Free speech?

[Jacob Cliff]

Would free speech, in the common accepted use of the word, exist under a proletarian dictatorship? Would speech be restricted – if so, what speech and why? Why should we limit even the most bigoted, racist speech when we can easily counter it, or publicly ostracize those who use that speech? I feel banning certain speech – just like the European banning of the awfully bigoted and disgusting holocaust denial – can actually attract people to these banned things. People will often think "oh, this word is banned, so I'm gonna use it because free speech" or, even worse, "oh, holocaust denial is banned; truth fears no investigation!!"

What are your opinions on these things?

[Zoop]

The amoral, liberal conception of free speech rests on the "live and let live" principle. They support fascists marching through the street, terrorising individuals and communities. This only allows them to grow and become stronger. I don't subscribe to that conception of free speech. People, groups, and communities have to band together and prevent certain ideas from taking hold, which involves violence. I support the Bash Back movement, and militant anti-fascist activity, as well as similar movements and activities like that. I support acts of violence against individuals who express bigotry. The liberals would denounce this as a gross violation of free speech, and so be it. If that's what free speech means, I do not believe in free speech. I do, however, believe that such activities are necessary, and are the logical extension of a love of liberty. The enemies of liberty are those who sit idly by as fascists spew their hate.

So, relating back to your question, I don't want the state to get involved, in any way whatsoever. If the state bans certain ideas, it can easily ban others, and that, evidently, is a problem. Individuals, groups, and communities have to prevent enemies from speaking, marching, expressing themselves etc. instead, by any means necessary.

It's pretty great seeing a homophobe, or any other type of bigot getting their head kicked in anyway.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

In spirit, I and many other socialists believe in the idea of free speech. For a free socialist society to exist the people need to be able to criticize state institutions and the people who run them. People also need to be free to express themselves artistically. Art that is controlled is not art at all.

But freedom of speech must always be tempered with freedom from oppression. Bigotry and expressions thereof are oppressive, and should be restricted. Fascists and bigots who hold rallies in order to intimidate racial, religious or sexual minorities should be confronted with full force. I'm not saying that if someone says something stupid they should immediately be sent to a gulag, but the liberal idea of all speech being on equal ground is a false one.

So yes, there should be freedom of speech. But it should always be tempered by the freedom from oppression.

[StromboliFucker666]

Not in the same way it exists now, no.
I would argue that speech is not truly free now anyway. If you are a white bourgeois, you can say whatever you want and people will respond like this "Well I disagree but I respect your right to have an opinion other than the commonly accepted one" and "Well at least he's honest".

But when a poor person comments on the class system people respond with "SO? Get the fuck over! This is how it is unless you want a repeat of STALIN!" or "START A FUCKING BUSINESS THEN! If you have no skills to start one with, you can blame no one but yourself!"

When a (radical feminist woman) is honest about patriarchy and the gender sitution she gets replies like this: "STFU FEMINAZI B****! YOU JUST HATE MEN!" or "Oh shut the fuck up. You're already privileged over men! (they then proceed to list a bunch of false statistics)"

When a non white person comments on the racial situation in the USA, they get replies like this: "Oh shut up. It's not that fucking bad you censorship-nazi. You just want all the benefits without having to work!" or "NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE LIKE THAT (they say this even when the person doesn't claim all white people are bad)" and sometimes " ANTI-RACIST ISCODE FOR ANTI-WHITE! YOU WANT A WHITE GENOCIDE! STOP TAKING AWAY OUR PRIVILEGE!"

It's free speech if you're a white, male, bourgeois.


Most of us believe that people should have freedom to hold opinions and even voice them, so long as they aren't oppressing anyone else.

[Counterculturalist]

I am generally in favor of as much freedom of expression as possible. I tend to oppose censorship through legal means. Those who partake in hate speech, however, need to be silenced.

Laws against hate speech, in our current legal framework, can too easily become laws against any extremism. As a proud extremist, I don't trust the bourgeois liberal justice system and their horseshoe-theory-infected brains to differentiate between my extremism and the right's extremism.

So what to do about hate speech? Let's operate outside of the system and just smash those who can't keep their bigoted mouths shut. Take away their platform and make it impossible for them to express themselves without fearing for their own safety. Make 'em think twice before they start spewing their hatred.

I have no problem with shutting fascists up by force; I just don't want to give the state powers that will end up being used against us as well.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat will most likely correspond to the period of civil war. Civil war is not exactly conductive to free speech. Or rather, to paraphrase Lenin, everyone will be free to spread demoralisation and enemy propaganda. We will also be free to have them shot for that.

As for misogynist, homophobic speech, I think it's wrong to view it as some kind of argument in a society-wide debate. It's a performative act that serves to reproduce certain sorts of social oppression. It can only become harmless by destroying the material conditions that lead to its predominance. It can seem that bans on this sort of speech reinforce it because society is already misogynist, homophobic etc., whether that's expressed in "cool, rebellious" banned terms or in polite and obfuscating terms. We should generally speaking be against such bans not because they lead to more bigots but because we don't trust the bourgeois state.

[tuwix]

Would free speech, in the common accepted use of the word, exist under a proletarian dictatorship? Would speech be restricted – if so, what speech and why? Why should we limit even the most bigoted, racist speech when we can easily counter it, or publicly ostracize those who use that speech? I feel banning certain speech – just like the European banning of the awfully bigoted and disgusting holocaust denial – can actually attract people to these banned things. People will often think "oh, this word is banned, so I'm gonna use it because free speech" or, even worse, "oh, holocaust denial is banned; truth fears no investigation!!"

What are your opinions on these things?

Marx was for free speech.

[The Intransigent Faction]

OP, you're correct that banning certain speech can actually make it attractive, to a degree. That's the "forbidden fruit effect", and it's something that socialists should absolutely encourage, not try to resist.

I've come around to the position of supporting freedom of speech more and more since I became more familiar with (first ostensible, then actual) socialism. No state can be trusted with that kind of authority because of the undemocratic hierarchy that's bound to be created by privileging anyone with the ability to censor. Sure, speech is not powerless in that it can reflect and perpetuate bigotry or ignorant assumptions and oppressive attitudes instilled by the system, but speech itself is not the problem. You don't stop bigotry by stopping people from expressing it.

I recently watched a documentary about Richard Ramirez, and one scene focused on the erstwhile mayor of San Francisco leaking confidential information in a press conference which allowed Ramirez to avoid capture for a while longer and brutally murder or assault more people. "Public safety" is constantly invoked to try to justify censorship of criminal investigations or of the details of surveillance programs, and frightened people are bound to go along with it. Yet, in a later scene, it was noted that police finally caught up to Ramirez only as he was being chased down by people who recognized his appearance from a composite sketch. So, leaving details of investigations entirely in state hands obviously would be more detrimental. With regard to surveillance, happenstance cases where it does prevent terrorist attacks and the notion that surveillance is done for "public safety" are exploited to justify censoring details of such programs. Once you accept that, however, it's too easy for that to be used as a cover for zealous use of such programs to intimidate leftist or even moderate liberal critics.

Certainly, the romantic notion of free speech as a protector of "both sides" of a debate between oppressor and oppressed is misguided. The point is not that both misogynist and feminist arguments, for example, deserve equal respect by virtue of a universal 'right' to express them. The point is that censorship is not a particularly effective tool for handling misogynist arguments, and particularly so when dealing with states in contemporary capitalist society that would be all too eager to use any justification to gain and extend their powers of censorship. Even a hypothetical state claiming to represent the working class ought not to exercise powers of censorship, either because this would actually undermine it's ability to face external hostile groups or because this could be used by 'corrupting forces' within.

[lutraphile]

I support unrestricted free speech. But I am (clearly) very much in the minority here

[BIXX]

I support free speech, but only if free consequences are included in that package.

[ñángara]

No ownership of a mass media, no free speech.

[The Idler]

As Chomsky once 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 the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.'
Socialists have historically been in favour of free speech. It was fascists who historically favoured restricting certain freedoms of expression, since the best conditions for the emergence of socialist consciousness and the withering of nationalist ideas is free and frank discussion rather than force. German communists and fascists debated in the 1920s, until diminishing returns for the fascists led to them calling a halt to it. British socialists debated fascists in the 1930s and a large fascist rally exposing their ideas in 1934 really put a dent in their support, whereas a mass mobilisation in 1936 in East London actually bolstered their support.
In 2009 fascist Nick Griffin started the BNP decline from two MEPs at the height of their fortune, down to nothing by appearing on BBC Question Time.

[Zoop]

As Chomsky once 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 the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.'

Translates into: "I'm in favour of allowing fascists to grow and develop a potent street presence, which inevitably leads to the terrorisation and brutalisation of minorities, because some arbitrary dogma says I must tolerate their opinion."

Chomsky is a fallible ape, like the rest of us, and we don't have to kowtow to his opinion as if it were gospel.

That sort of liberal tolerance rests on nothing but cowardice and ignorance regarding how fascists operate and accumulate power.

If the so-called anarchists who support this really cared about freedom, they would support militant, preventative activites in order to protect the freedom others are attempting to take away.

[BIXX]

As Chomsky once 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 the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.'
Socialists have historically been in favour of free speech. It was fascists who historically favoured restricting certain freedoms of expression, since the best conditions for the emergence of socialist consciousness and the withering of nationalist ideas is free and frank discussion rather than force. German communists and fascists debated in the 1920s, until diminishing returns for the fascists led to them calling a halt to it. British socialists debated fascists in the 1930s and a large fascist rally exposing their ideas in 1934 really put a dent in their support, whereas a mass mobilisation in 1936 in East London actually bolstered their support.
In 2009 fascist Nick Griffin started the BNP decline from two MEPs at the height of their fortune, down to nothing by appearing on BBC Question Time.

I think George Carlin is a more astute person to quote regarding free speech.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Goebbels wore pants. So did Stalin.

Also, Chumpsky is on record distorting the views of an actual Nazi, trying to present him as a "liberal" and his revisionist "history" as bona fide research. He is an excellent example of how liberals care more about figures from the margins of the right wing than about the oppressed.

[BIXX]

Goebbels wore pants. So did Stalin.

Also, Chumpsky is on record distorting the views of an actual Nazi, trying to present him as a "liberal" and his revisionist "history" as bona fide research. He is an excellent example of how liberals care more about figures from the margins of the right wing than about the oppressed.

I never knew that. Can you tell me more? (About the thing Chomsky said)

[blake 3:17]

I would hope that a socialist society would have perfectly free speech. It's unfortunate that most examples of socialism have been born out of wars and disaster and have tended to suppress dissident opinions. There's also been terrible atttempts at trying to manage culture and ideas which just doesn't work, except to empower stupid bureaucrats.

[The Idler]

Translates into: "I'm in favour of allowing fascists to grow and develop a potent street presence, which inevitably leads to the terrorisation and brutalisation of minorities, because some arbitrary dogma says I must tolerate their opinion."

Chomsky is a fallible ape, like the rest of us, and we don't have to kowtow to his opinion as if it were gospel.

That sort of liberal tolerance rests on nothing but cowardice and ignorance regarding how fascists operate and accumulate power.

If the so-called anarchists who support this really cared about freedom, they would support militant, preventative activites in order to protect the freedom others are attempting to take away.
No platform doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

[BIXX]

No platform doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

When?

[Zoop]

No platform doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

That just isn't true. It's very effective, and has proven to work. It is a form of self-defence, and if you're against that, well, I doubt you know what it's like to live as a target of fascist violence and bigotry. Why don't you just admit that you don't give a shit about the victims of fascism and prejudice?

You can throw flowers at them, sing kumbaya, and bleat about the virtues of love and peace if you want, but I'll have nothing to do with it, and no serious anti-fascist should.

I should have expected this though, given your Chomsky avatar.

[Rudolf]

In 2009 fascist Nick Griffin started the BNP decline from two MEPs at the height of their fortune, down to nothing by appearing on BBC Question Time.

That's confirmation bias. I could just as easily say that the BNP's support declined as a result of being squeezed by the EDL and UKIP.

[Hatshepsut]

Historically, dictatorships of the proletariat strictly controlled access to and dissemination of information. That was easier to do in 1930 than it is now, so I’m not sure such a dictatorship in future would simply repeat this past. I think freedom to talk should be distinguished from freedom to enact one’s viewpoints. The former is relatively harmless absent political power. And in any kind of social climate where a revolution could succeed, bigots and fascists won’t want to be on the streets in the first place. If they wish to vent frustrations by posting to trash right-wing computer sites, I’d say let ’em have at it. I see no reason to go out with baseball bats looking for racist slugs on the sidewalks. :ohmy:

I imagine the dictatorship as rarely preventing people from talking, but watching them instead and moving against those who attempt to form groups presenting a credible political threat.

Unfortunately, we still inhabit a world where many persons whose mindsets lie criminally against the working class and other oppressed segments of humanity enjoy real political influence. Usually because they’re filthy rich, or have the backing of an organized establishment. Sheldon Adelson can buy a Nevada Senator in the USA with the proceeds from his casino empire and he doesn’t even live in Nevada. It seems he can address Congress whenever he pleases, too, as he did some months ago, forcing Tea Party and Country Club alike amongst the Republicans into proskynesis before the god of Israel, for instance.

But we’re not going to win via censorship or mind control. People are too sophisticated for that to work today. Instead, we’re gonna have to convince the public that we are right, if we want to get enough support to make toppling the corrupt world regimes feasible. Probably it will take a collapse of global finance to make conditions right. But given the natural instability of capitalism, it may be a matter of time. We came pretty close in 2007-08.

[The Idler]

That's confirmation bias. I could just as easily say that the BNP's support declined as a result of being squeezed by the EDL and UKIP.
That would still be much more credible than the censorius no-platform dogmatists calling themselves antifa having diminished the fascist's support contrary to evidence. Best thing no-platform does is self-defence but beyond that its not very effective.

[Rudolf]

That would still be much more credible than the censorius no-platform dogmatists calling themselves antifa having diminished the fascist's support contrary to evidence. Best thing no-platform does is self-defence but beyond that its not very effective.

Regarding no-platform as censorship* lacks nuance as their speech is for the purpose of intimidating sections of the working class thus no-platform is a tactic of self-defence. What is effective is working class communities smashing all their attempts at organising, not debating them.



*atleast i think that's what you mean but censorious mean 'severely critical of others'

[Zoop]

It's pretty great seeing a homophobe, or any other type of bigot getting their head kicked in anyway.

I'd like to add far-left anti-antifa pacifists to this list as well.

[Hezadukii92]

I am for 100% free speech. Anjem Choudary, KKK, Meir Ettinger etc. Not only because free speech under the law is essential to keeping a society free, but if you can't easily debunk an Islamist or a Neo Nazi or an extreme right wing zionist then you are not very bright and shouldn't be able to stop other people speaking.

Obviously the stock line is who decides who can say what ? Leftists saying it if morally acceptable to forcefully stop fascists from speaking never seem to take the same approach to stopping Islamists from speaking. They would also going beserk if someone stopped them from doing the same.

For all the faults with the constitutional republic it has produced the most free society for its own citizens.

[Hezadukii92]

I'd like to add far-left anti-antifa pacifists to this list as well.

How old are you ? You sound like me at 14. Is violently assaulting people for disagreeing with you OK? Is raping a right winger ok? Are you this horrible and brave in real life ?

I am 205lbs, have a history in martial arts, would it be acceptable if I beat the shit out of you because you disagree with me? What would you do with the 99.9999% of the population who disagree with you if you could? Kill them all?

A massive majority of people in the middle east have conservative views and polls would suggest a large percentage oppose gay marriage, gay rights, trans rights, abortion rights for women, are you going to come and exterminate all of us?

You sound exactly like the people at stormfront but you simply want to kill another group, and some of the same groups, but for different reasons. If this is just a case of you being young you will look back on this and cringe in 5 years time.

Anyone who pretends ageism is anything but common sense get lost.

[Zoop]

Well, what an embarrassing post. I'll try and address your points without losing all my self-respect for engaging with such idiocy.


How old are you ? You sound like me at 14. Is violently assaulting people for disagreeing with you OK?
I am not 14. I am an adult. Age, however, has no relevance in determining the validity of my ideas. I am not in favour of violently assaulting people just for disagreeing with me. It is what they disagree about which determines whether or not violence is justified and warranted.

I am 205lbs, have a history in martial arts, would it be acceptable if I beat the shit out of you because you disagree with me?
Why don't we just get our dicks out and measure whose is the biggest?

What would you do with the 99.9999% of the population who disagree with you if you could? Kill them all?
Simply disagreeing doesn't warrant violence. The points of disagreement, however, do, like I've said before. This is a point you have apparently not comprehended.

A massive majority of people in the middle east have conservative views and polls would suggest a large percentage oppose gay marriage, gay rights, trans rights, abortion rights for women, are you going to come and exterminate all of us?
What a hysterical post. I am, in general, in favour of violence against bigots. This, however, is subject to contextual factors and a case by case rationale.
I am bisexual, and, generally speaking, I do favour violence against those who demean me.

You sound exactly like the people at stormfront but you simply want to kill another group, and some of the same groups, but for different reasons.
These "different reasons" makes me and the people at stormfront completely different. Adoption of similar tactics in no way determines similarity or dissimilarity. The reasons for adopting specific tactics, however, do.

Anyone who pretends ageism is anything but common sense get lost.
Just when I thought you couldn't get any worse.

edit: In fact, you should probably be banned for spewing ageism.

[Rudolf]

I am for 100% free speech. Anjem Choudary, KKK, Meir Ettinger etc. Not only because free speech under the law is essential to keeping a society free, but if you can't easily debunk an Islamist or a Neo Nazi or an extreme right wing zionist then you are not very bright and shouldn't be able to stop other people speaking.

5 year olds can debunk fascist ideology but that doesn't stop it being propagated. Debate is pointless. You're not gonna stop a reactionary from being a reactionary by debating them. That's not how it works.




Obviously the stock line is who decides who can say what ? Leftists saying it if morally acceptable to forcefully stop fascists from speaking never seem to take the same approach to stopping Islamists from speaking. They would also going beserk if someone stopped them from doing the same.

Fuck morality. The consideration isn't over what is or isn't the moral choice but what puts the working class in a better position to unite and emancipate itself.


How old are you ? You sound like me at 14. Is violently assaulting people for disagreeing with you OK? Is raping a right winger ok? Are you this horrible and brave in real life ?


Is letting fascists march down a street populated by immigrants, letting the fascists have their chants screaming about how the residents of that street need to be detained, deported or murdered, ok? I don't think it is ok to let scum terrorise sections of the working class.

Are you so naive as to think it best to let fascists organise without being confronted?

[Hezadukii92]

5 year olds can debunk fascist ideology but that doesn't stop it being propagated. Debate is pointless. You're not gonna stop a reactionary from being a reactionary by debating them. That's not how it works.




Fuck morality. The consideration isn't over what is or isn't the moral choice but what puts the working class in a better position to unite and emancipate itself.



Is letting fascists march down a street populated by immigrants, letting the fascists have their chants screaming about how the residents of that street need to be detained, deported or murdered, ok? I don't think it is ok to let scum terrorise sections of the working class.

Are you so naive as to think it best to let fascists organise without being confronted?

I am naive in that I along with the vast majority of working class people hold the notion of freedom of speech a fundamental human right, that includes unpopular speech and speech you disagree with. Ironically communists are one of the groups that most benefit from this as we along with other fringe groups hold political views that are in the minority and many, in fact the majority are against your views and things you say.

Do I think fascists have the right to march together ? as in the right to assemble ? Of course I do. As I think Stalinists do, as I think Republicans do, as I think feminists and Islamists do.

I am opposed to imposed my moral and political stances on the rest of the population.

[Zoop]

I think the pseudo-Rafiq accounts have a fondness for you Rudolf :lol:

[Hezadukii92]

Fuck morality. The consideration isn't over what is or isn't the moral choice but what puts the working class in a better position to unite and emancipate itself.





Yep because this type of authoritarian removal of free speech and free assembly worked so well the last time self proclaimed communists enforced in onto the working class, whose behalf they were acting upon, of course.

Funny how every regime that did that was a hellhole people desperately tried to escape. Seems like constitutional republics have a far better track record. They didn't have to build a wall with machine guns to stop the citizenry escaping the state who banned free speech for them, because they want to help them ..

I swear you sound like a member of the moonies.

[Rudolf]

I am naive in that I along with the vast majority of working class people hold the notion of freedom of speech a fundamental human right, that includes unpopular speech and speech you disagree with. Isn't the right to free speech the right for your speech to not be restricted by government? The vast majority of people would agree with me here: if you're intimidating someone in the pub and they smack you for it its not restricting free speech for two reasons, first they're not a state agent and second you're trying to intimidate them! That's what fascists do. It's got nothing to do with how unpopular or how much i disagree with but everything to do with its purpose being to intimidate workers.




Ironically communists are one of the groups that most benefit from this as we along with other fringe groups hold political views that are in the minority and many, in fact the majority are against your views and things you say.

And communists tend to be on the forefront of confronting fascists.



Do I think fascists have the right to march together ? as in the right to assemble ? Of course I do. As I think Stalinists do, as I think Republicans do, as I think feminists and Islamists do.

and if the working class communities came out and pushed the fascists off the street they're in the wrong?




I am opposed to imposed my moral and political stances on the rest of the population.

Ah so you oppose the proletariat emancipating itself as this would require imposing stuff on the capitalist class with violence if necessary.



Fucking hell do you not know what fascists do when they've got a bit of momentum and strength? You cant let that tumour grow. Confronting fascists is community defense.

[Rudolf]

I think the pseudo-Rafiq accounts have a fondness for you Rudolf :lol:


It confuses me no end. What the fuck is going on?

[The Idler]

Unfortunately, very many workers lend support to organised bigotry like the Tea Party and UKIP. 'Kicking their heads in' and gloating over it generally only makes this worse, not that many antifa seem to be able to understand this.