It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient. The objective truth of the statement is ultimately of no consequence if the subjective interpretation, by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which 'arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification'. Therefore, in our view, whether the message is true or not is immaterial. Whether it is perceived to be true or credible may very well add to its impact, but its actual basis in truth is outside the scope of this inquiry. It is obvious that powerful vested interests are opposing Mr. Zundel, but surely an organization with your stated aims should not bow before such pressure or discriminate in any way.
Censorship is censorship.
Mr. Steinhardt, let us suppose Christian or Islamic fundamentalists were trying to impose censorship on the Internet. Adherence to principle is demonstrated in the tough cases, the unpopular cases, the cases that offend powerful vested interests. If the holocaust lobby succeeds in getting its camel's nose of censorship under the free speech tent of the Internet in the Zundel case, the free speech tent will fold. Right now I am doing research for an article on the Zundel case and the response of the Internet community. I would like to interview you for the article.