Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 9

Faurisson affair mischaracterized in summary
The summary of the Faurisson affair misstates the criticism leveled at Chomsky. He isn't being attacked for defending Faurisson's right to free speech. He's being criticised for going even further and defending Faurisson's (dubious) credibility. The linked-to article makes this clear. The claim that Chomsky was just defending Faurisson's right to free speech does not reflect the claims of his critics. Rather, the claim of defending free speech is part of Chomsky's defense against such critics. --Ryan Wise 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should not have to be reminded of the content of the box that serves as the heading for this page entitled "Biographies of Living Persons." Therein it says: "Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The claims that Dershowitz makes about what Chomsky is supposed to have said are not in the least well-sourced. And in fact, since I know that material quite well, they are easy to recognize, in the first case, not, as Dershowitz claims, something that Chomsky said or wrote himself, but something written in a petition emphasizing free speech rights that he signed onto. And in other cases selective quotations by Dershowitz yanked out of their original context. Dershowitz's diatribe is -transparently-poorly sourced.BernardL 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim that Chomsky was accused of defending free speech assumes Chomsky's innocence rather than proving it. It's like saying "OJ Simpson was accused of murder when someone else killed his wife." The claims that Dershowitz makes are one of the criticisms of Chomsky. Chomsky is not criticized for "defending free speech." He's criticized for lending support to Faurisson's credibility, as the article dedicated to the discussion of the Faurisson affair makes clear with referenced citations. It is disingenious to provide a dishonestly summarized link to criticism of Chomsky, with said criticism then removed from the main page. I altered the summary to more accurately reflect the content it attmepts to summarize. I'll change the language to "Derchowitz accuses Chomsky of..." If you want to provide sourced information refuting Derchowitz's accusations, you're more than welcome to.
 * --Ryan Wise 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear. No where does Chomsky "lend support" to Faurisson's "credibility". The referenced citations do not show that, and I'm trying to keep my addressing this to one page.


 * You are slandering a Professor of Linguistics. If you can not do better than he is "lending support" to his "credibility", then you need to retract your statements. Show evidence of what you are asserting. --User:Notque


 * That Chomsky is lending support to Faurisson's credibility (i.e. passing off academic dishonesty and fraud as free speech issues, calling Faurisson an apolitical liberal and selectively citing his work to make it appear that he's not antisemetic, defending fraudulent research as 'findings' and then claiming that 'findings' is a totally neutral term which can include fraud, as well as maintaining contact with Faurisson and helping him defend himself in other ways etc.) is exactly the criticism leveled by Chomsky opponents. If you think it's invalid, you can give reasons why. I've showed evidence of Chomsky's actions repeatedly in this thread and they've simply been ignored. --Ryan Wise 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The text does not actually say that Chomsky was "accused of defending free speech" as you claim, it rather says he was accused of lending support to those accused of having anti-semitic views. Check it. And it is only balanced to provide his stated position that he was defending free speech. What we have at the moment is far more balanced than your attempts to insert unsourced insinuations by Dershowitz. These are serious accusations which are probably best left to the more in-depth pages providing fuller context. This section should constitute a succinct and balanced pointer to the controversy. Even if you say "Dershowitz accuses Chomsky" if it does not contain valid sources for Dershowitz's particular accusations it would still invalidate WP:BLP.BernardL 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Originally, the text stated that; "Despite his Jewish heritage, he has been accused of lending support to those accused of expressing anti-semitic viewpoints for his defense of Robert Faurisson's right to free speech." Saying that the accusations resulted from Chomsky's "defense of Faurisson's right to free speech" assumes that Chomsky's detractors were wrong about Chomsky's charactierisation of the incident. It implicitly assumes Chomsky's view, i.e. Chomsky defended free but unpopular speech and it was wrongly interpreted as lending support. Faurisson's work is demonstrably fraudulent, not just morally unpalatable. Chomsky deliberately concealed Faurisson's neo-nazi sympathies as well as Faurisson's fraud and defended his character. (for whatever reason) Explaining this more accurately explicates the criticism of Chomsky than does the original passage, which implies that Chomsky's defence of freedom of speech was simply misinterpreted by critics as advocacy.


 * I'm fine with the current wording. But I'll go over Chomsky's stance (For the sake of future edits) so that it's at least clear that those who think Chomsky went too far and defended Faurisson's character and academic credentials despite his fraud have a valid stance.


 * “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”


 * W. D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant [Australia], October 1981, pp. 8-14. A reply by Chomsky and a rebuttal by Rubinstein are published in the April 1982 issue of the same journal. (citation taken from


 * Corroborating Dershowitz's claim that Chomsky is mischaracterising Faurisson, there's the article "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression" from Chomsky's own website which is the article which touched this whole thing off. "As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."


 * The petition Chomsky signed states "Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question." Most people interpret words like 'research' and 'findings' to confer legitimate research, though Chomsky views the term as one which can include forgery. Forgery or misrepresentation is not a finding. If you make somthing, you haven't found it. While claiming to be unfamiliar with Faurisson's work, Chomsky makes the claim that "though it is irrelevant to the civil-liberties issue, (Faurisson) writes of the "heroic insurrection of the Warsaw ghetto" and praises those who "fought courageously against Nazism" in "the right cause"" Additionally, Chomsky was part of the protest that sought to see Faurisson not lose his university position, which would have been fair in some other case of intellectual dishonesty, and not be censorship at all.


 * That may be fair to you, but what does Noam Chomsky say on the topic? He has discussed this topic, and does not agree with you. I'd suggest some research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 October 2006


 * You don't really present any evidence here, nor do you make an argument. Chomsky disagrees with me? About what, specificaly? The point is, Chomsky has defended Faurisson on the grounds that Faurisson was being persecuted only for what he said. While Chomsky has, at times, claimed he isn't capable of judging Faurisson's work or that he isn't familiar enough to judge it, he has simultaneously defended it against critics and defended Faurisson's character. Chomsky has repeatedly ignored and covered up the ehtical violations which Faurisson has committed. It is this deliberate cover up that Chomsky is being criticized for, since it mischaracterizes the situation and deliberately obscures the context. If you can find any passage where Chomsky specifically addresses Faurisson's ethical lapses rather than simply ignoring or whitewashing them, please post. --Ryan Wise 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "My own views in sharp opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 October 2006


 * This is evidence that Chomsky diagress with Faurisson's position. It is not evidence that he disagrees with me. Again, it doesn't even address what I've said, or what Chomsky's critics have said. You're attacking a strawman here. The point is that Chomsky is defending deliberate academic fraud.

--Ryan Wise 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vidal-Naquet had even written letters to Chomsky regarding Faurisson so that Chomsky would be unable to plead ignorance. Chomsky clearly read them, and refered to them, but did not acknowledge their content saying that the correspondance was 'private.' Vidal-Naquet has since said that he's more than happy if the contents are

disclosed to the public. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol_1.html


 * I'm curious whether you have any sources showing that Chomsky has actually acknowledged Faurisson's ethical lapses, which are conspicuous by their absence. This would be noteworthy, since Chomsky's defense of Faurisson's character and persistant deliebrate deception as to his nature is at the heart of the criticisms against Chomsky. Likewise, do you know of any instance where Chomsky has taken issue with the wording of the petition he signed? He's had plenty of time to do so if he disagreed with it. Instead, he has defended it literally to the word.


 * Chomsky has stated many times that he did not agree with Faurisson. There are many more, and if you need them I will provide them, although they are are easy for you to research yourself if your intent is to find the facts.


 * Yes, I know Chomsky has said he disagrees with Faurisson. You're not even addressing my post, or the criticisms being leveled against Chomsky. The point is that Chomsky claims that Faurisson is a legitimate, honorable, and credible researcher.


 * My understanding is that Chomsky does not claim that Faurisson is a legitimate, honorable and credible researcher. And the article I linked to states his claims, and not that one. Will you provide evidence that Chomsky beileves Faurisson is credible. He states that he didn't know of his work at that time.


 * And critics of Chomsky have good reason to dispute this. Chomsky has done everything that he can to avoid the issue relating to Faurisson's ethical lapses and to defend Faurisson's character and credibility.


 * Because it wasn't relevant to what he was saying. He says it very clearly in Freedom of Expression.


 * Faurisson's ethical lapses were directly relevant to Faurisson's being removed from his post for fraud. And Chomsky defended the wording of the petition. In Freedom of Expression Chomsky says The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies which is straight out prevarication on Chomsky's part. The petition DOES comment quite clearly on the validity of Faurisson's work. It is not what Chomsky makes it out to be.


 * Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.


 * Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.


 * We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.


 * We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.


 * Extensive research? A respected professor? Findings? These are not neutral terms. They imply a certain standard of academic honesty at least. Faurisson was only barred from one private archive. Never public librarires.

--Ryan Wise 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, if you have any source from Chomsky discussing Faurisson's proven ethical violations, please post. Simple disagreements with Faurisson don't address the issue. The citation you give only indicates that he "questions Faurisson's motives", which is not the same thing as acknowledging Faurisson's academic dishonesty.


 * And Again, I do not beileve it's whatsoever relevant. He states why he wrote what he wrote, and why he beileves that. He does not state he is credible.


 * Given that it has been over a decade since this event has occurred, and that Chomsky is more than capable of researching the matter, ignorance of Faurisson's lapses seems a remarkably tenuous defense.


 * I don't beileve it's ignorance, I beileve it's not relevant, which is his point.


 * Furthermore, Chomsky notes in the article you cited; In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue. However the hypothetical subject here is someone who is "ignorant of modern history." However Chomsky has never given the indication that he thinks that Faurisson is, like his hypothetical subject, "ignorant of modern history."


 * Agreed. He was making a statement, and defending that exact statement. He has made it several times, in a variety of ways included in that Article. He is defending the right of free speech, and nothing more.


 * On the contrary, Chomsky has supported Faurisson's credibility which is the lion's share of what his critics are attacking him for. I'm beginning to seriously doubt that you understand what you're trying to argue against, since your citation doesn't begin to address it.


 * And I seriously doubt what you are trying to argue. Chomsky has not supported Faurissons "credibility". Please show otherwise.


 * Even if you say "Dershowitz accuses Chomsky" if it does not contain valid sources for Dershowitz's particular accusations it would still invalidate That Dershowitz has accused Chomsky of certain things is easily proven and not libelous. The antagonistic relationship between the two is noteworthy in its own right, as it goes back for several decades. --Ryan Wise 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Faurisson critics' description of affiar vs. Chomskys
My interlocuter has consistently failed to log in or sign their posts, much less condense their posts into a single block. So it's hard to tell whose comments are whose and respond with a single coherant post. Thus, this subtopic. Please log in and sign your posts so I can tell whose comments are whose, or at least write your name after them. Thanks. Chomsky has defended Faurisson's character, even when Chomsky clearly notes that he (Chomsky) received warnings from other academics of the nature of Faurisson's writing. Chomsky has been dishonest not just by claiming that Faurisson was an 'apolitical liberal' but also by citing passages from Faurisson's work that would paint a picture of a non-antisemetic Faurisson (Faurisson's calling the Warsaw Ghetto uprising 'the good guys'). Why would Chomsky do this if Faurisson's work or character is truely irrelevant, as Chomsky claimed? Chomsky says in one breath that Faurisson's character is irrelevant. In almost the next breath he contradicts this by misrepresenting who Faurisson was and what he was accused of.

Chomsky has seriously misrepresented the trouble that Faurisson faced and why. His omission of relevant fact which he knew and understood full well are glaring, and calculated to create a false impression. Please read through [this essay by Oliver Kamm, a critic of Chomsky's role in the Faurisson affair. It provides some background which casts Chomsky's actions in a slightly different light than what Chomsky claims and makes clearer his evasions and omissions as regards his role in the Faurisson affair.--[[User:Wiserd911|Ryan Wise]] 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence of writing from Chomsky that he has defended Faurisson's character. If you wish to do this properly, you are going to need to show hard evidence of what you are asserting. I will address each of your claims, but as your argument centers on Chomsky defending Faurisson's charcter, I need evidence. I do not see evidence in the blog you linked to. Thank you. --User:Notque


 * I've already provided several links documenting Chomsky's actions, including writing from Chomsky and other people. You're welcome to go back and read them. --Ryan Wise 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not posted any evidence what so ever that Chomsky has ever defended Faurisson's charcter. Not one link, not one word aside from your assurtions. You are either intellectually honest about this or you are not. Provide some of Chomsky's work where he defends Faurisson's charcter. That's the center piece of your argument. Show your work. --User:Notque


 * Reread the thread and address my criticisms individually or don't post. You are wasting my time. Could you summarize the points I've made? Judging by your responses, it doesn't seem you've read them. --Ryan Wise 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I disagree with you plainly. You have been rude in regards to it, but I will try again. I disagree with you. I do not beileve, regardless of the links you've posted of other people asserting what you are trying to assert, that Chomsky has "defended his credibility." I think that because Chomsky refuses to state what he thinks about Faurisson's "credibility", you are taking that as defending it. I think the reason why he hasn't responded to it, is because he thinks it is irrelevant. And I agree with him. To repeat, so this is clear, it is entirely irrelevant if he defended Faurisson's "credibility", because you should not need to like or dislike the person who you are defending their speech. You either defend everyone's speech or you are not for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech needs to be protect at the times where you agree the least. This is the point that you fail to understand, and no ammount of me repeating it is going to help. It is elementary that you must defend speech you dislike. Chomsky was doing what was elementary. He did not know it was going to be on the front of the book, but that doesn't matter. He was stating something that he beileved in, and it doesn't change the fact that he beileves in it, and Faurisson's freedom of speech should be defended. Would you defend his freedom of speech?


 * It is one thing to say "I believe that a person has the freedom to commit libel or fraud and not suffer any consequences for it, because I believe in free speech." It is a different thing entirely to say they haven't comitted libel and fraud at all, and to call them resepectable. There is a tremendous difference between "What you say deliberately misquotes sources, but I defend your right to say it" and saying "you are a respectable individual who has researched this matter and has a right to present your findings." Chomsky has not "refused to state anything" about Faurisson's character. On the contrary, he has signed onto a statement defending Faurisson and then refused to retract his support for those portions which support Faurisson. Chomsky is engaged in the second type of activity, not the first. --Ryan Wise 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be more willing to engage in a debate if the topics you've linked had been credible whatsoever but they are not. They are just more arguments for me to counter. The very reason some of us stop is not because we cannot repeat your argument, it is because frankly it isn't fun. I've stated the issue. I've came back and tried to get you to do one thing. Quote Chomsky where he has defended his credibility. You can't, because that's the center point. I had hoped you'd understand that. It is irrelevant if he did or did not, so the issue is mute. Comparing or connecting people to smear them is one of the oldest smears. You can see it all throughout history, and that is what you are saying. At the end of the day, Look at Chomsky, he think Faurisson is a rational, intelligent, reasonable person and agrees in principal to the basis of his arguments. That those arguments are good because he defends this mythical "credibility." I get it. I do not wish to waste any more time on it. 70.162.42.37 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assertions are not substitutes suported arguments. Calling something "not credible" doesn't make it so. If you want to refute them, I'll listen. But you haven't even done that. They are just more arguments for me to counter. You haven't even addressed any arguments made, much less countered them. You've countered arguements related to free speech, which were not the arguments given. Those who argue with Chomsky on this are generally not arguing against free speech so please stop using that strawman argument. --Ryan Wise 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, Look at Chomsky, he think Faurisson is a rational, intelligent, reasonable person and agrees in principal to the basis of his arguments.


 * No, you're still missing the point. To repost: Chomsky was part of the protest that sought to see Faurisson not lose his university position. Such a loss would have been fair in some other case of intellectual dishonesty and not be censorship at all. Speech is distinctly different than research, and the standards for the second are much higher. To be clear, the petition discussed research and used terms related to research such as 'findings.' To generalize; if academics should be protected from consequences even when they demonstratably fail in their task as academics, even when they're dishonest, then what's the purpose of having academic standards at all? By what standards should academics be hired or retained if not, first of all, by the honesty of their research? Any professional that gives false or misleading information as Faurisson did is quite reasonably going to find their professional position in jeapordy. It is this emphasis on integrity that gives academia value to begin with. Whether Faurisson keeps his University post is not a free speech issue, but a matter of academic integrity and the legitimacy of his supporting institution. The petition's claims that Faurisson was barred from using archives were outright fabrications. He was barred from a single private archive. (If Chomsky has acknowledged that fact yet, you're welcome to post his retraction.) Chomsky simply cannot oppose Faurisson's being punished by the university for lying without either defending Faurisson's credibility or else supporting academic dishonesty as defensible behavior for an academic. --Ryan Wise 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * so the issue is mute Perhaps you're trying to suggest that the issue is "moot?" --Ryan Wise 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)