Censorship or freedom?
There are a lot of accusations being made about “Judea declares war on Germany” that reflect the fear of the accusers, but have little to do with the reality of the film or Steve Campbell’s motives for wanting to show it. While I’ve not heard one hateful statement from Steve Campbell, I’ve heard many hateful statements directed at him from the very people who say they’re trying to protect the public from hateful views.
Some have suggested that if Grassroots airs this film they might as well show child porn or snuff films. That is absurd, those activities are illegal. The film is not “Holocaust denial,” it’s historical revisionism, and that isn’t illegal in America, yet. The film doesn’t deny that Jews were imprisoned and died in the camps, it just presents a different perspective on how and why the Holocaust happened.
The fact that Grassroots is considering not airing the film is a matter of distrust. The fear is that people who watch it will behave irresponsibly, or violently. Apparently after watching this film, formerly benign citizens will suddenly fire up the ovens and start another Holocaust. This doesn’t say much for the opinion Grassroots has of its viewers. Do they think that we in the Roaring Fork Valley can’t be trusted to discern whether the ideas presented in this film are true or false?
I’m not advocating for the contents of the film, I’m advocating for showing it. Any of us might find ourselves in a position of promoting an unpopular view, so if we allow a fearful angry group to dictate what we can see in this instance, it will pave the way to censoring our views too.
While it doesn’t fall under the protection of the First Amendment, it does go to the heart of what free speech is about. The whole point of free speech is to protect people who promote unpopular ideas from people who are offended by them. This is what separates true freedom from the idea of freedom. It’s very simple; those who are for censorship are against freedom.
And that’s un-American.”
That in part is the statement I gave at the Grassroots meeting today, and submitted as a letter to the editor.
As an advocate of showing the film, I was in the minority. All but about five of the sixty or so people were against it. Most were Jewish and talked emotionally about their family’s experience with the Holocaust. Almost none of them had seen the film, yet they declared it hateful, despicable, Nazi propaganda.
Because the term Holocaust denial (coined by the film’s detractors) has been thrown around freely by those discussing the issue, most were under the impression that the film portrayed the Holocaust as a lie that had been made up by Jews, and never really happened. Of course, one can understand their outrage if this were the case. The fact that it isn’t the case didn’t seem to matter much to anyone, least of all the media who’ve been reporting the story.
But in today’s meeting, it wasn’t Holocaust revisionism that was the issue. As the Grassroots board made clear at the beginning, the issue was what kind of guidelines they should apply if any, in choosing films for their programming. Is Grassroots responsibility to viewers to determine when a film is dangerous or offensive? Or should they avoid the whole possibility of conflict and confine their shows to local content only?
This wasn’t about the Holocaust. This was about whether a fearful angry mob can influence what we get to see on Grassroots. This was an issue of censorship, and of free speech, and of trust.
Angry fearful mob?
Freedom.
Censorship?
Freedom.
What will Grassroots decide?
Well said Reckless G.
If I may,
This debate was misled from the beginning with labeling of the video as “Holocaust denial film.” We’ve been letting right wing and left wing opiners define debates with quaint little phrases like this for too long now. “He’s a flip-flopper”, “Don’t you support the troops?”, “Neo-con imperialist”, etc. Currently, calling someone a ‘Holocaust denier’ is a way to shut down the idea of even listening any further. The discussion is about whether or not the choice to show this video is a censorship issue.
With that said, this video should not be shown by Grassroots. Not because it is hate speech, but because it is so exceptionally bad that I refuse to refer to it as a film for fear of offending people who actually like films. It is a series of poorly linked interpretations of facts that are quite obviously intended to appeal to those among us who are looking for the next conspiracy to latch on to. Mr. Campbell should rent a room and show the film to whomever wants to see it. Not showing the film on Grassroots isn’t censorship to me because the station can choose it’s programming without it being a ban on a particular piece.
If you want to be bored to tears by cherry picked inconsistencies in statistics, many of which were wonderfully deconstructed by Mitch Mullhal in another post, then by all means watch this thing.
mgman
Thanks for sharing your perspective mg.
I don’t think the film should be shown on its merit, since I don’t think it has any. I’m just concerned that GR programming may be influenced by people who are insulted or offended by the content of a show. If the film was a Nazi recruitment or white supremacist promotion actually containing phrases of hatred or intolerance, I would be all for censoring it. But the real contents of this film have been distorted and misconstrued by the media and letter writers to imply that its message is much worse and something other than it is.
As I said at the meeting yesterday, if I wanted Grassroots to air a video showing life in Israel/Palestine from the Palestinian perspective, would GR get railroaded by this same group claiming it is hateful and bigoted? Where is the line drawn?
To me this is all about principle and precedent.
Thanks for the kind remark, mgman…
Cheers,
G,
I’ve had a change of heart about the airing of Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II, so I suppose I should explain why.
When this topic first appeared, I was all for airing the film. However, after examining some key claims, I have serious questions about the film’s veracity, and I cannot condone the broadcast of this film by Grassroots TV, at least not without first publicly outing the fact that the film is outright chicanery.
A few years back, I hired a young technical writer. Long story short, after a few weeks we threw him into the fire. He did fine, so I tasked him with revising the instructions for a popular feature that was undergoing serious changes. As I suspected, he was up to the task.
When I went to thank him for a job well done, he looked at me sheepishly and said, “I could see how well you had written that section, so I was hesitant to change it.”
“Look,” I said, “It doesn’t matter what you change as long as what you write is more accurate than what was there.”
I recount this story because I think it is illustrative of what needs to happen in the course of historical revision.
Had the film reexamined the holocaust through the prism of newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased data, that’d be fine, but that’s not what this film does. Instead, it introduces data that, in some cases, flatly fails threshold standards of proof (perhaps Rat can help me out here). You can say the U.S. entered WWI because Zionists blackmailed President Wilson, but unless you offer evidence that this is true, your claim does not and should not refute evidence of the Zimmerman Telegram and the list of U.S. ships sunk by German U-boats.
Were the film merely thin where the standards of proof are concerned, I would remain critical but would not oppose its broadcast. What troubles me is not the claims based on absent evidence—something that makes the film-makers look lazy—but what the film-makers do with factual, legitimate historical documents. Again, take the Miller Report: the film deliberately misuses the report’s stipulation that Nazi labor camps were not in the business of gassing and cremating prisoners to suggest that Jewish prisoners were not gassed and cremated. This does not improve the human understanding of historical data, it distorts it.
Taken collectively, examples like these and others reveal that the film’s interpretations of history rapidly cross the line from legitimate historical revisionism into unapologetic political propaganda. Broadcasting this film would serve only to give it unwarranted exposure.
Cheers,
Ahem. Not to diminish your aha moment Mitch, but have you noticed the title of this post?
For those of you still struggling with the intent of this film, let me just give you some help here. The point of the film is not to prove that the Holocaust was a hoax for its own sake. The intent is to show that there is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. This is the premise Steve Campbell is trying to get across, but which, since very few of his opponents have seen the film, is being missed by nearly everyone.
It isn’t meant to be an in depth revisiting of the facts of the Holocaust. It’s meant to engender suspicion toward a political group that some believe is responsible for many of our global ills. As with most conspiracy theories it stretches credibility to the breaking point.
That’s why I don’t see any difference between this film and any of the 9/11 conspiracy films Grassroots has aired on Steve’s behalf in the past. If you think the veracity of this film is bad, you should see some of the 9/11 videos! I finally had to tell Steve I couldn’t watch any more of them. Not one offered any believable proof of the claims they were trying to make. But then, that’s the nature of conspiracies. It’s all circumstantial and unprovable and relies entirely on the viewer’s susceptibility to belief in conspiracies. I’ve noticed that those who fall for one conspiracy theory, fall for all of them; chemtrails, fluoridated water, Protocols of Zion, 9/11. It’s all part of the BIG PLAN to exterminate the little guy and leave just the power elite to enjoy the spoils of the planet. Didn’t you know?
[Broadcasting this film would serve only to give it unwarranted exposure.]
Not broadcasting the film gave it unwarranted exposure. Broadcasting it would’ve reeled in a few gullible but harmless fish. Now the story of this controversy has been picked up and is being used by REAL anti-Semitic hate groups. That’s the irony of this silly protest by the fearmongers.
[There is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world... [This conspiracy is] all circumstantial and unprovable and relies entirely on the viewer’s susceptibility to belief in conspiracies… [This conspiracy is] all part of the BIG PLAN to exterminate the little guy and leave just the power elite to enjoy the spoils of the planet…]
That’s an interesting response. GTV should have aired the film because ginning up all this controversy has created some sort of palpable capital for the truly formidable anti-semitic groups.
I explained why this film is not legitimate historical revisionism and why, therefore, it cannot prevail in the arena of history.
When GTV decides not to air this film, its board members should be applauded for making the correct choice. Upon that announcement, this film can slink back into the bilge of irrelevance from whence it came.
Cheers,
Something else to ponder…
When considering whether the film should be aired by Grassroots, does their mission statement have any relevance?
“GrassRoots Television is devoted to protecting and nurturing channels of mass communication for unlimited use by all citizens in order that they may better maintain their liberty, govern their democracy, and enrich the quality of their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens.
In the Roaring Fork Valley, we are committed to providing the highest quality personal service, training and production facilities to ensure the greatest possible access to electronic media content creation, and its distribution between all citizens, their organizations and the community at large.
We strive to demonstrate that citizen determined media is an essential attribute of a healthy and progressive democratic community.”
Maybe after this, they’ll have to eliminate the words “unlimited use.” Although I have to admit that the term; “citizen determined media” would still apply if GRTV decides not to air it based on the majority opinion at yesterday’s meeting.
Yes, G, I think GTV’s mission statement is relevant. In fact, I see that it holds a reasonable basis for a decision to refuse to air this film.
GTV’s mission statement’s lofty principles leave it open to precisely the kind of criticism you are waging. Still in their quest to protect and nurture “channels of mass communication” so citizens can maintain personal liberty, they did have the foresight to include the phrase, “and enrich the quality of their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens.”
Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II should be rejected out-of-hand on the basis of that phrase alone.
Cheers,
Hmmm…guess I’ll have to agree with you on that. However, Steve would not, as he believes that our lives will be enriched by exposing (and presumably eliminating) the ominous plan for world domination.
So then the question becomes, who decides what is enriching?
Back to my standard; would a video exposing the genocide of the Palestinians by Israel be considered enriching?
How about a video about Jewish denial of the Palestinian genocide?
Uh oh!
Once again, we’re not a long way from agreement. There are effective ways to argue your point. This film is not one of them.
Cheers,
I think there is confusion on everyone’s part as to what point we are arguing. You seem to be arguing the merits or lack thereof of the film based on its historical accuracy. I’m arguing the wisdom of letting a fearful mob determine what we get to see on public access TV. The fearful mob are arguing the possibility of stirring up hatred that will result in violence toward their ethnic group. Grassroots is arguing the standards by which they should judge whether to air a film or not.
So much for clarity!