Of course not. But there is a huge difference between “an acceptable intellectual position” and making an unacceptable position criminal. A HUGE difference. And please, let’s get beyond the high-school debate techniques:

“If you don’t think so, then it is acceptable to discuss when the distortion of historical truth might become criminal. Why? You’ve accepted it in one instance, so there might be another that fits the class.”

Circular reasoning does not advance your argument. Just because its a distortion, doesn’t mean its criminal. This is the United States, not Germany. We have the first amendment here. I agree with Voltaire, as already noted.

You write:

“It has been shown in history that liberty and the freedom of expression are not license to say whatever you want. Good luck finding for me an example of a culture that hasn’t limited freedom of expression in some way, including the United States.”

You’re obfuscating. We’re talking about something *very specific* here. Academic freedom and historical interpretation, not saying “whatever you want” – as in screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. Let’s stay on the specifics of what you’re advocating which is the criminalizing of thought and historical interpretation. Who do you want to police your suggestion? Who writes the rules? Who picks those who write the rules? Shouldn’t we expand your concept to the disciplines of science and economic studies? Marxism or Capitalism? Who’s lying? Someone is and its causing a lot of pain, even death, right?

And surely those crazy religious fundies polluting the minds of children with Creationist nonsense should be examined by government agents. And some have equated global-warming deniers with Holocaust deniers. They’re complicit in destroying the planet and all human life – surely they should be fined and/or jailed, no?

Again, your original suggestion in the context in which you presented it is, in my opinion, absurd. And, again, I’m surprised at the lack of shock expressed here by others.

I don’t know what to say. To be honest, I am not so concerned about his view on this and I have a number of other things on my mind. As Tim mentioned, there are plenty of examples of democracies, including the United States, limiting “free speech.” We could discuss the arrest of American communists at various times in the 20th century, along with the arrests of newspaper editors in the 1790s as a result of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams administration. Of course, there are plenty of other examples. Tim has taken the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I suggest you engage him with your questions.

One more thing: it’s clear you’re distorting my position. Examples include:

1. You said: “But for you to suggest that American citizens should be criminally prosecuted for expressing views on historical interpretation with which you disagree is very disturbing.”

I clearly distinguished between denial and interpretation in subsequent comments. And it’s not a matter of disagreeing ~with me~ as an individual, but rather the established record.

2. You said: “You have no problem making criminals out of someone who disagrees, (rightly or wrongly) with certain aspects of historical interpretation.”

Again, it’s about denial, not interpretation.

3. You said: “I find your suggestion quite absurd and I am not a little disturbed that others don’t as well.”

It’s only absurd if you do not read my comments as a developing conversation. I advocated that deniers of the truths of slavery (ugly truths, such as death, abuse, disease, coercion, rape) be treated gravely, perhaps even punished by law.

I’m open to a modification of opinion here. If someone wants to say that slavery doesn’t rise to the level of The Holocaust, well, let’s talk about it. That’s the essence of freedom, but the denial of the ugly truths of slavery (sans some caveats) is a subject that’s not “open for interpretation.”

- TL

Do you think students would fear expressing opinions or even asking certain sincere questions about this subject if Tim’s idea actually became law? Of course they would.

Let’s look at this from another direction: Is denial of The Holocaust an acceptable intellectual position? If you think so, then there is no need for us to continue this conversation. If you don’t think so, then it is acceptable to discuss when the distortion of historical truth might become criminal. Why? You’ve accepted it in one instance, so there might be another that fits the class.

It has been shown in history that liberty and the freedom of expression are not license to say whatever you want. Good luck finding for me an example of a culture that hasn’t limited freedom of expression in some way, including the United States.

- TL

Sorry for not responding to your question. Well, I’ve found that often my readers fail to properly interpret my own words, so I guess I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt or looking for a clarification. I apologize for not condemning Tim outright with the strongest possible language.

Apology accepted, but you still didn’t answer the question.

Tim:

I’m looking at the larger issue here, that of free thought, expression, speech, academic freedom, and opinion. I would agree that some of the interpretations of slavery (and other aspects of history for that matter) and the master/slave relationship borders on the insane. But for you to suggest that American citizens should be criminally prosecuted for expressing views on historical interpretation with which you disagree is very disturbing. I could not care less about the side issues here.

Your comments, as already noted, were specific and clear, to wit: you have no problem making criminals out of someone who disagrees, (rightly or wrongly) with certain aspects of historical interpretation. Who would police that sir? Academics? Which ones? Those from Harvard U. or Liberty U.? Both are accredited institutions. Perhaps whoever is in political power at any given time would write the rules – that would be fun, wouldn’t it? Should we have a “Ministry of Truth”, a “History Czar?” The parallels of what you’re advocating are obvious, very Orwellian. We would have to have police and government agents enforcing thoughts, opinions, what’s in books, expression, debate. That doesn’t bother you?

Quite frankly, I find your suggestion quite absurd and I am not a little disturbed that others don’t as well.

Try reading my last two posts for a more concrete sense of where I was going. In this case, it’s important to look at the conversation’s current rather than particular offshoots and feeder streams.

- TL