The Right to Free Speech (split from Tienanmen Square thread)

[Robert]

First, let me salute Random Precision for his steady, cogent and perspicacious demolition of my attempted revision of American Revolutionary history. He is GREAT.

To RP the Great: it bothers me that it doesn't bother you that the English restoration occurred at all. Like the continued celebration of all things Windsor, including free rent and a paid retinue of lazy loafing lackeys, it says to me something, what exactly I don't know, about The People's appetite for egalitarianism and communism (low and lower, respectively).

It bothers me even more that you are ambivalent about speech codes. Why not stand up, with me, for freedom! For all men! (Cue fife.)

And it really, really drives me nuts that you throw in a gratuitous shot at, and only at, the "bourgeois" state in your ruminations. Once you start ceding the authority to ban speech to a state of any stripe, you are losing the very freedoms that your forbears fought for from Concord to Lexington. (Talk about regression!) Cede it to a bunch of modern Marxists and you're on your way to grim grovelling in a Grave New World.

Alright, somebody tell me how to provide rep points from down here in my ghastly gray ghetto and I'll rep Random Precision, the Great!

Vive la Précision!

[Random Precision]

it bothers me that it doesn't bother you that the English restoration occurred at all. Like the continued celebration of all things Windsor, including free rent and a paid retinue of lazy loafing lackeys, it says to me something, what exactly I don't know, about The People's appetite for egalitarianism and communism (low and lower, respectively).

Sure, the British monarchy seems to be popular as a symbol. But I'm not that concerned about what is currently popular.


It bothers me even more that you are ambivalent about speech codes. Why not stand up, with me, for freedom! For all men! (Cue fife.)

And it really, really drives me nuts that you throw in a gratuitous shot at, and only at, the "bourgeois" state in your ruminations. Once you start ceding the authority to ban speech to a state of any stripe, you are losing the very freedoms that your forbears fought for from Concord to Lexington. (Talk about regression!) Cede it to a bunch of modern Marxists and you're on your way to grim grovelling in a Grave New World.

But that's the nature of the beast. The doctrine of existing natural rights only means something to liberals, it rings pretty hollow to me. Under a capitalist system governments can and do abridge the right to free speech, free assembly and all other so-called rights all the fucking time when they interfere with its mission to protect capital. For example, we can look back at the Espionage Act of World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917) under which anti-war militants were imprisoned for agitating among soldiers. This is news to me, but apparently portions of that law are still on the books. And of course there's Bush's Patriot Act, which sure got the liberals in an uproar...

[Robert]

Under a capitalist system governments can and do abridge the right to free speech, free assembly and all other so-called rights all the fucking time when they interfere with its mission to protect capital.Oh, my, god. The government protects the system, of course, that's not only what the capitalists want, it's what the voters want, those that get off their asses and vote.

But it also protects, under the First Amendment, your right to disagree with substance, manner and means of governance. People go into court all the time and beat back the government's efforts to curb or control speech. The ACLU lives for that kind of stuff. Most times the cops are savvy enough about speech rights and don't interfere. Sometimes the People win, sometimes they lose, and sometimes justice is aborted, yes, but they at least get a hearing from a federal judge with no dog in the hunt, no matter how revolutionary they (the protesters) are. Why did this website chug merrily on all through the fascist "Busch" years? (I'll bet that access to it is blocked in the PRC.)

I will not believe that you want to do away with that, but your position on hate speech suggests that you might.

[Bud Struggle]

But that's the nature of the beast. The doctrine of existing natural rights only means something to liberals, it rings pretty hollow to me.

AL8 and ArrowLance are over on the Religion section taking away my rights to have a voice in public education. You are here happily taking away the rights of free speech. Sure Liberal Democracy sometimes makes mistakes and deprive people of liberties--but you Communists seem to want to start out with limiting people's freedoms.

Where's it going to go from there?

[Random Precision]

Oh, my, god. The government protects the system, of course,

So wait. One minute freedom of speech is an absolute right (I'm "forfeiting my freedom") and the next it's acceptable if the government abridges it to protect the system? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Natural rights mean nothing under capitalism, they may be protected or they may be abridged depending on the circumstances.


that's not only what the capitalists want, it's what the voters want, those that get off their asses and vote.

I'm not sure what is with your obsession about what the "people" want. Your point is not proven simply by the fact that you imagine an invisible majority agreeing with you.


But it also protects, under the First Amendment, your right to disagree with substance, manner and means of governance. People go into court all the time and beat back the government's efforts to curb or control speech. The ACLU lives for that kind of stuff. Most times the cops are savvy enough about speech rights and don't interfere. Sometimes the People win, sometimes they lose, and sometimes justice is aborted, yes, but they at least get a hearing from a federal judge with no dog in the hunt, no matter how revolutionary they (the protesters) are.

Emphasis mine. Basically you've taken my point.


Why did this website chug merrily on all through the fascist "Busch" years?

This website is hosted in Germany, and was founded after 9/11. Had it been been hosted in the United States around that time, I'm not sure we would be talking now.


(I'll bet that access to it is blocked in the PRC.)

We've actually had a few regular users from the PRC over the years. Bobkindles, one of our global moderators, until recently lived full-time in Hong Kong. Whether it is banned there or not, I couldn't tell you.


I will not believe that you want to do away with that, but your position on hate speech suggests that you might.


AL8 and ArrowLance are over on the Religion section taking away my rights to have a voice in public education. You are here happily taking away the rights of free speech. Sure Liberal Democracy sometimes makes mistakes and deprive people of liberties--but you Communists seem to want to start out with limiting people's freedoms.

I think that people should have the right to say whatever they want. In a truly egalitarian society, no doubt they will. But I don't believe that rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press can meaningfully exist in a capitalist society, since as you apologists for capitalism freely admit, the state can and will scrap those rights whenever it is deemed necessary to defend the system. When you also consider that people can say some pretty harmful and reprehensible things, like Ms. Bardot has done, people like me wonder if it's worth defending their "right to speak freely" when the existence of that right is by no means absolute, and indeed it's subject to quite high restrictions in times of crisis.

This does not mean that I think issues of civil liberty are insignificant. I just wouldn't waste my time defending the civil liberties of those who are very much my enemies.

[Glenn Beck]

What exactly did Louis XVI do to merit beheading? I would argue that the French Revolution and the murder of Louis XVI accomplished precisely nothing. Except to produce an Emperor who brought extensive misery to points east and west of Paris.

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:z6BlAczzmur9uM:http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/img/Napoleon_Great.jpg

Louis XVI is reported to have expressed, as his last words, hope that his fate not befall the French people. Sounds to me like he anticipated the Thermidorean Reaction.



Plus ça change, ....http://www.bcc.cuny.edu/history/His10/Course/robespie.jpg

"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains."

[IcarusAngel]

Wasn't Robespierre evil? Was he an enemy of the left. Didn't he sell out and ultimately implement a worse system than his predecessors.

[RGacky3]

On the other hand I recognize the importance of blocking the extreme right from the public discourse. So I like that people can't rant about the Muslim threat, but I don't like what is stopping them.


Then you don't support free speech.

but Americans dont' get on your high horses about free speach, only relatively recently did the United States actually have free speech for everyone, and theres no guarantee that it won't be taken away in the future. That being said, much of Europes cracking down on free speach is hypocritical at best.


freedom of the press can meaningfully exist in a capitalist society

I agree, but that does'nt mean we should accept any suppression of freedom of speech. It should be fought everywhere and everytime, for everyone.


I just wouldn't waste my time defending the civil liberties of those who are very much my enemies.

They are your civil liberties too.


Oh, my, god. The government protects the system, of course, that's not only what the capitalists want, it's what the voters want, those that get off their asses and vote.

Really? Its what the "voters" want? Do you really believe that?

[Random Precision]

Then you don't support free speech.

Did I say that I did?


I agree, but that does'nt (sic) mean we should accept any suppression of freedom of speech. It should be fought everywhere and everytime, for everyone.

Do you seriously think people should be allowed to rant about the "Islamic threat" in a country with a good-sized fascist movement that is more than willing to start a race riot on any pretext? If so, you're even more of a liberal than I thought.


They are your civil liberties too.

Stop, your heart is bleeding all over my shoes.

[Bud Struggle]

But I don't believe that rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press can meaningfully exist in a capitalist society, since as you apologists for capitalism freely admit, the state can and will scrap those rights whenever it is deemed necessary to defend the system. But if Communists are just as mindful of rights as Capitalists--why bother changing systems. Just so that we can have so hope someday that things are going to get better.



When you also consider that people can say some pretty harmful and reprehensible things, like Ms. Bardot has done, people like me wonder if it's worth defending their "right to speak freely" when the existence of that right is by no means absolute, and indeed it's subject to quite high restrictions in times of crisis. Well Miss Bardot did say harmful things and I understand that she hurt people by her remarks. I understand and feel for those people, but that's the price of freedom. Same thing with having sites like Stormfront up--people will and should get offended by that stuff, BUT that better than these people going underground and spreding their hatred.

Free speech is just the price of freedom. I rather be insulted all day long than have someone's right to say those things to me taken away.


This does not mean that I think issues of civil liberty are insignificant. I just wouldn't waste my time defending the civil liberties of those who are very much my enemies. Not me. I'm fighting for free speech for my enemies and my friends.

[Random Precision]

But if Communists are just as mindful of rights as Capitalists--why bother changing systems. Just so that we can have so hope someday that things are going to get better.

I'm a materialist. I do not believe in absolute natural rights, which is idealist. Those rights that do exist, can be traced back to the needs and contradictions of the society in which they are allowed.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm a materialist. I do not believe in absolute natural rights, which is idealist. Those rights that do exist, can be traced back to the needs and contradictions of the society in which they are allowed.

You are waltzing into Kronos land. :crying:

[Bright Banana Beard]

You are waltzing into Kronos land. :crying:
Why not address the point then? Random Precision is not a sexist.

[Random Precision]

You are waltzing into Kronos land. :crying:

I certainly hope not. Kronos is an extreme sexist and an advocate of barracks communism.

[RGacky3]

Did I say that I did?

Yes you did here.


On the other hand I recognize the importance of blocking the extreme right from the public discourse. So I like that people can't rant about the Muslim threat, but I don't like what is stopping them.

Blocking someone from public discourse is restricting free speach, whoever does it. If you support the option of blocking someone from public discouse you don't support free speach.


Do you seriously think people should be allowed to rant about the "Islamic threat" in a country with a good-sized fascist movement that is more than willing to start a race riot on any pretext? If so, you're even more of a liberal than I thought.

Yes they should. Your thinking is the exact thinking that shut down the IWW during WWI (holycrap IWW, WWI). If fascism is popular, and you believe in democracy, then your goal is to make it unpopular, not dictate discourse.


Stop, your heart is bleeding all over my shoes.

Well I wonder who's heart will bleed when Marxists are thrown in prison for preaching marxism, you can't ***** if that happens because its under the same pretext from the governments point of view.

Your answer is A: Hypocritical, and B: Cowardly.


I'm a materialist. I do not believe in absolute natural rights, which is idealist. Those rights that do exist, can be traced back to the needs and contradictions of the society in which they are allowed.

Good for you, that does'nt mean you can by hypocritical. Nor can you appeal to any rights when they are violated (which you and other Marxists most definately do), whether or not you admit it, you do believe in rights, (they may not be objective) everyone does, where ever they come from, the fact is people have an innate sense of justice and liberty.

[Bud Struggle]

I certainly hope not. Kronos is an extreme sexist and an advocate of barracks communism.

I wasn't talking about Kronos himself per se, I was using him as a metaphor for Nietzsche (metaphors aren't always that easy on the internet :rolleyes:).

When you say things like
I'm a materialist. I do not believe in absolute natural rights, which is idealist. Those rights that do exist, can be traced back to the needs and contradictions of the society in which they are allowed. You fall into the same ethical problem that Nietziche had--if I don't have rights--neither do you and if my society says I am the king and you are a slave than it would be unethical for either of us to be any thing other than what society dictates.

And if you want to go a step further--it is equally ethical me to conquer you and make you my slave as it is for you to form a free Communist society. Might makes right.

[Robert]

This website is hosted in Germany, and was founded after 9/11. Had it been been hosted in the United States around that time, I'm not sure we would be talking now.

You don't believe that the courts would have allowed Bush to halt non-violent speech on the internet, 9-11 or not. Thanks for the background, though.


Since as you apologists for capitalism freely admit, the state can and will scrap those rights whenever it is deemed necessary to defend the system.

I don't "freely admit" that. Rights are infringed on occasion, of course, but that's not the same as "scrapped," plus there is a mechanism in place for redress of same, and justice is usually done in the federal courts, whose judges are not the president's rubber stamping lackeys. And the infringements I can think of have been the result of legitimate security concerns, like stopping mass murder. I supposed one can conflate all that with "defending capitalism," but it's hyperbolic.

[RGacky3]

And the infringements I can think of have been the result of legitimate security concerns, like stopping mass murder. I supposed one can conflate all that with "defending capitalism," but it's hyperbolic.

I see, like the sedition act and COINTELPRO were the result of "legitimate security concerns" and not defending Capitaism?

[Robert]

You'll have to educate me on cointelpro, and I can't think of any recent initiatives under the Sedition Act; I've admitted that the establishment pushes against and sometimes violates civil rights. Abuses happen under any system. I regret that. I wish your side would admit that
the wage slaves have rights to push back and that independent courts give serious consideration to their claims. Do they always win? No. It's not rigged for either side. If you think it is, well, fine, proceed to revolution. I don't have any reason to think justice will prevail any more or less often.

[RGacky3]

You'll have to educate me on cointelpro

FBI program in the 70s to disrupt and essencially destroy leftist organizations. Murdered a leader of the black panthers. You can read about it on wikipedia, its pretty well known.


and I can't think of any recent initiatives under the Sedition Act; I've admitted that the establishment pushes against and sometimes violates civil rights. Abuses happen under any system. I regret that. I wish your side would admit that


The Sedition Act was reppealed, that was'nt because nessesarily the state saw the error of its ways, its because common people faught it tooth and nail. The Same goes with segregation.

These things were not glimpses of human rights abuses, they were laws, institutions and the such, not some back alley rougue actions.

Abuses happen under any system, true, however a system like Capitalism, and a Statist system, gives much more incentive and much more opportunities to abuse it.


It's not rigged for either side. If you think it is, well, fine, proceed to revolution. I don't have any reason to think justice will prevail any more or less often.

Your saying that money and power have nothing to do with the administration of Justice? Not only that, but laws were written by and for rich people.

[Robert]

You're acknowledging the repeal of the Sedition Act and the enactment of civil rights laws and still won't admit that money doesn't buy everything?

[Random Precision]

Blocking someone from public discourse is restricting free speach, whoever does it. If you support the option of blocking someone from public discouse you don't support free speach.

Big who cares. I just told you that I don't support an absolute right to free speech.


Yes they should. Your thinking is the exact thinking that shut down the IWW during WWI (holycrap IWW, WWI). If fascism is popular, and you believe in democracy, then your goal is to make it unpopular, not dictate discourse.

I don't believe in bourgeois democracy though. Fascists should not have the right to speak, and I will do my best to stop them at every opportunity I have.


Well I wonder who's heart will bleed when Marxists are thrown in prison for preaching marxism, you can't ***** if that happens because its under the same pretext from the governments point of view.

The government are my class enemies. I don't really give credence to their point of view.


Good for you, that does'nt mean you can by hypocritical. Nor can you appeal to any rights when they are violated (which you and other Marxists most definately do), whether or not you admit it,

I'm not a hypocrite. I don't believe in natural rights.


you do believe in rights, (they may not be objective) everyone does,

I don't.


where ever they come from,

Which would be God, I suppose.


the fact is people have an innate sense of justice and liberty.

Your position is 100% liberal. Just let everyone speak in the sacred "marketplace of ideas" and the people will naturally decide what's best...

[Random Precision]

Thread split. Bud and Robert, I will come back to your points later.

[pusher robot]

But I don't believe that rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press can meaningfully exist in a capitalist society, since as you apologists for capitalism freely admit, the state can and will scrap those rights whenever it is deemed necessary to defend the system.

The beautiful thing is that because in a capitalist society one bears the costs of one's own actions, the "system" rarely needs to be defended from people exercising their civil rights.

[Nwoye]

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege."

[BobKKKindle$]

But I don't believe that rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press can meaningfully exist in a capitalist society, since as you apologists for capitalism freely admit, the state can and will scrap those rights whenever it is deemed necessary to defend the system.

It's not only a matter of the government being able to take these rights away when doing so benefits the capitalist class. If a society somehow found a way of making the right to free speech so entrenched that no government would ever be able to violate it to any degree regardless of how pressing the circumstances were, workers would still not be able to enjoy the right to free speech (or any other right) in any meaningful sense, because in any society which exhibits inequalities in the distribution of wealth, there will always be a gap between the rights that people are formally accorded by the law, and the rights that they are actually able to enjoy. The reason for this is the nature of private property. In order to exercise freedom of speech you need to have access to resources that will allow you to expose significant numbers of people to what you have to say, otherwise known as the means of communication, and yet under capitalism we find that the resources in question are limited to people who are members of the bourgeoisie, and therefore use their position to preserve the legitimacy of capitalism, and narrow the scope of political debate. The only way to extend free speech to everyone would be to implement dramatic changes in the structure of the media, by breaking up monopolies, and allowing communities to exercise democratic control over how media technology is used. These changes would be progressive but it is unlikely that they would ever be accepted by the ruling class or the state, due to the importance of the media as a tool of ideological hegemony, and so freedom is ultimately irreconcilable with capitalism, and can only be enjoyed by the vast majority in a society based on the collective ownership of the productive forces - socialism.

The underlying point here - the role of economic circumstances in determining our autonomy, and the distinction between formal and actual freedom - should be applied whenever a supporter of capitalism claims that we are free to do this and that. This is demonstrated clearly by freedom of speech but an even more unambiguous instance is freedom of movement. In the United States and other so-called liberal democracies, people are accorded freedom of movement (putting aside issues of visas and so on, which are not normally an issue for people from the United States) which means that if they turn up to the airport with a ticket to the Bahamas, then they can go on holiday or even decide to live in a tropical paradise for the rest of their lives without ever having to worry about whether the government will get annoyed or do anything to their family members. However, the fact of the matter is that for most people under capitalism, this vision - being free to travel anywhere in the world and stay there for as long as you like - is a total illusion, because the vast majority of people have nowhere near enough money to go on holiday for more than a week, or possibly for any length of time at any point in their lives, and would never be able to stay away from work for more than a few days due to the threat of losing their jobs, or falling behind on the various payments that they have to make each week. The non-existence of this freedom has nothing to do with governments banning foreign travel (as is the case in, say, North Korea) and everything to do with the capitalist system. Liberals would have us believe that freedom should be understood simply in terms of what we can do without encountering state coercion, otherwise known as negative freedom, but a more nuanced understanding of freedom requires that we pay attention to the effects that economic systems and patterns of wealth can have on the freedom of different groups and individuals. It is evident from the unequal distribution of wealth that exists under capitalism that we are not all free to the same degree, in the sense that we do not all have the same ability to exercise control over the direction of our lives, develop our capacities, and enjoy a wide range of fulfilling experiences. Or, as Lenin put it:

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners"

[Bud Struggle]

The reason for this is the nature of private property. In order to exercise freedom of speech you need to have access to resources that will allow you to expose significant numbers of people to what you have to say, otherwise known as the means of communication, and yet under capitalism we find that the resources in question are limited to people who are members of the bourgeoisie, and therefore use their position to preserve the legitimacy of capitalism, and narrow the scope of political debate. You seem to confuse the right of free speech with the ability to own a broadcast license. But in fact the right to diseminate one's views are given to anyone who wants to take the time and effort. In the USA at least there is the Pacifica radio Network, WBAI in NYC--the world's #1 radio market, all sorts of "free presses" and of course there is the Internet. ANYONE can get their information out there. Now if anyone will listen--that's another story.



The only way to extend free speech to everyone would be to implement dramatic changes in the structure of the media, by breaking up monopolies, and allowing communities to exercise democratic control over how media technology is used. These changes would be progressive but it is unlikely that they would ever be accepted by the ruling class or the state, due to the importance of the media as a tool of ideological hegemony, and so freedom is ultimately irreconcilable with capitalism, and can only be enjoyed by the vast majority in a society based on the collective ownership of the productive forces - socialism. So what? In Socialism everyone's going to get 5 mins. of air time? I don't believe any Socialist (or aspiring Socialist) country ever afforded such things to it's members. As a matter of fact it's the first thing Cuba and the USSR and China, etc. sought to control tightly. Ever here of the Great Firewall of China? No, you have all the freedom of spech you need under Capitalism--you just have to learn to use it properly.

[Edit] In it's day the Daily Worker was an excellent example of Proletarian use of Freedom of the Press. Wide distribution and down to earth articles and letters from working people.

[BobKKKindle$]

You seem to confuse the right of free speech with the ability to own a broadcast licenseI am concerned with what people are able to do, given the economic circumstances in which they live, and distribution of wealth that exists in their society, otherwise known as the "exercise-concept", whereas you are still looking at freedom from a highly abstract point of view. You understand freedom solely in terms of what the law says people are allowed to do (or are not permitted to do) without considering whether the law is an accurate representation of the options that are actually open to people who inhabit a capitalist society, and specifically those people who do not own the means of production, and are forced to sell their labour power in order to survive. The conception of freedom that I have put forward captures the experiences of people who live under capitalism, whereas the understanding of liberals such as Nozick and yourself is an ideological device that is used to create an appearance of universality in a world that is actually dominated by rampant inequality of wealth and power.


But in fact the right to diseminate one's views are given to anyone who wants to take the time and effort.You're right in pointing out that there are still ways in which people can circumvent the dominance of media corporations and publish their ideas without needing to have access to expense technology, but the fact remains that most people do get their opinions from established media networks, which reflect the views of only a small number of people, given the small number hands in which these networks are concentrated. This means that freedom of speech can only be seen as a right for the minority under capitalism, even when the law leads us to believe that everyone is entitled to this right, to the same degree.


So what? In Socialism everyone's going to get 5 mins. of air time?It's not my job to give an exact description of how freedom of speech or any other right would manifest itself under socialism, but I think that any socialist society would ensure that each and every individual is able to enjoy much more freedom, and take on a much more active role in governing their society, than they do currently. You're not actually addressing the deeper philosophical issue at hand here, which is that our economic position - whether we are bourgeois or proletarian - influences what we are capable of doing, i.e. how free we are.


As a matter of fact it's the first thing Cuba and the USSR and China, etc. sought to control tightly.It's not my job to defend these countries, because anyone who believes that the working class must be the agent of its own emancipation, and exercise democratic control over the means of production, can see that none of these societies should be described as socialist. However, despite this, I would still argue that of these societies, Cuba does actually afford a greater degree of freedom to its citizens, relative to countries that are at the same level of economic development, and even some developed states. I think that this is the case because part of freedom is being able to make rational choices about how you lead your life, so you do not make decisions on the basis of instinct or misinformation, as well as having opportunities for the development of your abilities - and both of these components of freedom cannot be obtained unless you have access to some degree of education, which, unlike many countries, is available free of charge, up to and including tertiary level, for all Cuban citizens.

[Vanguard1917]

Some here are suggesting that defending free speech is for 'liberals'. That's actually a nonsense. Those on the liberal-left are some of the most enthusiastic proponents of censorship today and are usually in the forefront of campaigns to get people they don't like gagged through state suppression. In practice, they're no friends of liberty, and never have been.

In reality, it has always been Marxists, not liberals, who have always consistently opposed all restrictions to freedom of expression in capitalist society. To quote Leon Trotsky: "it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class." ('Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (http://trotsky.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)')

[Robert]

In reality, it has always been Marxists, not liberals, who have always consistently opposed all restrictions to freedom of expression in capitalist society.

Good for them. The question, though, is whether Marxists will oppose those restrictions in communist society. Clearly Random Precision will not.

What about you? Are you going to let me get on a soapbox and clamor for a return to capitalism after the revolution? Will you let me denounce whatever other deficiency I may observe?

[RGacky3]

You're acknowledging the repeal of the Sedition Act and the enactment of civil rights laws and still won't admit that money doesn't buy everything?

Those things wern't bought by money, they were bought by blood and sweat of activists, not the morality of judges


Your position is 100% liberal. Just let everyone speak in the sacred "marketplace of ideas" and the people will naturally decide what's best...

Really?

First of all, what does liberal mean and how am I liberal.

Second, this "marketplace of ideas" (nice word play you clown), is the basis of democracy, second the people WILL decide who's best because guess what the other option is, the other option is SOMEONE deciding whats best for the people.

Third you can't have a marketplace of ideas if no one owns ideas, dumbass, I'm assuming you were just using the term for dramatic purposes.


The government are my class enemies. I don't really give credence to their point of view.

Fine, then don't ***** if your thrown in prison, don't make any appeals to your rights, then your fine.

Problem is, leninists ALWAYS appeal to thier rights, and talk about Americas human rights abuses and so on and so forth, and the rights of the workers. Which is hypocritical.


Some here are suggesting that defending free speech is for 'liberals'. That's actually a nonsense. Those on the liberal-left are some of the most enthusiastic proponents of censorship today and are usually in the forefront of campaigns to get people they don't like gagged through state suppression. In practice, they're no friends of liberty, and never have been.

In reality, it has always been Marxists, not liberals, who have always consistently opposed all restrictions to freedom of expression in capitalist society. To quote Leon Trotsky: "it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class."

I agree, the problem is many marxists don't support universal freedom of speach (which is freedom of speach).

Also many just use the term liberal as a meaningless attack phrase.


So what? In Socialism everyone's going to get 5 mins. of air time? I don't believe any Socialist (or aspiring Socialist) country ever afforded such things to it's members. As a matter of fact it's the first thing Cuba and the USSR and China, etc. sought to control tightly. Ever here of the Great Firewall of China? No, you have all the freedom of spech you need under Capitalism--you just have to learn to use it properly.

Will you shutup about China-

Also, its not a matter of everyone getting 5 minute of air time, its about democratic control of the media, meaning EQUAL democratic control, not dollar control.


"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners"

I agree, However principles are principles, and just as we attack exploitation wherever it is, we should defend free speach for EVERYONE. Also, these so-called fascists are not the ruling class. Also after revolution the rulling class would'nt be the ruling class anymore.

I'm not arguing that we have real freedom under Capitalism, (most of our freedoms are of "paper or plastic" significance), however freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms out there, and freedom of speach has to be free (universal) or its not freedom of speach.

[Robert]

Will you shutup about China-

Bu keyi, tongzhi. (I cannot, comrade.)

I believe the revolution you envision will follow the same course as did that of China.

And look at you telling another forumite to "shutup," right here in a free speech thread. :confused:

[Green Dragon]

I
It's not my job to give an exact description of how freedom of speech or any other right would manifest itself under socialism, but I think that any socialist society would ensure that each and every individual is able to enjoy much more freedom, and take on a much more active role in governing their society, than they do currently. You're not actually addressing the deeper philosophical issue at hand here, which is that our economic position - whether we are bourgeois or proletarian - influences what we are capable of doing, i.e. how free we are.

In order to make your criticisms of "free speech or any other right" under capitalism meaningful, you are going to have to think about how they would "manifest itself under socialism." To say it is not your "job" to do so is a massive cop-out. One would expect socialists to believe socialism will have to function on its own terms, but also in a manner different than how capitalism functions.

[RGacky3]

I believe the revolution you envision will follow the same course as did that of China.

And look at you telling another forumite to "shutup," right here in a free speech thread.

You believe, but your wrong, because not one of the revolutions in history that were of the type I "envisioned" ended up like that, nor was there a real threat of that happening.

I'm telling another forumite to shut up about china because its a waste of time considering no one here supports China or views it as any more socialist that your average Capitalist country, infact I would claim that its less socialist considering workers don't even have the right to organize. So continuing yapping about china is a waste of time and as rediculous as me yapping about china in a pro-democracy forum as an argument against democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

You believe, but your wrong, because not one of the revolutions in history that were of the type I "envisioned" ended up like that, nor was there a real threat of that happening.

I'm telling another forumite to shut up about china because its a waste of time considering no one here supports China or views it as any more socialist that your average Capitalist country, infact I would claim that its less socialist considering workers don't even have the right to organize. So continuing yapping about china is a waste of time and as rediculous as me yapping about china in a pro-democracy forum as an argument against democracy.

Look, I understand that China today isn't Socialist any longer--but I do believe that the Chinese Revolution was an AUTHENTIC Communist Revolution. Mao and his cohorts were trying to build a real Communist society and the things they did were authentic Communist things to produce a Marxist world.

What happened in China and in Russia are just how Communist Revolutions happen and the rights they grant or take away from their citizens are what Communist societies grand or take away from their citizens.

I only know what I see when it comes to Communism--if you want to envision some fanciful world of brotherly love, I have no problem with that but when it come to Communism I'm a Materialist--I can only go by what I know to have happened in the past.

[Robert]

You believe, but your wrong, because not one of the revolutions in history that were of the type I "envisioned" ended up like that

Fine, it can't happen. Shut both me and Bud up by explaining: 1) how Mao's China became a totalitarian state in the first place; and 2) why it is that the same thing won't happen here, given the calls by your comrades to limit speech rights for "rightists" and "fascists" and "counterrevolutionaries." The list will grow, inexorably.

Be careful, Gack, or they'll have you in the gulag too, in a cell right next to mine. We might even be cellies. :blink:

[RGacky3]

but I do believe that the Chinese Revolution was an AUTHENTIC Communist Revolution. Mao and his cohorts were trying to build a real Communist society and the things they did were authentic Communist things to produce a Marxist world.


No they wern't they were trying to set up a Centralist State system that they argued would eventually end up as communist (which is rediculous).

No the things they did were not authentic communist things. centralizing power and control is not authentic communist, neihter is attempting to essencially control thought and speach.


What happened in China and in Russia are just how Communist Revolutions happen and the rights they grant or take away from their citizens are what Communist societies grand or take away from their citizens.

No they arn't. Do we really have to go over this shit again? Or are you getting your memory back?


I only know what I see when it comes to Communism--if you want to envision some fanciful world of brotherly love, I have no problem with that but when it come to Communism I'm a Materialist--I can only go by what I know to have happened in the past.

Well what happend in the past, the examples your using, did'nt follow communist pricniples, nor did they fight for what I and we fight for.

let me put it to you this way, if you have ANY society that does'nt allow free worker associations, and collective desicion making among workers, its not even CLOSE to being communist.

Sweeden and Norway are closer to communism than China is.

you know this, its been repeated over and over again. thats not what we are fighting for. Those examples are not communism in action, not even close.


1) how Mao's China became a totalitarian state in the first place; and 2) why it is that the same thing won't happen here, given the calls by your comrades to limit speech rights for "rightists" and "fascists" and "counterrevolutionaries." The list will grow, inexorably.

1) Democratic centrism, Maos taking of control, you pretty much answered the question yourself, you said MAOs China, he took control, this it became totalitarian.

2) The same thing won't happen here because the amount of leftists that are Leninists are small and shrinking, and with the right amount of class consiousness and solidarity, most workers would'nt want to give power to 1 man, people are very untrusting of politicians.

If you have a revolution that starts out free and equal, meaning a revolution that runs on solidarity not some dude that calls himself a leader and calls for obedience, it will end up that way. History has shown us that.

The Bolsheviks and Maoists started out totalitarian in nature. They did'nt become that way.

If you don't give anyone power and authority during a revolution, and instead destroy the institutions of power and authority, its very hard for someone to make it totalitarian.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Fine, it can't happen. Shut both me and Bud up by explaining: 1) how Mao's China became a totalitarian state in the first place; and 2) why it is that the same thing won't happen here, given the calls by your comrades to limit speech rights for "rightists" and "fascists" and "counterrevolutionaries." The list will grow, inexorably.
No, the list will not inexorably grow. History is full of examples of states that limited certain forms of speech without falling into a slippery slope leading to totalitarianism. Indeed, most of the governments existing today fall into that category, since most of the governments existing today (a) ban certain types of speech, and (b) are not totalitarian.

Also, the banning of all dissent is not a cause of oppressive government; it is a symptom. You cannot ban dissent while you're rising to power - you can only ban dissent after you're already securely in power and have eliminated your main rivals.

[JonasTT]

Hey, new to the forums. But what the hell is going on here? I was hoping this would be a more moderate forum, freedom of speech for both sides, but apparently the other side is told to "fuck off". This is exactly why it doesn't work, it didn't work with mao, it didn't work with stalin and it didn't work with castro. The most important thing for any government is to maintain human rights. And sure you can say that your life is horrible and blame it one the big guys but that isn't constructive in any way! And what are you doing here? just poping out random facts (or made up facts) to make your point that you hate the world and everything every political leader does (except for your beloved marxist leaders who apparently drop flowers on every field) and if it doesn't work blame it on imperialism, blame it on capitalism and blame it on the people who you were supposed to help.

In my honest opinion (which you guys won't care about but which I'm going to write anyway) you're giving a bad rep to the system you supposedly support.

Enjoy!

[mikelepore]

Wasn't Robespierre evil? Was he an enemy of the left. Didn't he sell out and ultimately implement a worse system than his predecessors.

The worst thing is, people like Robespierre and Marat contributed much to the notion that the measure of whether you're having a "revolution" is how many people you kill. People forget that revolution means "to revolve" as much it means "to revolt." For society to make a turn-around is to perform revolutionary change. But this legacy causes many people to say, "We just can't do this peacefully, because we need revolution."

[Decolonize The Left]

RP has made the most persuasive and coherent statement in this thread here by denying the existence of natural rights (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1461281&postcount=11).

Bobkindles has then expanded on this statement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-free-speech-t110603/index.html?p=1462758#post1462758), deftly noting the difference between negative liberty (that is, what is and isn't formally allowed by the law) and positive liberty (that is, what one can actually/materially do).

Combined you have an extremely persuasive argument against the liberal, idealistic, notion of "freedom of speech." It is quite simple, if one allows me the liberty of bullet points:
- Natural rights are a human invention.
- These rights are analyzed according to two realities: negative/formal, and positive/actual.
- Negative/formal liberties exist according to the will of human beings occupying positions of political power within a state government. In this case, the idea of natural rights is negated by the fact that they can (and often are) denied.
- Positive/actual liberties exist according to the functioning of the capitalist economy. In this case, the idea of natural rights is negated by the fact that they are not universal.

KH then makes a fine point (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1462758&postcount=38) in noting that the fear, the liberal hysteria, surrounding a Marxist denying natural rights is unfounded.

I hope I have presented what was previously extremely well-written, dense, and lengthy arguments in a succinct fashion. Perhaps our OI friends can relate to our argument with more ease?

- August

[RGacky3]

And what are you doing here? just poping out random facts (or made up facts) to make your point that you hate the world and everything every political leader does (except for your beloved marxist leaders who apparently drop flowers on every field) and if it doesn't work blame it on imperialism, blame it on capitalism and blame it on the people who you were supposed to help.



"fuck off".

You clearly hav'nt been here for any amount of time so you should'nt really be commenting on what "we" are doing here.


RP has made the most persuasive and coherent statement in this thread here by denying the existence of natural rights (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1461281&postcount=11).


Whether or not natural rights exist or not is irrelivent, because in the end we all believe in rights, and want to uphold them, the difference is some have double standard.


- Natural rights are a human invention.

Communism is based on "natural rights"


- Negative/formal liberties exist according to the will of human beings occupying positions of political power within a state government. In this case, the idea of natural rights is negated by the fact that they can (and often are) denied.

That does'nt mean we should'nt try an dlessen that power as much as we can by taking their ability to strip us of those rights away.


- Positive/actual liberties exist according to the functioning of the capitalist economy. In this case, the idea of natural rights is negated by the fact that they are not universal.


Freedom of speach, in the sense that we are talking about it, is not a positive liberty perse, of coarse we expand it and argue that in Capitalism actual fair and equal discorse is near impossible, but that is a different concept than being able to say something.


KH then makes a fine point (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1462758&postcount=38) in noting that the fear, the liberal hysteria, surrounding a Marxist denying natural rights is unfounded.


Thats true, but those examples are mainly of Capitalist states, where the government restricts free speach, on behaf of the ruling class.

Also restricting free speach IS totalitarian, even if its not restricting YOUR speach, if its restricting anyones speach its totalitarian. From an objective standpoint, restricting the speach of fascists is the same as restricting the speach of athiests. We can't be hypocrites.

Also the buzz words "liberal" and "idealistic" are rediculous because liberals ARE the ones restricting free speach, and this has nothing to do with idealism or materialism.

But thanks August west for compiling the arguments, its helpful.

[Robert]

Also, the banning of all dissent is not a cause of oppressive government; it is a symptom. You cannot ban dissent while you're rising to power - you can only ban dissent after you're already securely in power and have eliminated your main rivals.What's with the bold type? Nobody I know claims that dissent "causes" oppression. (Maybe you mean "indicium" or "feature"?)

But never mind ... I take the above to mean "you" aren't in power and therefore cannot ban dissent? That's obvious, but if so, point taken.

Couple of problemitas: First, I've "learned" here that there is no such thing as a natural right, so this whole debate is arguably pointless anyway. Be that as it may, I want some variation of the First Amendment, on prudential grounds, protecting the monarchist to the anarchist and everything in between, etched in some kind of stone, regardless of how society develops. If you don't, well, you continue on your way and I will with mine. I don't say cordially, as I'll need to turn around and watch my back now and then.

Second, at least half of you don't want government at all, which makes it impossible to argue with you. Of course, nobody really does affirmatively want a state; some just see it as inevitable and some, unrealistically, do not. I'm not sure whether you fall in that category; but if you do, then fine, I admit that you're not even a potential oppressor and so I have no quarrel with you.

But if you do not fall in that category and do accept the inevitability of some form of post-revolutionary state, which, yes, I understand is no revolution at all, then we're back to the necessity of checking the abusive exercise of its authority.

[RGacky3]

But never mind ... I take the above to mean "you" aren't in power and therefore cannot ban dissent? That's obvious, but if so, point taken.

What he means is you have to get to the root of the problem, not only treat the symptoms. Meaning banning free speach is a symptom of people being in power, so instead of worrying about the free speach thing, worry about the people in power doing it.

[Bud Struggle]

Whether or not natural rights exist or not is irrelivent, because in the end we all believe in rights, and want to uphold them,

I don't see that from this thread at all. Once you eliminate natural rights you open the door to any sort of "collective agreement" that may or may not have individual freedom as part of the compact. It's fine to say that there are totalitalian societies that ban free speech and are not Marxist--but it's generally assumed that these societies are oppressive and morally wrong in treating their citizens in this fashion.

Once you ascribe the the idea that there is no natural right to free speech and that it's a construct of society--you open yourself up to a society that is not only actually oppressive but also philosophically and ethlically oppressive.

It's too much of a gamble to change things.

[RGacky3]

Once you eliminate natural rights you open the door to any sort of "collective agreement" that may or may not have individual freedom as part of the compact.

EVERYBODY believes in rights, where it comes from, whether or not its objective does'nt matter. Every one for example believes basically that murder is wrong, so is rape, in order for people to do those things they must either overcome their concsiounces or justify it in a certain way. My point is that arguing about whether or not natural rights exist or not does'nt change anything.


It's too much of a gamble to change things.

Thats like saying that if your in a ditch filled with poop, its too much of a gamble to climb out, because there might be lions outside.


Also since when di something being true or not have to do with what the consequences are?

[Robert]

Bud, the following user says thank you for that useful post: Napole -- I mean Robert. I've been staring at my picture too long.

Gack, the reason I don't "worry about the people in power" is that I see almost nothing posted here that could not be legally shouted from a soapbox in the town square of almost Anytown, USA. Or you could print it on leaflet and hand it out unmolested. If the cops arrested you, which could conceivably happen in some redneck town, the courts would free you. Your colleagues will not extend the same guarantees to me.

Why do you think that is?

[RGacky3]

Why do you think that is?

1: Because shouting from a soapbox in the townsquare is'nt much of a threat anymore. (When it was you WERE molested, and courts would'nt free you).

2: Becauese the government now knows that doing that will cause an uproar and eventually backfire.

3: The reason for that is because Americans in the past have fought, sweat and blood, to make the government and ruling class know that (this is the same reason we have labor rights).

So don't think that its Americas goodwill and moral standing that gives us our rights.

Also as to why my colleagues won't extend that? They arn't my colleagues (in my book Maoists, Stalinists and so forth are just as bad as Capitalists). That being said, the majority of Leftists are not that type.

[JimmyJazz]

I fully agree with RP and others that "natural rights" do not exist, and that, like modern interpretations of "eternal" Christian virtues, are largely ideological tools to promote the individualistic values of a capitalist mode of production.

In medieval Europe, "natural rights" and the "eternal" Christian virtues were more likely to include/emphasize feudalistic values like duty, loyalty, humility, submission, meekness, orderliness--the kind of things that make a good serf. In feudalistic China, Confucianism emphasized the same things.

Today we wants workers, not serfs. A different social role for the masses, a different set of rights and values. Everyone today recognized that values are to a great extent culture-bound, so it shouldn't be that much of a leap to understand that they are also bound up with the prevailing mode of production. Furthermore, many of the differences that are typically attributed to culture can also be explained by material differences. Geographical areas vary by culture, but they also vary by mode of production. Perhaps the mode of production explains both the cultural variations and the variation in notions of rights and values across geographical areas (and therefore, even that influence which culture exerts on rights and values is at bottom the result of a material difference).

Even in superficial crap like Newsweek, or slightly less superficial crap like the Wall Street Journal, you can occasionally read articles on how the culture of Mumbai or Beijing is being "revolutionized" by the increased role that generalized commodity production plays in the economy. People become more geographically and socially mobile; they become more consumeristic; they have fewer strong family bonds (other than merely sentimental ones). As a result of their changing lifestyles, they expect/demand new "natural" rights. The rights to do the things they have now gotten accustomed to doing.

Despite my thorough agreement about natural rights, though, on practical grounds I actually happen to disagree (based on what I know) with most of the European laws limiting freedom of expression for the far right. I could of course be wrong in my take on things. But it seems to me that these serve an extremely effective role as recruiting tools for the far right--a group that thrives on martyrdom like few others. Indeed the core of their philosophy is one of the martyrdom of the White Race(tm) to "multiculturalism". I don't know for certain whether such laws do more harm than good, but I don't ignore the fact that they definitely do some harm, and this has to be weighed.

[JimmyJazz]

Your colleagues will not extend the same guarantees to me.

Maybe I missed it--I did not read the second half of the thread as carefully as the first--but where did anyone talk about rights under socialism? I only saw a discussion of the conditional nature of rights under capitalism (which obviously you cannot and will not quibble with, unless you are a high school history dropout).

In addition to the Espionage Act of 1917 that RP mentioned in his post, here are some wiki articles I compiled in about twenty minutes one afternoon that are related to this same thing. I'm not going to bother formatting them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overman_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer_of_1919
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Activities_Control_Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Foner

Note that the list pretty much just pertains to the repression of leftists (so repression of unruly but non-ideological workers isn't included) in America (so most of the world isn't included) since 1917 (labor and socialist radicalism in America dates back to before the founding of the current government).

In the 1790s-1810s it was already common for state governments to pass laws against workers' associations (an obvious violation of the first amendment) and to prosecute work stoppages as an illegal "conspiracy to raise wages."

[Nwoye]

If you ascribe to the Kantian imperative that people should be treated never as means to an end but rather as ends in themselves, then you can arrive at certain rights endowed in every person. For example, murdering someone to save someone else, or murder in any circumstances, is wrong and always wrong (according to kantian ethics). So it follows from there that people essentially have the right to never be murdered.

As far as freedom of speech goes, I would say that any aggression imposed upon someone because of something they said would be unethical, as that violation of autonomy was not grounded in rectifying any previous offense. From there, you may be able to universally apply that edict and say that we effectively have the right to free speech.

[Robert]

That being said, the majority of Leftists are not that type.

I'm glad to hear it and hope you're right.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm glad to hear it and hope you're right.

I have a feeling the day after the Revolution you and I are going to be standing with our backs to a wall with a rag over our eyes a cigarette in our mouth listening to someone say the words, "Ready, Aim..."

[Robert]

Bud, the level heads among the revolutionaries will surely intercede on our behalf.

They'll also get shot, of course, but it's the thought that counts. :lol:

Got a match?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What's with the bold type? Nobody I know claims that dissent "causes" oppression. (Maybe you mean "indicium" or "feature"?)
I've heard plenty of people make arguments along the lines of "If the government starts restricting my right to say X, what's to stop it from slowly banning all dissent and becoming totalitarian?"

My answer: Governments don't become totalitarian because they banned all dissent; they ban all dissent after they become totalitarian.


But never mind ... I take the above to mean "you" aren't in power and therefore cannot ban dissent? That's obvious, but if so, point taken.
My point is that you need not worry about a "slippery slope" from reasonable restrictions on free speech to the banning of all dissent. Such a slippery slope does not exist.


Couple of problemitas: First, I've "learned" here that there is no such thing as a natural right, so this whole debate is arguably pointless anyway.
No it's not. Even in the absence of natural rights, we can ask the question: What legal rights should members of society be given?


Be that as it may, I want some variation of the First Amendment, on prudential grounds, protecting the monarchist to the anarchist and everything in between, etched in some kind of stone, regardless of how society develops. If you don't, well, you continue on your way and I will with mine. I don't say cordially, as I'll need to turn around and watch my back now and then.
I agree with you, actually. My point was that free speech is not an all-or-nothing deal. It's perfectly possible - and in fact very easy, judging by history - to have a government that protects free speech in all cases except for X, Y and Z, without those exceptions growing out of control.

I agree with you that protecting free speech is almost always a good idea, but it's not an absolute right because there are no such things as absolute rights. If necessary, the state (yes, there ought to be a post-revolutionary state) should restrict free speech. However, such restrictions should be rare, and democratic safeguards should be implemented to ensure that the state uses its speech-restricting powers very sparingly and only in extreme cases.

In other words, I believe that the level of free speech allowed in your average liberal democracy today is about right, and we should maintain it once we move on to socialism and later communism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Once you eliminate natural rights you open the door to any sort of "collective agreement" that may or may not have individual freedom as part of the compact.
But such "collective agreements" (which, indeed, may or may not have individual freedom as part of the compact) are precisely what all real societies are based on.

I mean, even if natural rights existed, what's to stop people from breaking them? If a group of people is in power - either because it's the majority or because it's a minority with more guns than you - what's to stop them from implementing whatever social compact they damn well please, natural rights or not?

The social compact is decided by people with power, and power comes from the barrel of a gun. Whether natural rights exist is immaterial, since philosophical concepts don't carry guns. In our world, might makes right. That is not how things ought to be, but that is how things are, whether we like it or not. Given this reality, the way to create a just society is by ensuring that the side of justice is also the side with the greatest might.

[Demogorgon]

I don't see that from this thread at all. Once you eliminate natural rights you open the door to any sort of "collective agreement" that may or may not have individual freedom as part of the compact. It's fine to say that there are totalitalian societies that ban free speech and are not Marxist--but it's generally assumed that these societies are oppressive and morally wrong in treating their citizens in this fashion.

Once you ascribe the the idea that there is no natural right to free speech and that it's a construct of society--you open yourself up to a society that is not only actually oppressive but also philosophically and ethlically oppressive.

It's too much of a gamble to change things.
It is impossible to take away natural rights because they never existed in the first place. In any society on Earth, your rights are limited to whatever those with power say they are. You can protest that something is a "natural right" until you are blue in the face but unless the powers-that-be recognise it as such then it won't do you much good.

Of course what our rights should be is quite a different question to what they are. Laws can be changed and Communists are obviously quite keen to change quite a few of them!

I think there should be freedom of speech for a whole host of reasons, amongst them are the fact that I want to liberate people an how can people be liberated if they live in fear of punishment just for speaking? Plus you cannot have a democratic society when all options cannot be considered openly and free debate be held. Moreover if you restrict free speech then you can't have a genuine view of other people's policies. Reactionaries will simply work their way into power paying lip service to the party line and so forth.

So you see, there are plenty of reasons to support free speech without needing to refer to vague metaphysical concepts like "natural rights".

[trivas7]

It is impossible to take away natural rights because they never existed in the first place. In any society on Earth, your rights are limited to whatever those with power say they are. You can protest that something is a "natural right" until you are blue in the face but unless the powers-that-be recognise it as such then it won't do you much good.

Of course what our rights should be is quite a different question to what they are. Laws can be changed and Communists are obviously quite keen to change quite a few of them!

I think there should be freedom of speech for a whole host of reasons [...]
This sounds self-defeating to me. Why should your rights be any different than what those w/ power say they are if what you say if true? Why should there be freedom of speech if those w/ power determine your rights?