Noam signs on

[kjkhoo at softhome.net]

Dennis Perrin wrote:
>  > should a person be imprisoned for holocaust denial? i think that
>>  would be a contextual issue. perhaps not in the usa but in, say,
>>  germany? france might be a bit more iffy, but given french complicity
>>  in the genocide, it's probably justifiable.
>>
>>  hey, someone wants to spread lies must be prepared to pay for it. and
>>  sorry, i can't feel too principled about that.
>>
>>  kj khoo
>
>That's too bad -- because it's in these extreme cases where we find out
>who's really serious about free speech.
>
>Apart from libel (and even that's sketchy for some, including Chomsky, who
>on principle won't sue those who've blatantly lied about him) and incitement
>to violence, I say protect the right to lie about history. Otherwise, you
>allow the state to determine what's historically correct, and we've seen
>rather brutal examples of where that leads.

If we're talking about views, interpretations, by all means. But it's 
not always that, is it? And I think the holocaust as policy falls 
into the solid parts of the region of fact by now. Fifty years ago, 
it might have been arguable -- but then, few were arguing for obvious 
reasons. Today, it is surely like saying "flat earth".

I restrict my view to cases of if and only if they fall well within 
the region of fact. Please, none of that post-modernist stuff on 
'fact'. There are facts, even if the region of fact is a much more 
plastic one than positivists claimed.

Of course this should be further qualified -- but don't really want 
to get into it at this time. Fine, if the creationists, or flat 
earthers want to keep going. But when it comes down to 
events/policies such as the holocaust, I'm afraid my tolerance level 
is very, very low.

Basically, while I am in, say, 99% agreement with your view, I do not 
feel comfortable with affirming it as unconditional and 
unconditioned. Context and history must surely count for something.

kjk