BY MAXX HYEOK CHO

In print | October 25, 2007

I was greatly disturbed by Abigail Graber’s op-ed piece in The Phoenix last week. In it, she says Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University was hate speech, and that hate speech should not be given a public forum. I disagree with this on both levels. Ahmadinejad’s speech was not hate speech, and even if it were, it was right for Columbia to let him speak.

Graber boldly claims, “The Holocaust was a moral abomination. Holocaust denial is a moral abomination.” I think mostly everyone will agree, including me, that the Holocaust was a moral abomination. But, Holocaust denial is not a moral abomination. Since when has holding a mere idea become a moral abomination? Maybe the inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition will beg to differ with me, but I can think and believe whatever I want. Denying the Holocaust, while historically unjustifiable, is not hateful. Saying that Hitler was justified in killing Jews may be considered hate speech, but a simple act of denying the Holocaust is not hateful.

But let’s suppose for a moment that Holocaust denial is indeed hateful. I don’t concede for a moment that it is, but let’s follow this chain of logic. I still claim that Ahmadinejad’s speech should have been given the public venue. Graber is perfectly correct in pointing out that there was absolutely no legal obligation to let him speak. But I would like to argue from a higher stance of our moral obligation to protect free speech, even if it is hateful. Could she be afraid that people might be offended? How dare she be as insulting as to make an assumption about the public’s ability to discern. This is not about Ahmadinejad’s right to speak, it is about our right to listen. As the author Christopher Hitchens points out, every time you censor speech, you take away the right of the public to hear something.

Indeed, it is helpful to grant people like Ahmadinejad a public forum, because it helps us reevaluate what we know. What would you say to someone from the Flat Earth Society? How do we know what we know? It is our duty as rational, skeptical beings that we constantly question the evidence. Therefore, it is imperative and necessary to give minority opinions a public forum, no matter how hurtful, incorrect or appalling. When Graber said, “There is no debate to be had on these subjects,” I hope she meant that Holocaust denial is an irrational position to hold. I hope she did not mean that any point of view that is unpopular or hurtful should be silenced.

Let me also argue from a more practical standpoint. If we were to ban hate speech, to whom would we grant the power to decide what is hateful? For example, one remembers well the incident in 2005 where a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon with the prophet Muhammad, and a violent uprising around the world caused many deaths. Should we leave it to Muslims to decide what we can or cannot draw, simply because they find certain things offensive? Should we leave it to the Christians to decide what we can or can’t say? Meanwhile, the religious often get away with hurtful speech with the excuse that it is part of their religious belief. If we are going to continue letting ministers preach homophobia in public settings and let the Bible stay in print for that matter, then we better be consistent and allow freedom of all expression, no matter how incorrect or hurtful.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »