FOCAL POINT
A Philosopher's Dilemma

An anguished philosophy student writes:-

Should I debate a Holocaust denier?

Posted on February 1st, 2008 by Julian Baggini

I'VE got a dilemma. I have been asked to take part in a university debating society event against the motion "Free Speech Should be Free from all Restraint". Easy enough -- of course people should not be free to follow me round the street calling me a rapist, for example. The problem is the person speaking on the other side: David Irving, historian and holocaust denier.

The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. The serious issue for me is whether it is right to give people with such views a prominent public platform, thereby legitimising them in some way.

In theory, it sounds nobler to always [sic] fight the truth out in public, but we surely can't ignore the fact that the attention someone gets has as much, if not more, of an impact than what we actually say when we debate them.

So if I say yes, am I standing up for free speech, or am I complicit in giving Irving, and his views, more attention and respect that they deserve?

continuedAdvice please! The Debate continues

An anguished philosopher's dilemma: Should I debate a Holocaust denier?| philosopher's blog has now deleted all comments but they live on, in Cyberspace | The, uh, debate continues | and continues |AND THE DEBATE GOES ON...

David Irving comments:

WELL, since the university concerned ... has allowed this gentleman to publicise far in advance the fact that I'm coming, no doubt the usual forces will ensure that the debate is cancelled. How silly of them! (or clever).

Postscript, Sunday, February 3, 2008

Too late, we fear:

A reader informs us this nmorning that the references to David Irving are no longer on Baggini's blogs. (A google search for Julian Baggini and David Irving)

Being revised as we email?

Julian Baggini

"The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his ... "Britain in the twenty-first century with Julian Baggini and Lynsey Hanley. ...

julianbaggini.blogspot.com/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Julian Baggini: Should I debate a Holocaust denier?

"The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his ... Julian Baggini. Welcome to my website. Click on the links below to find out ...

julianbaggini.blogspot.com/2008/02/should-i-debate-holocaust-denier.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

blog.talkingphilosophy.com

The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. ..... Posted on January 23rd, 2008 by Julian Baggini ...

www.blog.talkingphilosophy.com/ - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

blog.talkingphilosophy.com » Should I debate a Holocaust denier?

Posted on February 1st, 2008 by Julian Baggini. I've got a dilemma. ... The problem is the person speaking on the other side: David Irving, historian and ...

blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=198 - Similar pages

And they have disappeared from links.

It's listed here, but goes nowhere: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/

Debating Holocaust Denial and David Irving

Mention one or both and out come the deniers.

Date filed: 02-02-2008

FURTHERMORE Julian Bagginni makes a living from "philosophical" question such as debating a "denier." However, I think he answered the question he posits about debating the "denier" here:

Can censorship ever be justified?

Perdition

Jim Allen's play about some Zionists in the Holocaust enraged the Jewish community, and protests forced Royal Court to abandon a 1987 production.

Antony Julius
Lawyer and author

It was a crass unhistorical work that purported to be historical. I would not myself have banned it, but I would have asked the Royal Court give the audience a short, truthful account of the relevant historical events.

Julian Baggini
Editor of the Philosophers' Magazine

Because Perdition presented itself as history, the usual artistic defence of freedom of expression is not enough. However, when we try to discover the truth in history, we need to be able to allow contentious views to be heard. Hateful lies disguised as facts are something else.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1378676,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Review of his last book

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,1540242,00.html