Chomsky -- Faurisson et al (again)

Cueball wrote:

quote:

---

But Chomsky himself has stated that he would not have gone as far as he did in defending Faurissons right to publish, had he been more aware of the where Faurisson is coming from.

---

I'm aware of that. That's why I'm not outright condeming Chomsky, nor endorsing jpj's position. I said it was not his most shining moment, not a destruction of his reputation.

quote:

---

Chomsky is not all-seeing, and even your explanation of Chomsky's view indicates that his defence was based on theoretical premises regarding freedom of scholarship as you yourself has characterized it: "In an overarching sense, everything is up for debate and dissent."

---

And it is not the defense of this right for which I am critsizing Chomsky, it is for drifting into Faurisson's character and anti-Semitism or lack thereof, of which you have demonstrated he was not fully aware. Had he stuck solely to the Voltairian "defend to the death your right to say" that which is disagreeable, he would have been better off.

I think the criticisms of Chomsky's handling of this episode are fair game. I am [i]not[/i] interested in a witch-hunt, nor in a smearing of his reputation. And I think I said as much in the previous thread.

Indeed.

Of course Fuarisson has a "right" to say or write whatever he wishes as long as it is lawful. That doesn't mean that Noam Chomsky has to use Faurisson to make this point. He had to know the incredible pain this would engender and his research prior to writing was abysmal. He clearly knew nothing to little of whom he was defending. For a brilliant academic he showed incredibly poor judgement at best and wilful blindness at worst.

quote:

---

But Chomsky himself has stated that he would not have gone as far as he did in defending Faurissons right to publish, had he been more aware of the where Faurisson is coming from.

---

I read an interview where he said the only regret he had in that whole affair was in ever backing off, even slightly, on his defence of absolute free speech. I assume he was talking about the statement you refer to.

quote:

---

He clearly knew nothing to little of whom he was defending. For a brilliant academic he showed incredibly poor judgement at best and wilful blindness at worst.

---

Why should he know anything about the author in question to defend his right to publish? What difference does it make? The principle is the same no matter who they are, what they're saying, or what the context is. We can't uphold freedom of speech, and then say,"well, except for these opinions, which we all know shouldn't be spoken, so they don't count".

It's a shame that certain arguments and opinions will cause people pain. My sympathy for this is sincere, but the fact is that the consequences of casting a chill over debate and dissent are far, far more serious than the emotional trials of those who have to read legitimately offensive writings. I think Chomsky was making a point, by defending the rights of precisely the most objectionable viewpoint he could find, to say that it is most important in these cases to defend free speech, because if the worst examples of such freedom aren't protected, then the freedom doesn't really exist. It is only the illusion of such. I would have written that introduction too.