The vast majority of people, including your humble blogger, have never done any serious research on the Holocaust. In this case, our main reason to believe it happened is that, in most relatively-free countries, anybody who had the opposite opinion has been free to defend it and that, obviously, it did not survive the shock of free debates. For the same reason, most of us non-physicists believe in quantum entanglement.
What will be the consequence of the legal bans on Holocaust denialism (often through so-called “hate laws”) that have spread in so-called free countries (but not in America)? And what will be the results of Facebook’s decision not to allow the discussion of this topic (“Facebook Bans Content Denying the Holocaust on Its Platforms,” Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2020)? These two sorts of ban are very different because Facebook is a private entity that, like any other, (still) has the right to decide which opinion it will allow to be expressed on its property. But, given the importance of Facebook (and Twitter) in public debates, the two sorts of restraints may well have similar consequences.
It is true that a lot of snake oil is peddled in popular opinions and on social networks. But we find ignoramuses in the intellectual establishment too. And it is not possible to protect “vulnerable” people against these dangers if only because the habit of not being confronted with contrarian ideas may make one more, not less, gullible.
The most serious reason to oppose speech bans was expressed by economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty (1859):
Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
Imagine what will happen after several decades of legal and practical bans on denying the Holocaust. There will be few discussions on the topic. Deniers will be silent, except in private, in samizdats, or in violent groups. Holocaust defenders’ research may have become rare because less apparently useful (and not without risk: suppose the researcher finds something that does not exactly fit the official wisdom?). The historical existence of the Holocaust will have become a sort of official mythology prone to jokes—think of the political slogans in the late Soviet Union. Most people will have no reason to believe it ever happened.
READER COMMENTS
robc
Oct 13 2020 at 7:32am
This is how you end up with Lysenkoism.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 13 2020 at 10:55am
Good example!
Jens
Oct 13 2020 at 7:44am
Well, I don’t really have a strong opinion of what Facebook or Zuckerberg is doing. But the trials of some well-known and staunch Holocaust deniers have actually brought quite a bit of attention and illumination to the issue in Europe. These people do not seem so terrified of the trials, although there have been a few convictions. In Germany, the relevant offenses in the penal code include a condition that the offense must be carried out in a manner that is suitable to disturb the public peace, which should not be the case in private and professional discussions as a rule. (Artistic performances and scientific research are again protected separately). I don’t have an exact picture of the US, but is it really the case that the subject there has been significantly diminished by the bright light of public discourse? But it is true that the supposed vulnerability of certain listeners alone cannot limit what can be talked about. But, as far as I know, Zuckerberg was referring directly to empirical evidence regarding a connection between the increase in right-wing extremist communication and right-wing extremist violence, I assume that he knows the difference between correlation and causation.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 13 2020 at 11:38am
@Jens: You write:
Mill’s argument answers this objection. For who is omniscient enough to define what is “professional discussion,” “scientific research,” and “artistic performance”? For example, was the opinion of French professor Robert Faurisson, prosecuted twice by the French government, a scientific contribution to professional discussion?
Jens
Oct 16 2020 at 1:30am
I think it’s up to the courts to decide that. In my opinion, what happens in court is part of the public discourse. When courts work in such a way that you can no longer talk about them, then it becomes difficult. It’s a question of balance of power.
Holocaust denial litigation in Europe has received a lot of attention and it is definitely not that a complaint automatically leads to conviction.
Btw: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/harmful-conspiracy-theories-youtube
Jens
Oct 16 2020 at 5:38am
Just to add one more point: Dealing with Faurisson’s theses and the introduction of criminal liability for Holocaust denial in France – including dealing with the questions mentioned above regarding more or less indefinite legal terms – are ultimately part of a public discourse. Perhaps these questions were not answered once, now they are (at least in this case) – one could say. Anyone who would like to find out more about this in the future will find extensive documentation about it (if it doesn’t go down completely).
Jon Murphy
Oct 13 2020 at 11:47am
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? You have to assume. When determination of truth is left, not to people but to judges, lawyers, and politicians, you have to make lots of assumptions about what they know, what they understand, and what they don’t.
Jens
Oct 16 2020 at 1:36am
I can’t even go out of the house without making a few assumptions, including about other people. But as I mentioned in the answer to PL above, courts, lawyers, etc. are part of the public discourse. There may also be differences in the legal traditions. For factual questions, however, experts are also often called in in court.
But I also think right now that the mode of criminal law is the right way to go. Not because it can punish, but because – at least in Europe – it places extremely high demands on the constitutionality of the norms. When you get to the point where you can actually prove to some extent the causality between hate speech and violent crime, then the question is how to deal with it – ignore it or do smth. about it.
Craig
Oct 13 2020 at 2:33pm
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Post WW2 revisionism begins very soon after by the German veterans who liked the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Indeed part of the purpose of post war organizations like HIAG headed by the likes of Paul Hausser was to promote pensions for former Waffen SS since the SS was declared an illegal organization whose members were not entitled to pensions in the post war Bjndesregierung.
The veterans’ motives are easily understood. Gott mit uns and if God be with us who could be against us? I would suggest most veterans would have difficulty reconciling their sacrifices with support of a bad cause like Nazism.
The more modern revisionists though are a bit more calculating. They don’t need to prevail in the marketplace of ideas ….. today at least. Their goal is simply to plant a seed of doubt and let it blossom at some point in the distant future where adherents can claim the other side was just the victors writing the history and perhaps the fertile ground of a nation that might prefer the events of the Holocaust NOT to be true.
Indeed some future revisionists may see bans on Holocaust denial as somehow bolstering their future hypothesis that the ‘real truth was suppressed.
May seem unimaginable today for something like this to happen. Indeed, I truly hope it’s impossible, but there is no question in my mind that is their intent.
AMT
Oct 14 2020 at 11:37am
But is there no point at which we can consider the debates closed? Do we need continual debate for us to remain sure that the holocaust actually happened? That seems ridiculous to me. I do not think that concluding the case has been settled after sufficient argument means “most people will have no reason to believe it ever happened,” rather the exact opposite is most likely. They will have no remaining reason to doubt it. I’m pretty sure if you did some empirical research, this will be much closer to the truth than your beliefs.
Pierre, do we need to have flat earthers, so that we can remain sure that the earth is a globe? Is that a productive conversation?
Of course, we might quickly enter territory where we should abstain from restricting speech, but this topic seems like one of the best examples for where unbridled free speech has far more potential to cause harm than benefits. Your “Holocaust defenders’ research may have become rare because less apparently useful (and not without risk: suppose the researcher finds something that does not exactly fit the official wisdom?)” argument is just a red herring that is beside the point. Nobody can seriously question the holocaust, and academic quibbling (about something like the exact number of deaths or something like that which you allude to) is miles away from the real question here.
Just like the law clearly acknowledges not all speech is protected because of the potential for harm, e.g. fraud, sometimes other topics can cause more harm than benefit as well. Just be an economist and do a cost-benefit analysis. When it is simply settled FACT, I think it’s a pretty easy conclusion.
Jon Murphy
Oct 14 2020 at 4:25pm
It should seem ridiculous. That’s a ridiculous thing to argue. Which is why Pierre doesn’t.
It’s not about continuous debate. It’s about the right to dissent. It’s about the right to challenge the status quo.
AMT
Oct 15 2020 at 12:30am
The Mill quote that Pierre says is “the most serious reason to oppose speech bans” argues that “complete” liberty of dissent is required, because “on no other terms” can we be confident we are right.
According to that, if the ability to debate it is ever restricted, we do not have “complete” liberty of dissent, therefore the freedom of speech can never be restricted and the complete freedom of speech must be continual.
I don’t think there is any material difference to the distinction whether we are discussing the merits of banning a debate that is allowed versus occurring, because if no discussion is occurring the ban would have zero actual effect…but anyway, just change my quote to “do we need to continuously allow further debate for us to remain sure,” and then it is still ridiculous for this matter.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 7:28am
That’s incorrect. As Pierre discusses, there would be an effect even if there is no current debate. You must remember to keep future actions in your mind. That’s my point about right to dissent. Knowledge is an evolving process.
AMT
Oct 16 2020 at 11:02am
Since you ignored it, I’ll ask directly, do you still answer in the positive to my revised question? Do we need to continuously allow further debate for us to remain sure that the holocaust occurred? Since regarding this particular issue you say “Knowledge is an evolving process,” I take it you are uncertain that the holocaust actually happened?
Jon Murphy
Oct 16 2020 at 4:02pm
I didn’t ignore your question. I directly answered it. Yes, debate must continuously be allowed.
That’s quite the tortured interpretation of my comment. Firstly, I was speaking generally, which is why I said “knowledge is an evolving process” rather than just “knowledge about the Holocaust is an evolving process.” Secondly, evolution is not a dichotomous thing. It’s not just “the Holocaust happened” or it didn’t. We have evolving knowledge about the details, conditions, etc.
Let’s say that some researcher finds, buried deep in the bowels of the Vatican, some document that shows Pope Pius XII coordinated with the Nazis on the Holocaust. Indeed, this hypothetical document shows Pius blackmailed Hitler into the genocide. Discussing such a finding would indeed violate Facebook’s policy, which includes “distortions” about the Holocaust. Forbidding any debate would prevent our knowledge about the Holocaust from becoming more complete.
In case it is not clear: in order to knowledge to evolve, the status quo must be able to be challenged.
By the way, Justin Callais and Alex Salter have an excellent article at The Independent Review on how ideas, regardless of their merit, become entrenched. Do not assume, my dear AMT, that just because some idea is widely accepted as fact that it is indeed correct or even true.
AMT
Oct 16 2020 at 11:31pm
No, but thank you for doing so now.
Like I first said, but you must have failed to read, that is a red herring. Clearly, true academic discussion and inquiry about the details of the holocaust are not prohibited, only denial of the holocaust. Even Pierre’s argument concedes this point: “Holocaust defenders research may have become rare.” Just FYI, there is a difference between “more rare” and “prohibited.” Also see my reply to robc.
Sure, you can make up an outrageous hypothetical that you claim would constitute a “distortion” of the policy, but true academic inquiry and claims made based on solid evidence would certainly not be a distortion.
Of course, I’m not surprised that someone who actually thinks “debate must continuously be allowed for us to remain sure that the holocaust occurred” would make such an argument in an attempt to protect holocaust denial. Surely you understand the difference between holocaust denial, and legitimate inquiry, so attempting to conflate them is not just insulting to the many who were unquestionably murdered and their survivors, but flat out disgusting. I guess you think all those Jews were just lying about their dead relatives, and the tattoos on their arms were just a fad.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/last-auschwitz-survivors-speak-we-havent-won-but-weve-taught-our-grandkids/
Jon Murphy
Oct 17 2020 at 10:16am
I know you think my point is a red herring. But I am saying it is not: you’re misunderstanding the situation and thus only think it’s a red herring. The point about knowledge evolving is highly pertinent. There is a broad scientific literature on it (eg Polyani, Khun, Smith, Whitehead, Hayek, Hume, Salter, Callais, Wittgenstein, Koppl, and my own small forthcoming contribution).
You don’t see the contradiction here (not to mention the logical fallacies)? See my reply to your reply to robc.
Again, ignoring the logical fallacy of your argument, you make a strong assumption: that any such discovery would not be considered a denial or distortion by the gatekeeper. What is a denial or distortion is a judgement call, not an indisputable matter of fact. It will depend on the gatekeeper, not some objective scientific merit (as an aside, this is one issue I have with the academic journal process, but that’s a discussion for another time).
Indeed, I would say that knowledge is only advanced through distortions. Some are more meritorious than others, aye, but that is something that must be discovered and cannot be ex-ante known. Arguments should be judged upon their merits, not their conclusions.
For the last time, I (and Pierre) am making a general point about dialogue and discussion. Yes, I think a person should be protected to hold and espouse an opinion, no matter how wrong it is. I afford holocaust deniers the same protection I afford flat-earthers, mercantilists, socialists, anti-gay people, 9/11 truthers, and the 1619 Project.
AMT
Oct 18 2020 at 1:04pm
ROFL. Is his blog post, especially the final paragraph just “general?” Did I not ask the question specifically about this topic? It is clear that when you are wrong, you simply resort to lying, even though the truth is completely obvious throughout the entire blog post and comments. Your argument intentionally misrepresents “distortions” to encompass literally all discussion, implying that it’s all gray area, which is just plain stupid. Denial and research are not “intertwined.” It’s obvious that you have zero basis whatsoever to call my arguments “logical fallacies,” but it’s unsurprising based on your level of reading comprehension and willingness to flat out lie.
robc
Oct 15 2020 at 7:38am
It has “only” been 75 years since the end of the Holocaust.
The time between Newton and Einstein was 236 years (I used birth years, not specific points in their careers, but close enough). Should we have declared Newtonian physics settled and no future debate in 1750?
AMT
Oct 16 2020 at 10:49am
No, that’s a good example of why I think we should differentiate between facts, and our understanding of science. There is a zero percent chance that at some point in the future we will “learn” that millions of people didn’t actually die in Nazi death camps.
Do you think we will ever be able to conclusively determine whether the earth is flat or a globe?
robc
Oct 16 2020 at 11:15am
They aren’t that dissimilar.
We didn’t throw out Newtonian physics when Einstein came along, we refined it. Historians will probably refine their understanding of the Holocaust too, but you have to be able to talk about it and criticize certain aspects of it to make those new discoveries.
There are scientists who don’t accept (parts of) relativity today. They are quacks, mostly, but plate tectonics was quack science at one time too.
Neither science or history advance without the radical who sometimes turns out to be right. And for the radicals who are just ignorant idiots? Just ignore them or disprove them. The regular disproving keeps bystanders from believing them.
Also, flat earthers have been quacks for about 3000(2500?) years, and there existence hasn’t hurt anything.
AMT
Oct 16 2020 at 2:01pm
Well, I would say that we can often draw a clear enough line between them. Science explains why things happen, but the things that happen are the facts. Newton might not have understood exactly why an apple falls from a tree, but the apple falling to the ground is just a fact.
To be clear, my initial response to Pierre was addressing the question of his blog post:
This discussion is about whether anyone should be able to deny that the holocaust happened, not a ban on discussing details of it (and possibly refining the history books…compared to deleting the holocaust from the history books…). That is why I said academic quibbles about precise details are beside the point; they are clearly not prohibited by a ban on holocaust denialism.
I agree that science may advance in unpredictable or “radical” ways, and possibly aspects of history where our knowledge is meagre, but our knowledge of the holocaust will not.
Flat earthers might not cause much harm to anyone, but I would not say the same about holocaust deniers.
AMT
Oct 16 2020 at 9:53pm
We can distinguish between science and facts. While Newton might not have understood exactly the science of why, whether or not something has fallen to the ground is a matter of fact. I agree our understanding of science can advance in unexpected or “radical” ways, and also our knowledge of history where we have meagre understanding, but there is no question of whether or not the holocaust occurred. To be clear, my first post was responding to Pierre’s question:
Emphasis added.
To repeat, a ban on holocaust denial obviously still permits the holocaust to be discussed and researched, and academics may revise the history books, as opposed to deleting it from the history books.
I think this is proven false by both flat earthers, and holocaust deniers…
Although flat earthers might not cause much harm, I don’t think the same is true with holocaust deniers.
Jon Murphy
Oct 16 2020 at 11:25pm
That’s the point, though. It’s not obvious that a ban on denial and distortion (Facebook’s words) still permits any discussion and research. Indeed, as we have seen historically, such bans are explicitly designed to stop discussion and research (as is Facebook’s stated goal).
Denial is such an ambiguous term. It will be used to silence discussion. Just as it has been used to silence discussion on global warming and COVID.
Jon Murphy
Oct 17 2020 at 1:26pm
AMT-
Let me give an example of the ambiguity of the phrase “Holocaust denial.”
What does it mean for someone to be a Holocaust denier?
-If it simply means that the person does not believe that 6 million+ Jews and other dissidents died in concentration camps run by the German government, then by that definition no one is a Holocaust denier. I’ve not come across a single piece of literature that makes that claim. Neo-Nazis and other “deniers” will agree that 6 million+ people died while in camps under German control. What they’ll argue is that those deaths were not intentional genocide but rather the unfortunate consequences of a nation brought to the brink by war. What the Germans did to the Jews was no different than what Americans did to Japanese, but America had far more resources to call upon.
-So, then, if we are to exclude deniers, we’ll need to broaden the definition of “denier” to include the people described above: those who maintain that the deaths were caused by war and famine. But who in that group should be excluded? It is doubtful that every single death in a concentration camp was an intended act by the German government. Surely some died of “natural” causes like hunger, disease, etc. Some more were also likely killed by Allied air raids. So, then, some percentage of deaths cannot be attributed to the German government. But what percentage is it? 1%? 99%? Who in that range are excluded from having an opinion? What makes a person a holocaust denier?
-Another implication of the above “denier” reasoning is that the German government wasn’t responsible for the deaths. This is a standard denier position. So, is a denier one who argues that the German government wasn’t responsible for the deaths? If that’s the case, than my earlier point about the Vatican becomes very relevant. The hypothetical documents would prove that the German government wasn’t responsible. If we are forbidding the denialist position, then such a discovery would be repressed.
-The “responsibility” argument also implies that the percentage argument is important. If we are arguing that not every person killed was killed by the German government, then we are absolving some responsibility.
-And all this leaves aside questions of causality (which is a formidable topic in and of itself).
The TL;DR Version: Such claims about denialism seem very precise, and this easy to enforce. On their surface, claims like ” a ban on holocaust denial obviously still permits the holocaust to be discussed and researched, and academics may revise the history books, as opposed to deleting it from the history books” seems very straightforward. But once we start digging, we see that it is rather quite loose and vague. One cannot easily separate out discussions about the details of the Holocaust from denial of; they are intertwined.
AMT
Oct 17 2020 at 6:40pm
Jon,
https://www.adl.org/blog/facebook-has-a-holocaust-denial-problem
Your ignorance would be amusing, if it wasn’t so sickening.
Jon Murphy
Oct 18 2020 at 4:36pm
AMT-
I think you’ve done an excellent job proving Pierre’s point. When certain viewpoints are simply forbidden, the discussion devolves. I fear I have nothing more I can say
AMT
Oct 18 2020 at 9:54pm
Jon,
It is logically impossible for comments made on this blog to “prove” what will happen due to Facebook’s ban on holocaust denial, since there was no viewpoint that was forbidden or banned on this blog or in the comments. But of course, basic logic is clearly beyond you.
Phil H
Oct 15 2020 at 3:23am
I’m afraid this is a silly post because it fails to recognise what Zuckerberg is doing: making a commercial decision. Just like the mainstream media before it, big social media is now realising that it has to make a choice between being the haunt of weirdos, or laying down some editorial standards. And this is the beginning of those editorial standards. It’s a private business decision that Zuckerberg has taken in order to maximize the number of customers (advertisers) and products (individual site users) that he can attract.
Anyone looking for free speech principles in the actions of companies is looking in the wrong place. Free speech is a right, and rights are, by their nature, things that constrain governments. That’s literally the definition of them. They are mostly irrelevant to businesses.
Jon Murphy
Oct 15 2020 at 7:25am
As Pierre explicitly stated in the post, Facebook’s decision is will within its rights. What he is doing is discussing the consequences of their actions.
Jens
Oct 16 2020 at 3:28am
There are perhaps quite big differences in legal traditions. On the continent, lawyers have long since started to assume that fundamental rights (must also) have a third-party effect. Only by the way, complex issue.
However, if one does not argue normatively, then somehow it might be the case that the marketplace of ideas can benefit from online platforms. Economies of scale benefit providers and consumers of the ideas. I think it’s not entirely absurd to claim that the impartiality of the platform helps the marketplace of ideas, if you believe in it. It’s surely possible that a strong bias on the part of the platform can lead to it losing its quasi-monopoly status or an alternative being developed. But that’s not necessarily guaranteed and it will marginalize ideas that don’t match the platform’s bias. Or the marketplace for ideas suffers from the fact that alternatives no longer come together. At this level it may even be possible to argue that the platform’s bias should be regulated away. Why should one protect the marketplace of ideas only from government actions and not also from government omissions?
Jens
Oct 17 2020 at 7:13am
There is another important aspect to the marketplace of ideas and that is how this marketplace is used, with what intent. The point is that without some agreement about what the marketplace is for, the marketplace cannot fulfill its function and can be misused.
Here is a current analogy. People are interested in chess because they are interested in the sporting aspect, because they want to watch two minds “discuss” a logical problem, and not least because of the psychological aspect. There are also people who are particularly interested in computer chess, different computer programs, how they perform against each other and other who are mainly interested in certain positions, openings and their optimal way of playing. But these are all slightly different aspects. Some people are also interested in all aspects, but they know that these are different aspects.
In the pandemic, online chess has become very popular, even more popular than before. There are fewer real life chess tournaments and for many professionals there are no sources of income. However, this poses the problem for the chess world that a human chess player, when he sits at home and plays an online game using a computer chess program, can enormously increase his skill level, even at the very highest level. One tries to prevent this by requiring remote access to the computer, video recording and other surveillance measures, but in the end it is not easy. This currently has e.g. even led to a well-known player in a very established community being banned for life: https://en.chessbase.com/post/cheating-controversy-at-prochessleague
My point now is not the usefulness of these regulations or the fact that you always have fraudsters, but rather the question of why you do all this at all. Fraud is not exactly unknown in other sports and the rules and regulations are not exactly narrow. Why is all this being done at all?
Probably Because there are the interests in chess mentioned above: One would like to watch a competition between two people who are discussing a chess position under mental tension and psychological pressure. You don’t want to see someone entering the moves suggested by a computer program. There are definitely competitions in which computer programs play against each other or humans and machines cooperate. But that’s a different “sport”.
The marketplace of ideas can be used to find out the truth and possible solutions to problems. To see the facts in a bright light. But is it certain that it cannot also be used to distract, to suppress the truth, to pointlessly repeat wrong things, to stir up emotions such as hatred and contempt, etc.? If debaters come up with an open and honest interest in a clean discussion, then that will lead to the goal. But what if there is a discussant who does not have that intention?
Maybe the way public debate is structured has changed a bit. In the past a debate was mostly led by a narrow circle of debaters who knew each other, who knew that they would lose their reputation by misusing the marketplace and who were intellectually capable and secure in their status. Using the marketplace was a risk, had a price, and the amount of information on the marketplace was limited. Gatekeepers managed misuse and filtering. It was probably an extremely regulated marketplace at that time, due to the written and unwritten social rules of that time. But what if the – written and unwritten – rules have changed and players appear who do not want to use the marketplace to shed a bright light?
Jon Murphy
Oct 17 2020 at 12:19pm
Of course. Everything has good aspects, everything has bad aspects. That’s why there is such a strong need for general rules. Norms of behavior develop. The marketplace of ideas is no different.
The purpose of these generalized rules is to minimize conflict and allow for ideas to flourish. The rules must be restrictive only in the sense that they are harmful to those ends. The problem with banning certain opinions (or, what comes to the same thing, requiring certain opinions) is that it restricts the ability for ideas in general to flourish.
To keep your chess metaphor going, a rule requiring certain moves would squash the ability for the game to be a battle of minds. If it’s “only true chess” if the Queen’s pawn moves first, then that forbids countless other opening moves from being discovered, and thus a more enjoyable game from being played.
Rick Rodriguez
Oct 22 2020 at 9:49am
Well, while other platforms are freely available, besides Facebook, you can read and delve into, analyze, if necessary. Well, if you want to discuss this with someone, then not on Facebook …
Comments are closed.