MOS:LQ
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 05:55, 9 May 2024 |
| Line 29: | Line 29: |
| ==Preface to ''Mémoire en défense''== | ==Preface to ''Mémoire en défense''== |
| Chomsky subsequently wrote an essay entitled ''Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression'', in which he attacked his critics for failing to respect the principle of freedom of speech. Chomsky wrote: | Chomsky subsequently wrote an essay entitled ''Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression'', in which he attacked his critics for failing to respect the principle of freedom of speech. Chomsky wrote: |
| <blockquote>Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.<ref>{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=6 October 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2007100...ky.info/articles/19801011.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism". Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.<ref>{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=6 October 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2007100...ky.info/articles/19801011.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> |
| Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. [[Serge Thion]] and [[Pierre Guillaume]] used it in 1980 as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge.<ref name="manconsent">Mark Achbar & Peter Wintonick. ''Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media''. Zeitgeist Films, 1992.</ref> Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed.<ref name="manconsent" /> Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter.<ref name="manconsent" /> | Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. [[Serge Thion]] and [[Pierre Guillaume]] used it in 1980 as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge.<ref name="manconsent">Mark Achbar & Peter Wintonick. ''Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media''. Zeitgeist Films, 1992.</ref> Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed.<ref name="manconsent" /> Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter.<ref name="manconsent" /> |
| Chomsky's essay sparked an even greater controversy. Critics such as [[Pierre Vidal-Naquet]] attacked him for defending Faurisson personally against charges of anti-Semitism and upholding his work as historical inquiry: | Chomsky's essay sparked an even greater controversy. Critics such as [[Pierre Vidal-Naquet]] attacked him for defending Faurisson personally against charges of anti-Semitism and upholding his work as historical inquiry: |
| <blockquote>The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a "relatively apolitical sort of liberal." You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colors of truth.<ref name="VidalB" /></blockquote> | <blockquote>The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a "relatively apolitical sort of liberal". You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colors of truth.<ref name="VidalB" /></blockquote> |
| Vidal-Naquet offered the following argument to substantiate his characterization of Faurisson as an anti-semite: | Vidal-Naquet offered the following argument to substantiate his characterization of Faurisson as an anti-semite: |
| Line 48: | Line 48: |
| In a response to a letter circa 1989–1991, Chomsky said: | In a response to a letter circa 1989–1991, Chomsky said: |
| <blockquote>A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies.<ref name="ChomskyW">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=The Faurisson Affair - Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney|url=http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=7 August 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2007080...sky.info/letters/1989----.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History", and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies.<ref name="ChomskyW">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=The Faurisson Affair - Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney|url=http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=7 August 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2007080...sky.info/letters/1989----.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> |
| In "His Right to Say It", published in ''[[The Nation]]'', Chomsky stressed the conceptual distinction between ''endorsing'' someone's view and ''defending'' his right to say it: | In "His Right to Say It", published in ''[[The Nation]]'', Chomsky stressed the conceptual distinction between ''endorsing'' someone's view and ''defending'' his right to say it: |
| <blockquote>Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was irrelevant to the issues raised. [...]<br/> | <blockquote>Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was irrelevant to the issues raised. [...]<br/> |
| I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall [[Voltaire|Voltaire's]] famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. [...]<br/> | I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall [[Voltaire]]'s famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. [...]<br/> |
| It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.<ref name="Right">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=His Right to Say It|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=10 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2014101...ky.info/articles/19810228.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote>Chomsky's defense was attacked in turn. Critics said that his defense went beyond free speech arguments, and that it included a defense of Faurisson's "work". | It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.<ref name="Right">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=His Right to Say It|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=10 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/2014101...ky.info/articles/19810228.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote>Chomsky's defense was attacked in turn. Critics said that his defense went beyond free speech arguments, and that it included a defense of Faurisson's "work". |
Okumaya devam et...