Understanding Holocaust Denial Bans
News that Pope Benedict XVI has un-excommunicated four traditionalist Bishops, including a well known Holocaust denier has caused quite some controversy, to say the least. However, I am not reading so much about the response to the reinstating of four seccessionist Bishops than I am about the response to Richard Williamson, the Holocaust denier, specifically. Ross Douhat at The Atlantic suggests the Vatican get its PR machine up and running to make sure everyone knows they don’t agree with Williamson.
What I don’t, and never have gotten, is why Europe makes such a big deal about the act of Holocaust denying. Don’t get me wrong. The mass of meticulously recorded data on the Holocaust uncovered by the Allies seems to me to make this undeniable. Anyone who does, even while knowing this, not only denies one of the worst atrocities of the last century, but probably has a skewed view of reality itself.
Yet, Wikipedia tells me 13 countries in Europe have bans, and even in this century, more have attempted (and some succeeded) in adding their own. Why?
I can understand my own confusion. I was, after all, born and raised an America. Here in the U.S., the first amendment protects all sorts of unpopular speech. Racism, sexism, sexual orientation, anti-semitism. If there’s speech that preaches hate against a group, it’s likely protected. Of course, once hate speech becomes incitment to attack, then it finally is banned. But even then, incitment is more “attack the gays at the Pride Parade tomorrow” then a general “we should go attack gay people.” Supreme Court rulings over the years have increasingly opened up what you can say about groups. And as much as hate speech sickens me, I probably wouldn’t have the current legal situation much different. Say what you will, but Americans love their free speech. So do I.
I also understand that most European countries don’t guarantee freedom of speech. At least of this kind, and depending on the country, even more is banned. Just look at Michael’s post from earlier.
So why is it that Europe is so against somebody suggesting that the Holocaust is a myth, or that it wasn’t performed as suggested, or as large-scale as suggested? Is it as simple as a liberal PC-brigade at work, or is there a deeper meaning that an American such as me could never understand? Will the bigots let me know about the Zionist conspiracy that’s been at work for decades? Does anyone really even know?
I’m sincerely interested in finding out why this is such a big deal in Europe. Take it as an American trying to understand your culture and/or politics.
What’s sad Michael is that most European countries do have freedom of speech protections, but they are more lax in some ways than the US standard. Spain has freedom of speech in it’s Constitution, and yet we only decriminalized Holocaust denial here last year. Speaking well of terrorist groups and their methods is still a crime.
It’s ironic that European countries criticize Turkey for their patently anti-free speech laws against insulting Turkishness and associated concepts, but are willing to prohibit Holocaust denial. Both are anti-free speech laws and European countries with laws like those on the books don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
I would add one caveat to the matter though. The US has its own forms of censorship, though they are sometimes less patent and advertised. My friends are shocked that American media is muzzled on what they can show of the results of war. The prohibition on showing coffins (even assuming full consent of the family) is as anti-free speech as Holocaust denial laws, as are those no protesting at a funeral laws meant to keep away Fred Phelps and his horrific brood.
Michael, I also as a Turk, have difficulty in understanding how Europians look at the matter, is it religion, is it long-term political interests or is it just a ban?
When you look at Holocaust, there is an undeniable fact on hand supported by various documents and witnesses. Whether the numbers or ways presented should be different is irrelevant. So why ban people with surely ill-advised ways of looking at things? Is there anything to hide or anything to be afraid of? Can some group of ill-advised people start something that can get out of control? Can a group of people who deny something or accept it rewrite history? Can historical facts change just because a group of people accept or deny something to their limited knowledge?
It is more interesting to see some European countries even pass laws from their parliaments to make judgements about historical events that have not been even agreed among historians as we speak or have not even been taken to international courts. They pass laws to imprison people who deny the so called Armenian genocide which can not even a bit be compared to the Holocaust. There are even some Turks who have been through legal processes and difficulties just because they said in Switzerland that ‘there is no Armenian genocide’.
I am not saying Turkey have full freedom of speech, to the contrary Ergenekon case today shows the position Turkey is in. I am also against 301 in Turkey as Claudia mentioned although it is off topic. However Turkey is not putting pressure on any other party about their freedom of speech or its lack there of at least.
When these come from countries who put pressure on others about what they actually do through some double standards then it is even more difficult to understand as it is the case when former president Jack Chirac of France said “Writing history is the job of the historians, not of the laws.” as a response to the Algerian accusations and then passed a law from the parliament to imprison who deny the so called Armenian genocide.
The point of the matter is that a large chunk of the population, in some countries, would believe the denial a few decades ago. That could become a public order issue in places where fascism was a recent memory and democracy was shaky, at best.
This is not to say that I agree with those laws – I don´t, I am just trying to give you the context.
Anyway, what´s your opinion on «desecration of the flag»?
I was thinking along the lines of Ricardo’s comment, that perhaps the culturual context makes a difference. It’s a ‘they can’t handle free speech’ sort of argument, which is more than a bit condescending, and I don’t know if I can support that line of thinking, but I do sense that this is where the idea comes from that this type of speech needs to be restricted. In some sense, I guess that when we ban speech that incites violence, this would be an example of going a step further and banning the speech that would create an atmosphere to support or condone violence. Or another comparison would be to our libel laws- the first amendment doesn’t support speech which slanders another person’s reputation, and in a sense the holocaust deniers are slandering the reputation of a group of people.
I see. So what of now, in this very decade, where some countries are still trying to implement it? It can’t be for any measure of protection from fascism now, where such a thing is long dead.
Desecration: Free speech, though you won’t catch me doing it. I prefer to hold up my flags proudly.
Claudia: Yes, I know. The media, for all the names it gets, was very much self-censoring in the early days of the war. And still remains so now, at least to an extent.
I also agree on Phelps and co., but only so far. If they had their way, they’d be protesting in front of the casket. I don’t think outright bans are good, but where they’ve been removed to a distance is I think okay.
Fascism as a global menace may be dead, but there are many self-styled “nationalists” (some would say, “closet fascists”) in Europe right now. They have got political power in countries such as Austria or Italy. And they are/endorse/condone “Holocaust deniers”. Le Pen has denied the gas chambers, for instance.
Another twist is that some islamists are themselves “holocaust deniers”.
Slander might be a clue. Some “holocaust deniers” will go on denying that people died, and will do it in the face of all evidence. It is, in a sense, akin to religious faith. And it may constitute a matter of public order when the likes of David Irving address some hundreds of neonazis.
Nevertheless, I think those laws should go.
The equation between “nationalists” and “fascists” exposes that the commenter doesn’t know what “fascism” is apart from “political ideologies that are bad”.
It is also not true that Holocaust denial has any intrinsic relationship to fascism. There are anti-semetic fascisms, to be sure. But there are also non-anti-semetic versions of fascism. And, as we have seen recently in some anti-Israel protests in the West, there are also anti-semites who aren’t fascists.
This has, in fact, been a serious problem with the word “fascism” for decades: It has become a word used to tarnish something that the user doesn’t like (e.g. some lefties call see almost all conservatives as “fascists”), but in the process it has lost all objective meaning. It is just a rhetorical cudgel useful at times to marginalize someone else’s arguments without actually answering them.
I would encourage those who want an attempt to build a more useful (though still debateable) definition of “fascism” to read Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. His treatment of the historical genealogy of fascist thought is particularly illuminating in light of the left’s Orwellian inversion of the term.
Fascism has certainly been a blunt instrument used by some on the left to malign people on the right that hold positions that they find oppressive. It has more recently been taken as a blunt instrument used by some on the right to malign people on the left that hold positions that they feel are oppressive thanks in no small part to Goldberg. Neither common usage is particularly accurate or illustrative and generally serves no purpose other than to shut down what might otherwise be productive or at least interesting debate.
If you want a real understanding of fascism I would suggest Griffin “The Nature of Fascism” for a good overview, Reich “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” for analysis as fascism was first rearing its ugly head, or if you want more politically motivated analyses read Chomsky and Goldberg both for analyses from the left and the right. Of the final two I think Chomsky is more academically rigorous, but he also certainly has an axe to grind.
Debate is better served by using more precise terminology and reserving vocabulary like fascist and nazi only in reference to actual fascists and nazis. If it is merely something that you find oppressive then simply call it oppressive. If you find it authoritarian call it that, or if you must call it tyranical. We should all remember that no mainstream political movement in the US can anywhere close to accurately be described as fascist. If we want we can pull bits of policy practiced by one or more fascist regimes and point out that they are policy positions or analagous to policy positions held by one politician or another, but stripped of context that illuminates very little and obscures much. Hitler introduced the two week vacation to the Netherlands, does that mean that vacation time is intrinsically fascist or nazi? Clearly any sensible person would say no. Yet far too many people who are otherwise sensible, or seemingly so, fall into this trap with some other small subset of policies with which they disagree. My reading of excerpts of Goldberg and hearing of several interviews where he attempted to defend his thesis leads me to conclude that this is his failing.
The problem is not the the bishop denies the holocaust, because he has of course the freedom to believe whatever he wants. But he serves as an example for christian people and the Roman Catholic church. Therefore he must not spread wrong statements.
Well, Grewgills, at least you had the belated honesty to back away from your earlier claim to have read Goldberg’s entire book.
That said, “excerpts” that were no doubt selected out of context by Goldberg’s critics and a few interviews is hardly an example of honest engagement with his argument. In fact, your gross misrepresentation of his argument (Goldberg says repeatedly throughout the book that he is NOT calling leftists fascists) is proof positive that either you have not honestly heard what it is OR that you are willfully misrepresenting it here.
Gee, I wonder why.
I don’t recall making that claim. Could you link to that claim on my part or apologize for calling me a liar on that point?
Sorry for the formatting issues I must have left out a close tag on one or more of the blockquotes.
Back to the topic at hand.
Douthat is correct that the Catholic Church would be best served by distancing themselves from Williamson’s more odious comments and explaining that both the excommunication and the reversal were not about those views.
Re: European vs American views on Holocaust denial
At least for the older laws the Holocaust and issues surrounding WWII tend to be more visceral since that was the ground on which it occurred. Particularly in Germany it was about preventing a resurgence of that particular strain of evil. I disagree with the method and much prefer an open an honest exchange of ideas. In that environment Holocaust deniers are made to look like what they are and their nonsense loses power more quickly.
Reposted for clarity. Feel free to remove the formatting fiasco.
I don’t recall making that claim. Could you link to that claim on my part or apologize for calling me a liar on that point?
Again, if you cannot point to where I have actually lied the only honorable thing to do is apologize. Please try to remember that disagreement does not equal dishonesty. You disagree with my assessment of Goldberg’s work that is not the same thing. That I and many others disagree with Goldberg’s argument and your assessment of it does not make us liars no matter how much you may disagree with our analysis.
I have read several relatively long excerpts (several paragraphs to several pages) and have seen and/or heard at least 3 interviews with Goldberg where he attempts to defend his thesis. The shortest of the interviews was from the Daily Show where he was frankly made to look like a fool.
What should one take your earlier statement to mean?
The only reasonable translation of (your statement not Goldberg’s) “the left’s Orwellian inversion of the term” combined with your preceeding statement from that same comment in reference to the term fascism,
is that you feel that it is the leftists who are indeed the fascists. If that is not your intent would you offer some clarification?
Please note that the qualification was relative. That is, I said that Chomsky’s writing on fascism is more academically rigorous than Goldberg’s writing on fascism. Note also I was damning Chomsky with faint praise.
On this point at least we agree and it was until quite recently almost exclusively a sin of the left. Goldberg, regardless of his intent, is largely responsible for this now being a much more common sin of the right as well. It is still more commonly a sin of the left, but the gap has narrowed considerably thanks to the efforts of Goldberg.
PS a preview option would be nice so that it would be easier to avoid formatting boondoggles like my earlier comment that can be difficult to notice if the tags have not performed their function.
In light of the fact that Goldberg repeatedly and explicitly disavows any claim that leftists are fascists, your keeping with that charge even after I have refuted it seems only further dishonesty. Apparently in your hasty selection of excerpts and interviews on a left-leaning comedy show, you managed only to come up with the usual misrepresentations spewed by Goldberg’s critics and you didn’t have the initiative or skepticism to investigate any deeper before taking those representations as absolute truth, even after their fallacy was pointed out to you.
If I can find a way to search old comments, I am certain I will be able to find where you claimed to have read Goldberg’s book after having borrowed it. My recollection of your claim is quite vivid, so I am standing behind my charge. (As if you got to demand apologies from people anyway.)
P.S. Here is the thread where you claimed to have “borrowed a copy” but not been able to “stomach the entire thing”. Now you are claiming “excerpts” and the “borrowed copy” has disappeared entirely from your story. So, no, you did not claim to have read the entire book, but you DID claim to have gained an complete understanding sufficient to have a “point-by-point refutation” which you were tragically unable to present only because you wanted to avoid hijacking the thread. :rolleyes
So, yeah, I think I’ll stick with a charge of lying, or at least gross exaggeration of the degree to which you bothered to actually find out what Goldberg was arguing before you swallowed whole the conventional lefty talking points and distortions of his argument. Given your unwillingness to accept correction of your distortions of Goldberg’s argument even when they are specifically presented to you, I don’t have any difficulty condemning your approach to this issue as fundamentally dishonest and ideologically predetermined. Maybe if you actually bothered to read it before making claims about it based on “excerpts” selected by other lefties and an interview on a lefty comedy show, you could have a more intelligent debate about its virtues and its ACTUAL vices.
Both are true. I did not get very far into the book, but may take another stab at it if it is in my local library.
It was not a demand, but a request for you to do the honorable thing. I fully expected and so am unsurprised your response.
Again the Daily Show interview was but one of the interviews I saw/heard/read (the one where he looked most foolish and the funniest one). I also saw him on BookTV (CSPAN). I think I remember hearing something recorded for PJM (hardly a liberal outlet) and I saw all or part of several cable news shows when he was touring in support of the book. In all cases the argument he appeared to be making was consistent and comports with the description below.
From excerpts and interviews read and interviews/talks heard/read, Goldberg’s argument seems to be that fascism grew out of the progressivism of 1920s and 30s Europe and he attempts to draw parallels between that progressivism and modern liberalism/progressivism. That is he is saying that they are in some respect cousins or are descended from the same ideology rather than being equivalent ideologies. The disclaimers about today’s left not being fascists seems to be him seeking cover while simultaneously attempting to draw as many parallels as possible between modern liberals/progressives and European fascists of the early to mid 20th century. This is not a lie regardless of how fervently you wish it to be.
I note you have not addressed your comments and the seeming implication by you (not Goldberg) that leftists are the real fascists (rather than conservatives). Again if that was not your intent could you explain what you meant by the “left’s Orwellian inversion of the term” when read in context with the full comment? I can honestly see no other reasonable interpretation of that passage. I hope it was simply an unfortunate choice of words or a poor reading on my part and that you would not actually believe something that ridiculous and hateful.
I note also that you fail to address Goldberg’s complicity, regardless of intent, in spreading the misuse of labeling others one disagrees with fascist to the right side of the political spectrum rather than leaving it a failing of the left.
“the left’s Orwellian inversion of the term” refers to the common practice on the left of condemning anyone who is conservative or moderate or even just moderately liberal as a “fascist” in spite of the genealogy of fascism in early 20th century progressivism (regarding which Goldberg does a pretty good job providing documentation drawing upon original sources, not the baseless assertions you have been using to reject it out-of-hand).
The accusation that modern progressives fail/refuse to acknowledge the intellectual roots of their movement does not make them current fascists. It does make them Orwellian when they accuse others of a current association with fascism, though. I think you are intelligent enough to see that, even though it may be convenient for you to pretend otherwise.
As for “Goldberg’s complicity…in spreading the misuse of labeling”, I note that that charge relies entirely on your purely ideological and unsubstantiated presumption of Goldberg’s bad intent and your unsupported contention that his repeated disclaimers are only “seeking cover”. If you actually bothered to read Goldberg’s statements in context, I don’t think that such an interpretation is sustainable. Of course, if all you think you need is excerpts and interviews, it is easier to just keep up with the presumptions you brought in from the beginning, now isn’t it? Anyway, you have no evidence of Goldberg’s bad intent other than the fact that he is a conservative. And that exposes your presumption as ideological stereotyping, not honest engagement. I seriously doubt that you would fail to object if I tried the same tactics to condemn a progressive writer like Chomsky or Zinn or Chalmers Johnson or a progressive filmmaker like Michael Moore. I managed to actually read/view their works before claiming to criticize them. But such burdens of intellectual honesty are only for non-progressives, it seems.
Bottom line: You’ve condemned a work that you haven’t read using charges that are specifically refuted by the actual text and relying upon prejudice to replace any duty on your part for actual debate or analysis. You can spin it however you want and try to excuse it with all kinds of partisan presumptions about the evilness of the other side, but that is what still holds true.
No it does not. Regardless of his intent (IMO to generate controversy then cash in) his book, its appearance, its deliberately provocative title, and his appearance in support of said book have resulted in conservatives now misusing the term fascist as some liberals have done and still do. You may not feel that it was his intent to have this outcome, but that is largely irrelevant when determining his complicity in the spreading of the misuse of the term. He deliberately initiated the controversy that resulted in that outcome and has not done anything to combat that negative outcome as it benefits him financially. he is therefor complicit.
It looks like my reading of the initial thrust of his thesis was indeed correct. From what I have read and heard from him he also parallels that progressivism with modern progressivism/liberalism (and at least in the interviews it is accompanied by a bit of wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
The traditional interpretation (IMO the correct one) is that fascism was a product of the right*. Goldberg attempts to dispute this (in interviews and the bits I have read) largely by pointing to similar policy prescriptions by early 20th century progressives and contemporary fascists while ignoring the contradictory policy prescriptions and outright hostility between the two. He proceeds from there to point to modern progressivism/liberalism’s policy prescriptions that are similar to early 20th century progressivism. He essentially argues, particularly in interviews, A~B and B~C but don’t get me wrong A ≠ C, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
So he is, according to you and me both, saying that modern liberalism and fascism were born of the same movement and share many common policies. This is but one step removed from outright calling modern liberals fascist, though he is careful to qualify it (we disagree as to why) and the result is that now many more on the right are doing just that. Whether you feel that was his intent or not surely you can agree that it is an unfortunate outcome that we have now both sides of the political spectrum pointing and calling the other side fascists.
I have listened to the man make his case and unless he is making an entirely different case in his book my understanding of his argument is sound. When he spoke at length on BookTV and when he was interviewed elsewhere in support of the book he was making a condensed version of the argument in his book or that is what he claimed to be doing. Judging it on that basis may not be complete but it is not without merit and has the significant advantage of not requiring me to wade through what at least appears to be tripe.
I seriously doubt that you would fail to object if I tried the same tactics to condemn a progressive writer like Chomsky or Zinn or Chalmers Johnson or a progressive filmmaker like Michael Moore.
I haven’t read Johnson. The 3 I have read/watched/heard are largely propagandists for the far left and I don’t have much use for them other than as a balance for their ideological counterparts on the right and the occasional insight buried in with the rest**. So, in short I probably would not object unless you attempted to broaden your argument to tar the entire left. That is where you and I have most strongly disagreed***. In fact I can with some confidence say that the next Michael Moore film will be far left propaganda piece with at best a few interesting or funny scenes and that it will play fast and loose with the facts. I have stopped watching his films but that pretty much sums up my opinion of what I have seen. Even if I might agree with some of the points he attempts to make, though probably for quite different reasons, I don’t have much patience for the method or tone. Likewise with Zinn and Chomsky I can with some confidence predict that their next writing or interview on international politics will blame American colonialism for some ill regardless of whether or not that is relevant or correct in that particular case. I can also predict with some confidence that I will disagree with most of their analysis, though I might find some tidbit interesting or insightful.
That said, good politics and good policy rarely come from the far reaches of the political spectrum. The political fringes are good for creating dynamic tension, occasionally providing some insight, forcing centrists to address the difficult questions, and very rarely for coming up with actual good policy.
* read Griffin or any number of other historians
** Chomsky at least is on firmer ground when he sticks to his actual specialty (linguistics) rather than venturing into political territory.
*** Well that and atheists/atheism
Still imputing intention, I see. I made a conscious choice to take Goldberg’s book on its face, evaluating the book for its scholarship and honesty with the evidence rather than trying to drag in presumptions about a secret ideological agenda. And I think an honest treatment requires taking at face value his very explicit and repeated disavowals of any intention to call leftists fascists. I approached Chalmers Johnson, Zinn, Steven Kinzer, and even Chomsky the same way, giving them an opportunity to prove my preconceptions wrong rather than just presuming that all I need are selected excerpts and interviews to confirm my preexisting biases. In point of fact, if I took the approach towards leftist thinkers that you appear to take towards rightist thinkers like Goldberg, my grad school reading list would have been much, much easier, though also much, much less educational.
I seriously doubt you would welcome me holding leftists responsible for how other more extreme leftists might appropriate and twist their words into something they explicitly disavowed. I think you are using a double standard here again.
What a very novel additional double standard. You find at least marginal utility in the far left as a response to the far right, but you have thus far shown no reciprocal respect for the virtue of the far right as a response to the far left.
Are you claiming that I have “attempted to broaden [my] argument to tar the entire left” on this or any other issue? I remind you that you have been repeatedly warned about misrepresenting what other people did or did not say. I never even said that all atheists were militant. As I recall, your objection was to ANY criticism of militancy or extremism and you did not limit yourself to objecting to any “broadening”.
I agree with this sentiment, but question your methods of implementation. In practice, you seem to want to shield the moderate left from criticisms or associations you find to be unfair in at least some cases, but you have no interest in reciprocal courtesy towards the moderate right. IN fact, I find myself unable to recall any positive words from you with regards to ANY conservative person or argument. And your persistent refusal to engage with Goldberg’s actual content seems to me to indicate a very closed-minded and ideologically overdetermined approach.
If you bothered to actually read the work before proclaiming about it, you would have noticed that Goldberg extensively and explicitly engages with the traditional interpretation. He also details the contempt that fascists had for the right, which kind of undermines your uncritical, unquestioning, unexamined support for the “traditional interpretation”. Perhaps since Goldberg actually reads and engages with those he disagrees with, he deserves the same courtesy in response.
Oh, wait. He’s a conservative. They deserve nothing but contempt, right? It never ceases to amaze me how liberals and leftists in academia challenge conservatives to engage with liberal/leftist thought, but exempt themselves and their fellow liberals/leftists from ANY significant reciprocity.
Intellectual cowardice. That’s the charge I should focus upon more explicitly when I write about the academic left.
Make you a deal. I’ll read Griffin if you’ll quit dodging and making excuses and actually read Goldberg. A few extracts and interviews and an episode of Book TV with confirmation bias in play doesn’t really count.
P.S. It is revealing that you find intent to have no bearing on complicity. I will be interested to see if you are consistent in your application of such a novel claim of individual responsibility for others’ actions.
We get it; you two don’t like each other very much. Maybe we could GET BACK ON TOPIC???
I would agree with Jason and Gre willis that you need to be careful how you’re labeling something. Nationalism isn’t the same as fascism. Nationism is a part of fascism, but alone fascism it is not.
Well said Michael.
Sorry for the digression, I will try not to let my pet peeves get the better of me.
I’ll take you up on that and would really suggest that you give Reich “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” a look. Anything else I will save for a more appropriate thread.
Jason is definitely right on this one Grew. Fascism has become simply an insult. There are intolerant people on all political parties, and fascism is very rare. Sometimes nationalism and patriotism can also be a positive force in a country rather than a negative one.
Is the argument similar to Arendt’s analysis of fascism in Totalitarianism?
Gee, I’m sorry, Michael. Is there some kind of bandwidth limitation I didn’t know about that makes it necessary to prevent the organic evolution of subject-matter over the the course of comment threads? Would you like me to start deleting all off-topic comments on all threads? Would you like me to delete all comments that appear to involve someone speaking out of personal dislike? (If so, a couple people would never be seen commenting again, you see.)
No. It just seems whenever Gre wgills enters a topic, you two start debating on not so much the topic at hand, but semantics.
In fact, at least in this case, I think your argument is stronger. You can’t really understand an author’s work if you haven’t read it thoroughly. Excerpts and interviews can only give you a taste of what’s there.
Michael,
I’m with you on this. As a Canadian, I also question the validity of these laws. No subject, no idea, should ever be beyond discussion in a civilized society.
I think that Holocaust deniers are wrong from a historic perspective – and there is plenty of evidence to counter their arguments. But I also think it sets a very bad precedant. There are other groups, with other issues, who would very much enjoy the same protection. Creationists spring to mind.
Though I must wonder, Niklas, at your assessment of the issue:
@Niklas
“But he serves as an example for christian people and the Roman Catholic church. Therefore he must not spread wrong statements.”
I haven’t noticed, overall, that the Roman Catholic church has worried over much (historically speaking) about spreading the wrong information.