HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017232.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

political ends of terrorism. The board has also proved that Redgrave has turned down roles such as that of Andrei Sakharov’s wife in an HBO production because she believed the film might be seen as “anti-Communist propaganda”.

Redgrave’s supporters threw a fundraiser for her. I prepared and distributed a leaflet that provided the facts to those attending and urged them to ask Redgrave “to explain her hypocrisy”. Several members of the audience were surprised to learn of her views on blacklisting Israeli artists. Others said they knew of Redgrave’s selective condemnation of blacklisting but didn’t care, because – as one woman put it – “anything is fair in the war against Zionism.”51

In the end, the case was settled and Redgrave persisted in her hypocrisy. I was comfortable in my role defending her rights while exposing her wrongs.

Not everyone understands this distinction. My own mother insisted that I was “helping” Nazis and terrorists when I supported their right to speak, even while condemning what they were saying. Far better educated people than my mother also claimed not to understand. In a debate in Canada on laws criminalizing Holocaust denial, I took my usual position in favor of freedom of speech:
I regret to say this, but I think that Holocaust denial speech is not even a close question. There is no persuasive argument that I can think of in logic, in law, in constitutionality, in policy, or in education, which should deny [anyone] who chooses to the right to take whatever position he wants on the Holocaust. The existence of the Holocaust, its extent, its fault, its ramifications, its political use are fair subjects for debate. I think it is despicable for anybody to deny the existence of the Holocaust. But I cannot sit in judgment over the level of despicability of anybody’s exercise of freedom of speech. Of course I agree that sticks and stones can break your bones, and words can harm you and maim you. That’s the price we pay for living in a democracy. It’s not that speech doesn’t matter. If speech didn’t matter, I wouldn’t devote my life to defending it. Speech matters. Speech can hurt. That’s not why those of us who defend free speech, particularly free speech of this kind, do it. We do it because we don’t trust government.

In response, Judge Maxwell Cohen said that anyone who holds such views “ought not to be a law teacher.” I disagree. Professors must defend the right of those they disagree with to express wrongheaded views, while insisting on their own right—indeed obligation—to express disagreement with such views.

When Yasser Arafat died in 2004, I was asked by Palestinian students at Harvard to represent them in the failed efforts to fly the Palestinian flag from a flagpole in the Harvard Yard. They knew my negative views of their hero—I had called Arafat’s death “untimely,” because if he had only died five years earlier, the Palestinian Authority might well have accepted the Clinton-Barak peace offer—but they also knew my views on freedom of speech. I agreed to represent them, as long as they understood that I would continue to criticize both Arafat and those who considered him a martyr. They agreed and we got Harvard to allow them to fly their flag.

51 Kevin P. Convey, Actress Redgrave defends her views, but lawyer Dershowitz steals the show. Boston Herald. Dershowitz: Redgrave Views on Censorship Hypocritical.

145

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017232