Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Question for Canadians
Message-ID: <1482@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 18:11:44 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1482
Posted: Tue Mar 26 18:11:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 20:10:44 EST
References: <709@ccice5.UUCP> <891@utcsri.UUCP> <374@talcott.UUCP> <538@whuxl.UUCP> <925@utcsri.UUCP> <watdcsu.1162>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Distribution: net
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 46
Summary: 


In reference to the Zundel case, in which a man was convicted, sentenced
to 15 month in prison, and instructed not to talk about the Holocaust:
>
>If the government is given the right to define "truth" and enforce it,
>nobody's freedom of speech will be safe.
>
>If, as you claim, the beliefs in question are irrational, then it should
>be easy to prove them wrong.  If you call for censorship as a substitute
>for argument, you show a lack of confidence either in the correctness of
>your beliefs, or in the ability of most other people to think.
>-- 
>        David Canzi

I must admit to mixed feelings about the Zundel case.  It's a classic
ethical dilemma.  On the one hand, any violation of freedom of speech
is potentially dangerous because it provides a precedent for other
violations; on the other, propagation of untruth with malicious intent
is immediately dangerous (falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre
is the classic example of speech that should not be free).

Zundel seems to be closer to the "Fire" example than to the censorship
of pornography or of political opinion.  Here was a man who, for the
purpose of damaging a group of people he didn't like, argued strongly
and publicly that the Nazis never murdered people deliberately in their
death camps.  It is as close to a fact as we will ever get in history
that they did, and to argue that they didn't, in order to show that
Jews are terrible liars for the benefit of Zionism, is clearly malicious.

If Zundel had simply proclaimed that Jews are terrible people, I don't
think he would have been prosecuted.  If he had argued that the Dutch
fleet never came up the Thames to attack London, I don't think he would
have been prosecuted.  The first would have been hateful, but protected
as a right of free speech; the second would have been false, but unlikely
to damage more than Dutch national pride.  It is the conjunction of
deliberate falsehood and the malicious desire to harm someone that is
worthy of prosecution.  It happens all the time in libel cases,
it happens when someone does deliberately cause a panic by spreading
a false rumour (it's called public mischief), and why is it different
when the damaged group is dispersed?  I think Zundel was properly
convicted.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt