Alterman on Chomsky

C. G. Estabrook galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
Wed Jun 19 10:25:08 PDT 2002


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Bradford DeLong wrote:


> ...Chomsky's insistence that the "Chomsky Preface" is a Voltairean
> defense of free speech writes [sic], and not also a substantive
> defense of Faurisson (something that relies on people not actually
> reading the preface)...

Whereas if they actually do read the preface they have to learn to discount Chomsky's express assertions, such as

"I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs. I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge."

And, also at the beginning of the essay,

"I would not want these comments to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope."

Then follows Chomsky's account of the genesis of the affair:

"Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson's 'freedom of speech and expression.' The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to 'do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson's] safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.' I signed it without hesitation.

"The fact that I had signed the petition aroused a storm of protest in France. In the Nouvel Observateur, an ex-Stalinist who has changed allegiance but not intellectual style published a grossly falsified version of the contents of the petition, amidst a stream of falsehoods that merit no comment. This, however, I have come to regard as normal. I was considerably more surprised to read in Esprit (September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition 'scandaleuse,' citing specifically that fact that I had signed it...

"Vidal-Naquet offers exactly one reason for finding the petition, and my act of signing it, 'scandaleuse': the petition, he claims, presented Faurisson's '"conclusions" comme si elles etaient effectivement des decouvertes [as if they had just been discovered].' Vidal-Naquet's statement is false..."

But obviously all of this (and more) can be explained away by those with right thoughts. --CGE



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list