"Freedom of Speech" in Theory & Practice

[NGNM85]

I'm new here and feel somewhat presumptous starting a thread, and I'm sure this has been covered before somewhere, but hopefully there will be some interesting discussion.

I'm curious to hear each of your opinions on "free speech." Do think free speech is a basic human right? What do you think about free speech as a tactic, specifically regarding views you might find abhorrent; religious extremism, neo-nazism, etc.? In the past, for example the Spanish Anarchists, or the Makhnovists made tactical decisions not to tolerate propaganda by opposing ideologies. Do you feel this is consistent with Anarchism? What, if any, would be the limitations of free expression in an Anarchist society?

To get the ball rolling I tend to be way to the left on the issue of free speech. I think it's the most basic, fundamental right and the most fundamental prerequisite for a democratic society. I generally only support limiting free speech for nothing less than an open, deliberate threat or exhortation to violence. For example, I believe a person should be able to say "I want to kill X." but not "I'm going to kill x."
Like Noam Chomsky said; "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."
Or Thomas Paine's;“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
I think that this is really the only consistent Anarchist position.

I'm just curious if that's the prevailing viewpoint, or if anybody has a different interpretation.

[anticap]

Do think free speech is a basic human right?

No. I don't believe in rights as inviolable and inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity, the way most people seem to. I believe that traditional rights-talk is exactly backward and in need of a ruthless critique and reformulation. Simply put, I maintain that rights are a human convention, and that we grant them to one another as we deem them necessary (and, having granted them, we may of course revoke them) -- this assumes a properly democratic society, of course. But that's another subject, and I'm not even sure you meant it the way you wrote it, so I'll drop that digression.

As to free speech: Given that nobody has any rights that aren't instituted democratically, and given the absence of democracy on this planet, there are no legitimate rights at present. Therefore, nobody has a legitimate right to stop people from doing stuff like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner). Moreover, I doubt very seriously that a properly democratic society will ban such activity, since most people seem to have an innate desire to voice their opinion.

On the other hand, I advocate a workers' democracy. This introduces certain wrinkles to the above. For example: the workers at a newspaper are under no obligation to print anti-worker propaganda; and we may safely assume that those workers will exercise their control over those means of communication to print only pro-worker views. This does not constitute censorship, since another group of workers can, in theory, publish anti-worker filth in the communication organ under their control (again, this assumes a proper democracy, not an authoritarian shithole). But will they? It seems incredibly doubtful. Outlandish even.

However, as I said, the public space is different. If some raving loon finds a transcript of the Glenn Beck Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_Program) in the rubble of the former society, and he wants to stand on a soapbox in the park and read from it, then I think he ought to be granted that right, and I believe that he will be. The proper response to him, in my judgment, is not arrest and "re-education" -- it's for people to gather 'round and debunk the absurd nonsense he's spouting. Of course, that will require class consciousness among the masses; but if you haven't got that, then you haven't got the necessary conditions for a workers' democracy anyway.

So, to recap: I'm all for the freedom to speak; but I'm not at all for the freedom of access to the means of communication (beyond one's own vocal chords). To advocate the latter would be to advocate that workers betray themselves and undermine their own interests every time some raving loon wants to usurp the worker-controlled means of communication to spread his vile tripe.

[Broletariat]

Oh damn, I responded to you in the other topic my bad, would you mind replying in here? To OP that is

[NGNM85]

Oh damn, I responded to you in the other topic my bad, would you mind replying in here? To OP that is

Too late! Whoops.. Oh well. I'll just briefly summarize my position on the subject;

First, as reasons for criminalizing or prohibiting expression, the potentiality that someone may believe it is just a bad reason. It also sort of presupposes the alternative viewpoint is so weak it can't possibly tolerate the slightest opposition.

Said literature may express an animosity or prejudice, but if it is not an explicit exhortation to violence then you're effectively punishing people for things they might do, or, more starkly, things they haven't done. I have big problems with that.

Then there are some of my more general objections; That freedom of speech is integral to a free and democratic society, that once one starts violating basic human rights it tends to become habitual, and that criminalizing or prohibiting free expression is both authoritarian, and inconsistent with Anarchism.

That's how I see it, in a nutshell.

[Broletariat]

That's a limitation on everybody. That's like how in Russia they only limit speech which is critical of the establishment.

Well yea, no one should be allowed to say discriminatory things and such. It is however different than what you are saying, in this case we're limiting speech that attacks an idea or institution, in the case I propose we're limiting speech that attacks people.





There's a substantial difference. In American law yelling "Fire!" in a theatre is prohibited the same as a death threat. However, there's a significant difference if no intent is expressed. Anti-semitic or racist literature may be repulsive, but if it doesn't express both the desire AND the intent to do harm it's just talk.
But do you really think someone is going to yell "Fire!" when there is no fire without intent? No, if someone is yelling "Fire!" when there is none, regardless of their intent, shit is about to storm which should be prevented.

Racist or hate speech sayings are never "just talk" it's agitation and distraction that will lead to an uproar, precisely like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.




That's essentially punishing people for crimes they might commit, or, more starkly, crimes they have not comitted. I find that ethically and philosophically unacceptable. It's authoritarian, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I think the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
I'm arguing that even uninstitutionalised racism should be destroyed as well though. I'm arguing that the act preceding what you would call crime is in fact criminal already.

[Broletariat]

Too late! Whoops.. Oh well. I'll just briefly summarize my position on the subject;

First, as reasons for criminalizing or prohibiting expression, the potentiality that someone may believe it is just a bad reason. It also sort of presupposes the alternative viewpoint is so weak it can't possibly tolerate the slightest opposition.

If you're in a crowded theatre and you hear someone yell Fire!, I don't know about you but I'm not sticking around to confirm or deny that claim, I'm getting the hell out. What reason do I have to doubt it afterall? And sometimes the alternative viewpoint IS so weak it can't offer a rebuttal. Keeping with the fire movie theatre analogy, the man near the exit is screaming that there is no fire, but he gets promptly trampled and is silenced during the first mad-rush to escape from the supposed burning building.


Said literature may express an animosity or prejudice, but if it is not an explicit exhortation to violence then you're effectively punishing people for things they might do, or, more starkly, things they haven't done. I have big problems with that.

I'd say promoting the idea that once race is inherently superior to another, even if it never gets instutionalised is harmful to society. If you're constantly told that you're nothing but a sack of shit sooner or later you're going to start acting like it, STOP people from saying things like that.


Then there are some of my more general objections; That freedom of speech is integral to a free and democratic society, that once one starts violating basic human rights it tends to become habitual, and that criminalizing or prohibiting free expression is both authoritarian, and inconsistent with Anarchism.

That's how I see it, in a nutshell.
Freedom of speech does not exist within a vacuum, you must analyse the context in which it is being used.

[NGNM85]

If you're in a crowded theatre and you hear someone yell Fire!, I don't know about you but I'm not sticking around to confirm or deny that claim, I'm getting the hell out. What reason do I have to doubt it afterall? And sometimes the alternative viewpoint IS so weak it can't offer a rebuttal. Keeping with the fire movie theatre analogy, the man near the exit is screaming that there is no fire, but he gets promptly trampled and is silenced during the first mad-rush to escape from the supposed burning building.

First off, as I was saying, a free society has it's drawbacks. You have to justify you're actions, you have to make allowances for the rights of others, it can be inconveniant. In a police state it's much more simple and orderly, provided you have a strong, repressive security apparatus. However, I happen to think the goods outweigh the bads.

The fire analogy is kind of a weak one. If someone is actually threatening to personally commit ethnic cleansing, which I would say is comperable to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, then there's no issue. However if someone is just handing out literature, like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or giving a lecture like "Why Hitler Was an Awesome Guy", they aren't expressing any actual intent. Thy're just talking. I don't argue these opinions are repulsive, and factually wrong, but that, in and of itself, is not grounds for prosecution. It's just like religion. Don't ban it, call them out on it, hold it up to a microscope. These ideas generally don't hold up well to open, critical analysis.




I'd say promoting the idea that once race is inherently superior to another, even if it never gets instutionalised is harmful to society.

Certainly, if people start to buy it. However, so is simply being mean, or rude. Will that be criminalized, next?


If you're constantly told that you're nothing but a sack of shit sooner or later you're going to start acting like it, STOP people from saying things like that.

I think it's a better tactic to challenge than to censor, I think it has a better track record, and it doesn't make them look sympathetic.


Freedom of speech does not exist within a vacuum, you must analyse the context in which it is being used.

Everything has limits. Like I said, open death threats are clearly out of bounds, however, I can't personally justify censoring anything, short of that.

[Broletariat]

First off, as I was saying, a free society has it's drawbacks. You have to justify you're actions, you have to make allowances for the rights of others, it can be inconveniant. In a police state it's much more simple and orderly, provided you have a strong, repressive security apparatus. However, I happen to think the goods outweigh the bads.

We're arguing over the justifications of those actions, there's no need for this spill.


The fire analogy is kind of a weak one. If someone is actually threatening to personally commit ethnic cleansing, which I would say is comperable to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, then there's no issue. However if someone is just handing out literature, like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or giving a lecture like "Why Hitler Was an Awesome Guy", they aren't expressing any actual intent. Thy're just talking. I don't argue these opinions are repulsive, and factually wrong, but that, in and of itself, is not grounds for prosecution. It's just like religion. Don't ban it, call them out on it, hold it up to a microscope. These ideas generally don't hold up well to open, critical analysis.
I think the fire analogy is a perfect one, if someone yells "Fire!" it's implied they think there's a fire, when you need a quick scapegoat for an economic system's failure you can be like Hitler and yell "Jews!" Which is implied he thinks Jews are the problem. There was no time to call him out and hold up the ideas to a microscope, because he was allowed to say all these things and eventually got in power and institutionalised them killing off anyone holding up those ideas to a microscope.





Certainly, if people start to buy it. However, so is simply being mean, or rude. Will that be criminalized, next?
There are in place 0 tolerance policy's for bullying in school's nowadays which I think is great given that teachers are intelligent enough to differentiate harassment from playing around. I DO think we should prevent people from being jerks and such, maybe not by institutionalising a punishment for it but just via ostracism.



I think it's a better tactic to challenge than to censor, I think it has a better track record, and it doesn't make them look sympathetic.
In an ideal world yes we could all sit down and calmly debate what's right and wrong, however this is obviously not the case as we still live under Capitalism, we're not simply going to throw it under a microscope, we're going to censor it via revolution, or are you a reformist?



Everything has limits. Like I said, open death threats are clearly out of bounds, however, I can't personally justify censoring anything, short of that.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't a death threat, yet I would still censor it unless there was clearly a fire.

[genstrike]

Personally, I find a lot of the arguments surrounding "freedom of speech" are bullshit. We can't talk about freedom of speech unless we put it in the proper context of power relations in society.

Freedom of expression is heavily stacked against the powerless in society. Those (including things which aren't even people, such as corporations, state institutions, the military with their recruitment campaigns) who have more privilege (class, race, gender, etc) have much more access to media and their voice carries a disproportionate amount of weight. Those without privilege tend to be silenced.

So, free speech arguments tend to go a little like this:
1. Some high-profile racist like Ann Coulter or a war criminal like Netenyahu is given a massive platform with which to spew racist garbage
2. Communities of oppressed people and their allies organize against these people coming in to spread racism and hatred.
3. There is massive outrage amongst the media and upper class white boys about those evil people oppressing Ann Coulter daring to stand up to racism

It's all bullshit, and we get into this whole narrative where it's okay for people to spread hatred and reinforce the ideologies and systems of oppression which silence oppressed people, but it's not okay for those people to confront that racism.

In short, bullshit bourgie liberalism at its best.


As a personal anecdote, I remember one time I went down to the local legislature because my provincial government was debating a resolution condemning an event that I was one of the main organizers for. Politicians who called for my event to be censored and banned insisted that they are supporting free speech as they repeatedly lied about this event (the lies are still available and on record in the Hansard). Yet when someone else in the gallery made the mistake of joining in with several politicians to applaud a statement, the speaker of the house reminded everyone that regular citizens in the gallery must remain silent and refrain from even clapping.

I'm not a member of the NSG, but I thought their take (http://newsocialist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158:the-politics-of-free-speech-israeli-apartheid-week-ann-coulter-and-mobilization-from-below&catid=51:analysis&Itemid=98) on the politics of free speech in relation to a couple recent events was interesting - I don't agree with all of it, but the guy makes some good points.

[NGNM85]

Personally, I find a lot of the arguments surrounding "freedom of speech" are bullshit. We can't talk about freedom of speech unless we put it in the proper context of power relations in society.

Freedom of expression is heavily stacked against the powerless in society. Those (including things which aren't even people, such as corporations, state institutions, the military with their recruitment campaigns) who have more privilege (class, race, gender, etc) have much more access to media and their voice carries a disproportionate amount of weight. Those without privilege tend to be silenced.

This is an argument against state capitalism, or what calls itself state capitalism, rather, not an argument against free speech.


So, free speech arguments tend to go a little like this:
1. Some high-profile racist like Ann Coulter or a war criminal like Netenyahu is given a massive platform with which to spew racist garbage
2. Communities of oppressed people and their allies organize against these people coming in to spread racism and hatred.
3. There is massive outrage amongst the media and upper class white boys about those evil people oppressing Ann Coulter daring to stand up to racism

I don't think that's what those people are doing. Censorship isn't standing up to anything, it's preventing conversation from happening. It's a way of avoiding confrontation. I would certainly be opposed to either Coulter or Netanyahu, but I don't want to censor them, for reasons I've elaborated, I'd want to oppose their ideas, which is something quite different.


It's all bullshit, and we get into this whole narrative where it's okay for people to spread hatred and reinforce the ideologies and systems of oppression which silence oppressed people, but it's not okay for those people to confront that racism.

That isn't a fair or accurate characterization.


In short, bullshit bourgie liberalism at its best.

Actually, it's the only consistent Anarchist position.


As a personal anecdote, I remember one time I went down to the local legislature because my provincial government was debating a resolution condemning an event that I was one of the main organizers for. Politicians who called for my event to be censored and banned insisted that they are supporting free speech as they repeatedly lied about this event (the lies are still available and on record in the Hansard). Yet when someone else in the gallery made the mistake of joining in with several politicians to applaud a statement, the speaker of the house reminded everyone that regular citizens in the gallery must remain silent and refrain from even clapping.

Well, a big part of the problem is Canada has a much more regressive policy on free expression. Publishing "misinformation" can result in criminal charges, even imprisonment, this is a leftover piece of legislation from 1275 designed to protect the king.


I'm not a member of the NSG, but I thought their take (http://newsocialist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158:the-politics-of-free-speech-israeli-apartheid-week-ann-coulter-and-mobilization-from-below&catid=51:analysis&Itemid=98) on the politics of free speech in relation to a couple recent events was interesting - I don't agree with all of it, but the guy makes some good points.


What this guy is saying is very different. I actually agree with a lot of his conclusions. For example;

"There has been some tendency among radicals, particularly on campuses, to imagine that it is our job to create safe spaces where discriminatory language is never heard. There are some real problems with this. First, silencing interferes with engaging with people to persuade them to reconsider. ...The politics of change through mobilization from below is fundamentally rooted in the confidence that people can learn, think freely and act collectively. If we cannot trust people to make their own way through complex discussions and debates, then we are sunk as a genuine movement from below. It is therefore much more powerful to explain clearly to someone why and how their comment is offensive than to tell them they cannot use certain words. ...Finally, by attempting to police discriminatory speech we create the conditions for undermining our own freedom of expression. ...We can disagree with her, protest loudly and strongly against her, but if we shut her down we legitimate those who would shut us down. ..Ultimately, a commitment to free speech is a vote of confidence in the strength of our ideas and the potential for collective struggles for change. ..The problem we face in capitalist society is too little speech, not too much. ..Free speech needs to be a central goal of the anti-capitalist movement.."

That's what I said. In fact, the only part of the final summation I disagree with is where he says neo-nazi speech is automatically out-of-bounds. Fascism may be an inherently violent ideology, but if they're gathering in a public space and not assaulting or directly threatening anyone, I see no logic in making an exception. Until they do that, I would say it should fall under the rubric of free expression. Just because it's offensive, or repulsive, or factually dubious isn't sufficient grounds. Other than that I agree, completely.

[mikelepore]

The right to express opinions has to be independent of the opinions. If you empower some committee to determine that people with despicable opinions may not speak, then it's a matter of time before that speech-approval committee that you have unleashed will be coming after your too.

[NGNM85]

Exactly. Just like Thomas Paine said; "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. "

[mikelepore]

What's more dangerous, any kind of hazard (a plague, an impending asteroid collision, a defective airplane engine, etc.) that you know about, or one that you don't know about? If you don't know about it, it doesn't cease to exist. Not knowing about it only limits your own options to take action. It's the same thing with fascist organizations. There were several cases in the U.S. when hate groups lynched black people, but they also blabbed about their violent tendencies in their public literature and speeches. Their openness about their own violent methods enabled their prosecutions. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) initiated several of these court cases, one in 1981 and another in 1990, against lynch mobs that were transparent because they advertised their violent methods in their literature and signed their names and addresses. Censorship wouldn't make the fascists cease to exist; it would only produce more secrecy about who had committed their crimes.

[genstrike]

This is an argument against state capitalism, or what calls itself state capitalism, rather, not an argument against free speech.

I'm not arguing against "free speech", I'm simply saying that we need to examine what we mean by free speech. The fact of the matter is that under capitalism, voices reinforcing systems of oppression are given a platform and are given more authority. These voices don't need their "free speech" (or privileged positions on the podium) defended, the people who need their free speech defended are those organizing against those systems of oppression.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about free speech, we can't be operating under liberal assmptions of what free speech is, which, for example, protects racists and their platforms, but allows workers to be fired for talking union.



I don't think that's what those people are doing. Censorship isn't standing up to anything, it's preventing conversation from happening. It's a way of avoiding confrontation. I would certainly be opposed to either Coulter or Netanyahu, but I don't want to censor them, for reasons I've elaborated, I'd want to oppose their ideas, which is something quite different.

Actually, in the cases I was referring to (Ann Coulter's recent visit to Canada, and the Discordia incident), Ann Coulter cancelled of her own accord, possibly on advice from campus security. In the Netenyahu incident, security prevented him from speaking because the tear gas they used on Palestinian solidarity activists got into the ventilation system.

I do object, though, to giving a platform to notorius racists, fascists, and war criminals. That privileges their hateful speech. Giving a platform to these people normalizes the systems of oppression which have profoundly negative impacts on people's lives. People like Coulter and Netenyahu only play the "free speech" card to defend their power and privilege and the systems of oppression they're fighting to reinforce.



That isn't a fair or accurate characterization.

Yes it is. When things like this go down, we get into a situation where people like Ann Coulter portray themselves as some underdog crusader for justice fighting against "political correctness", when really, she just wants a platform with which to self-promote and spread hatred against oppressed people. Reinforcing racism and other systems of oppression has never made anyone a crusader for justice.



Well, a big part of the problem is Canada has a much more regressive policy on free expression. Publishing "misinformation" can result in criminal charges, even imprisonment, this is a leftover piece of legislation from 1275 designed to protect the king.

No, the problem there was that the state gives the misinformed, idiotic and slanderous speech of 50-odd mostly rich old white guys way more privilege and way more authority than it would give me if I started shouting the truth from the gallery.