Lewandowsky's Hoax and Fury are merely the latest attempts to de-legimatize skepticism about climate change in the public marketplace of ideas. Supporters of the de-legimatizing strategy often raise the specter of Holocaust denial, suggesting that any form of public debate about the Holocaust would grant the deniers legitimacy. The National Constitution Center recently held a symposium on the "Future of Free Speech" by scholars specializing in the First Amendment. No matter where one stands on the issue, one will find all the speakers knowledgable and effective - though occasionally revolting). The program is available through CSPAN at the following link:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?318476-1/free-speech-us

The merits of suppressing Holocaust deniers is discussed several times during the program, but the section beginning about 58:30. One of the speakers claims that Holocaust denial is more rampant in countries where hate speech laws suppress open discussion - a claim that wasn't challenged by opposing panelists. If all climate change deniers were equivalent to Holocaust deniers, the sunlight of open debate would improve the situation.

For those who think "knowing your enemy" is important, Professor Fish makes the case for suppression of some forms of free speech beginning about 13.5 minutes: With regard to academic freedom, Fish says: "What academics do - our trade - is to make judgments on each other ... We don't foster free speech or ensure it will flourish. We devise mechanisms by which we - at least those of us with tenure - give ourselves the right to say who can and who can't speak freely." Almost every remark he makes supports the strategy of de-legitamizing climate skeptics.

The difference between free speech in the US and Europe is discussed 11:00-13:30. The vote at the end will warm the hearts of readers of BH.