Tweet
Los Angeles Times
Dec 24 2011
Postscript: Facts and free speech
Readers object to The Times' stance opposing a proposed law in France
to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide.
December 24, 2011
Should people have the right to deny historical fact? The Times'
editorial board thinks so, writing on Dec. 21 that a proposed law in
France to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide would be a
"monstrous violation of free speech."
Reader Janet Gross of Los Angeles took issue with the editorial
board's view that genocide denial is an opinion worthy of free-speech
protection:
"The right to the opinion that the Armenian genocide in 1915
perpetrated by the Turks never happened should be protected? How is
that an opinion?
"Here's how dictionary.com defines opinion: 'a belief or judgment that
rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.' There is
sufficient proof to show that what happened to Armenians was, in fact,
genocide.
"If you're saying that deliberately making false statements about
historical events should be protected under law, fine. I think. How
inflammatory that is will be set aside for now.
"But let's keep the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' right to
freedom of opinion for things like, 'I don't like our right-wing
dictator.'"
Senior editorial writer Michael McGough responds:
People deny facts all the time - think of creationists and evolution -
and we consider that an opinion, albeit a wacky one. I don't think we
would support a law making it a crime to doubt Charles Darwin.
The Supreme Court wrote in Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc., a 1974 libel
case: "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false
idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its
correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the
competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in
false statements of fact."
But this is too neat a dichotomy. It would be one thing if the
genocide deniers said, falsely, that France or some other country
didn't recognize the Armenian massacre as a genocide. But "it was not
a genocide" isn't disprovable in the same sense; one can have a crazy
opinion about the definition of "genocide."
When it comes to opinion, people are allowed to be subjective even
where reasonable people agree that there is objective truth, whether
it's the Armenian genocide or President Obama's birthplace.
As we noted, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls for broad
and robust freedom of opinion and expression. If the genocide denial
bill passes, France will take a much narrower view of free speech than
the declaration it endorsed in 1948.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-le-postscript-armenian-genocide-20111224,0,5656847.story?track=rss
Dec 24 2011
Postscript: Facts and free speech
Readers object to The Times' stance opposing a proposed law in France
to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide.
December 24, 2011
Should people have the right to deny historical fact? The Times'
editorial board thinks so, writing on Dec. 21 that a proposed law in
France to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide would be a
"monstrous violation of free speech."
Reader Janet Gross of Los Angeles took issue with the editorial
board's view that genocide denial is an opinion worthy of free-speech
protection:
"The right to the opinion that the Armenian genocide in 1915
perpetrated by the Turks never happened should be protected? How is
that an opinion?
"Here's how dictionary.com defines opinion: 'a belief or judgment that
rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.' There is
sufficient proof to show that what happened to Armenians was, in fact,
genocide.
"If you're saying that deliberately making false statements about
historical events should be protected under law, fine. I think. How
inflammatory that is will be set aside for now.
"But let's keep the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' right to
freedom of opinion for things like, 'I don't like our right-wing
dictator.'"
Senior editorial writer Michael McGough responds:
People deny facts all the time - think of creationists and evolution -
and we consider that an opinion, albeit a wacky one. I don't think we
would support a law making it a crime to doubt Charles Darwin.
The Supreme Court wrote in Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc., a 1974 libel
case: "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false
idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its
correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the
competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in
false statements of fact."
But this is too neat a dichotomy. It would be one thing if the
genocide deniers said, falsely, that France or some other country
didn't recognize the Armenian massacre as a genocide. But "it was not
a genocide" isn't disprovable in the same sense; one can have a crazy
opinion about the definition of "genocide."
When it comes to opinion, people are allowed to be subjective even
where reasonable people agree that there is objective truth, whether
it's the Armenian genocide or President Obama's birthplace.
As we noted, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls for broad
and robust freedom of opinion and expression. If the genocide denial
bill passes, France will take a much narrower view of free speech than
the declaration it endorsed in 1948.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-le-postscript-armenian-genocide-20111224,0,5656847.story?track=rss