In my article I say racism is arguably history's greatest crime against humanity when we consider the genocidal usurpation of the Western Hemisphere from the indigenous peoples, the genocidal enslavement of Africans, worldwide colonialism, the Nazi holocaust against the Jews and Eastern Europe, dropping the atom bomb on Japan, the Viet Nam War, the War on Iraq, etc., etc. As important as freedom of speech has been for modern political liberation, it cannot be said that repression of freed speech has led so directly and critically to holocaustic crimes and criminal epochs comparable to those briefly listed above. Fascistic racist ideas have many times entered the "marketplace of ideas" of the American Supreme Court justices Holmes and Brandeis, and more often than we can risk again, the result has been holocaustic crimes against humanity, with hundreds of millions murdered and suffering lifelong oppression.
"Freedom" of speech for fascistic racists such as the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, should not be conceived of abstracted from this real history of the effect of these ideas in the world. We do not have to keep debating whether the earth is round or flat. Similarly, the solid evidence of history in the long and short term gives proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nay any doubt, that there is no greater social evil than racist acts and movements, and that racist ideas, ideology and speech create a clear and present danger of racist acts and movements. Racism is like smallpox virus. The remote possiblity that it might give some future benefit to the human species does not make it worth preserving now. In other words, if we think out the logic of the doctrine of free speech as developed by Holmes and Brandeis - that free speech for "unpopluar" ideas should be allowed because they may result in benefits of socieity that are not immediately apparent - we can prohibit the dissemination of fascistic racist ideas without worry of preventing future, unforseen benefits to society.
Balancing the threat of genocidal harm against the "good" of racist ideas' "free play" in the marketplace of ideas, we can ban racist ideas without any damage to even the bourgeois liberal, idealistic purpose and rationale for the First Amendement to the U.S Constitution and Free Speech.
One simple way to consider this logically is the following. Take someone who holds Freedom of Speech as their highest political ideal. It is absurd for them to advocate in favor of "freedom" to argue for the end of the right of free speech ! This is exactly what the Nazis , KKK and fascists advocate and institute: the end of freedom of speech. So, if their ideas succeed and persuade, they will lead to the end of the most important institution in the "free speecher's" opinon ! Even radical free speechers should oppose the right to advocate the end of free speech or fascism.
The legal standard of international law on this issue, in the Convention on Genocide and The internation convenant on human rights, et al. is to outlaw incitement and advocacy of racism and genocide, unlike the more backward U.S. standard of the Supreme Court case of _Brandenburg vs. Ohio_. As noted in this thread, France, a fully "democratic" country makes denial of the WWII holocaust a crime. The fascist Le Pen was convicted under it recently. Canada has a similar law. The former socialist countries had laws outlawing advocacy of racism.
Charles Brown
Outlaw the Nazis and KKK.
>>> Brett Knowlton <brettk at unica-usa.com> 10/26 2:11 PM >>>
Ken,
>We shall never agree on the asserted "right" of Nazis to poison the political
>air without militant opposition. I assert the right and duty of decent people
>to chase them off the streets and out of the schools by every available
means,
>as many of us were attempting to do in Mississippi when Chomsky weighed in
for
>Faurisson. These principles and Chomsky's are in opposition; they cannot be
>reconciled.
I thought Faurisson was going to be criminally tried in France for his ideas, and that Chomsky supported him because he didn't think people should be held criminally accountable for their beliefs and opinions. This is what I remember from watching Manufacturing Consent. Is this true, or is my memory faulty?
Assuming it is true, than I would support Faurisson as well. I don't have a problem with protesting against a Nazi rally or similar public displays of disgust, but I don't think you should criminalize someone because they are a member of the KKK or a Nazi, or claim the holocost never happened. I don't see a conflict of principles here - either you believe in free speech or you don't, and if you believe in it you SHOULD support Faruisson against legal action based on his ideas, regardless of your own opinions about his work.
If Chomsky ever said that Faurisson should be able to disseminate his opinions without opposition, then I'd be surprised and dismayed. I don't agree with this, but this isn't my understanding of what Chomsky has said.
>Do all of Chomsky's admirers on this list join him in defending Faurisson's
>and Kissinger's right to teach and proselytize without their work being
rudely
>disrupted?
Again, this isn't my understanding of Chomsky's position. I thought his point was that Faurisson and Kissinger have the right to publicize their opinions, and to be free from persecution by the state because of their opinions. At the same time, I think Chomsky would support people who chose to demonstrate their opposition to these viewpoints as well.
I don't know much about this incident, but I've read a lot of his writing and heard him speak several times. The things you're attributing to him are simply inconsistent with what I've been exposed to.
Brett