free speech, belief and punishment

My second article. the first is below.

Thinking about Thinking

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Over two centuries ago Voltaire revealed our current American notion of free speech. This very same principle encouraged Columbia University to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to speak in New York on September 24.
Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University prompted controversy from all sides. Ahmadinejad is a prominent critic of western power and Iran is seen as a significant nuclear threat. The media was enthralled. During his appearance, Ahmadinejad went so far as to question the historical validity of the holocaust.
Ahmadinejad stated, “…if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?” Ahmadinejad and others support different approaches to the history surrounding World War II.
From a political or historical perspective the statement is certainly controversial, some would argue laughable. However, the speech also raises interesting questions about the implicit, more philosophical issues, of belief and free speech.
Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is particularly interesting because in America the freedom to make such a statement is upheld. Contrary to this, in many European countries, most notably Germany and Austria, the same statement is a punishable offense. For obvious reasons, the Holocaust is a very sensitive subject in these countries; there is a strong obligatory feeling for coming to terms with the brutal reality of the past.
In February of 2006 David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Vienna Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. In lectures he gave in 1989, Irving denied that gas chambers were used for mass killing at Auschwitz. In April of 2007, the European Union passed legislation making it a punishable crime to deny the Holocaust.
The historical equivalent of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room, questioning the extent of the Holocaust is treated as anti-Semitic hate speech which encourages racism and violence. Essentially this is a personal belief, contradicted by vast historical evidence in this instance, which impedes on the freedom of others.
Ethically and morally these are intuitively contentious, even wrong beliefs. Nonetheless, with the words of Voltaire echoing in our minds, we uphold Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech even if his beliefs drastically oppose our own. The critic will insist we have an obligation to protect the ears of the uneducated from slanderous ignorance. But is legislation the right way to go about this?
Does our notion of free speech rest on the childish idea that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me? E.U. legislation implies that a personal belief can be detrimental to society. Anyone who has ever been a victim of hateful speech knows that words can be damaging.
So what is the relationship between belief and action? If a person believes that minority groups are inferior, they may or may not act discriminatorily towards these groups. If a person believes that a personal relationship with God is the one and only road to salvation, they may or may not discriminate against unbelievers. Is it the belief or the action which is wrong? There is a fine line. How do we decide to outlaw one type of expression and not another?
I want to agree that a person should be punished for promoting hate and violence, but where do we draw the line? By treating ill formed beliefs in a serious manner we only give credence to absurd theories.
If it is illegal to make an outrageous claim against the validity of the Holocaust then punishing other marginal beliefs is only a small step away. Maybe legal action is not the right way to approach this; intellectual discussion and education may be more appropriate solutions.
We must remember, the right to free speech allows a minority to speak out and instigate positive change. America’s founding fathers and Voltaire were rightly attracted to preserving free speech to allow for an open flow of ideas. Legally limiting the right to voice a belief, no matter how controversial, directly limits the freedom of us all.