Chomsky's Philosophy
1 HN recommender · recommended in 3 months, 2020–2021
10:16 · 183K views · Feb 3, 2017
A ten-minute clip of Noam Chomsky on the Faurisson affair and free speech. He argues that supporting free speech means defending views you despise.
HN quotes it in censorship and moderation threads for Chomsky's principle that free speech must cover speech you dislike.
5 comments from Hacker News
If you're asking this question, you don't understand the principles of freedom of speech. Read the Aaron Swartz essay linked above, and while you're at it, watch this, from Noam Chomsky: this video .
Dann haben wir haben ganz verschiedene Weltbilder. The right to religious criticism should be absolute. The reason I bring up the Austrian case is because itw was upheld by the ECHR, which Germany also defers to. To defend the woman in that case from the ECHR's deranged ruling: Scholars estimate that Mohammed married Aisha, his youngest wife, when she was only 6. If that is not paedophilia, I don't know what is. You bring up libel laws in the US. Historically, they have had a very, very high burden of proof. Only oligarchal authoritarians like Trump try to expand their reach. Libel cases are also exceedingly rare, and if they are brought to court, they are brought to court as a civil matter. And, to top it off, criticism or slander of a figure who is: - Dead - Partly mythologized - A religious figure is completely fair game under the US doctrine of free speech and religious freedom. In the US I would be just as free to say "Jesus was a gay man" or "Mohammed was schizophrenic" as anything else, and in my opinion this is the proper approach. Anyone should also be allowed to print the text of the Quran on toilet paper or burn the Bible or deface the Talmud — why the hell should that be illegal??? Noam Chomsky (who is an extremely prominent Jewish-American scholar and linguist), is one of the staunchest supporters of free speech, from a leftist position. He even made efforts to defend a French Holocaust denier (holocaust denial is also not something I believe should be illegal).
It's an irony that the kind of free speech you appear to support (and please correct me if I'm wrong) existed in fascist states like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, because, as Chomsky points out here[1] "Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked". I'd suggest you might try the other path, as Chomsky also suggests: > “If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech. > There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.” [1] this video
No. this video Freedom of speech is not a small issue. It lies at the core of our civilization, and is unambiguously one of the few things that made "the West" prosper. Aaron makes a very cogent and clear argument for free speech, and its enduring importance. To arbitrate rights based on public opinion is idiotic and dangerous. This is why we have a constitution. Of course, Reddit has the right to do this, as a private company, but that's not an argument for doing it.
"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of speech precisely for views you despise" - Noam Chomsky this video