Illegal Speech

[4thInter]

So I heard the in South Korea it's illegal to say anything pro DPRK. I think it's in some BS defense bill. Anyone else know anything about this?

[Sinister Intents]

I never heard of anything about this, even from my father who was stationed in South Korea in the '80s. I can believe such bullshit exists, and in other places around the world. I'm sure eventually in the USA 'freedom of speech' (something I don't believe in) will be curtailed by the state.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

As much as I hate the DPRK, I wouldn't be surprised at the law. I've never heard of it though and you could be misinformed. Although South Korea does have a history of harsh dictatorships, so restricting freedom of speech also wouldn't be surprising.

[Sinister Intents]

As much as I hate the DPRK, I wouldn't be surprised at the law. I've never heard of it though and you could be misinformed. Although South Korea does have a history of harsh dictatorships, so restricting freedom of speech also wouldn't be surprising.

Just a question based on what you've said: Do you believe in freedom of speech?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Just a question based on what you've said: Do you believe in freedom of speech?

Yes I do. However, I do consider harassment to be a form of violence. For instance, I wouldn't ban the book, Mein Kampf. Although, if a Nazi group wanted to have a march, I would crush it with a vengeance.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes I do. However, I do consider harassment to be a form of violence. For instance, I wouldn't ban the book, Mein Kampf. Although, if a Nazi group wanted to have a march, I would crush it with a vengeance.

So therefore by crushing this Nazi group you're against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a construction. To ban literature and speech would require a state, and for a state to exist and to hold authority, people must consent to this, and this consent is usually forced. Then it gets normalized, and so people think a state is a normal construction despite the fact that states are very resent constructions. I don't believe in the freedom of speech of Nazi's, I'd restrict them from harming people violently with another group of people, so that they cannot cause any harm. Also, when communism is achieved the things that create ideologies such as fascism and liberalism will have been uprooted, and thus destroyed.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

So therefore by crushing this Nazi group you're against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a construction. To ban literature and speech would require a state, and for a state to exist and to hold authority, people must consent to this, and this consent is usually forced. Then it gets normalized, and so people think a state is a normal construction despite the fact that states are very resent constructions. I don't believe in the freedom of speech of Nazi's, I'd restrict them from harming people violently with another group of people, so that they cannot cause any harm. Also, when communism is achieved the things that create ideologies such as fascism and liberalism will have been uprooted, and thus destroyed.

I'm confused though xD

You're saying it's restricting freedom of speech to crush a Nazi march. My argument is that this isn't restricting speech. This is restricting action. Any action which causes violence must be restricted as that isn't speech.

But then you seem to agree with me later in your paragraph. I must admit, it's sometimes hard to find the line between speech and action. But I believe my criteria is pretty accurate and would be agreed upon by a lot of people. I could be wrong though.

[Dr Doom]

South Koreas 'National Security Law' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(South_Korea))

[Sinister Intents]

I'm confused though xD

:laugh: tú eres muy pequeño. (To add further confusion, for it has no purpose in this discusssion.)


You're saying it's restricting freedom of speech to crush a Nazi march. My argument is that this isn't restricting speech. This is restricting action. Any action which causes violence must be restricted as that isn't speech.

In essence, it's restricting both the idea of freedom of speech, and its restricting their actions. They will insist that its their 'right' to say what the hell they want and they'll insist it's freedom of speech to emit hate speech from what are apparently mouths. (musn't forget fascists are human...)


But then you seem to agree with me later in your paragraph. I must admit, it's sometimes hard to find the line between speech and action. But I believe my criteria is pretty accurate and would be agreed upon by a lot of people. I could be wrong though.

I do agree with you, but in the case of freedom of speech I don't. I'm against freedom of speech :) If anything I hope I expanded upon what you said, and I could be forgetting what I said :lol:

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

:laugh: tú eres muy pequeño. (To add further confusion, for it has no purpose in this discusssion.)



In essence, it's restricting both the idea of freedom of speech, and its restricting their actions. They will insist that its their 'right' to say what the hell they want and they'll insist it's freedom of speech to emit hate speech from what are apparently mouths. (musn't forget fascists are human...)



I do agree with you, but in the case of freedom of speech I don't. I'm against freedom of speech :) If anything I hope I expanded upon what you said, and I could be forgetting what I said :lol:

I think I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that the fascists whose march I want to crush will whine about freedom of speech. Therefore, you're saying fuck freedom of speech. I can understand that. I do like freedom of speech but that's because I don't classify that particular thing as freedom of speech, it's an action. Anyway I think we agree, I think the problem is semantics lol. :lol:

[BIXX]

I'm against "freedoms". Come at me, bro.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm against "freedoms". Come at me, bro.

You anti-freedom Stalinite, I'm banning you on my forum now :rolleyes:

I think you should elaborate Echo ;)

[Atsumari]

Back in 2013, Lee Seok-ki from the Unified Progressive Party was accused of plotting to overthrow the Korean government should the South go to war. It would have been like the Republican Party decided to arrest Chris Hedges for trying to violently overthrow the United States government to replace it with a Stalinist government.
The president, Park Guen-hye also used the intelligence service to manipulate opinions during the election, even on the internet and her administration has been going on a privatization rampage, most notably with the transportation system that resulted in pretty huge protests that failed.

Fun fact about Park Guen-hye, her father was Park Chung-hee who was a dictator of South Korea who embarked on some pretty grim industrialization programs and sent 320,000 troops to Vietnam. He was eventually assassinated.

[#FF0000]

So I heard the in South Korea it's illegal to say anything pro DPRK. I think it's in some BS defense bill. Anyone else know anything about this?

It, apparently, extends to anything perceived as critical of capitalism. Oh Se-Cheol, a left-communist and economist in South Korea, was, iirc, prosecuted on the basis of that National Security bill back in 2008.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

He was eventually assassinated.

By the KCIA no less (I do so find the direct derivation of the name of its inspiration amusing). Today Park (the dictator) is rather well-liked however, and I suspect part of the success of his daughter is the history of her father.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

It, apparently, extends to anything perceived as critical of capitalism. Oh Se-Cheol, a left-communist and economist in South Korea, was, iirc, prosecuted on the basis of that National Security bill back in 2008.

That's scary as fuck.

Do anti-capitalist South Koreans on the internet have to fear going to prison?!

[BIXX]

That's scary as fuck.



Do anti-capitalist South Koreans on the internet have to fear going to prison?!


My guess? Probably.

[Atsumari]

Although I condemn any support for daddy Park's legacy (or support for almost anyone for that matter), I cannot say I blame many of the conservative Koreans for liking him the same way we like Washington and Lincoln. In Vietnam, the South Koreans troops were pretty b̶r̶u̶t̶a̶l̶ impressive and he did industrial the country. A young country has to have at least one hero in the cesspool of shitty leaders, especially if you are a conservative competing with Kim Dae-jung

[Dr Doom]

here's an article explaining the case #ff0000 was referring to.

http://en.internationalism.org/node/4172

[Црвена]

I'm not surprised. South Korea is being portrayed by the US bourgeois propagandists as a beacon of freedom and prosperity and proof of the supposed triumph of capitalism over "communism," (which is not a label I want to give to crackpot Stalinism), and these aren't exactly the most honest people in the world. As for freedom of speech, I don't think there's any country where this truly exists, and I don't think this can happen with a state. As long as there is a state there will be propaganda to keep people under control, and as long as there is propaganda freedom of speech will be restricted.

[blake 3:17]

From the New York Times:

South Korean Law Casts Wide Net, Snaring Satirists in a Hunt for Spies
By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: January 7, 2012


SUWON, South Korea — On May 1, 2007, the police locked Kim Myung-soo in a jail cell so small he could spread his arms and touch the facing walls. On one of those walls, a television was showing trains in North and South Korea preparing to cross the border for the first time since the 1950-53 Korean War. The report also noted that South Korea was donating 400,000 tons of rice to North Korea.

Mr. Kim was angry about his fate and confused by the reports of North-South conciliation. After all, he had been told his crime was “aiding the enemy” by running a Web site that sold used books deemed pro-North Korean. These included a biography of Karl Marx and “Red Star Over China,” an account of the birth of Chinese Communism by the American journalist Edgar Snow.

Although Mr. Kim was later released on bail, he is still fighting the charge in court. He has visited nearly every public library in Seoul and the surrounding metropolitan areas to bolster his argument that all the books seized from him as criminal evidence are readily available at government-supported libraries.

“It’s a tragicomedy,” said Mr. Kim, 56, whose acquittal in a lower court is being challenged by prosecutors in an appeals court. “It’s depressing living under a government like this.”

Over the years, South Korea has sought reconciliation with North Korea while at the same time guarding against Communist ideology infiltrating its society. Nowhere have those conflicting desires clashed more sharply than in the National Security Law, enacted in 1948 to fight Communism and used to indict Mr. Kim and numerous others.

That conflict was on display in recent weeks after the death of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. On one hand, the South Korean government allowed the widow of former President Kim Dae-jung, who had hugged Kim Jong-il during a landmark summit meeting, to go to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, to express condolences. On the other hand, it barred most other South Koreans from visiting the North and was seeking to arrest a former student activist who had traveled to Pyongyang.

In Seoul, conservative activists blocked an attempt by civic groups to pitch a tent to receive mourners for Kim Jong-il’s death as a gesture to promote reconciliation with the North. The authorities at Seoul National University dismantled a makeshift mourning altar that a student had set up on campus. Since Mr. Kim’s death was announced on Dec. 19, South Korea has also intensified the policing of the Internet, where some bloggers called for expressions of condolence, if only to test the government’s tolerance of free speech.

Full article: http://nyti.ms/1iMTljK