would be interpreted as support for them. I wrote to him that I accepted his judgment, and requested that my statement not appear, but by then it was too late to stop publication. As i suggested, if you have evidence that refutes this account, i’d be happy to see it. Furthermore, it seems to me that Chomsky really had basically no reason to lie about it, given that he continued to defend Faurisson’s free speech rights, after the whole controversy blew up. Regarding his statement arguing that denial of the Holocaust is not necessarily evidence of anti-Semitism, i would argue that it might be true as a simple logical statement, but that it was a stupid and wrongheaded thing of Chomsky to say, especially given the historical and political context in which Holocaust denial generally occurs. While anti-Semitism might not be the only, or even the main motivation of all deniers, i believe that it is a fundamental component of Holocaust denial. Another area where i disagree with Chomsky is when he call the Holocaust an “outburst of collective insanity.” Dismissing it as insanity, in my opinion, tends to underplay the very deliberate and calculated aspects of the Holocaust, and the very real human interests and prejudices that motivated the Nazis. It also tends to place the Holocaust outside of history, as a unique and incomparable event. Unfortunately, it is all to easy to place this sort of hatred and violence within historical context. There are other people in history who have conducted atrocities similar in nature and who, given the same sort of power and control as Hitler had, would no doubt have approached the Holocaust in scale and scope as well if they could. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/98 "2014-12-03T06:00:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Thank you very much for admitting that I was telling the truth abou Chomsky and that Chomsky did in fact write the foreword to the book. I do not find you particularly committed to a truthful representation of Chomsky. He did write an essay which appeared as that foreword. > [@](#): > > As for why wrote it, he was very clear. He did it because he felt Faurisson was “anti-Zionist not anti-Semitic”. > > Do you think that’s an accurate representation of Faurisson, that he was not actually “anti-Semitic” but merely “anti-Zionist”? I frankly don’t think it should matter, to this thread or to anyone’s view of Chomsky, what Faurisson’s actual views are. _Chomsky never endorsed Faurisson._ You might as meaningfully (not at all) try to represent my comments on this board in light of the details of Fred Phelps’ views, because I upheld _his_ free speech upthread. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/99 "2014-12-03T06:19:39Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > I do not find you particularly committed to a truthful representation of Chomsky. > > He did write an essay which appeared as that foreword. > > I frankly don’t think it should matter, to this thread or to anyone’s view of Chomsky, what Faurisson’s actual views are. _Chomsky never endorsed Faurisson._ Nice strawman. Please don’t misrepresent my views. I never said Chomsky “endorsed” Faurisson and suggesting that I did is both foolish and intellectually dishonest. I said he denied Faurisson was engaging in anti-Semitic when he denied the Holocaust. At this point you seem to be conceding that yes Chomsky did insist that Faurisson wasn’t an anti-Semite or engaging in anti-Semitism. Thank you for admitting I was correct. > [@](#): > > You might as meaningfully (not at all) try to represent my comments on this board in light of the details of Fred Phelps’ views, because I upheld his free speech upthread. Did you insist that Phelps wasn’t “homophobic”? Did you write an essay defending Phelps and and let him publish that as the foreword to his book? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/100 "2014-12-03T06:46:16Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Chomsky…certainly does believe that Holocaust deniers should be “engaged with”. He strongly defended the French historian Robert Faurrison… The first assertion, the point from which this tangent launched, is flatly untrue. Chomsky has specifically said the reverse; it was **mhendo** ’s mention of _that_ that set you off. The second assertion is true only in the narrow sense that he said certain views of Faurisson’s did not ‘logically’ require other things. I quoted the logic above (and agree with **mhendo** ’s reading of the whole matter). I am mystified by the importance you attach to believing Chomsky to have some kind of sympathy for Holocaust denial. Again, if you want to dispute his actual ideas in any historical, political, or linguistic field, do _that_. But the only views of his relevant to anything in this thread are (a) for free speech, and (b) against taking Holocaust denial seriously. Whatever. I apologize to the OP and other readers for engaging with _you_, **Ibn Warraq**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017.md?page=6)