Freedom of Speech?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wanted to know what you guys thought about unrestricted access to free speech.I myself support curtailing it so as to prevent hate speech.I'm not saying political ideologies should be silenced,or debate cease,but simply the words in regard to minorities and other oppressed people.

For example: I think word such as the "N" word and the "F" word (the other f word that attacks homosexuals) should be illegal to use.Same goes for the "c" word and all the other destructive language out there.

What do you think? Complete freedom in regards to speech,or certain limitations?

[Property Is Robbery]

I disagree. I bet you anything if say the N word for example became illegal, black people would get arrested more than white people for it. The law would target minorities in our current country. (Not sure if you're talking about post-revolution or not)

Edit: don't you ever say fuck?

[Agent Ducky]

Meant a different f-word, comrade.

I feel like certain words shouldn't be illegal. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to ban certain words. Someone could make up a new word and make it into a slur of the same nature if famililar words were banned, etc. and the whole thing could get out of control fast.
Also, in your opinion, what about said words used in art forms, especially in a satirical context?

[Proukunin]

he meant faggot. and yes that word should be illegal. Its fucking stupid, I mean I love women and I would never think about a man in sexual ways, but why does our culture have to show so much hate towards them? They love like any human and should love. I say militant anti-homophobism.

[gestalt]

The test for advocating freedom of speech is whether or not you support the dissemination of views and opinions diametrically opposed to your own.

Hate speech, like other forms of racism and bigotry, is a symptom of hierarchical economic reality. You cannot legislate or reform it away, it has to be changed fundamentally by education and revolution, in whatever order you deem fit.

It is akin to a post-revolution society destroying or at least revising all historical information about previous developmental stages of society for fear we might lapse back into it, which was the argument from a Stalinist I once debated with.

[Octavian]

Hate speech is a load of shit. If free speech isn't extended to everyone, even assholes it ins't free speech.

Also childishly dancing around Nigger, faggot, **** or any other derogatory word doesn't make them cease to exist or stop people from saying them.

[Zanthorus]

What do you think?

I think we have had this thread before several times in the past. Aside from that, I am not particularly bothered about hairsplitting over ethics, but I am concerned about advancing the working-class movement, and the movement would certainly not benefit from increased state interference in it's workings. As for 'hate speech', I believe leftists in the 30's had worked to get laws enacted to encourage the state to crack down on the Mosleyites, and it turned out the laws supposed to be used against the Mosleyites ended up being used more against Communists. But for some reason, some users on here seem to be unable to comprehend that there are better answers to certain things than just enforcing state bans (Like, say, combatting the material basis of fascism perhaps?).

[Landsharks eat metal]

I really don't think any words should be illegal to use. I don't even understand how some words become "offensive" anyway, especially when there are words that mean the same things that aren't considered to be offensive. Some people say it's all in the context, but if I said "fuck!" out of nowhere without any context whatsoever, I know there would be people who would be offended. I feel kind of bad about not wanting to combat hate speech with regulations, but I'd feel worse about fighting freedom (and people should be free to punch others who use hate speech...)

[Gorilla]

I agree with Mao on this one. Reactionaries should be perfectly free to speak their ignorant minds.

Also, revolutionaries should be perfectly free to beat the piss out of them.

[Dimmu]

Banning words is stupid, it wont stop their use and it just a tool used by the states to control the masses just like other useless bans.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thanks for the replies!

Well,I'm still in favor of banning the aforementioned words,but some good points are brought up. While it is true new words could always be invented to replace the banned words,one has to consider that within a post-revolutionary society,one where the (socialist) state has ended government funded discrimination,the ruling party would be in an unprecedented position to spread tolerance and equality.Through the use of educational campaigns,the state could wipe out any such new words before they became widespread;or in the very least,the impact of such a term would be greatly diminished because of the term's inability to reach great numbers of people (seeing as how such a slur wouldn't be allowed to air on television,and radio stations).

However,this brings up another good topic: what should be done with the people who break the law,and dehumanize another person? Certainly incarseration wouldn't be a possibility since holding him within a enclosed area would mean nothing,nor would a execution be possibly,since it would be ridiculous-and fascist-to kill someone based on a spoken word.This leaves only re-education or reformation camps of some kind...good idea or bad? If bad,what is an alternative?

[cb9's_unity]

"The party" should have no need to spread tolerance. A socialist revolution would be a sign of the sign of the end of intolerance anyways. From there racist and homophobic elements of society would find themselves at odds with the values of the majority, and would quickly learn to shut the hell up or be alienated by society.

Also, I'm not sure if the pain inflicted by those words is great enough to warrant limiting free speech (if anything is great enough to do that). To be offended is unfortunate, but it shouldn't be something that ever cripples a person. More extreme tools of discrimination ought to be combated with the legal system, but its just not warranted to start banning words.

[Property Is Robbery]

Meant a different f-word, comrade.


Right, I read it wrong. I thought he meant ban "fuck" and "faggot"

[cowslayer]

Free speech should be universal and absolute.

As stated, there will always be people who disagree with the system and people who ignorantly use hateful terms. Banning drugs didn't make them go away. Now, the world has more drug addicts than ever.

You can't change people, you can only hope that they want to change en masse.

[Sensible Socialist]

Thanks for the replies!

Well,I'm still in favor of banning the aforementioned words,but some good points are brought up. While it is true new words could always be invented to replace the banned words,one has to consider that within a post-revolutionary society,one where the (socialist) state has ended government funded discrimination,the ruling party would be in an unprecedented position to spread tolerance and equality.Through the use of educational campaigns,the state could wipe out any such new words before they became widespread;or in the very least,the impact of such a term would be greatly diminished because of the term's inability to reach great numbers of people (seeing as how such a slur wouldn't be allowed to air on television,and radio stations).

I don't like the idea of a state deciding what words I can and cannot say. I know the comparison is overused, but I get images of 1984 whenever someone says the government should restrict certain words or ban them from becoming popular.

[Vanguard1917]

No, the state is not my dad and i'm not a child who needs to be told what words i can and cannot use or hear.

Someone with Lenin in his avatar should know that communists aren't in the business of arming the bourgeois state with greater powers to police political life. There's too much of those already. Help the state bring in laws to ban rightwing 'extremists', and you set a rock-solid precedent to enable it to ban you next.

[Demogorgon]

he meant faggot. and yes that word should be illegal.
You just used it, should you go to jail?The notion of punishing people for simply using words is ridiculous. Apart from anything else, do you think bigotry will go away as a result of it?

[DuracellBunny97]

The government taking away your right to say what you want doesn't suppress the thoughts, in fact I would imagine it would make the bigots feel like the really oppressed group, and perhaps the ideas of intolerance would simply fester. The internet tells me Noam Chomsky said this "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" it's true, what the point of free speech if it's only for those with a P.C. thought process. Freedom of speech has to be extended even to those with unpopular views, or there truly is no point, and I don't feel comfortable with the government deciding what can and can't be said. And people who are not prejudice but still want to use the words such as artists need to be permitted this freedom, do you want to censor Tarantino's first 2 films, most rap music, Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn etc. etc. And if the issue is dehumanization, then what's to stop the government from going further,take mentally challenged people, first the gov't bans retard, then idiot, then moron, then stupid, then silly, maybe I'm going to far, but I hope you see my point.

[Jazzratt]

How, practically, do you ban a word? Do you lock people up if they ever utter or write the word? In which case do you have people hired to monitor every broadcast, every publication for proscribed words like some kind of nightmarish evolution of the BBFC? Even if you find a way around the logistical clusterfuck that is monitoring all publications, broadcasts and (I guess) private conversations I imagione that there would be a lot of resources pissed away on punishment (especially if you have to prove that someone used the word, for example if you find it written under a psuedonym).

Do you apply this law equally? Would you, for example, lock up members of the group at whom the term is directed who use the term with a sense of irony or solidarity? What if someone sis simply using the word - for example in court when someone is tried for saying "faggot" does the judge temporarily get permission to use the word or what?

[agnixie]

he meant faggot. and yes that word should be illegal. Its fucking stupid, I mean I love women and I would never think about a man in sexual ways, but why does our culture have to show so much hate towards them? They love like any human and should love. I say militant anti-homophobism.

Some people reclaim words, which makes these things extremely tricky. And as a queer woman, I do reclaim, and on the other hand, while they do hurt as insults, I like the fact that these words also allow identification of the enemy pretty well.

[DuracellBunny97]

And forced re-education for people who use said words? how will that accomplish anything? what are you going to do, teach them those words are wrong? If they are truly just prejudiced assholes then they know how harmful the word is, and said it because of that, and you're not going to be able to reform them. And what about artists or comedians? Goodbye, Quentin Tarantino, Spike Lee, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, George Carlin, Louis C.K., Aaron McGruder, and so on, they know the word is offensive, but in their case it's used to make a point, or perhaps for a cheap laugh, but still, I thought most people on this site were at least SOCIAL libertarians. And someone who doesn't know the word is harmful such as a child, give them a slap on the wrist, tell them what they said was wrong, send them on their way.

[eric922]

Since this thread is on freedom of speech I thought I would bring up a slightly different but related topic on freedom speech. Would you all be in favor of banning lies and distortion in the news media? I personally think outright lies and distortion, such as practiced by Fox should be banned.

[Sensible Socialist]

Since this thread is on freedom of speech I thought I would bring up a slightly different but related topic on freedom speech. Would you all be in favor of banning lies and distortion in the news media? I personally think outright lies and distortion, such as practiced by Fox should be banned.
People need to realize that simply banning a certain practice will not eradicate it. You need to look deeper, to see the cause. In the case of Fox News, it is driven by a profit-motive that seeks ratings over the truthl. They distort the truth and lie because it attracts more people of a certain mindset (i.e. more money from advertisers).

Instead of trying to get certain practices banned, energy is better spent on fighting those harmful actions from a grassroots perspective.

[Rafiq]

Free speech, in an unrestricted form, is essential for socialism to exist.

[DrStrangelove]

Restricting free speech is something completely undesirable and impractical. If freedom of speech was inhibited in this modern society, us leftists would feel its presence much more than any other group. And how would one go about banning words? Monitoring everyone, in some sort of George Orwell inspired nightmare? And who deems what is hateful and what gets a slide?

Even if you ban the words they use now, it won't stop them from hating the said group you're protecting. New phrases will come along that serve the purpose of the old ones. In the end, this isn't a problem with the words as much as it is a deeply rooted societal problem. We should be less focused on banning words that harm others, and shift our focus on educating those who use the words. Cure the disease and you won't have to worry about the symptoms

[Vanguard1917]

Since this thread is on freedom of speech I thought I would bring up a slightly different but related topic on freedom speech. Would you all be in favor of banning lies and distortion in the news media? I personally think outright lies and distortion, such as practiced by Fox should be banned.

This might sound like a radical demand, but it's not in the slightest. Why would be want the capitalist state's courts deciding what are and are not "lies and distortions"? It's simple naivety to trust that such powers will not eventually be used against radicals themselves.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Freedom of speech is abstract nonsense and as irrelevant as it is undesirable.

[El Chuncho]

Freedom to speak the truth? Yes. Freedom to spread lies (holocaust denial etc)? No.

[Goatpie]

Freedom of speech is only important to people who don't have it you can start dictating how people talk and all but eventually no one will care. Its not like a police force will listen in on conversation JUST IN CASE some one slips one of these words. Obviously you shouldnt say it and i think if you just educate people about these words they will be a huge decrease in these words. Just look at the word retard and nigger these words are usually only used by the ignorant people who don't care to listen or were never told.

[The Man]

I am for 100% Free speech, during post-revolutionary stages. In a revolutionary stage, not so much.

[ArrowLance]

Speech that is dangerous to the revolution could be restricted if such actions would help protect the revolution. I believe this would be unnecessary depending on the revolution and it's stage, but I do not think the tool should be ignored as an option.

[Rusty Shackleford]

freedom of speech isnt really about a word or two. its about the content context and intent of certain forms of speech that are questioned.

for example. advocating racism, anti-LGBTQ bigotry, sexism, and so on shouldn't really be allowed.

hypothetical example: advocating fascism. if someone advocates it through literature speech or other media it should be censored. but for one to say "fascism" "mussolini" "hitler" "mein kampf" or even "sieg heil" (in certain contexts) shouldnt land them in jail.

[727Goon]

I dont think that even fascist speech should be restricted. Obviously they shouldnt be allowed to organize or intimidate people but if they just want to spout off whatever bullshit and arent a threat let them. I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for their opinions.

[727Goon]

And if we're gonna make homophobic speech illegal what are we gonna do throw like 95 percent of high school kids in jail? Education is the answer here not cracking down on free speech.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And if we're gonna make homophobic speech illegal what are we gonna do throw like 95 percent of high school kids in jail? Education is the answer here not cracking down on free speech.


society doesnt just change at the snap of a finger. it is a process. outlawing the promotion of homophobia doesnt stop it, but it, along with social programs and education, makes it fade away. even then, only the most egregious of offenders would be jailed.

american society allows for homophobia to be rampant in high schools but its its relatively less common to see open and racist attacks on students. that is a result of the gains from the civil rights struggle.

my point is this, simply outlawing a social ill doesnt stop it. it must be coupled with education and structural and institutional changes. most of those changes would be inherent in a socialist revolution anyways.

[Le Socialiste]

While such words are vulgar, despicable holdovers from an era best left behind us, the answer doesn't lie in prohibiting such speech. Hate crimes, yes. Such acts of hatred should be outlawed in any given socialist society. However, we mustn't look at potential legislation as the sole answer to society's ills. One important thing to consider is the material, social, and political conditions where these actions and sayings are commonplace. The eradication of capitalism from people's everyday lives would be a significant step forward in establishing a more humane society. Break down the environment/system of exploitation, corruption, and class-hierarchy, and you'll find that people will adjust accordingly.

[727Goon]

Still, at least for me it seems a little much to throw people in jail just for being bigoted assholes. It seems like a waste of time if they arent actually doing anything but being ignorant and chances are they'll end up getting their ass beat and would already be an outcast in a socialist society.

[Dimmu]

Still, at least for me it seems a little much to throw people in jail just for being bigoted assholes. It seems like a waste of time if they arent actually doing anything but being ignorant and chances are they'll end up getting their ass beat and would already be an outcast in a socialist society.

Pretty much.. Not to mention that jails bring the worst out of people.

Free speech should be universal which means that everyone should be able to voice an opinion no matter how ridiculous it is.