Freedom of speech

[Nox]

Are you for or against freedom of speech and why?

[Regicollis]

I'm for the freedom of speech since I think disagreement and debates gives the most qualified views and decisions in the end.

[Prometeo liberado]

Vague question IMO. Freedom to disseminate lies? Speech is speech right? Sadly nothing is free, you gotta pay the bill for everything.

[Nox]

Simply do you support the right for people to voice their opinion regardless of what that opinion is?

[Ostrinski]

context

[Regicollis]

Simply do you support the right for people to voice their opinion regardless of what that opinion is?

Yes. Absolutely. If their opinion is rubbish it will not take much effort to refuse it.

I believe that socialism has the power to convince the majority without resorting to authoritarianism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Yes. Absolutely. If their opinion is rubbish it will not take much effort to refuse it.

I believe that socialism has the power to convince the majority without resorting to authoritarianism.

But as we all know capitalism does not without resorting to its' particular form of "free speech". The power of disinformation has destroyed lives(mcarthy era, salvadore allende) and the momentum of whole movements and/or peoples(gulf of tonkin, iraq 1&2).

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Yes, everyone is entitled to have an opinion and a voice.

[Le Socialiste]

Context is central to how one assesses the necessity of such freedoms. One must also define what "freedom of speech" means, as it won't be wholly the same in every person's mind. For instance, how should a society undergoing the initial transition to socialism respond to an inevitable rise in rightwing, reactionary rhetoric and action? This is a fine line, as stepping too far off can lead to the decline and ruin of the revolution, as well as the reestablishment of varying levels of class distinctions, antagonisms, and oppression. Do we deny the reactionaries a platform, or do we limit their freedom of expression to the point that it poses no serious threat to society? Or do we simply throw open the doors for any individual or group to enter? With society in the throes of socialist revolution, it would be foolish to permit these harmful elements too broad a platform - if any at all. The very goal of the revolution is the liberation of the working-class; this necessarily implies the suppression of the bourgeoisie, including privilege, reaction, and the conditions under which today's society currently struggles.

The point, however, is not too take this oppression too far. If we pursue the rightists too fiercely and without caution we risk falling into the habit of ensuring that the forces of reaction are continually swept away. Paranoia has no place in socialist society, and once the gains of the revolution are won, built upon, and improved, and the consciousnesses and mentalities of the proletariat are more inclined to support their new found liberty, the need for refusing reactionaries a platform will gradually fade away.

[l'Enfermé]

Absolutely. There's no other socialist position on this. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press...these are concepts fought for originally by the Socialist movement. What was is that the great Marxist Luxemburg wrote?


Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life

[Book O'Dead]

I support the right of everyone to voice their opinion as long as I am allowed to oppose it if I disagree with it.

For example, I'll support the right of Nazis to march on the street as long as I am allowed to meet them with baseball bats.

IOW, I'll respect other people's rights as long their free speech is not used to limit mine.

[Deicide]

Should pedophiles be allowed to express their sexual attraction to children?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think the freedom of dissent and the freedom to express it is key to a healthy society but I don't think the freedom to speak is the freedom to lie.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Should pedophiles be allowed to express their sexual attraction to children?

Well expressing it to a child would be sexual harassment at the least so I don't think it would be a free speech issue anyhow.

[Book O'Dead]

Should pedophiles be allowed to express their sexual attraction to children?

In what way?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm against it

[Book O'Dead]

I think the freedom of dissent and the freedom to express it is key to a healthy society but I don't think the freedom to speak is the freedom to lie.

Yes it is.

However, that freedom to lie implies that other have the freedom and, at times, the obligation to expose the lie for what it is and punish it accordingly, especially if the lie can be shown to have harmful effects.

As in present-day Germany, there are limitations to the kind of lies you are allowed to freely express. I've heard that in Germany it's against the law to express your freedom of speech by shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Also, it is strictly forbidden in Germany to deny the Holocaust as matter of historical fact. Spreading lies about the Holocaust in Germany, I've heard, can be punished by substantial fines and/or imprisonment.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes it is.

However, that freedom to lie implies that other have the freedom and, at times, the obligation to expose the lie for what it is and punish it accordingly, especially if the lie can be shown to have harmful effects.

As in present-day Germany, there are limitations to the kind of lies you are allowed to freely express. I've heard that in Germany it's against the law to express your freedom of speech by shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Also, it is strictly forbidden in Germany to deny the Holocaust as matter of historical fact. Spreading lies about the Holocaust in Germany, I've heard, can be punished by substantial fines and/or imprisonment.

Well I understand that most agreed upon laws regarding speech assume some limited freedom to lie I just don't accept that personally. It seems to me that the right to speech is tied with an obligation to tell the truth

[Book O'Dead]

Well I understand that most agreed upon laws regarding speech assume some limited freedom to lie I just don't accept that personally. It seems to me that the right to speech is tied with an obligation to tell the truth

I agree that it's a bit of a lousy compromise, but sometimes there can be a grain of undiscovered truth even in the most absurd and outlandish lie.

[zoot_allures]

I'd say I'm for it, but I think talking about some abstract idea of "free speech" without saying more about the general social environment isn't really helpful.

You can imagine a society in which all the popular, mainstream media is owned by a single person. Obviously, what we'd want to do in this unfortunate situation is radically restructure that society. But let's say that's not an option at the moment - let's say the current debate is whether we should have more or less regulation of speech. Well, in what sense can the concept of "free speech" even apply to this situation? I don't think "free speech", as I've always conceived it, is even possible here.

Thankfully we don't live in that society, but the real world is much closer to that than a lot of people assume. Given the very structure of society, how the media works, etc, I'm increasingly unsure just how much sense it makes to focus on "free speech". Free speech is possible in a free, democratic society, but I don't think we have anything like that at the moment, and in lieu of achieving it, I suspect that some regulation of the media - preventing hate speech, racism, "incitement to violence", etc - does more good than harm.

As for individual people, they should be allowed to be as hateful, racist, violence-inciting, etc, as they like. It's the current institutions that make me uneasy.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I believe in entirely unregulated free speech.

[arilando]

Should pedophiles be allowed to express their sexual attraction to children?
What exactly do you mean with this? Off course pedophiles should be allowed to say "i'm attracted to children" no problem with that.

[MarxSchmarx]

I believe in entirely unregulated free speech.
What about slander? Suppose I go around telling everyone that Dowzy Shooter beats their girlfriend when they are high on crack and microwaves kittens for fun when in fact they do no such thing. If this leads people to become suspicious and avoid Dowzy Shooter, should that just be shrugged off as "freedom of speech"?

Or ordering a hit? Like I say, you know, somebody really ought to kick the living shit out of dowzy shooter, wink wink wink, with the reasonable expectation that absent my having said this, you would be left alone?

[Brosip Tito]

For it, of course.


Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently. -R.L.

[Klaatu]

Should pedophiles be allowed to express their sexual attraction to children?

They do so at their own risk. Some parent out there whose child was molested might beat their face in (or worse)


I believe in entirely unregulated free speech.

Did you know that the US Supreme Court considers donated money to political causes to be a form of 'speech?'

[Bloodwerk]

Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, I support all that jazz.
As long as it doesn't harm or insult another person.

[zoot_allures]

As long as it doesn't harm or insult another person.
Haha, well, that means you don't support free speech. Free speech means nothing if you can't use it to say things that other people find insulting.

[Neoprime]

No, I don't support Freedom of Speech, I support Substantiality of Speech, Expression, Assembly, and Morality.

Meaning a person has the right to express themselves as long its meaningful, honest, and truthful.

This is to help prevent Abstractionism, False Flagging, Slander and the like.

[zoot_allures]

Meaning a person has the right to express themselves as long its meaningful, honest, and truthful.
That's kinda vague. Could you give some examples of speech you would disallow?

In my view, whether something is meaningful or truthful is subjective. As for honest, I'm not sure how you'd determine that in most cases.

[Искра]

I'm against freedom of speech. Its one of those freedoms which actually mean nothing in capitalism.

[eyeheartlenin]

Free speech for everyone, except fascists. Any fascist movement should be stopped, not through legislation and cop repression, which can easily be used against the workers' movement, but by mobilizing labor's big battalions, the industrial unions, to deny the fascists the freedom of the streets, the way the SWP (in the US) used to do, pre-Barnes.

Workers and our allies have an interest in defending democratic rights. The exploiters don't, as far as I can tell.

[Ostrinski]

Free speech makes it easier to weed out the bad apples.

[blake 3:17]

'm against freedom of speech. Its one of those freedoms which actually mean nothing in capitalism.

Then why are you bothering to communicate?


Free speech for everyone, except fascists. Any fascist movement should be stopped, not through legislation and cop repression, which can easily be used against the workers' movement, but by mobilizing labor's big battalions, the industrial unions, to deny the fascists the freedom of the streets, the way the SWP (in the US) used to do, pre-Barnes.

With you on this. I don`t support the State in suppressing fascist expression. Some of my happiest experiences on the Left have been seeing Nazis wander off under the protection of police, because they were scared of the movement.

I don`t support the academic censure of fascists or racists on non-academic grounds.


Free speech makes it easier to weed out the bad apples.

Like us?

[Ostrinski]

Fascists etc.

[Neoprime]

That's kinda vague. Could you give some examples of speech you would disallow?

In my view, whether something is meaningful or truthful is subjective. As for honest, I'm not sure how you'd determine that in most cases.

Sure, Racist Public Speech, Lying when in Authority(exceptions are made), Sexist Public Speech, Religous/Cult manipulation, Anti-Socalist/Communist Speech(Criticisms allowed), Counter-Revolutionary Talk, Public Homophobic Speech, Unnecessary provoking, I would write more but I not much of keyboard warrior, it would be better if I talked in person.

[Neoprime]

Free speech for everyone, except fascists. Any fascist movement should be stopped, not through legislation and cop repression, which can easily be used against the workers' movement, but by mobilizing labor's big battalions, the industrial unions, to deny the fascists the freedom of the streets, the way the SWP (in the US) used to do, pre-Barnes.

Workers and our allies have an interest in defending democratic rights. The exploiters don't, as far as I can tell.

But this quote is why I don't support free speech, how can you be for FREE SPEECH and then deny it from someone, that abstrationist.

Free=
-Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.-

-Without cost or payment-

-No Restrictions-

-No Limits-

Speech=
-The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.-

You do understand your Controlling someones elses power right, that ain't free it cost therefore contradicts.

And wouldn't the Fascist just go underground and rise up in different ways.

[Tovarisch]

I'm for freedom of speech, as long as you don't use it to cause unrest

[blake 3:17]

Fascists etc.

Does not work that way. They`d much rather ban the Left than the Right. In situations where the Left does come to power, either through reformist or revolutionary means, do you really think the state should have a final say?


I'm for freedom of speech, as long as you don't use it to cause unrest

Then why are you here?

[eyeheartlenin]

But this quote is why I don't support free speech, how can you be for FREE SPEECH and then deny it from someone, that abstrationist.

Free=-Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.- -Without cost or payment- -No Restrictions- -No Limits-

Speech=-The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.-

You do understand your Controlling someones elses power right, that ain't free it cost therefore contradicts.

And wouldn't the Fascist just go underground and rise up in different ways.

The problem, as history shows, is that fascist groups are organized to carry out actions, i.e., murderous attacks on the workers' movement and on groups selected from the general population, Jews, the Roma people, homosexuals, etc. The fascists never stop at speech, but kill as the opportunity presents itself. For that reason, the best policy is zero tolerance towards the fascists. Since human lives are at risk, the workers' movement must act decisively to stop the fascists. It is particularly important, IMO, to deny them the freedom of the streets.

[Ostrinski]

Does not work that way. They`d much rather ban the Left than the Right. In situations where the Left does come to power, either through reformist or revolutionary means, do you really think the state should have a final say?No. I'm pro freedom of speech, as I stated. I think it is productive in disclosing all political persuasions and thus making it easier to understand the political situation. I shouldn't have worded it the way I did.

[Lobotomy]

In the case of bigotry, censorship does not solve the problem. if there is a lot of homophobic/racist/etc. rhetoric being perpetuated in a society, it is because the society has a problem with bigotry, and censoring the expression of bigotry does not magically make the bigotry go away.

[Bloodwerk]

I didn't mean it like its forbidden to insult or harm. I just think it's not nice towards other people, without a decent reason anyways.
Otherwise just yeah say whatever comes to your mind.:laugh:

[zoot_allures]

Sure, Racist Public Speech, Lying when in Authority(exceptions are made), Sexist Public Speech, Religous/Cult manipulation, Anti-Socalist/Communist Speech(Criticisms allowed), Counter-Revolutionary Talk, Public Homophobic Speech, Unnecessary provoking, I would write more but I not much of keyboard warrior, it would be better if I talked in person.
Thanks for that.

I'm unclear how those examples relate to the criteria you gave. Let's take anti-socialist/communist speech, for example. Suppose somebody says something like "kill all the leftists!"

Now, it seems to me that this is statement is obviously meaningful. We all understand what that person's saying. As for truthful, that kind of statement can't be true or false. And honesty? Well, without further information, there's no reason to assume that person isn't expressing their feelings honestly.

[Bostana]

I believe in free speech,

but I don't think groups like the KKK or NAMBLA should exist

[Ocean Seal]

100% against it. No one should be allowed to say anything. Not even me. We should all just stop communicating upon penalty of death.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Freedom of Speech, sure. Hate Speech, no.

[eyeheartlenin]

I believe in free speech, but I don't think groups like the KKK or NAMBLA should exist

I despise NAMBLA, but trying to equate NAMBLA trolls with the violent, murderous racists of the KKK is a little unfair and hardly convincing. The NAMBLA trolls never burned a cross to intimidate anyone, and they do not engage in lynching.

On another point raised in the discussion, I bet that defining "hate speech" is a very difficult task. Years ago, I participated in meetings of a coalition that included a self-designated representative of the AFL-CIO, and much of his activity consisted of preventing political discussion within that coalition. In the course of exchanges between different groups over e-mail, if a genuine political difference emerged between groups in the coalition, the AFL-CIO representative would intervene ASAP to halt the discussion. I think the to-do about "hate speech" is a similar undertaking to prevent the airing of differences and to try to control the content of allegedly "free" speech from the top down, using the threat of government repression. I have very little sympathy for top-down control; speech really ought to be free, which means that, in general, people should not be punished for the content of their speech. Rude speech, outlandish minority opinions, etc., should be answered, not silenced.