Chomsky on Free Speech

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 30 07:40:35 PST 2001


This stupid affair has been rehashed to death. I can perfectly well understand why C decided not to "investigate" whether the Holocaust happened or the gas chambers existed; the matter is not disputed among the sane. However there are various people near Chomsky's own circles, formerly in larger numbers than today, perhaps, who have denied the crimes of Stalinism, etc. Why bring the whole thing up if you don't want to suggest, which I know you don't, that C is a closet Holocaust revisionist? --jks


>>
>>Scroll down to 1). "The treachery of the intelligentsia: A French
>>travesty -- October 1981; then to 2). "Free speech in a democratic
>>society -- response to criticism re: Faurisson affair.
>>
>>Read. Discuss.
>>
>>If this doesn't take, tell me and I'll get it here another way.
>>
>>DP
>
>***** CHOMSKY: My own view is that there are no reasonable grounds
>to doubt the existence of gas chambers. Of course, this is a
>question of fact, not religious faith. Only a religious fanatic
>would deny that questions of fact are subject to inquiry.
>
>QUESTION: If you haven't had the opportunity to examine the substance
>of the record, what is the reason?
>
>CHOMSKY: My reasons are the same as those of the vast majority of
>others who have also not done so. The claim that there were no gas
>chambers seems to me highly implausible, and the denial of the
>holocaust, completely so. Like virtually everyone else who has
>written about this affair or who has not, I see no need to
>investigate further. It has been alleged (e.g., by Vidal-Naquet)
>that it is "scandalous" to defend Faurisson's right to freedom of
>expression without denouncing his conclusions -- which would, of
>course, require careful analysis of his documentation, etc. By these
>curious standards, I have often been engaged in "scandalous"
>behavior. I have frequently signed petitions -- in fact, gone to far
>greater lengths -- on behalf of East European dissidents whose views
>I either do not know, or do know and find horrendous: supporters of
>current American atrocities, for example. I never mention their
>views in this context, even if I am familiar with them, a fact that
>no doubt scandalizes the commissars. The demand that defense of
>civil rights requires an analysis and commentary on the views
>expressed would simply eliminate the defense of the rights of those
>who express unpopular or horrendous views, the usual case where a
>serious issue arises. This is taken for granted without comment by
>all civil libertarians. In discussing this issue, I have therefore
>limited myself to stating that Faurisson's views are diametrically
>opposed to mine, as indicated in the comments I quoted earlier and
>others like them. In the case of East European dissidents, for
>example, I do not even go that far, nor is it necessary to do so.
>
><http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3761/8110.html> *****
>
>When Chomsky wrote of Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc., he
>generally included obligatory denunciations of Hussein, Milosevic,
>Serbian atrocities, Stalinists, etc., presumably to prevent confusion
>as to where exactly he stands politically. Why did he find it
>unnecessary to do the same in the case of Faurisson, East European
>dissidents, etc.? Isn't it a better political judgment to defend
>Faurisson's right to freedom of expression & other civil liberties
>while denouncing or ridiculing his conclusions than to defend it
>without doing so? At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to use such
>political caution & clarification. So as not to "play into the hands
>of the Right" (= "my statement was not written as a preface to the
>book, which I did not know existed, and that I asked to have it
>withdrawn, though too late to affect publication a few weeks after I
>wrote it")? :-)
>
>Or will we all enjoy freedom from constant demands for obligatory
>denunciations from now on?
>
>Yoshie

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list