Free speech discussion

[727Goon]

Authoritarians, what do you have against it? Honestly I've never heard a good argument against freedom of speech that wasnt based on emotionalism. "Oh x reactionary said y ignorant thing they should be shot!!!!!" is not a legitimate political position. So go ahead and make the case on why private speech should be restricted.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i'm a marxist. i don't believe in enshrining ideas or principles over human beings, as a result, certain kinds of speech (hate speech in particular but i could broaden it) don't deserve knee-jerk protection.

liberalism/idealism is stupid.

[727Goon]

I'm not really a marxist, or at least not to the point where I'm religious with it like yall, but I think restrictive laws about speech have an adverse material effect on working class people. Censorship and throwing people in jail for saying stupid shit is by definition enshrining ideas over human beings. Besides in the words of the great revolutionary Huey Freeman "The problem with restraining speech is, who gets to set the rules? If it's only okay in a certain time or place, who gets to say what time and what place? Bill Cosby?"

Also, "liberalism" being brought up in the first post is awesome,meaningless platitudes and appeals to authority are stupid, especially when that authority is Mao Zedong.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i'm sorry bro but i just can't agree that having freerepublic is a Worthwhile Aim for Society.

e. southpark either

[727Goon]

Honestly I've never heard a good argument against freedom of speech that wasnt based on emotionalism. "Oh x reactionary said y ignorant thing they should be shot!!!!!" is not a legitimate political position.

...

[Franz Fanonipants]

...

who said anything about shooting anyone?

[Manic Impressive]

Besides in the words of the great revolutionary Huey Freeman "The problem with restraining speech is, who gets to set the rules? If it's only okay in a certain time or place, who gets to say what time and what place? Bill Cosby?" Scientific fact sets the rules until it is disproven or improved.
liberalism being brought up in the first post is awesome,meaningless platitudes and appeals to authority are stupid, especially when that authority is Mao Zedong. Liberalism is the ideology that the dominant powers are based on today, of course it's going to come up.

[727Goon]

The point is its an argument based on emotionalism rather than logic or even materialism.

[727Goon]

e. southpark either

Southpark is funny af you phillistine. Hey I mean I can play the dumb emotionalism game too, restricting speech is a slippery slope that ends with Bim Bom the clown getting shot in the face for making a joke about the Bolskeviks. Don't actually respond to that, that's not a legitimate argument or political statement.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've gotten into this before with people. I used to hold your beliefs on free speech and still do to a certain extent. I agree with silencing hate speech or speech that calls out for violence against certain individuals. I also don't agree with letting neo-Nazis have rallies or any of that bullshit. The characteristics of the speech allowed is different for each class. The silencing of a certain form of speech is to protect/uphold a certain class so the capitalist class might silence something that the working class finds acceptable and vis-versa.

Also, silencing certain forms of speech doesn't always mean that they will go to jail or anything. I could just be the breaking up of a rally or stopping the ability to hear the speech deemed unfit.

[727Goon]

I've gotten into this before with people. I used to hold your beliefs on free speech and still do to a certain extent. I agree with silencing hate speech or speech that calls out for violence against certain individuals. I also don't agree with letting neo-Nazis have rallies or any of that bullshit. The characteristics of the speech allowed is different for each class. The silencing of a certain form of speech is to protect/uphold a certain class so the capitalist class might silence something that the working class finds acceptable and vis-versa.

Also, silencing certain forms of speech doesn't always mean that they will go to jail or anything. I could just be the breaking up of a rally or stopping the ability to hear the speech deemed unfit.

So who makes the rules and determines what hate speech is and speech that calls for violence is? No ones arguing for Neo Nazis to be able to have rallies
and intimidate people but its not worth the time and effort to send Johnny McRedneck to the gulags for being a dumbass racist. Restriction of speech does give way to much power to whoever is restricting it and at that point the government can stifle leftist dissent like the Bolsheviks did. Anyways making ideas, art, and music illegal is anti-materialist in that it assumes that they influence the direction of society and not material conditions.

[Leftsolidarity]

So who makes the rules and determines what hate speech is and speech that calls for violence is? No ones arguing for Neo Nazis to be able to have rallies
and intimidate people but its not worth the time and effort to send Johnny McRedneck to the gulags for being a dumbass racist. Restriction of speech does give way to much power to whoever is restricting it and at that point the government can stifle leftist dissent like the Bolsheviks did. Anyways making ideas, art, and music illegal is anti-materialist in that it assumes that they influence the direction of society and not material conditions.

You're viewing it in a different way than I mean. I'm not saying that a state is necessarily determining it but society as a whole through moral standards. Sadly, the ones who make the rules are the ones who happen to be in power and they make the rules to uphold their values and power. The point is to get in power :)

Imagine it as your household. You might not let your little kids swear because of your standards. Another household might not give a fuck because of their standards. Not the best example since I'm tired but I think it works.

p.s.- I agree with you; those things should never be illegal and being someone who plays in a punk band I hold my free speech near and dear. I think that every case where you might silence someone should be on a case by case basis and not just a blanket rule.

[727Goon]

You're viewing it in a different way than I mean. I'm not saying that a state is necessarily determining it but society as a whole through moral standards. Sadly, the ones who make the rules are the ones who happen to be in power and they make the rules to uphold their values and power. The point is to get in power :)

Imagine it as your household. You might not let your little kids swear because of your standards. Another household might not give a fuck because of their standards. Not the best example since I'm tired but I think it works.

p.s.- I agree with you; those things should never be illegal and being someone who plays in a punk band I hold my free speech near and dear. I think that every case where you might silence someone should be on a case by case basis and not just a blanket rule.

Basically I draw the line at providing a platform in an ideal society. A reactionary may want to give a speech or something but if the community doesn't like what he's about they don't give him access to a platform to express his views. The thing is the reactionary can still say "Fuck you" to the community and flick them off or grab his nuts or write a really angry letter whatever, and nobody goes to jail or reeducation or whatever. Throwing someone in jail just for having shitty politics is dumb and a waste of time in my opinion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The point is its an argument based on emotionalism rather than logic or even materialism.

what emotion bro?

freedom of speech is an ideological cornerstone of liberalism, like the right to property and profit. i'm against it for that reason, not because of a burning hatred for white supremacists or the ed hardy t-shirt of television shows.

[Franz Fanonipants]

in fact, as our recent white supremacist guest just showed us, free speech is a major concern of fascists:



Do any of you (besides the tribe) really know what living under a Communist dictatorship would be like? Do you think you'll have free speech? Do you believe that no one person will be wealthier or more powerful than the common people? Do you actually believe that you would be allowed to protest an idea you don't like that would be imposed on you by a Communist regime that you would help to make?

makes u think

[cogar66]

in fact, as our recent white supremacist guest just showed us, free speech is a major concern of fascists:



makes u think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Examples . White Nationalists are also collectivists, does that mean all collectivists are White Nationalists? The same goes for Liberalism. Liberals support Freedom of Speech, does that mean all people who support Freedom of Speech are Liberals?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Liberals support Freedom of Speech, does that mean all people who support Freedom of Speech are Liberals?

its true.

[cogar66]

its true.

Has anyone ever told you that you're REALLY stupid?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Has anyone ever told you that you're REALLY stupid?

how do you define liberal bro

[cogar66]

how do you define liberal bro

Someone that subscribes to Liberalism?

[Ocean Seal]

Freedom of speech
3cLxQ4B23_g
CIBDYW50YqM

Freedom of speech for holocaust deniers, freedom of speech for racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes. I don't care for what they say at home, but they certainly should not be given a platform to preach lies. If you want to keep that fine, have fun with the anti-PC crew then. They're big fans of freedom for racists and so on.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Someone that subscribes to Liberalism?

how do you define liberalism bro

[cogar66]

how do you define liberalism bro

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol

[cogar66]

lol

You have to subscribe to all of these tenants to be a Liberal bro.

"constitutionalism, liberal democracy,free trade" I reject all of these. "The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property." I reject property, I reject natural rights. Am I a Liberal because I think people should be allowed to express opinions? Libertarian =!= Liberal.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionH2#sech29 A little bit of reading.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Am I a Liberal because I think people should be allowed to express opinions?

You believe in natural right, so, yes.

[bailey_187]

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech for holocaust deniers, freedom of speech for racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes. I don't care for what they say at home, but they certainly should not be given a platform to preach lies. If you want to keep that fine, have fun with the anti-PC crew then. They're big fans of freedom for racists and so on.

the holocaust denial bans are really stupid though, as the people that benefit most are the deniers or "skeptics" who can say "look, its a conspiracy, they wont let us conduct research because they will be proven wrong"

but to the point of u posting internet videos:
do u really think we can regulate what is on the internet nowdays?
You can make a case that these sort of newspapers should be banned i guess, because its fairly easy. But i dont see how a socialist govt or whatever can regulate the entire internet.

Also, i think this idea views society in a paternalistic way. As if the enlightend communists need to protect society from such dangerous views, as if the bulk of the population is so stupid as to beleive the rediculous views of racists, simply because some loon gets on his soap box. Maybe you view humanity as that stupid, i dont. And if they are that stupid, fuck knows how a communist society would ever work.

[Ocean Seal]

Also, i think this idea views society in a paternalistic way. As if the enlightend communists need to protect society from such dangerous views, as if the bulk of the population is so stupid as to beleive the rediculous views of racists, simply because some loon gets on his soap box. Maybe you view humanity as that stupid, i dont. And if they are that stupid, fuck knows how a communist society would ever work.
Its not paternalistic and no, I don't think that the majority of people are stupid. But I don't believe that speech should just arbitrarily be free. Fascism didn't rise because people were stupid or too incompetent to make the right choice, fascism rose because the material conditions for it existed and because racists aren't stupid--they are opportunists who see the idea that racism has already penetrated to the deepest levels of our society such that it is easy to tell people to be racist because in fact that's what they've been conditioned to believe. We don't want to be responsible for the victims of racism or for the acts which dismantle socialism right before our eyes. Material conditions change the people's views on certain things but there are other things will are ingrained into people by the current system and which can be brought to light by the worst of opportunists.

[Bronco]

I'm a strong believer in free speech. For everyone. I refuse to censor someone's opinion entirely or criminalise them because I dont like what they are saying, that's oppression no matter how you try and dress it up or justify it

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm a strong believer in free speech. For everyone. I refuse to censor someone's opinion entirely or criminalise them because I dont like what they are saying, that's oppression no matter how you try and dress it up or justify it

Beating up a bunch of nazi scum is also in a way a way of censoring them. Where are your arbitrary natural god-given rights now?

[Jose Gracchus]

These airy questions are always stupid. Its liberalism just to propose them. "What do you think the world should be like?!?!?" I don't get to choose - this question is only meaningful contextualized: should communists today pressure the bourgeois state to send its pigs to beat "hate speech"? Well I think not, because that will end up turned around on people who hold demos on how Israel is shit; the low-rent left always ends up being turned against workers, the real people (see: liberal interventionism). In transition: well, locked in class war and the stakes are at their highest, I think there should be full speech, expression, assembly for workers, but I would not be surprised if the workers' militia shut down Nazi rallies or something. In communism, I hardly think it should matter - there would be very little likelihood that there would be Nazi rallies. Some fucked up dude wants to paint his Messerschmidt model airplanes and jerk off to Hermann Goering? Have fun dude.

[Nofuture]

I don't think freedom of speech is really that important. We should as a culture be more focused on the protection of speech within the context of press, art, education, etc. The idea that everyone is free to speak is illusory..of course we are always free to do what we like, and the idea of a right to free speech implies naturally protection of some speech with the oppression of other speech..that is how ''rights'' tend to work..Instead of a right to free speech there should be more like..something like a ban on prosecution of expression..e.g. the police cannot lock you up for saying what you want.

[bailey_187]

Its not paternalistic and no, I don't think that the majority of people are stupid. But I don't believe that speech should just arbitrarily be free. Fascism didn't rise because people were stupid or too incompetent to make the right choice, fascism rose because the material conditions for it existed and because racists aren't stupid--they are opportunists who see the idea that racism has already penetrated to the deepest levels of our society such that it is easy to tell people to be racist because in fact that's what they've been conditioned to believe. We don't want to be responsible for the victims of racism or for the acts which dismantle socialism right before our eyes. Material conditions change the people's views on certain things but there are other things will are ingrained into people by the current system and which can be brought to light by the worst of opportunists.

If these things are caused by material conditions, what does speech have to do with it?

Racism in the UK against black people continues, even while it is completly unaccpetable in public society be racist against blacks. If someone drops the N word, or goes on a rant against black people everyone is like WTF, and if anyone of any public standing says anything racist they are demonized in the media (not saying they shouldnt be) etc. Yet despite this black people in the UK are still discriminated against in employment, are generaly in more poverty, failed by the school system, killed in police custody without being charged, harrased on the street, and lots of other stuff.

[Nofuture]

wait did i get b&?

[Kamos]

The problem with freedom of speech is that it sounds nice and all - but in fact, there is no legit reason for you to voice your fascist views in a communist society, but if someone does it, that will have consequences in the long term. The consequences being that the ideas will find their audiences, and it will turn out that we have a big fascist menace. It is foolish to think that reactionary mindsets will suddenly disappear in communism. That will not happen for a very long time, and in fact, I'd say the ideal society is exactly the kind of society where there is nothing but communism in people's thoughts (regarding politics).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yeah, how about that free speech......point out the jewishness of communism, get banned.

Question the holocaust, get sent to prison.

Criticize israel and become politcally/financially destroyed.

Nice to see how much jews respect freedom of speech. They certainly bask in it when it comes to the lies of ADOLF HITLER.

Wow is that ever a bad troll. Try harder.

[727Goon]

what emotion bro?

freedom of speech is an ideological cornerstone of liberalism, like the right to property and profit. i'm against it for that reason, not because of a burning hatred for white supremacists or the ed hardy t-shirt of television shows.

nice association fallacy there boe. im assuming your for gun control since the right of ordinary people to have guns is also an idea prevalent in liberalism.

[727Goon]

in fact, as our recent white supremacist guest just showed us, free speech is a major concern of fascists:



makes u think

Again with the association fallacy, but apparently some other major concerns he had were the equal distribution of wealth and opposition to hierarchy. guess all communists and anarchists are white supremacists trololololol

[Die Rote Fahne]

Because I'm cool, I'll just post the Rosa Luxemburg quotes:

"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all."

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

[727Goon]

there are other things will are ingrained into people by the current system and which can be brought to light by the worst of opportunists.

This is just idealism. White supremacy came about not because of ideas but because of material conditions.

[727Goon]

[QUOTE=The Inform Candidate;2148188]These airy questions are always stupid. Its liberalism just to propose them. "What do you think the world should be like?!?!?" [QUOTE]

I mean if this is true than like 90 percent of political discussions among communists are liberalism. Agree with the rest of your post tho.

[Pretty Flaco]

I think laws against certain types of speech would be arbitrary. As goon pointed out before, who decides what type of speech would be banned? Isn't it possible that laws of that sort could easily be manipulated in an unjust way?

[Ilyich]

In a socialist society, when false consciousness has been done away with and class consciousness has been achieved, all people will speak generally in their interests.

[727Goon]

So I havent seen an argument against free speech that wasnt blatantly anti materialist or didnt rely on logical fallacies. Protip: if you think ideas can undermine a communist society and therefore need to be censored, you are not a materialist.

[Kamos]

So I havent seen an argument against free speech that wasnt blatantly anti materialist or didnt rely on logical fallacies. Protip: if you think ideas can undermine a communist society and therefore need to be censored, you are not a materialist.

Ideas cannot undermine it. People with those ideas can.

[bailey_187]

lets look at it like this

is someone bad because they are a racist or because they say racist things?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But free speech isn't just about what some individual say, either; it extends to things like propaganda, campaigning by religious- and political groups, as well as subversive publishing and yellow journalism, all which to some extent use free speech legislation as excuses.

More importantly, there should be no arbitrary rights of any kind, because any potential situations cannot be judged beforehand. Things might be guaranteed to large extent and generally, but to off-hand declare them to be sacrosanct and holy is not any more materialist than the exact opposite (which is to say, not seek to guarantee anything).

Even today, there obviously exists no freedom of speech and whatever anywhere. There are limits that are enforced in various ways. They need not necessarily be enforced by laws and direct regulation, but there are and will be limits, because there will always be things which will not be tolerated. A community might not tolerate a reactionary rally being held in their vicinity - should they then be protected by some manner of community security organisation because it is so important that they be allowed to have their way? Should tabloid press be allowed to continue to publish base celebrity gossip? Even in a post-revolutionary society, all the trouble and illness of the past will not be gone overnight; material circumstances causing problem and so on; a lot of work remains; and being liberal with those elements will surely be appreciated only by the enemy.