Chomsky Rebuffs Critics Over Defense of Holocaust Denier's Speech Rights

Chomsky's Philosophy

Freedom of speech exists only when extended to despised views, meaning the defense of a Holocaust denier's legal rights does not endorse his claims.

AI-assisted summary of Noam Chomsky - Freedom of Speech for Views You Don't Like — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2017-02-03

Key ideas

Noam Chomsky defends his controversial support for Robert Faurisson's civil liberties, arguing that true freedom of speech requires defending the right to express views one despises, including Holocaust denial. (4:46)
Chomsky rejects accusations that he endorsed Faurisson's views, clarifying that he never wrote a preface for Faurisson's book but authored a separate essay on civil rights that the publisher placed as a foreword. (1:22)
Faurisson faced prosecution in Lyon by nine organizations for incitement to racial hatred and historical falsification, prompting a defense petition signed by roughly 500 to 600 academics. (1:22)
Chomsky maintains that even debating whether Nazi atrocities occurred constitutes losing one's humanity, but insists that the state must never have the authority to criminalize speech or mandate historical truth. (7:27)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by the channel Chomsky's Philosophy on February 3, 2017, this video features archival discussion and debate centered on Noam Chomsky's perspective regarding the Robert Faurisson affair and free speech.

## TL;DR In this segment, Noam Chomsky addresses the intense backlash he faced after defending the civil liberties of French professor and Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Chomsky firmly refutes accusations that he authored a preface endorsing Faurisson's claims, clarifying that he contributed a separate essay defending basic freedom of expression. He argues that true commitment to free speech necessitates defending the right to voice views one despises, warning against state-mandated historical truth. Furthermore, Chomsky underscores his own moral stance, maintaining that Holocaust denial is an absurd falsehood and that debating whether Nazi atrocities occurred means abdicating one's humanity.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation carries the tense, confrontational intensity of a high-stakes intellectual trial, punctuated by rapid cross-examination and sharp retorts between Chomsky and his interlocutors. Interspersed archival footage—including candid clips of Faurisson outside a Lyon courthouse—lends the discussion an urgent, historical gravity. Chomsky remains characteristically methodical and uncompromising, cutting through emotive accusations with rigorous philosophical distinctions between defending an author's civil rights and endorsing their loathsome ideas.

## Bulletin - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) Noam Chomsky defends his controversial support for Robert Faurisson's civil liberties, arguing that true freedom of speech requires defending the right to express views one despises, including Holocaust denial. - [01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=82s) Chomsky rejects accusations that he endorsed Faurisson's views, clarifying that he never wrote a preface for Faurisson's book but authored a separate essay on civil rights that the publisher placed as a foreword. - [01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=82s) Faurisson faced prosecution in Lyon by nine organizations for incitement to racial hatred and historical falsification, prompting a defense petition signed by roughly 500 to 600 academics. - [07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Chomsky maintains that even debating whether Nazi atrocities occurred constitutes losing one's humanity, but insists that the state must never have the authority to criminalize speech or mandate historical truth.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) Intellectual smear campaigns rely on toxic labels like 'racist' or 'anti-Semite' that preemptively make rational rebuttal impossible. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) Robert Faurisson was suspended from his university post and taken to court in Lyon over claims that Nazi death camps and gas chambers were fabrications. - [01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=82s) Around 500 to 600 academics signed a civil rights petition on Faurisson's behalf, yet international backlash fixated disproportionately on Chomsky. - [01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=82s) Chomsky disputes the claim that he wrote a book preface for Faurisson, emphasizing that he provided a separate philosophical statement on freedom of expression. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) The publisher Pierre Guillaume inserted Chomsky's essay, 'Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression,' at the front of Faurisson's volume. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) Chomsky attempted to withdraw his essay before publication due to French commentators conflating the defense of speech rights with the endorsement of content, an attempt he later viewed as a mistake. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) A genuine commitment to free speech necessitates defending ideas one loathes; totalitarians like Goebbels and Stalin also permitted speech they agreed with. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) The state should never possess the authority to adjudicate historical truth or punish deviations from official history through criminal courts. - [07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Just as erroneous scientific papers should be countered with refutation rather than jail time, false historical claims must not be met with state imprisonment. - [07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Mainstream press in the United States and France gave no credibility to Faurisson's claims, demonstrating that allowing the speech did not validate the falsehoods. - [07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Chomsky asserts that entering an arena of debate over whether the Holocaust occurred means losing one's humanity, distinguishing moral repulsion from legal suppression. - [07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Faurisson himself dismissed the philosophical debate over civil liberties, stating he was solely focused on winning his legal case.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) Smear Tactics and the Robert Faurisson Controversy

Noam Chomsky begins by addressing how public accusations function, observing that intellectuals are particularly adept at deploying falsehoods that leave their targets defenseless. When someone hurls an incendiary charge such as "anti-Semite," "racist," or "Nazi," rational rebuttal becomes impossible. As Chomsky reflects on the dynamic of public smear campaigns: “I mean the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no way of responding to such charges.” A critic on the panel counters by alleging that Chomsky categorizes everyone who disagrees with him as either a deliberate liar or a dupe, immediately pressing him on his involvement in the case of Robert Faurisson.

When the interlocutor attempts to summarize Faurisson's claims without getting bogged down in factual nuance, Chomsky interrupts, insisting that the specific details are essential to the truth of the matter. The interlocutor highlights Faurisson's core thesis: asserting that the mass murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust is a historic fabrication. A television interviewer introduces the broader context, pointing out that defending Faurisson—a French university professor suspended from his post for asserting there were no Nazi death camps in World War II—remains one of the most controversial and fiercely condemned acts of Chomsky’s public life.

- Chomsky maintains that intellectual mud-slinging relies on unanswerable personal labels rather than substantive critique. - The debate centers on Faurisson's denial of the Holocaust and whether defending a denier's legal rights equates to endorsing his thesis.

---

[01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=82s) Faurisson's Convictions, the Petition, and the "Preface"

Standing outside the Palais de Justice in Lyon, sixty-year-old Robert Faurisson describes his numerous legal battles from the early 1980s, where he was prosecuted by nine organizations (predominantly Jewish associations) for incitement to racial hatred, racial defamation, and damage caused by the falsification of history. In the wake of Faurisson's suspension and legal troubles, a petition was circulated demanding the defense of his civil rights, signed by roughly 500 to 600 people, mostly academics. When asked why the international backlash fixated entirely on Chomsky rather than the other several hundred signatories, Faurisson attributes it to Chomsky’s outsized political prominence and influence.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Faurisson Petition Controversy accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how Chomsky's defense of civil liberties was conflated with an endorsement of Faurisson's denialist views.

subgraph PetitionStage["Petition & Legal Charges"] A["Faurisson prosecuted in Lyon for racial defamation & historical falsification"] --> B["Petition signed by 500-600 academics defending his civil rights"] end

subgraph EssayStage["The Text & Publication"] B --> C["Chomsky writes 'Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression'"] C --> D["Publisher inserts essay as a foreword/preface to Faurisson's book"] end

subgraph BacklashStage["Public Perception"] D --> E["Critics accuse Chomsky of endorsing Holocaust denial"] E --> F["Chomsky insists: Defending speech rights ≠ Endorsing speech content"] end ```

A heated confrontation unfolds on stage regarding Chomsky's exact words and deeds. A critic points out that the petition referred to Faurisson as a "respected professor of literature" who merely sought to make his "findings" public, and asserts that Chomsky later authored a preface for Faurisson's book calling him a "relatively apolitical sort of liberal." Faurisson himself appears in archival footage, denying that he is a Nazi, asserting: “A communist is a man, a Jew is a man, a Nazi is a man, I am a man.” When asked how he describes himself politically, Faurisson responds simply: "Nothing."

Chomsky forcefully rejects the claim that he wrote a preface for Faurisson's work: “That's not the preface that I wrote because I never wrote a preface, and you know that I never wrote a preface.” He explains that he provided a brief essay on civil liberties, and disputes that describing someone's political posture as liberal or referring to their research constitutes an endorsement of their conclusions.

---

[04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) Defending the Right to Speak vs. Defending the Views

Chomsky recounts the sequence of events that led to his statement being bound inside Faurisson’s volume. After signing the initial petition, Chomsky was asked by the organizer to draft an essay articulating the foundational principles of free speech—specifically emphasizing the separation between defending an individual's right to speak and validating the substance of what they say. Chomsky wrote a short piece entitled *Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression* and granted permission to use it. The publisher, Pierre Guillaume, decided to print Chomsky’s text at the front of Faurisson's book as a cautionary foreword invoking freedom of thought and research.

When asked why he attempted to pull the essay at the eleventh hour, Chomsky explains that he wrote a letter asking to separate the texts because the French intellectual climate had become so distorted that commentators were incapable of distinguishing between defending rights and endorsing content. In retrospect, Chomsky views that attempted withdrawal as a mistake, stating he should have let the piece appear as written because the principle needed to be defended. Chomsky articulates the core philosophy of free speech with uncompromising clarity:

> “If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech.”

Chomsky notes that totalitarian figures like Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin were perfectly happy to permit speech they agreed with. What genuine commitment to civil liberties requires is defending speech that is loathed and offensive. He insists that outside of fascist regimes, the distinction between defending a person's right to express a view and defending the view itself has been universally understood since the eighteenth century.

- The state must never be granted the authority to determine historical truth or punish deviations from official history. - An individual who claims to support free expression only for agreeable ideas does not support freedom of speech at all.

---

[07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=447s) Historical Reality, Scientific Debate, and Moral Boundaries

The dialogue turns to whether scientific objectivity and historical reality are undermined when someone defending an absurd or malicious falsehood receives public backing. Chomsky responds using a scientific parallel: if a researcher publishes a scientific paper containing errors or conclusions he disagrees with, the proper response is refutation, not state-enforced imprisonment. When someone is hauled into court on criminal charges for publishing their work, defending their basic civil liberties is an obligation regardless of how wrong their views may be.

Chomsky challenges his critics to identify any mainstream press coverage in the United States or France that treated Faurisson's denial of the gas chambers with credibility, asserting that virtually zero journalists took Faurisson's claims seriously. An interlocutor argues that Chomsky faced fierce criticism even from longtime supporters because his intervention was interpreted as part of a wider campaign against Israel. Chomsky counters by explaining that his personal moral stance on Holocaust denial is far stricter than that of his accusers:

> “You go back to my earliest articles and you will find that I say that even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity.”

For Chomsky, engaging in a debate over whether the gas chambers existed is an abdication of basic decency, and refuting Faurisson’s claims presents no intellectual challenge whatsoever. The segment concludes with a candid remark from Faurisson himself, who dismisses the philosophical ideals of civil liberties: “I'm not interested in freedom of speech and all that, I have to win, and that's the question, and I shall win.”

## Notable quotes > [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=286s) If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. — Noam Chomsky

## Mentioned Noam Chomsky, Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression, Palais de Justice (Lyon), Holocaust, Israel

## Video description Chomsky on the Faurisson affair and Free speech.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE)

中文简报

乔姆斯基驳斥为其捍卫大屠杀否定者言论权利所招致的批评唯有将言论自由延伸至为人所鄙视的观点时，言论自由才真正存在，这意味着捍卫大屠杀否定者的合法权利并不代表支持其主张。在该片段中，诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）回应了他在捍卫法国教授兼大屠杀否定者罗贝尔·福里松（Robert Faurisson）的公民自由后所面临的强烈抨击。乔姆斯基坚决驳斥了有关他为福里松的书撰写序言以支持其观点的指控，并澄清自己只是提供了一篇独立的文章来捍卫基本的表达自由。他指出，对言论自由的真正坚守必然要求捍卫表达受人鄙视之观点的权利，并对国家强制规定历史真相提出了警告。此外，乔姆斯基强调了他本人的道德立场，认为否定大屠杀是荒谬的谎言，而去辩论纳粹暴行是否发生无异于丧失人性。诺姆·乔姆斯基为其支持罗贝尔·福里松公民自由的争议性举动进行辩护，主张真正的言论自由要求捍卫表达为人所鄙视之观点的权利，其中也包括否定大屠杀。 (4:46) 乔姆斯基驳斥了称其赞同福里松观点的指控，澄清自己从未为福里松的著作撰写序言，而是写了一篇关于公民权利的独立文章，出版商随后将其作为前言使用。 (1:22) 福里松在里昂遭到九个组织的起诉，罪名是煽动种族仇恨和伪造历史，这引发了一场由大约500至600名学者联名签署的声援请愿。 (1:22) 乔姆斯基坚持认为，哪怕是去辩论纳粹暴行是否发生都意味着丧失人性，但他坚决主张，国家绝不能拥有将言论定罪或强制规定历史真相的权力。 (7:27)

Reading summary

Noam Chomsky argues that a genuine commitment to free speech requires defending the civil liberties of those expressing views one despises, asserting that defending an individual's right to speak must never be conflated with endorsing their ideas. Separating Speech Rights from Speech Content (0:00) Chomsky's defense of Robert Faurisson—a French professor suspended and prosecuted for denying the Holocaust—sparked intense public backlash. Chomsky clarifies that signing a petition to defend Faurisson's civil rights, alongside 500 to 600 other academics, was a defense of basic liberties rather than an endorsement of Faurisson's thesis. He argues that the state must never be granted the authority to determine historical truth or punish deviations from official history. The Controversy Over the "Preface" (1:22) The controversy intensified when Chomsky's essay, "Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression," was published at the front of Faurisson's book. Chomsky rejects the claim that he wrote a preface specifically for Faurisson, explaining that the publisher, Pierre Guillaume, chose to use his general essay on civil liberties as a foreword. Although Chomsky initially attempted to withdraw the text because he felt the French intellectual climate could not distinguish between defending rights and endorsing content, he later regretted this attempt, maintaining that the principle of free speech must be defended. Defending the Despised and Offensive (4:46) Chomsky defines the core of free speech as defending the right to express views that are loathed and offensive. He points out that totalitarian figures like Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin willingly permitted speech they agreed with; therefore, supporting free expression only for agreeable ideas is not true support of free speech. According to Chomsky, this distinction has been universally understood outside of fascist regimes since the eighteenth century. Scientific Objectivity and Moral Boundaries (7:27) Addressing concerns that defending falsehoods undermines historical reality, Chomsky draws a parallel to science, arguing that errors should be met with refutation rather than state-enforced imprisonment. He asserts that his personal moral stance on Holocaust denial is exceptionally strict, stating that "even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity." For Chomsky, Faurisson's claims present no intellectual challenge to refute, whereas Faurisson himself dismisses the philosophical ideals of free speech, stating his only interest is to "win." The debate highlights a fundamental tension between the philosophical defense of universal civil liberties and the public perception of endorsing harmful falsehoods, leaving Chomsky's uncompromising stance on free speech as one of his most controversial public positions.

精炼阅读摘要

诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）指出，真正的言论自由意味着必须捍卫那些令人鄙视的观点的表达权利。他强调，捍卫一个人的言论自由权与认同其言论的具体内容有着本质的区别，国家绝不应被赋予判定历史真伪或惩罚异见者的权力。舆论抹黑手段与福里松争议的起因 (0:00) 乔姆斯基指出，知识分子非常擅长利用无法回应的毁灭性标签（如“反犹太主义者”、“种族主义者”或“纳粹”）来对目标进行舆论抹黑，使被指控者无法进行理性的反驳。这场争议的核心在于法国大学教授罗贝尔·福里松（Robert Faurisson），他因宣称二战中不存在纳粹集中营、大屠杀是历史虚构而遭到停职。乔姆斯基对福里松民事权利的捍卫，成为了他公共学术生涯中最具争议和遭到最激烈谴责的事件之一。批评者指责乔姆斯基将所有不同意他的人归类为蓄意撒谎者或糊涂虫，并质疑他支持福里松的行为。乔姆斯基则坚持认为，必须深入具体细节才能厘清事实真相，而不能仅凭定性标签进行批判。联署请愿书与“前言”出版的风波 (1:22) 20世纪80年代初，福里松在里昂面临来自多个组织的起诉，指控其煽动种族仇恨、种族诽谤以及篡改历史造成损害。随后，大约500至600名学者联署了一份请愿书，要求捍卫福里松的公民权利。福里松认为，由于乔姆斯基巨大的政治声望和影响力，国际舆论的矛头几乎完全指向了乔姆斯基一人。争议的焦点还在于，请愿书将福里松称为“受人尊敬的文学教授”，而乔姆斯基随后撰写的一篇文章被出版商皮埃尔·纪尧姆（Pierre Guillaume）印在了福里松著作的扉页，作为呼吁思想和研究自由的“前言”。乔姆斯基强烈否认自己曾为福里松的书撰写过“前言”。他解释称，自己只是撰写了一篇关于公民自由的简短文章，题为《关于表达自由的一些基本评论》（Some Elementary Remarks on the Freedom of Expression），并授权他人使用。他认为，将一个人的政治立场描述为自由派或提及对方的研究，绝不等于认同其研究结论。尽管乔姆斯基曾因法国知识界无法区分“捍卫权利”与“认同内容”而试图在最后一刻撤回该文，但他事后认为撤回是一个错误，因为言论自由的原则必须得到公开捍卫。捍卫言论权利与认同观点的本质区别 (4:46) 乔姆斯基阐明了言论自由的核心哲学：支持言论自由，意味着必须支持那些你所鄙视的观点的言论自由，否则就根本谈不上支持言论自由。他指出，像约瑟夫·戈培尔（Joseph Goebbels）和约瑟夫·斯大林（Joseph Stalin）这样的极权主义人物，也非常乐意允许他们赞同的言论自由。因此，对公民自由的真正坚守，恰恰体现在捍卫那些令人厌恶和反感的言论上。乔姆斯基强调，自18世纪以来，除了法西斯政权之外，区分“捍卫表达观点的权利”与“捍卫观点本身”在国际社会一直是被普遍理解的常识。科学辩论、历史现实与道德底线 (7:27) 针对捍卫荒谬或恶意谎言是否会破坏科学客观性和历史现实的质疑，乔姆斯基用科学研究作类比：如果一名研究人员发表了包含错误或错误结论的论文，正确的做法是予以驳斥，而不是通过国家机器将其监禁。当有人因发表著作而面临刑事指控时，无论其观点多么错误，捍卫其基本公民权利都是一种义务。乔姆斯基指出，当时几乎没有主流媒体认真对待福里松否认毒气室的言论，因此其观点并未获得公信力。面对来自长期支持者的批评（他们认为乔姆斯基的介入被解读为反对以色列运动的一部分），乔姆斯基反驳称，他个人在对待大屠杀否认论上的道德立场比他的指责者要严厉得多。他指出，自己早在早期的文章中就明确表示，甚至进入“纳粹是否实施了这些暴行”的辩论领域，就已经丧失了人性。对乔姆斯基而言，反驳福里松的言论在智力上毫无挑战，但捍卫其权利则是原则问题。尽管乔姆斯基从哲学和公民权利的高度对言论自由进行了绝对的捍卫，但争议的另一方——福里松本人在视频末尾坦言，自己对言论自由等哲学理念毫无兴趣，他唯一的目的就是“赢得胜利”。这一对比揭示了自由主义原则在面对实用主义或极端意识形态挑战时的复杂困境。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道“Chomsky's Philosophy”于 2017 年 2 月 3 日发布。根据视频简介，内容主要聚焦于诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）围绕“福里松事件”（Faurisson affair）的争议以及他对言论自由原则的阐述。 ## TL;DR 视频记录了乔姆斯基就法国学者罗贝尔·福里松（Robert Faurisson）否认大屠杀公案所引发的风波展开的激烈辩论。福里松因宣称纳粹毒气室不存在而面临司法起诉，乔姆斯基因签署捍卫其公民权利的请愿书并撰写言论自由短文而遭受西方舆论围攻。乔姆斯基在辩论中坚决厘清事实，指出自己从未为福里松的具体观点背书，甚至认为讨论大屠杀是否存在本身就是丧失人性的表现。他深刻论证道，言论自由的真正试金石恰恰在于是否愿意捍卫自己极度鄙视的观点的表达权，国家绝无权力充当历史真理的终极裁判。 ## Atmosphere & style 整段视频充满剑拔弩张的智识交锋与强烈的戏剧张力。现场辩论针锋相对、火药味十足，对手言辞咄咄逼人，而乔姆斯基则神情冷峻、逻辑严密，在毫不退让的回击中展现出对启蒙原则的深沉坚守。穿插其中的福里松访谈更增添了一种荒谬与讽刺感，令观众深刻体会到在狂热舆论围剿下坚守纯粹法理与言论自由底线所面临的巨大道德压力与智性孤独。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) 诺姆·乔姆斯基强调知识分子善于通过扣上“反犹”或“纳粹”等无法自证的罪名进行抹黑，使指控者永远立于不败之地。 - [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=146s) 乔姆斯基澄清自己从未为罗贝尔·福里松否认大屠杀的著作撰写“序言”，出版方擅自将其关于言论自由的通识文章置于书首引发了公众误解。 - [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 乔姆斯基指出言论自由的真正试金石在于捍卫自己极度鄙视的观点，任何只允许符合官方意志言论的做法在本质上与戈培尔或斯大林无异。 - [08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=487s) 乔姆斯基明确表示纳粹大屠杀事实确凿，驳斥福里松并不困难，但绝不能让渡权力给国家政权来裁定历史真理并动用司法手段剥夺异见者的发言权。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) 面对“反犹分子”或“种族主义者”等污名化指控，被指责者根本无法辩解，指控者因此总是立于不败之地。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) 法国学者罗贝尔·福里松因宣称纳粹毒气室不存在而遭到九个协会起诉煽动种族仇恨与篡改历史。 - [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=146s) 乔姆斯基与数百名学者共同签署请愿书，旨在捍卫福里松的民事权利与学术表达权，而非支持其历史观点。 - [04:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=288s) 乔姆斯基的文章《关于言论表达自由的一些基本看法》被出版方擅自挪用作福里松著作的前言，导致外界误以为乔姆斯基为其背书。 - [04:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=288s) 乔姆斯基曾致信要求撤回该文章，但他事后反思认为试图撤稿是唯一遗憾的妥协，本应坚持让阐述言论自由原则的文章见报。 - [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 现代文明自由观的核心基石在于严格区分“捍卫表达权利”与“认可观点内容本身”。 - [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 言论自由只有两种立场：一种是拥护普适的自由，另一种则是极权主义式的双标，仅允许自己支持的声音存在。 - [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 国家政权绝不能拥有裁定历史真理并惩罚异端分子的权力，即便面对荒谬历史谎言也是如此。 - [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 在学术与科学争端中，异见分歧必须依靠证据反驳，绝不能诉诸公权力将学者送入监狱。 - [08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=487s) 乔姆斯基早年便认为把“纳粹是否实行屠杀”作为正当学术命题讨论本身就是丧失人性的，但这与动用司法封口是两码事。 - [08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=487s) 与乔姆斯基坚持原则性法理辩护形成对比，福里松自称不在乎抽象言论自由，仅在乎自己在法庭与舆论战中的胜败。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) 知识分子的抹黑策略与福里松事件的爆发诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）开篇直言，自己并不介意公开的谴责，真正令他无法忍受的是谎言。他尖锐地指出，知识分子是撒谎的行家里手，因为他们深谙一种无法被反驳的诬陷技巧：一旦有人将你打成“反犹分子”、“种族主义者”或“纳粹”，被指控者根本无从辩解，泼脏水的人永远立于不败之地。针锋相对的辩论对手随即反唇相讥，指责乔姆斯基眼里批评他的人不是“骗子”就是“笨蛋”。当话题转向法国学者罗贝尔·福里松（Robert Faurisson）的争议案件时，辩论气氛骤然紧张。现场提问者试图略过细节，但乔姆斯基坚决要求先厘清事实。针对这起引发轩然大波的公案，乔姆斯基直言： > “I don't mind the denunciations frankly I mind the lies I mean intellectuals are very good at lying they are professionals at it you a wonderful technique there's no way of responding to it if somebody calls you you know an anti-semite what can you say I'm not an anti-semite you know somebody says you're you're a racist you're a Nazi or something there's you always lose I mean the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no way of responding to such charges” —— 诺姆·乔姆斯基纪录片画面随后切入罗贝尔·福里松本人的自述。福里松当时六十岁，原为法国里昂大学文学教授。他站在里昂法院（Palais de Justice）门前回忆道，自己在1980年代初曾多次在此被定罪。当时共有九个协会（绝大多数为犹太人组织）联合对他提起诉讼，指控他煽动种族仇恨、进行种族诽谤以及通过篡改历史造成重大损害。争议的核心在于，福里松公然声称二战中针对犹太人的大屠杀和纳粹集中营纯属“历史谎言”，而乔姆斯基等一众国际学者却签署了一份联名请愿书，为福里松争取学术与公民权利，从而使乔姆斯基深陷欧美舆论的围剿。 - 辩论焦点在于福里松因宣称纳粹毒气室不存在而被停职受审。 - 辩论对手质疑乔姆斯基签署的请愿书将福里松描绘为“受人尊敬的文学教授”，并将其言论粉饰为“公开发表的研究发现”。 --- ### [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=146s) 联名请愿与所谓的“为否认大屠杀著作作序” 福里松在访谈中透露，当年共有五六百人签署了这份支持他公民权利的请愿书，其中绝大部分是大学学者。主持人随即提出尖锐疑问：其余近五百名学者为何无人问津，唯独乔姆斯基的签名引发了滔天巨浪？福里松认为，这是由于乔姆斯基本身就具备某种强大的政治象征力量。乔姆斯基则解释了事件的演变过程：他最初仅仅签署了一份呼吁法庭捍卫福里松民事权利的请愿书，但显然缺乏真正言论自由观念的法国媒体立刻得出荒谬的推论，认定乔姆斯基是在为福里松的具体历史论调背书。随后，福里松出版了一本旨在论证“纳粹毒气室从未存在”的争议书籍。福里松在镜头前宣称，他们否认纳粹存在灭绝计划，尤其否认存在专门通过毒气室或毒气车实施的肉体消灭。然而，该书出版时竟赫然收录了一篇署名乔姆斯基的文字作为“序言”，辩论对手据此严厉质问乔姆斯基，指责他在文中将福里松形容为“相对非政治化的自由派”，并将否认屠杀的谎言抬高为“调查发现”。现场双方随即就乔姆斯基到底是否“写过序言”爆发了激烈的口角互呛。乔姆斯基当场严词驳斥对方歪曲事实： > “Because I never wrote a preface and you know that I never wrote a preface uh he's referring to a statement of mine on civil liberties which was added to a book in which fan excuse me” —— 诺姆·乔姆斯基辩论对手坚持认为语言具有确定的含义，将福里松冠以“自由派”本身就是一种包庇性的价值判断；乔姆斯基则毫不退让，要求对方回到事情发生的时间线与文本原委中去。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Faurisson Affair Controversy Flow accDescr: 展现福里松事件中请愿书、乔姆斯基文章被置于书首及公众舆论误读的发展流程 subgraph Origin["事件起因"] A["福里松发表否认毒气室言论并遭到司法起诉"] B["500多名国际学者签署请愿书捍卫其民事权利"] end subgraph Distortion["文章与误读"] C["乔姆斯基撰写关于言论自由的通识短文"] D["出版方将其作为前言置于福里松著作扉页"] E["法国媒体与舆论指责乔姆斯基支持大屠杀否认论"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ``` --- ### [04:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=288s) 《关于言论自由的一些基本看法》与撤回文稿的悔意乔姆斯基向观众详细还原了这篇“序言”的真实来历。当时，请愿书的组织者皮埃尔·纪尧姆（Pierre Guillaume）找到他，希望他能写一篇关于言论自由基本常识的短文，专门阐明“捍卫某人表达观点的权利”与“捍卫其所表达的观点本身”之间有着根本的区别。乔姆斯基答应了请求，草拟了一篇标题为《关于言论表达自由的一些基本看法》（Some Elementary Remarks on Freedom of Expression）的普通论述文章，并告诉对方可以自由使用。随后，纪尧姆出版了一本汇总福里松法庭辩护材料的书籍，并擅自将乔姆斯基的文章作为全书的警示性前言，用以宣称出版此书纯属学术、思想与言论自由的范畴。在出版的最后关头，乔姆斯基曾致信要求撤回该文，辩论对手试图抓住这一点作为乔姆斯基自知理亏的证据。乔姆斯基公开承认，试图撤稿是他在这场风波中唯一感到遗憾的决定： > “Now in retrospect I think I probably shouldn't have done that I should have just said fine then let it appear because it ought to appear but that's apart from that uh I regard this as not only trivial but as compared with other positions I've taken on freedom of speech invisible” —— 诺姆·乔姆斯基乔姆斯基解释说，他当时致信要求撤稿的原因，是意识到法国知识界已经完全丧失了理解复杂议题的理智，将该文附在福里松的书前只会让舆论环境更加混乱。但事后反思，他认为自己本应坚持到底让文章发表，因为阐明言论自由原则是正当且必要的。相较于他为各种极端异见所作的辩护，这篇短文的立场不仅微不足道，甚至可以说是平淡无奇。 --- ### [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) 言论自由的试金石：捍卫你所鄙视的观点乔姆斯基直指问题的核心本质：国家政权绝不应拥有裁定历史真理并惩罚偏离者的权力，即便面对的是否认毒气室存在的荒谬论调，他也绝不会把这种专断权力让渡给政府。乔姆斯基明确指出，言论自由在逻辑上只有两种截然对立的立场：一种是真诚拥护普适的自由，另一种则是极权主义式的双标。戈培尔（Joseph Goebbels）只赞同符合纳粹立场的言论自由，斯大林（Joseph Stalin）也只支持符合苏维埃意志的言论自由。一个人是否真正信仰言论自由，唯一检验标准就是看他是否愿意捍卫那些他极度厌恶的言论权利： > “If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech there's two positions you can have on freedom of speech and you can decide which position you want” —— 诺姆·乔姆斯基乔姆斯基强调，每当他站出来保护极端冒犯性观点的表达权时，极权体制式的政治委员（commissar）总会跳出来指责他“在为该观点辩护”。乔姆斯基驳斥道，自己捍卫的是表达的“权利”，而非观点“内容”，这种本质区别早在18世纪启蒙运动以降的非政权专制圈子里就已成为常识。现场辩论对手以科学界为例，质问既然学术有客观性与真实性，为何乔姆斯基要立即支持一个篡改历史的人。乔姆斯基回应道：在科学领域，面对学术分歧绝不能依靠国家将对方送进监狱；一旦异见者因涉嫌伪造而遭到公权力起诉，他就必然会站出来捍卫其辩护与表达的权利，且这种支持仅限于程序性的言论自由本身，绝非认可其具体结论。 - 言论自由的本质是保护异见，而非保护主流共识。 - 无论纳粹还是斯大林主义者，都只支持符合自己心意的言论。 - 区分“观点的表达权”与“观点本身的正确性”是现代文明自由观的基石。 --- ### [08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=487s) 大屠杀争辩的底线与福里松的盲目野心辩论对手进一步发难，指责乔姆斯基在福里松案件上的介入，不仅招致长期支持者的严厉批评，其行为在客观上更是被外界解读为长达数年“反对以色列运动”的一部分。对此，乔姆斯基给出了强有力的回击，指出自己对待否认大屠杀分子的严厉批判态度，其实远比对手更加激进。他援引自己最早期的学术文章说明，自己甚至认为把“纳粹是否犯下屠杀暴行”当成一个正当命题来讨论，本身就是一种丧失人性的表现： > “You go back to my earliest articles and you will find that I say that even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's Humanity so I don't even think you would to discuss the issue if you want to know my opinion but if anybody wants to refute foris there's certainly no difficulty in doing so” —— 诺姆·乔姆斯基乔姆斯基表示，在他看来大屠杀的事实确凿无疑，如果有人想要从学术和证据上彻底驳倒福里松，根本不存在任何难度；但学术反驳与诉诸国家司法强权去封口是性质完全不同的两回事。现场观众对乔姆斯基捍卫原则的发言报以热烈掌声。与乔姆斯基深沉的哲学与法理思考形成鲜明对照的是，片尾再次出现了罗贝尔·福里松本人的特写访谈。福里松狂妄地宣称，自己对抽象的言论自由等高调理论根本毫无兴趣，他唯一的目的就是在法庭和舆论战场上取得最终胜利，并自满地坚信自己“终将获胜”。这一极具讽刺意味的对比，让全片在强烈的历史荒诞感中落下帷幕。 ## Notable quotes > [06:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=384s) If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech — 诺姆·乔姆斯基 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE&t=0s) the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no way of responding to such charges — 诺姆·乔姆斯基 ## Mentioned Noam Chomsky, Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, Some Elementary Remarks on Freedom of Expression, Palais de Justice, 里昂大学 ## Video description Chomsky on the Faurisson affair and Free speech. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE)

Source quotes

[6:24] 诺姆·乔姆斯基: If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech [0:00] 诺姆·乔姆斯基: the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no way of responding to such charges

Source quotes

[4:46] Noam Chomsky: If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech.

Original transcript

[0:00] I don't mind the denunciations frankly I [0:02] mind the lies I mean intellectuals are [0:04] very good at lying they are [0:06] professionals at it you a wonderful [0:07] technique there's no way of responding [0:09] to it if somebody calls you you know an [0:11] anti-semite what can you say I'm not an [0:13] anti-semite you know somebody says [0:15] you're you're a racist you're a Nazi or [0:17] something there's you always lose I mean [0:19] the person who throws the mud always [0:20] wins because there's no way of [0:22] responding to such [0:23] charges Professor chsky seems to believe [0:26] that the people he criticizes fall into [0:29] one of two classes Liars or [0:33] dupes consider what happens when I [0:35] discuss the case of Rober [0:37] foris let me recall the facts uh let's [0:41] not go into details please because the [0:43] details happen to be important yes but I [0:45] have only one question for S question do [0:47] the facts matter or don't they matter of [0:49] course they do let me tell you what the [0:50] facts [0:52] are first says that the that the [0:55] massacre of the Jews in the Holocaust is [0:57] a historic [0:58] lie [1:00] question no no this is an this is an [1:02] important one has a lot to do with the [1:05] topic your views are extremely [1:07] controversial and perhaps one of the one [1:09] of the things that has been most [1:10] controversial and you've been most [1:12] strongly criticized for was your defense [1:13] of a a French intellectual who is [1:15] suspended from his university post for [1:17] contending that there were no Nazi death [1:19] camps in World War [1:22] II my name is Robert foris I am 60 I am [1:27] University professor in Leon France [1:30] behind me you may see the courthouse of [1:33] Palace the P [1:37] Justice in this place I was convicted [1:41] many times at the beginning of [1:44] the80s I was [1:46] charged by nine associations mostly [1:51] Jewish [1:53] Association [1:55] for uh inciting hatred racial hatred for [2:01] racial [2:02] defamation for damage by falsifying his [2:08] story professor chsky and a number of [2:10] other intellectuals signed a petition in [2:13] which FIS is called a respected [2:17] professor of literature who merely tried [2:20] to make his findings [2:23] public perhaps we can start with just [2:26] the story of uh Robert fores and uh your [2:32] involvement more than 500 peoples [2:38] sign maybe [2:40] 600 uh [2:42] mostly uh [2:44] univers [2:46] SCH and what happened to the other 499 [2:50] of them how come we only hear about [2:52] chomsky's signature well I think it's [2:54] because chamy has in himself a kind of [2:57] political [2:58] power [3:02] I signed a petition calling on the [3:04] tribunal to defend his civil rights at [3:07] that point The French Press which [3:08] apparently has no conception of freedom [3:10] of speech uh concluded that since I had [3:13] called for his civil rights I was [3:15] therefore defending his thesis foron [3:18] then published a book in which he tried [3:20] to prove that the Nazi gas Chambers [3:22] never [3:24] existed what we deny is that there [3:28] was an extermination [3:31] program and an extermination actually [3:35] especially in gas Chambers or gas Vans [3:38] the book contains a preface written by [3:41] professor chsky in which he calls for a [3:45] relatively apolitical sort of [3:49] liberal a communist is a man a Jew is a [3:52] man a nazzi is a man I am a man are you [3:57] a Nazi I am not a Nazi [4:00] how would you describe yourself [4:03] politically nothing preface that you [4:06] have wrote whether you no that's that's [4:08] not the pre preface that I wrote Because [4:10] I never wrote a preface and you know [4:12] that I never wrote a [4:13] preface uh he's referring to a statement [4:16] of mine on civil liberties which was [4:18] added to a book in which fan excuse [4:23] meage iuse the language you use has [4:26] meaning that's right and the language I [4:29] use political liberal or as someone [4:32] whose views can be dignified by the word [4:35] findings or conclusions that is a [4:37] judgment and that is a favorable [4:38] Judgment of his youth on the contrary [4:41] can I continue with the fact yes you can [4:43] continue with the fact for hours but but [4:45] I [4:46] mean that yeah okay let's get the [4:48] so-called preface uh I was then asked by [4:51] the person who organized the petition to [4:54] write a statement on freedom of speech [4:56] Just banale comments about freedom of [4:59] speech point out the difference between [5:01] defending a person's right to express [5:03] his views and defending the views [5:06] expressed so I did that I wrote a rather [5:08] banale statement called some Elementary [5:10] remarks on freedom of expression uh and [5:13] I told him do what you like with it so [5:16] uh Pier produced a book which all the [5:19] arguments of thoris were to be put in [5:21] front of the [5:22] court and we thought uh wise uh to use [5:27] the text of Norm chumsky as kind of [5:30] warning forward uh to say that it was a [5:34] matter of freedom of expression freedom [5:36] of thought freedom of resarch why did [5:38] you try at the last moment to get it [5:41] back from the that's the one thing I'm [5:42] sorry about but that's the real that's [5:44] the real important thing the fact that I [5:46] tried to rec because in with that you [5:48] said it was wrong of you see in fact [5:51] take a look at what I I I wrote a letter [5:53] which was then publicized in which I [5:55] said look things have reached the point [5:57] where the French intellectual Comm [5:59] Community simply is incapable of [6:02] understanding the issues at this point [6:04] it's just going to confuse matters even [6:06] more if my uh comments on freedom of [6:09] speech happen to be attached to this [6:11] book which I don't didn't know existed [6:12] so just to clarify things you better [6:14] separate them now in retrospect I think [6:16] I probably shouldn't have done that I [6:18] should have just said fine then let it [6:19] appear because it ought to appear but [6:22] that's apart from that uh I regard this [6:25] as not only trivial but as compared with [6:27] other positions I've taken on freedom of [6:29] speech invisible I do not think that the [6:32] state ought to have the right to [6:33] determine historical truth and to punish [6:35] people Devi I'm not willing to give the [6:37] state that right even if they happen to [6:40] you denying that the gas Chambers ever [6:42] existed but I'm saying if you believe in [6:44] freedom of speech you believe in freedom [6:46] of speech for views you don't like I [6:48] mean Geral was in favor of freedom of [6:49] speech for viewy like right so was [6:52] Stalin if you're in favor of freedom of [6:54] speech that means you're in favor of [6:56] freedom of speech precisely for views [6:58] you despise otherwise you're not in [7:00] favor of freedom of speech there's two [7:01] positions you can have on freedom of [7:03] speech and you can decide which position [7:05] you want with regard to my defense of [7:08] the utterly offensive the the the people [7:11] who Express utterly offensive views I [7:12] have the slightest doubt that every [7:14] commissar says you're defending that [7:16] person's views no I'm not I'm defending [7:18] his right to express them the difference [7:20] is crucial and the difference has been [7:22] understood outside of fascist circles [7:25] since the 18th century is there anything [7:27] like objectivity scientific objectivity [7:30] reality as a scientist I'm not saying I [7:33] defend the views I look if if if [7:35] somebody publishes a scientific article [7:37] which I disagree with I do not say the [7:39] state ought to put him in jail right all [7:42] right but you don't have to support him [7:43] right away and say you know I support [7:45] him for the sake of everybody saying [7:47] that suppose suppose this guy is taken [7:49] to court and charged with falsification [7:53] then I'm going to defend them even I [7:54] disagree but he taken to cour oh you're [7:56] wrong but but when did you write the [7:58] support I mean he was brought to cour [8:01] and in fact the only support that I gave [8:03] him is to say he has a right of freedom [8:04] of speech period there is no doubt in my [8:07] mind that the example that I gave about [8:09] this story is the Holocaust did not [8:11] exist is very very typical how much I'll [8:14] give you another example about how much [8:15] of the American Press believes that F [8:17] has anything to say or any press how [8:20] much of the press in France since I [8:22] follow what percentage would you say [8:23] I'll tell you is it is it higher than [8:25] zero is it higher than zero have you [8:27] ever seen anything in any newspaper or [8:29] any Journal saying that this man is [8:31] anything other than I'll try to answer [8:33] I'll try to answer I think that I just [8:36] follow the cas that's a simple question [8:37] I followed the case five or six years [8:39] ago and I happen to see that nosky was [8:42] in for strong criticism even from some [8:45] of his supporters for doing something [8:47] which could be interpreted only in terms [8:49] of a campaign against Israel going back [8:52] years I am absolutely certain that I've [8:55] taken far more extreme positions on [8:58] people who deny the Holocaust than you [9:00] have for example you go back to my [9:02] earliest articles and you will find that [9:04] I say that even to enter into the arena [9:07] of debate on the question of whether the [9:10] Nazis carried out such atrocities is [9:13] already to lose one's Humanity so I [9:15] don't even think you would to discuss [9:16] the issue if you want to know my opinion [9:18] but if anybody wants to refute foris [9:21] there's certainly no difficulty in doing [9:28] so [9:36] [Applause] [9:39] I'm I'm not interested in uh freedom of [9:43] speech and all that I have to win and [9:46] that's the question and I shall [9:51] [Music] [9:58] win [10:00] [Music] [10:07] [Music]