Are There No Limits To Freedom of Speech, Is It Okay To Dispute A Truthful Statement?

[OrangeEmpire]

Iran's recent tribunal disputing the Holocaust ever transpired has raised a very interesting question. Should freedom of speech permit messages which contest the truthfulness of those claims which can be demonstrated to be true? In the process some people are inevitably deceived to believe in a claim which is false.

Which of course begs the question of what is "true" and what is not? Is it a truthful assertion the Holocaust existed? If so, does freedom of speech allow indivduals to assert it never happened and in the process deceive others with such a lie?

Does the potential harm outweigh any value or benefit attached or associated with freedom of speech? The potential harm is one of an entire nation, or a significant number of the populace, being deceived into believing a lie.

Thoughts?

Let's take the following examples.

1. Holocaust
2. Earth is flat
3. WWII never transpired
4. Earth is the center of the solar system
5. White blood cells do not exist
6. There is no such thing as an immune system
7. HIV and AIDS does not exist
8 Global warming is a myth

 

[OrangeEmpire]

For illustration purposes, take the following example in the link below.

"Deniers" of Global Warming


In the event the link does not work.

British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Dec. 18 -/E-Wire/-- Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf).


Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."


In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.


Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "


Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."


Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of scientists who dare to question whether 'climate change' will do any harm."


To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."


Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences."

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Or are there anumber of problems with the presumption that speech is harmful and that the idea of freedom of speech can go too far.

First and foremost, speech does not inflict direct harm on another individual. If I say something offensive to a second party that influences another person to act in such a way as to inflict harm on a third party, it is still the actions of the second party that resulted in the harm. This is axiomatic; the speech can only be indirectly attached to the harm being inflicted. The only exception I can see to this rule is if the threat of force is being employed against the acting party so as to construe my speech to be "orders" as is this case with organized crime.

To deny this is to open a door leading to infinite possibilities - any speech that influences another person to commit an act of violence or theft against another person can now be seen as "harmful". For example, an influential television show or movie can be seen as "harmful" if it influences someone to commit a criminal act against another individual. It would be conceivable that anything from Looney Toons to Star Wars (or music lyrics?) can be correlated to harm in such a scenario. All of this removes responsibility for the violent action from the actual perpetrator and places it in the hands of someone whose speech did not directly lead to harm.

If I utter something you don't like...prove that I inflicted harm upon you. The only thing you could offer is emotional distress, and so we are to believe that words you don't like constitute someone inflicting force upon you by giving you a negative reaction. If you want to believe this, welcome to 1984.

A few objections to this that I can see:

1) That "society" is harmed, not individuals.

This is problematic. "Society" can not take the stand and testify that it was harmed by the speech - only an individual can testify to the fact that he believes the speech was harmful. "Society" has no meaning if we are to evaluate whether or not someone's speech harmed another person.

2) The observation might be noted that Star Wars and Looney Toons do not attempt to pass themselves off as truth.

This is an interesting point...but isn't the objective of prohibiting certain speech premised upon the idea that such speech is harmful? Are we then to believe that speech that is true cannot be harmful? In the end, it shouldn't matter whether or not the speech is "true", only if it inflicts harm...

Bottom line to me is that speech does not cause physical harm, unless you want to accept something like mafia orders backed up by coercion.

If this be true - that speech does not cause physical harm - then I believe the use of the force of law against someone for speech is immoral, true or not.

If you don't buy this, let me present some practical reasons as to why restrictions on speech are a bad thing:

The denial of truth and questioning of truth claims is at the very root of increasing our overall knowledge. It is precisely the clash of opposing ideas that allows us to arrive at truth in the first place, and it is what allows our understanding of the world to expand. To shut people out who might be questioning claims that the majority believe to be true is anti-intellectual and runs counter to open discourse in a free society. Allowing someone to argue a point that you believe to be wrong gives you and others the opportunity to respond to it, thereby educating other people and strengthening their grasp of the issue at hand.

To silence people who utter things that may not be true, or are not perceived to be true by a majority of people is to place no confidence in the free market of ideas...as in all other things when the free exhange of goods and ideas takes place we are much the better for it. Ask yourself when was the last time that falsehoods were spread without the backing of a government institution? For governments, as history demonstrates, have it in their interest to proclaim lies to be truth and to silence ddebate on the matter. It was organized states that opposed the open discourse leading to some of the more significant discoveries of science. It was organized states that opposed disemination of natural law ideals. It was organized states that forbade the education of slaves in the American South in certain areas. Additionally, there has been state opposition to other people who have been uttering such "falsehoods" as predestination, the questioning of divine right monarchy, or even that the world is not flat.

If there is a leader in the suppression of truth history shows it to be the state. When the state gets to define "truth" then it cannot have any opposition to that truth...which explains the suppression of free speech under totalitarian regimes.

When people are free to hear all speech - true or false - then they are better equipped to challenge falsehoods when they hear them. Of course they can't do this if the government gets to define what is true.

And herein lies the danger. Even in a democratic society, how do you decide what is "true" or "untrue?" What procedue is followed and how do you decide who implements it? The only answer is majority rule. (Is there need at this point to remind anybody how Socrates was killed?)

In order to arrive at "truth" a discussion has to take place. Is this discussion to be a public debate, or is the question to be decided by a ruling class and handed down by decree? If it is the latter, the flow chart once again takes us to our final resting place - 1984.

If it is the former, as we would expect in a democratic society, and the majority decides what is "true", then why the need for a law? How can "society" be harmed if the majority decides what is truth?

This, of course, says nothing to the idea that objective truth is not dependent on majority opinion.

The contention might be that future generations could be persuaded to believe a lie that grows from the seeds of minority opinion and persuades more people...this can only happen if people shut their minds down and are taught not to think. Be reminded of Germany-Prussia in the late 19th century - the children in the state schools there became adults 30 years later, ripe for being indoctrinated with fascist propaganda as they had been taught that the state was the only real "truth" in their lives. If you think America is in this state and needs someone to tell the people how to evaluate truth claims then ask yourself why that is the case - perhaps there is a deeper problem?

These systems show no confidence in the free-flow of ideas.

Ultimately, any road we travel down is going to lead to the suppression of open discourse and the state telling the people what is true or not. A monopoly on truth is usually most appealing to totalitarianism. Maybe we shouldn't trust a government to tell us what is true or not, whether its about blue stains on an intern's dress or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - I'd rather hear all arguments, including the absurd ones.

I'll decide for myself, but thanks for caring.

 

[Volitics]

Iran's recent tribunal disputing the Holocaust ever transpired has raised a very interesting question. Should freedom of speech permit messages which contest the truthfulness of those claims which can be demonstrated to be true?

Dwight D. Eisenhower's library has got a page dedicated to the "Holocaust." The page has letters that Eisenhower wrote to others. It also has reports on his findings as he toured defeated Germany.

Here's a link to the page:
Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library

I've read several of the documents. Eisenhower notes all kinds of apparent atrocities - which I believe. But I can't find anywhere where Eisenhower mentions mass extermination facilities.

If you figure six mention Jews (eleven million including Poles, Gypsies, Russians) as claimed there would have had to been a massive industrial complex dedicated solely for the disposition of the corpses.

That would have been a complex capable of incinerating one hundred and ten (110) football stadiums full of people the size of UT's football stadium.

I may have overlooked it but can anyone find mention of facilities like that in Eisenhower's documents?

The claim of mass extermination is significant. I'm not disputing their claim. But I'm just saying that before I believe a claim such as that I want to see documented proof.

 

[dan4vols]

incredible

 

[Volitics]

Here's more documentation. It's a film documentary produced by a Jewish person named David Cole.

http://www.solargeneral.com/av/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv

The documentary consists of a tour of the Auschwitz prison camp.

It takes about five minutes to download if you have high speed Internet.

Once downloaded it takes about an hour to play.

 

[cotton]

OE, I hate to throw a wrench into a topic into which you have obviously put a lot of thought, but I believe the original premise of your discussion is fundamentally flawed. In the two major examples you give, you refer to people not governed by US notions of freedom of speech (in all fairness, I see that two US Senators have made the same mistake.)

Freedom of Speech is not a universal right; in fact, it is a concept so novel that our founding fathers felt it necessary to designate it as inalienable to all American citizens in the Bill of Rights. This was specifically because there was no right to it for most people on the planet at the time of its writing, a situation which, although somewhat improved, is still the case today. Neither the president of Iran, nor a British politician, is subject to any of the provisions in our Constitution, and a discussion on whether their remarks fall with-in "acceptable" free-speech is therefore flawed.

If you change your examples, however, to an American citizen speaking within the jurisdictional confines of the US government (e.g. David Duke, a Holocaust denier who, I believe, spoke at Iran's conference,) then the the question becomes more valid, as it falls within the framework of our granted right to Freedom of Speech.

The 1st Amendment states, in part, that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and this provision has been applied to state governmental agencies by the 14th ammendment. Their are very few, very specific exceptions to this original premise (such as encitement to iminent lawless action, obscenity, and some types of political speech such as campaigning near a polling place.) There is no provision that allows government to interfere with free speech on the grounds that it is untruthful, offensive to a particular group (but not legally "obscene,") or just plain stupid.

To answer the question in your topic, I think that a person is clearly free to dispute a truthful statement, and in fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for the government to restrict the right of a private citizen governed by its laws to claim that the Holocause is a myth, or that the world is flat, or that it is getting hot outside. That, however, does not make the speech of the Holocaust deniers any less dispicable.

incredible

I would have gone with "sad."

 

[Volitics]

I do not dispute their claim but I want proof before I accept a claim of that magnitude as fact. Eleven million people is a lot of people.

Dwight D. Eisenhower's papers do not confirm the incineration of eleven million people. Or if they do I have not found it.

David Cole's video shows documented proof of the Auschwitz camp. If you view the video you can see that there's no facilities there large enough for a mass scale incineration of people.

The Holocaust proponents may be telling the truth about eleven million people being killed. However, there needs to be proof.

Where are you getting your proof that eleven million people were incinerated?

 

[cotton]

It is not difficult to find proof if you are actually looking for it. There is plenty of documentation, including eye-witness accounts, pictures, film, and transcripts of the Nuremburg trials. It took me about 3 seconds to find these:

Holocaust: Photograph of American Soldiers Walking Past Rows of Corpses Removed From the Barracks to Their Left

Holocaust: Photograph of Two American Soldiers View Scores of Dead Bodies in a Barracks in the Nordhausen Concentration Camp

Holocaust: Photograph of a Mass Grave in Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp

Holocaust: Photograph of a German Policeman Shoots Individual Jewish Women Who Remain Alive in the Ravine After a Mass Execution of Jews From the Mizocz Ghetto

Holocaust: Photograph of Congressman John M. Vorys Viewing a Room Full of Corpses in Dachau

EDIT: I realized I never even mentioned the meticulous, detailed records the Nazis kept on their own attrocities.

I really don't think it is worth much more time trying to prove the Holocaust happened; it did. The proof is there for all to see. The thread is about whether speech, even if patenly false, is protected, so I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether some Iranian fanatic is right and the rest of the world is wrong. He can say the words all he wants, but I am free to be disgusted because he says them.

 

[Volitics]

It is not difficult to find proof if you are actually looking for it.

I have indeed looked for the truth. That's what led me to discover General Eisenhower's reports and the David Cole at Auschwitz film.

I suggest you do the same.

 

[JonWard]

Iran's recent tribunal disputing the Holocaust ever transpired has raised a very interesting question. Should freedom of speech permit messages which contest the truthfulness of those claims which can be demonstrated to be true? In the process some people are inevitably deceived to believe in a claim which is false.

Which of course begs the question of what is "true" and what is not? Is it a truthful assertion the Holocaust existed? If so, does freedom of speech allow indivduals to assert it never happened and in the process deceive others with such a lie?

Does the potential harm outweigh any value or benefit attached or associated with freedom of speech? The potential harm is one of an entire nation, or a significant number of the populace, being deceived into believing a lie.

Thoughts?

Let's take the following examples.

1. Holocaust
2. Earth is flat
3. WWII never transpired
4. Earth is the center of the solar system
5. White blood cells do not exist
6. There is no such thing as an immune system
7. HIV and AIDS does not exist
8 Global warming is a myth

You left out:

9: Charles Woodson deserved the Heisman

 

[cotton]

I have indeed looked for the truth. That's what led me to discover General Eisenhower's reports and the David Cole at Auschwitz film.

I suggest you do the same.

You are basing your assessment that every history book is wrong, that every supporting fact is forged, that some grand conspiracy was invented to reward one religion or punish one politcal philosophy, by stating that one report and one film do not specifically refer to genocide. Your argument is obviously agenda driven, and you are fitting the facts to your desired conclusion.

Again you draw me into a discussion that is off-topic to the thread.

On the other hand, perhaps you are setting an example to demonstrate the original topic. Under the First Amendment, you should be free from governmental interference with your speech, no matter how ill-informed it may be.

PS--If you are looking for evidence of gas chambers, don't forget to look in Birkenau. Of course, if you don't believe in the still-standing gas chamber at Auschwitz ( http://homepage.mac.com/made_to_last_3000/MyWorld/C523431589/E20050818203737/Media/gas%20chamber.jpg , Photo Auschwitz Gas Chamber ) you probably won't believe in the ruins of the gas chambers at Birkenau, either ( Auschwitz 2 ) even with a photo smuggled out of the camp by a prisoner showing the burning of a pile of freshly gassed corpses (near the bottom.)

 

[OrangeEmpire]

This is not about "forgetting" the truth. Forgetting the truth, while tragic, is not the type of tragedy I am focusing upon.


In my opinion there should be no limits whatsoever on the content of speech, although it is reasonable to place limits on the format of speech [e.g., the proverbial yelling fire in a crowded theatre; teaching certain subjects in publicly funded instituions, etc.]. I belive this topic is focused on prohibitions on the content of speech. If an idea is true (such as the Holocaust, etc.), then it will stand up to whatever scrutiny is thrown at it no matter how offensive or distastful or untrue the criticism. Global warming seems a bit afield from the others in the initial list but is a good example of why limits should not be in place (and I suspect it was included for that reason). Evolution is another such example. The truth should in the long run not suffer at all from "denyers".

In any system where the content of speech is restricted, the fundamental question becomes "who decides"? The government? The courts? Mere majority from time to time? What criteria is used? In my opinion, whatever social good that comes from prohibitions on the content of speech is far outweighted by the potential for harm from prihibiting criticism and so discussion on the prohibiited topics.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Freedom of speech is no doubt a very important liberty interest, perhaps one of the most important, other than our individual liberty. However, there are potential consequences for the misuse of speech and rightfully so in my opinion.

Let's begin with slander and libel claims. Any speech which harms the reputation of an individual, the harm can be proven in the case of slander and in some instances libel, and the burden of proof satisfied, then the speaker/publisher can be held liable for the injury their speech caused. (NY Times vs. Sullivan is the standard for libel when made in regard to a public/political figure. IT IS A VERY HARD STANDARD TO MEET).

In the case of U.S. vs. Schenk, and Brandenberg vs. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted speech which advocates violence can be censored when it is shown: except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (Again a very difficult standard to satisfy).

While the speech itself does not directly inflict harm, to ignore the fact it can incite people to harm others is problematic. If the speech incites an individual or a mob of people to harm an individual or group of people, then the speech is a cause for the harm.n To use an example. No survivor of the Holocaust is going to accept the proposition that Hitler's propaganda did not harm them. Survivors of the Holocaust are absolutely going to assert, and rigthfully so, that Hitler's speeches, his propaganda, and messages incited people to harm them. Hitler's speeches, propaganda, and messages were a "cause" of the physical harm inflicted upon them.

Lincoln's remarks about the arrest, detention, and military trial of Vallandigham are revealing.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has held threats are not protected nor are "fighting words."

What can be inferred from this evidence? The inference to be drawn is while free speech is a very important value in the U.S., it is not more paramount than protecting the physical well-being of the individual or the reputation of the individual. It makes sense to protect individual(s) and society from certain types of harm and this includes harm which manifests itself as a result of people acting upon or in conformance with "speech."