Peter Singer on Free Speech

That purveyor of unpopular opinions, Peter Singer, has spoken out in favor of free speech for David Irving, a historian recently convicted in Austria of breaking its law against denial of the Holocaust.

In the March 1st edition of the Jerusalem Post, Singer argues that "David Irving has a right to free speech, too":

We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed.

Why does Singer support free speech? Because without free expression, progress would be stymied:

[F]reedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

Therefore, concludes Singer, free speech should be granted to Irving, and moreover:

Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: "We apply the principle of freedom of expression evenhandedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else."

In one of my entries on the controversy over the images of Muhammad, someone named "Cut" -- who may have been a Muslim -- posted in the comments some cutting remarks about the inconsistency of Westerners who call for free expression but jail David Irving for denying the Holocaust:

How many western nations ban anti-Semitic language (including comedy)? I know of 8 in Europe. None of these countries make a crime of anti-Islamic speech. Today, David Irving is in an Austrian jail for past work denying the holocaust...

I think that "Cut" and Singer are both correct on this point, and in my response to "Cut," I affirmed free speech even for racists:

I'm for free speech, so I oppose banning opinions that are deemed racist.

In short, I agree with "Cut" and with Singer that supporting free speech for the Jyllands-Posten while denying it for David Irving is inconsistent.

Support free speech. Consistently.