Posted on 02/11/2016 5:55:05 PM PST by Faith Presses On
...The relevant facts are as follows. Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the University of Lyon. After he published some items in which he denied the existence of gas chambers, he was suspended from teaching on the grounds that the university could not protect him from violence. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of history," and condemned -- the first time in the West, to my knowledge, that the courts have affirmed the familiar Stalinist-fascist doctrine that the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish deviation from it. I was one of 500 foreign signers of a petition urging that Faurisson's civil rights be respected...
(snip)
On Sept. 18, I wrote her that I had indeed signed a statement defending Faurisson's right to speak his views...I wrote that "I signed the appeal because I believe that people have the right of freedom and expression whatever their views, that the importance of defending these rights is all the greater when the person expresses views that are abhorrent to virtually everyone (as in this case), and that this becomes particularly important when the person in question is thrown out of his academic position," and subjected to other ill-treatment...
(snip)
...Furthermore, as I wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz, the nature of his views is, plainly, completely irrelevant to the issue of his right to express them, a truism among civil libertarians that those of a Stalinist-fascist persuasion find quite shocking...
(snip)
...I do defend the right of Faurisson to publish falsehoods, as I defend the right of anyone else to do so, including Professor Smokler. As I wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz... "I thought that all of this had been settled in the 18th century, but apparently others do not agree," including Professor Smokler...
(Excerpt) Read more at chomsky.info ...
Back during the Cold War, the left was always speaking up against censorship, but that was no doubt because they wanted to make sure they were able to speak out both politically and socially in order to go on promoting their extreme beliefs.
Today their speech isn't at all being threatened, and they don't mind threatening the speech of others. They feel they should be able to force their views on others without a choice, or that a Christian college, for instance, should be forced to promote anti-Biblical and secular humanist views.
In the article Chomsky also discusses his anti-Zionist views.
Teaching my children ? Well, I will have something to say about that.
But that's me.
I agree, but that concern wasn’t my point of posting this.
As I wrote in post #1, liberals used to be all for “free speech” by anyone, including the KKK and holocaust deniers. They would “preach” that no one should be punished just for what they say, and that’s what Chomsky says here.
Today, though, the left wants to completely shut down and annihilate Bible-believing Christianity, and conservatism.
I think this is because the Left senses that they are close to permanent, transformative power. Once that is achieved, free speech becomes unnecessary. Chomsky was writing at the peak of the Reagan years. Any suppression of controversial speech back then would almost certainly include Chomsky’s pals on the Left, and that would be unacceptable.
But that was then, and this is now.
I ran across an online program not long ago which honored
the late Mario Savio and his work. Savio was a free speech
advocate at UC Berkeley back in mid 1960s. Many of his
fellow activists and his widow paid tribute not to his
work as a campus free speech advocate but as a left wing
activist. The message was clear; the left’s definition of
free speech applies only to them.
Bernie Sanders is far more dangerous to America than
Donald Trump could ever hope to be.
That’s what I’ve thought too.
It was amazing to read what he wrote in 1985, but it wasn’t controversial then - not at all.
I was a teenager in the 1980’s, and all we heard about in the media and in school was the need to protect civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of the press, at all costs, even when it meant allowing people to say the most false and offensive things.
What Chomsky wrote in 1985 seems mightily out of place among the left today. You NEVER EVER *EVER* hear them saying anything like this.
As Chomsky wrote back then, “I also wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz that I was shocked by her query as to why one should defend freedom of speech. I remain shocked today.”
Chomsky even says people should be able to write and say things that are “WRONG” - imagine that.
The left wants to annihilate any speech they consider “wrong.”
You couldn’t have better summed up the left’s tyrannical quickening of their objectives, just as Obola’s promised to “fundamentally transform our nation”.
Everything is playing out just as 60’s radicals like Bill Ayers and the KGB stated that it would, some 40+ years ago.
O’l Scratch couldn’t be happier...
RE: “I think this is because the Left senses that they are close to permanent, transformative power.”
Who’s posting dead Communist’s crap on Free Republic?
“...the nature of his views is, plainly, completely irrelevant to the issue of his right to express them, a truism among civil libertarians that those of a Stalinist-fascist persuasion find quite shocking...
“...THOSE OF A STALINIST-FASCIST PERSUASION...”
I think of all the times I’ve come across the left denying and ridiculing the possibility that they can be fascist.
Leftists are ideologues who actually believe in something. Chomsky believes in free speech even to the point of supporting the right to free speech for a hideous person that denies the Holocaust.
Liberals, like moderate conservatives, have no strong beliefs. They just have tendencies. They like to believe they are being 'pragmatic'. That is why they can create laws that violate the principle of free speech. That is why moderate conservatives can continue to support a War on Drugs that violates our 4th Amendment rights.
Ideologues have their own vices. Chomsky is a perfect case of someone so devoted to his ideals that he often supports horrendous governments because he believes they are heading in some utopian direction that he approves of.
But moderates can be the most evil of all because they are quite willing to sacrifice the future for the present. They are all about security over liberty. Protect my babies says the soccer mom. Look through my email, keep track of all the places I web surf, track every movement of my car, etc. so long as I know that my poor little defenseless lambs won't get blown up when we go to the mall.
Russell Kirk had it just about right. Ideology? No. Strong principles? Yes.
What we seem to have now, even on FR, is the false choice between conservative ideology and unprincipled conservative pragmatism.
We have all been infected by the cancer of bad thought.
Noam Chomsky is by far the most racist that perhaps the world has ever seen. With his “whole language” English instruction, he reduced black Americans from being almost on a literacy par with whites in the 1950s, to near illiteracy just two decades later. This guaranteed failure in the rest of their education, as well as future poverty and misery.
And Chomsky’s followers, despite half a century of evidence, still religiously believe that whole language is better than phonics.
But Chomsky was defending a college instructor’s “right” to preach lies, to deliberately spew untruths in a college class.
now, whether a person (a preacher for lack of other definitions) even like Jim Jones can “preach” anything he or she believes are true about things that CANNOT BE PROVEN - that’s why “faith” matters and people are “converted” to a different religion. They are not “convinced” or “argued” or “paid” to declare their religious values. We use different words for different reasons.
But.
On matters of fact, you CANNOT plead “free speech”. The sky is blue - except when it is cloudy. The sky is not falling. The earth is round.
Noam Chumpsky ping.
Chumpsky, the human bladder stone.
Thanks for the ping!
Chomsky is on my airport list.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.