I have not hypothesized that Nabokov was a "paedophile". This word is used ambiguously to describe both sexual desire for children and actual sexual molestation of children. A man who desires children sexually may behave impeccably. He is entitled to keep quiet about his desire. But, if he makes a point of denying it, he is a liar. I am not sure if this is the case with Nabokov, but it does rather look as if it may have been.

 

Nabokov is clear in his condemnation of child abuse -- though, if it doesn't matter whether what he said is true or not, why should those who are disagreeing with me believe his condemnation? Why, indeed, should they believe anything he ever said?

 

To argue that a concern for truth "leads to censorship" seems a strange logic. People are far more vigorous in censoring truth than lies.

 

Anthony Stadlen