Editing Faurisson affair (section)

==Chomsky's response==

Responding to a request for comment, Chomsky doubled down, arguing that Faurisson's right to express and publish his opinions on the grounds that [[freedom of speech]] must be extended to all viewpoints. The affair generated controversy among scholars both in France and the United States.

In a response to a letter circa 1989–1991, Chomsky said:
<blockquote>A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History", and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies.<ref name="ChomskyW">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=The Faurisson Affair - Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney|url=http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=7 August 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807022318/http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote>

In "His Right to Say It", published in ''[[The Nation]]'', Chomsky stressed the conceptual distinction between ''endorsing'' someone's view and ''defending'' his right to say it:
<blockquote>Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was irrelevant to the issues raised. [...]<br/>

I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall [[Voltaire]]'s famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. [...]<br/>
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.<ref name="Right">{{cite web|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=His Right to Say It|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm|publisher=The Noam Chomsky Website|access-date=9 June 2010|archive-date=10 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141010235944/http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote>Chomsky's defense was attacked in turn. Critics said that his defense went beyond free speech arguments, and that it included a defense of Faurisson's "work".