Just where did you support any of the lies you advanced? Will you answer this: just where did Noam Chomsky provide legal advice to Faurisson's legal defense? This is but one of the many untruths you have spoken, none of which have you supported. You forgot to capitalize Truth, by the way, Comrade.
> ... Ku Klux Klan terror is "a joke"
>to be countered with humble words (if it is really a joke, why not with
>laughter?); ...
Just where did the word "joke" appear in any of my posts referring to KKK terror? Will you support this baseless claim, or will you continue with your lies and groundless attacks?
So hate speech is "terror". What then is lynching? Ultra-terror? Hysterical inflation of terms is the first sign of intellectual bankruptcy and defeat.
> ... Senator Joseph McCarthy penned Article III, Section III, of
>the United States Constitution. ...
No, he simply invoked it's phrase "aid and comfort" to insinuate that his opponents were traitors. I noted you used the phrase itself. So, are you back-handedly accusing Chomsky of the crime of treason, since you are familiar with the source of the phrase, or are you admitting that you are following McCarthy's lead?
> .... I hope Bill never has to witness or endure
>actual Klan violence or McCarthyism, but given his odd and gentle notion of
>politics, except in polemics against me and probably other radical activists,
>the chances are slight that he will.
Nothing like personalizing the debate, is there? My "odd and gentle notion" that lies should be met with refutation and not repression (particularly that of the state) underlies part of the strength of left politics. You and others like you would trash this accomplishment, won after many years of hard struggle.
>Unlike Bill Lear, Brett Knowlton would not defend an endowed chair for Henry
>Kissinger. ...
Just where did I say I would defend such a thing? Evidence? Citation?
>Kissinger. Brett is correct that the French state prosecuted Robert Faurisson.
>His university also fired him, and Noam Chomsky defended his right to teach.
>It was in that context that Chomsky likened his support of Faurisson to his
>support of U.S. war criminals (his words) to teach at U.S. universities, and
>condemned those who sought to evict them by militant protest.
Again, will you supply "his words" or continue to invent?
>The Universal Declaration guarantees that people shall be free from racist
>incitement and from incitement to genocide...
This is covered in standard Freedom of Speech 101. Incitement to violence is not protected, so there is no need to venture beyond the Bill of Rights on this one. I love the free association when appropriate, but "racist incitement"? What is this pray tell, incitement to become a racist? Using racist slurs?
And your claim that the UDHR even *mentions* genocide or "racist incitement" is another example of your slimy approach to truth and debate: nowhere in the document is this mentioned (funny though, "freedom of speech" is mentioned in the second paragraph, and Article 19 deals with "freedom of opinion and expression").
Just where does the UDHR mention these concepts? Those interested in checking might visit: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_udhr.htm to look for themselves. Perhaps it's in the version that Ken has conveniently "misplaced" along with all his support for his other lies.
The UN has dealt with the issue of genocide, but not in this document, nor has the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (approved Dec. 9, 1948: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/genocide.html) in the terms Ken implies. But, why quibble over mere facts?
> .... Except for
>liberals and some leftists in this country, few people of good will have
>difficulty understanding this, or worry that tortured interpretations of its
>plain meaning by lawyers and professors are grounds to nullify its
>enforcement.
Your phrase neglected something: it should read "people of good will and a healthy imagination for reading into documents things which do not exist".
> ... Which side are you on? is the question. Noam Chomsky had the wrong
>answer.
Unfortunately, you are the one who is confused, and deceitful to boot. Again, for our third-grade listeners out there: lies should be met with refutation, not repression.
Bill