Defamation cases against historians

History and Theory

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 346-366

  De Baets, Antoon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249264653     PISSN: 00182656     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2303.00210     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Globally, historians have indeed been accused of every crime conceivable, from the most innocent to crimes against humanity, although not always in their capacity as historians. Numerous examples in Antoon De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought: A World Guide 1945-2000 (Westport, Conn. and London: Greenwood, 2002)
2. John Gilissen, "La Responsabilité civile et pénale de l'historien," Revue beige de philohgie et d'histoire (1960), 295-329 and 1005-1039
3. Jean Stengers, "L'Historien face a ses responsabilités," Cahiers de l école des sciences philosophiques et religieuses 15 (1994), 19-50
4. Jean-Noël Jeanneney, Le Passé dans leprétoire: I'historien, le juge et le journaliste (Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 1998), 105-118
5. Article 19, Information, Freedom and Censorship: World Report 1991 (London: Article 19, 1991), 412
6. Idem, Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation 〈http://www.articlel9.org/docimages/716.htm〉 (London: Article 19, 2000), 3. (Accessed 6 May 2002)
7. See also Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 168
8. Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 173
9. Marie McGonagle, "Defamation," in Censorship: A World Encyclopedia, ed. Derek Jones (London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001), 656-658
10. Identifying the truth value of statements is not simple. Usually, courts distinguish two types of statements: facts and opinions. Proving facts is dependent on at least three factors. First, time: In some countries, it is not legally possible to prove the truth of statements about facts from the distant past (in France, older than ten years). The idea behind this principle is probably that it is not desirable to keep dragging up the past. It implies, however, that proof of the non-defamatory nature of a given statement cannot invoke the facts themselves. Second, those in charge of proof: In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not on the complainant. Third, the intention: The factual claim must be meant as such and not, for example, as satire. Considering these factors, it is clear that judges and historians can diverge considerably in their weighing of facts and, hence, truth conceptions. Opinions (or "comments" or "value judgments") are not susceptible to proof because they do not fit a true/untrue scheme and therefore enjoy greater legal protection than facts (Gilissen, "La Responsabilité civile et pénale," 1012-1015
11. Schauer, Free Speech, 169
12. Barendt, Freedom of Speech, 178-179
13. Article 19, Defining Defamation, 13)
14. Privacy-the right to respect for a person's private life, home, and correspondence -is closely related to reputation (as the above quoted article 12 of the Universal Declaration indicates) but should nevertheless be distinguished from it (Article 19, Information, Freedom and Censorship, 412
15. see also Jeanneney, Le Passé dans le prétoire, 127-136
16. Simon Davies. "Private Matters," Index on Censorship no. 3 [2000J, 36-44
17. Marie McGonagle, "Privacy," in Jones, ed., Censorship, 1960-1962)
18. For the Thai monarch, see the cases of Saman Kongsuphol, Sulak Sivaraksa, Thongchai Winichakul, in De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought, 459-460
19. see also R. J. Goldstein and S. Bumroongsook, "Lése- majesté: Europe, Thailand," in Jones, ed., Censorship, 1397-1402
20. For other examples (Heidar Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Belarus, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, Suharto in Indonesia, Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, Hastings Banda in Malawi), see De Baets. Censorship of Historical Thought, 57-58, 63, 140, 286, 321, 339-341
21. Not mentioned there is Indira Gandhi's libel trial against writer and historian Salman Rushdie for his portrayal of her in the 1981 historical novel Midnight's Children (see Jones, ed., Censorship, 2071). All these cases refer to the post-1945 period. Among the earlier cases are the following
22. In 1882-1883 Otto von Bismarck sued historian (and 1902 Nobel Literature Prize winner) Theodor Mommsen for defamation because as a politician he had called Bismarck's economic policy a swindle during a September 1881 election speech; Mommsen was acquitted, also on appeal. See Lothar Wickert. Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie, vol. 4, Grösse und Grenzen (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1980) 94-122
23. In 1896 Kaiser Wilhelm II sued historian (and 1927 Nobel Peace Prize winner) Ludwig Quidde for lése- majesté, officially for his critical remarks at a meeting of social-democrats, but indirectly for his successful booklet on Caligula (thirty editions in 1894 alone), which carried satirical allusions to the Kaiser and for which he had already been boycotted and dismissed. Quidde was imprisoned for three months. See Ludwig Quidde, Caligula: Schriften über Militarismus und Pazifismus (new [35th] edition introduced by Hans-Ulrich Wehler
24. Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat, 1977) 28-50
25. For Atatürk, see the cases of Ismail Besikci, Abdurrahman Dilipak, Sinami Orhan, in De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought, 467-468, 471, 472. For other examples (Leopold II in Belgium, Sukarno in Indonesia, Francisco Solano López in Paraguay, Simon Bolivar in Venezuela)
26. see also R. J. Goldstein "Flags," in Jones, ed., Censorship, 833-834
27. See also A. L. J. M. Janssens, Strafbare belediging (Amsterdam: Thela, 1998), 183-189
28. Article 19, Defining Defamation, 7. Compare Gilissen, "La Responsabilité civile et pénale," 325-329
29. "Le Droit moderne qui chérit la famille nucléaire se désinteresse des héritiers lointains. Veufs ou veuves, enfants, petits-enfants peuvent venir en justice réclamer le prix de leur honneur ou de leur peine, si Ton a maltraité leur parent. Au-delá, il est douteux que lnéritier parvienne a intéresser le juge. L'éloignement collateral, lé temps révolu, aussi la notoriété des personnes ou des événements écartent le risque de l'action. L'Histoire du XXe siécle oblige a se métier du Droit. L'histoire de la Révolution est á peu prés sans risque. Celle du Moyen Age ouvre des champs trés tranquilles. II vient un temps oú les tombes ne sont plus fleuries, oú les morts semblent tout á fait morts. Alors le Droit laisse en paix 1' historien." Jean-Denis Bredin,"Le Droit, le juge et I'historien," Le Débat (November 1984), 93-111, here 98 (quotation), 107
30. De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought, 8, 29-30 nn. 30-31
31. See, e.g., Patrick Duportail (Belgium), in De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought, 68-69
32. For the trials against Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, and James Keegstra, see Antoon De Baets, "Holocaust: Denying the Holocaust," in Jones, ed., Censorship, 1079-1080
33. and idem, "Holocaustontkenning, censuur en de waardigheid van de doden" [Holocaust Denial, Censorship and the Dignity of the Dead], in A. De Baets et al., The Margin of Liberty: On Censorship, Self-Censorship and Tolerance (Groningen: Onderzoeksschool Rudolf Agricola, 2002), 63-72 [in Dutch]
34. See Henry Rousso, "Justiz, Geschichte und Erinnerung in Frankreich: Überlegungen zum Papon-Prozeß," in Geschichte vor Gericht: Historikei; Richter und die Suche nach Gerechtigkeit. ed. Norbert Frei, Dirk van Laak, and Michael Stolleis (Munich: Beck, 2000) 141-163, here 156
35. See Niek van Sas, "Towards a New National History: Lieux de mémoire and Other Theaters of Memory," in Historians and Social Values, ed. Joep Leerssen and Ann Rigney (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000), 169-183, here 180-181
36. and Lucette Valensi, "Traumatic Events and Historical Consciousness: Who Is in Charge?" in Leerssen and Rigney, eds., Historians and Social Values, 185-195.here 186-190
37. Toby Mendel commented: "I wonder if there is not a more legal explanation for the high rate of Dutch and French cases.⋯Germany also [i.e. like the United States] has strong protection for freedom of expression, probably applied most meticulously to the question of history." (Personal communication, April 2002)
38. Bredin, "Le Droit, le juge et I'historien," 104, 109
39. Jean-Pierre Rioux, "Sur la liberté de 1'historien en correctionnelle á Versailles, le 17 Janvier 1985," Vingtiéme siécle (October-December 1985), 117-121, here 118
40. Stengers, "L'Historien face á ses responsabilités, " 23
41. Jean-Pierre Azéma and Georges Kiejman, "L'Histoire au tribunal," Le Débat (November-December 1998), 45-51, here 48
42. Verne Harris, "Knowing Right from Wrong: The Archivist and the Protection of People's Rights," Janus: Archival Review 1 (1999), 32-38, here 36
43. Bredin, "Le Droit, le juge et l historien," 100, 102-103
44. Bredin ("Le Droit, le juge et 1'historien." 1ll) says: '"dans le regard du juge, 1'image du 'bon' historien: consciencieux, scrupuleux, toujours modéré d'opinion et de ton, apparemment neutre, sans passion avouée ni audace dérangeante. II ressemble comme un frére au bon juge." ("In the judge's view, the image of the 'good' historian [is]: meticulous, scrupulous, always moderate in opinion and tone, apparently neutral, without avowed passion, or irritating nerve. He resembles the good judge like a brother does.") A comprehensive comparison of judges and historians, however, is complex. Both professions share the search for evidence and truth, but proceed differently at all stages of their work. The start of action, the questions asked, and the work rhythm are more narrowly defined for judges than for historians. Their treatment of evidence (access, admissability, witnesses, burden of proof, required level of certainty, logic) and their emphasis on the value of context diverges, as does their view of causality. It follows that their truth conceptions are diverging as well. The work of judges leads to judgment and punishment, that of historians to understanding and explanation (and only for part of them to judgments). Finally, revision of judges' work is a possibility, of historians' work a professional rule
45. Case 5. In this case the judge acknowledged that the defendant had the right to judge the complainant's texts but not his behavior (Pierre Assouline, "Enquête sur un historien condamné pour diffamation," L'Histoire [June 1984J, 98-101, here 100). He probably distinguished opinions (value judgments about the complainant's texts) and facts (statements about the latter's behavior). See also note 5
46. Stengers, "L'Historien face á ses responsabilités, " 27, 29, 37-38
47. Compare Gilissen, "La Responsabilité civile et pénale," 318, 1034-1035
48. Case 4; for a similar case, see Georges Kiejman, "L'Histoire devant ses juges," Le Débat (November 1984), 112-125, here 124
49. See, e.g., Loe de Jong, Het koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, volume 13 (The Hague and Leiden: SDU, 1988), 69-76
50. Forty years ago, magistrate and historian John Gilissen had already defended this right. See "La Responsabilité civile et pénale," 1039 and 1006-1012, 1021-1030
51. For both Pelinka cases, see the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Human Rights Action Network Case AUOOOS.pel (Washington 17 July 2000)
52. Index on Censorship 4 (2000), 86; 1 (2001), 100; 3 (2001), 96-97
53. See for two comparable cases (Haider vs. Kurier and Haider vs. Grissemann & Stermann): Index on Censorship 6 (2000), 9, 166
54. Gie van den Berghe, personal communications (January-February 1997; November-December 2000)
55. Jeanneney, Le Passe dans le pretoire, 124-125
56. Kiejman, "L'Histoire devant ses juges," 123
57. Bredin, "Le Droit, le juge et I'historien," 108-110
58. Yan Thomas, "La Vérité, le temps, le juge et I'historien," Le Débat, November-December 1998, 17-36, here 25
59. Assouline, "Enquête sur un historien condamné pour diffamation," 98-101
60. Robert Wohl, "French Fascism, Both Right and Left: Reflections on the Sternhell Controversy," Journal of Modern History, 1991, 91 -98
61. Rioux, "Sur la liberié de I'historien," 117-121
62. Kiejman, "L'Histoire devant ses juges," 117-118
63. Thomas, "La Vérité, le temps, le juge et I'historien," 25
64. Madeleine Rebérioux, "Le Genocide, le juge et I'historien," L'Histoire, November 1990, 92-94, here 92
65. Azéma and Kiejman, "L'Histoire au tribunal," 45-51
66. "L' Affaire Aubrac: vérité et mensonges," L'Histoire, June 1997, 78-85
67. François Hartog, "L'Historien et la conjoncture historiographique," Le Débat, November-December 1998, 4-10, here 6-7
68. Le Monde, 15 October 1991, 11
69. Amnesty International, Report 2001 (London: Amnesty International, 2001), 103
70. Harris, "Knowing Right from Wrong," 36
71. Ian Buruma, The Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan (London and New York: Jonathan Cape 1994), 262-275
72. See also Michael Verhoeven, Das Mädchen und die Stadt oder: wie war es wirklich? (German documentary: 1992; 45 minutes)
73. Index on Censorship, no. 5 (1981), 45
74. For both cases against de Jong, see J.J. Buskes, Hoera voor het leven (Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1963), 174
75. Loe de Jong, Het koninkrijk der Nedetianden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (14 volumes; The Hague: SDU), volume 1 (1969), 361, 491
76. Max Pam, De onderzoekers van de oorlog: Het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie en het werk van dr. L. de Jong (The Hague: SDU, 1989), 72-73, 85- 86
77. Ivo Schöffer, "Kroniek: algemeen," Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 1974, 144-145
78. H.W. van der Vaart Smit, Wetenschappelijke kritiek 1 op het geschiedwerk van prof. dr. L. de Jong; Het koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Amsterdam: De Pauw, 1975), 31-50
79. For other lawsuits against de Jong, see de Jong, Het koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, volume 13, 75
80. Pam, De onderzoekers, 82-84
81. Ralph Boekholt, De staat, dr. L. de Jong en Indië: Het proces van het Comité Geschiedkundig Eerherstel Nederlands-Indié tegen de Staat der Nederlanden over deel 11A van "Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog," 29 maart 1986-10 april 1990 (The Hague: Moesson, 1992), 119-375, notably 209-214, 286-290, 369-375
82. Peter Romijn, personal communication (December 2000), Amsterdam
83. Peter Romijn, "Fifty Years Later: Historical Studies of the Netherlands and the Second World War," in N.CJ5. van Sas and Els Witte, eds., Historical Research in the Low Countries (The Hague: Nederlands Historisch Genootschap, 1992), 102-103
84. Index on Censorship, no. 3 (1994), 179; nos, 4-5 (1994); 245; no. 2 (1995), 181
85. International PEN Writers in Prison Committee, Ifex Action Alert, 13 January 1995
86. Vonnis van de President van de Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem (summary proceedings
87. Hans Blom, personal communication (November 2001)
88. Vonnis van de President van de Arrondissementsrechtbank te 's-Gravenhage (summary proceedings; The Hague 22 December 2000, 4 pages)
89. M, Schulten, Notitie Politieke Verantwoordelijkheid en Militaire Geschiedschrijving (The Hague, 2001), 3-4, 6, 11
90. Volkskrant, 13 December 2000; NRC Handelsblad, 22 December 2000; Piet Kamphuis, personal communication, December-January 2002
91. Amnesty International, Report 1982 (London: Amnesty International, 1982), 291
92. Der Bund, 10 November 1999, 15
93. : Peter Hug and Brigitte Studer, "Historische Wahrheit' contra Thesen' zur Zeitgeschichte," Traverse, 1998, no. 3, 128-139, here 129- 130
94. Sacha Zala, personal communications (March-December 2000)
95. Peter Stettler. "Walther Hofer," in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (WWW-text; Bern 12 November 1998)
96. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky versus the United Kingdom: Judgment (WWW-text; Strasbourg 13 July 1995)
97. James Wilson, "Defending Eighth Army's Reputation: Military Problem, Legal Outcome," Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, 1998, 128, no. 1, 5-9
98. McGonagle, "Defamation," 658
99. Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory [1993J (Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin Books. 1994), 8, 111, 161-162, 179-181, 234
100. Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), xv, 48-58, 258-259