Free Speech Question

[emma_goldman]

What do you think about the age old example to restrict free speech that we can't have people yelling "fire!" in a theatre?

[emma_goldman]

What do you think about the age old example to restrict free speech that we can't have people yelling "fire!" in a theatre?

[emma_goldman]

What do you think about the age old example to restrict free speech that we can't have people yelling "fire!" in a theatre?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I guess you could argue that that potentially could harm someone else. Like someone could be injured by the stampede that ensues after the person yells.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I guess you could argue that that potentially could harm someone else. Like someone could be injured by the stampede that ensues after the person yells.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I guess you could argue that that potentially could harm someone else. Like someone could be injured by the stampede that ensues after the person yells.

[the_last_straw]

I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.

[the_last_straw]

I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.

[the_last_straw]

I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Last Straw,

I think we all do however where does it stop? Where does it interfeer or put others in danger?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Last Straw,

I think we all do however where does it stop? Where does it interfeer or put others in danger?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Last Straw,

I think we all do however where does it stop? Where does it interfeer or put others in danger?

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:57 AM
I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.
yea i agree, although the person who yelled that, if they were lying, deserves to get their ass beat.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:57 AM
I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.
yea i agree, although the person who yelled that, if they were lying, deserves to get their ass beat.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:57 AM
I believe in true free speech. If we give ourselves permission to censor any speech, we give ourselves permission to censor all speech. Regardless of how harmful, vulgar, damaging, or hateful speech is it should not be stopped. I also believe in the right to not speak.
yea i agree, although the person who yelled that, if they were lying, deserves to get their ass beat.

[the_last_straw]

I think that the government shouldn't be able to limit speech. (Which I define as any type of media/text or transmission thereof) If somebody does that in a theatre then vigilante justice will take care of them.

[the_last_straw]

I think that the government shouldn't be able to limit speech. (Which I define as any type of media/text or transmission thereof) If somebody does that in a theatre then vigilante justice will take care of them.

[the_last_straw]

I think that the government shouldn't be able to limit speech. (Which I define as any type of media/text or transmission thereof) If somebody does that in a theatre then vigilante justice will take care of them.

[internet andy]

The government shouldn't hinder free speech in any way. If somebody wants to yell fire in a theater, let them. But let them also deal with the reprocutions of what their communty will do afterwards.

[Gojo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:15 AM
I think that the government shouldn't be able to limit speech. (Which I define as any type of media/text or transmission thereof) If somebody does that in a theatre then vigilante justice will take care of them.
And what kind of justice would that be?!
The main thing is to stop that person from raising it's voice at all.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If you hinder freedom of speech that society will go downwards.

[Free Left]

The government shouldn't hinder free speech in any way. If somebody wants to yell fire in a theater, let them. But let them also deal with the reprocutions of what their communty will do afterwards.

Damn right, if someone yells FIRE in a theatre they'll obviously have some problems once everyone finds out there is no fire.
What I find problems with is when people make stuff up about an organistaion, government or Union.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 24 2006, 09:50 AM

The government shouldn't hinder free speech in any way. If somebody wants to yell fire in a theater, let them. But let them also deal with the reprocutions of what their communty will do afterwards.

Damn right, if someone yells FIRE in a theatre they'll obviously have some problems once everyone finds out there is no fire.
What I find problems with is when people make stuff up about an organistaion, government or Union.
That's why the people need to be smart and demand proof. Unfortunately that's not really happening over here in the States with the executive branch...

[More Fire for the People]

Complete and total freedom of speech, except for reactionaries! If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, he should expect a subsequent ass-kicking.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 PM
Complete and total freedom of speech, except for reactionaries! If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, he should expect a subsequent ass-kicking.
Are you serious?

No, NOT except for reactionaires, because when you say it like that, someone will decide who is reactionair, and then restrict masses of people who are unjustly called reactionair. Reactionair will be synonymous for anybody who opposes the currnet line of the ruling government, so opposition voice will be banned.

Let anyone have free speech, discussion is always the best way forward.

[bayano]

Originally posted by internet [email protected] 24 2006, 04:51 AM
The government shouldn't hinder free speech in any way. If somebody wants to yell fire in a theater, let them. But let them also deal with the reprocutions of what their communty will do afterwards.
to me, this is revolution. for example, when david horowitz wrote that racist ad attacking the reparations movement and even going so far as to claim that slavery helped Blacks, the Black students didnt get the administration to censor from above, they didnt ally themselves with repressive authority, tho they did demand it not be published. when they saw that the authority wasnt on their side, they took direct action and destroyed all of the copies of the issue.

it isnt vigilante justice, its revolutionary justice. it is what communities do. take another example, rightists often make the tired argument that there will always be violent psychopaths, so what will we do with a murderer in a world without police? well, as a commie, i think a police force is necessary during a transitional socialist state, but where communities have graduated beyond that and police and armed state organs dont exist, it is up to the community to apply justice collectively. some activist communities try this today with varying results, whereby the victim of a violent attack or rape might trust their comrades over law enforcement officials whose real mission is repression of the oppressed and exploited.

the same goes with speech, tho i believe even more so. in the contemporary west, i would argue that demanding that something not be published by a newspaper is not censorship bcuz the bourgeois newsmedia is too busy censoring the truth and the left to make any claim that it would be censorship to not publish something rightwing. but better that looking to the benevolence of a bourgeois authority is taking the people along the revolutionary path of collective direct action.

if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, people can die. we hear in the news all the time about stampedes in sports stadiums, religious services, bridges, ferries, that kill sometimes dozens or hundreds or thousands of people. its a serious danger. so if someone does something stupid like that, law enforcement shouldnt be trusted, but the community can exact justice- the biggest danger is mob mentality, but with work and/or spontaneous sensible leadership that can be avoided.

in the end, the only reason that the concept of 'censorship of the right wing" exists is becuz the system and the conservatives are so much more adept at creating the concept. the system is far too busy marginalizing the issues and perspectives of the oppressed and the resistance to actually be able to censor the right, and any decision not to give a right wing perspective is honestly little more than a faux balancing out of the playing field. the system isnt even to be trusted at doing so, since it is largely done for reasons (or at least the effects are) of reinforcing hegemony rather than progressive reasons. and really, authority censorship of the right wing is little more than a falling out among thieves, and in that way sort of something to be applauded bcuz it increases internal contradictions. theres a dialectic there if you can catch it.

but communities must learn how to work outside of the system, to place their own demands on individuals, groups, or representatives of the system.

damn, maybe i should write a cover page and a contents section to this post, its gone on way too long

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What would be the point of limiting freedom of speech?

It's silly.

Restriction of freedom of speech itself will lead to many discouraged working class people and peasants.

[More Fire for the People]

someone will decide who is reactionair
I thought the widely accepted definition is reactionary = capitalist / a non-worker who favours capitalism.

[Brekisonphilous]

Reactionary is refering to a conservative person, who refers to manuscript to form opinions.

[socialistpunk]

I think that free speech is what you should be aloud to say without affending or harming a group or ethinicity

[Pawn Power]

One of our own members has written a fascinating artical on the subject of "free speech".

The Cost of "Free Speech" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) RedStar2000

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't even think it's feasible to try and limit free speech. And wouldn't trying to limit it make you look bad, as if you were rattled? I think it's vital that, post-revolution, we should allow opposing opinions, hell, encourage them, so that we can expose them for the bullshit that they are. Look what happened when scientists tried to ignore the Intelligent Design nutters. It didn't work.

Limiting free speech brings us scarily close to 1984 style orwellian nightmares. IMO.

-Alex

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 24 2006, 11:47 PM

someone will decide who is reactionair
I thought the widely accepted definition is reactionary = capitalist / a non-worker who favours capitalism.
So you want to restrict free speech to everybody who is capitalist or favours capitalism? Rigt, that's total idiotic. After a revolution, lots of people doubt what side they want to choose, even the 'opressed'. When they are restricted to talk about that, where is the will of the people and the political freedom. Really, stalinism is quickly reached.


One of our own members has written a fascinating artical on the subject of "free speech".

The Cost of "Free Speech" RedStar2000

That's one of the most stalinist, totalitarian and disgusting pieces of writing I've ever read about a leftist.

Really, we favour the will of the people and the force of freedom, right? That guy is an outright idiot.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 26 2006, 05:25 PM
One of our own members has written a fascinating artical on the subject of "free speech".

The Cost of "Free Speech" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) RedStar2000
It's wonderful. I loved the article.

I've had this debate too. I've lost so many times when I supported "free speech".

The only right the reactionaries have is to SHUT UP. That's it. If they don't, to the gulags with them. Work the free speech out of them. Lying hypocrites, they are! Where is the freedom of speech in capitalist society?!

Look how they run amok these days. They tell us communism "failed". They taunt the oppressed. They think that the people are blind to their depravities.

We will CRUSH reactionary ideas. They deserve no place in a revolutionary socialist society.

Viva la Revolucion!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Spirit Of Spartacus: That's just raving, sorry. :( You can't just have free speech for one set of views, and then tell everyone else to piss off.

In any case, we have to at least allow for the possiblity that we are wrong, we have to at least keep our minds open, or we are in a grave state indeed. And if we keep an open mind, we must let all voices be heard.

Personally, I try not to dismiss even the hardcore fascists out of hand.

-Alex

[More Fire for the People]

Spirit Of Spartacus: That's just raving, sorry. sad.gif You can't just have free speech for one set of views, and then tell everyone else to piss off.
Umm, yes you can? It's called silencing racists, sexists, and homophobes while permitting otherwise free discussion.

[*[email protected]*]

If you try to silence the people no matter how fucked up they are (Homophobes, Raciests, Sexists, 'Religious types' ect) then they will find another way to lash out which could lead to violence.



Instead let them speak, and the public will crush them. The writters, signers and other entertainers with open minds will sway the public into believeing they are just crazy assholes.

[Dreckt]

The only right the reactionaries have is to SHUT UP. That's it. If they don't, to the gulags with them. Work the free speech out of them. Lying hypocrites, they are!

Of course they are lying hypocrites, but locking them up just because they think differently will not work. People must want our society - if we begin restricting things, then what will be different from our current society?


Where is the freedom of speech in capitalist society?!

Then what is the point of revolution? What if an ordinary worker says that capitalism was better, or that this or that is not right/was better before? Are we going to send them to camps too?


Umm, yes you can? It's called silencing racists, sexists, and homophobes while permitting otherwise free discussion.

But they will be martyrs, they will get more supporters. Why? Because the new government will look scared, it fears these "voices", thus that is why those "opinions" are forbidden.

Instead of punishing everything wrong, try to educate them, show them what is right and why their views are wrong. The reason communism crushes all other systems is because it is hard logic - there are no "races" or "more successful people" in communism. This is our true weapon - the superiority of communism itself as an idea.


Instead let them speak, and the public will crush them. The writters, signers and other entertainers with open minds will sway the public into believeing they are just crazy assholes.

Exactly. Nazis, for example, can create their own parties and organizations, but extremely very few people vote for them, yet we don't live in a nazi society, on the contrary, most people stay away from racists and their organizations. By development in society people have naturally abandoned those ideas.

[LSD]

What do you think about the age old example to restrict free speech that we can't have people yelling "fire!" in a theatre?

Obviously that kind of activity cannot be allowed. There isn't even a question as to whether or not it should be permitted and, indeed, that's the only reason why anyone ever bring up that example.

The point of the "fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical is to illustrate that absolute free speech in absolutely all situations is ludicrous at face.

Unfortuantely, what many people fail to recognize is that it's the "absolutely all situations" part that causes the problems, not the "absolute free speech" part.

Absolute free speech works; what's more, it's a fundamental prerequisite to any free and democratic society. Censorship, by its nature, requires the presence of a coercive elite and nescessarily undermines the foundational principles of any populist or majoritarian society.

"Democratic censorship" is a contradiction in terms. The role of censorship, after all, is to ostensibly "protect" society from whatever "dangerous" ideas are being suppressed. If societ as a whole is to effect this censorship, however, it nescessitates that they study this "dangerous" material prior to censoring it! :lol:

You see? The only way that a society can be "shielded" from "reaction" is if they're not the one doing the shielding. And that means some sort of empowered elite "charged" with protecting the ideological "line".

Not only is that inherently anti-democratic, it's also inherently anti-communist. As no mater what you want to call this censoring body, it is for all intents and purposes a state -- the very thing that communism seeks to abolish.

Now that we've covered the basics, let's go back to the "fire" example. So ...is anyone still confused on how outlawing "yelling fire" is compatible with a policy of absolute free speech?

Well, again, the answer is location.

There is nothing wrong with yelling "fire"; there's something wrong with yelling it in a crowded theater.

It's much the same how there's nothing wrong with telling someone that you love them; but there is with doing so 24 hours a day to a total stranger -- the former being romantic discussion, the latter being stalking.

Certain locations have certain implicit rules about them and by entering them, you tacitly agree to abide by those rules. So when you go into a library, you agree to speak quetly. That doesn't mean that you don't have a "right to be loud". It just means that you've ceded that right by entering that one specific building.

Certain situations likewise have an implicit nature about them. When a soldier orders one of his men to shoot a man, he is merely using words, but because of the nature of the situation, those words nescessitate action.

When you yell fire in a crowded room, you are just like that soldier, barking out orders.

You are, in effect, "ordering" a stampede and, as such, you are putting people in danger. If there was a fire, causing that stampede was in the general interest; if there was not, then it was not.

But it's not the speech that's at issue, it's the caused action.


One of our own members has written a fascinating artical on the subject of "free speech".

Yes he has, and as much as he, and apparently others, enjoy linking to it, it's a rather one-sided polemic.

Although redstar poses his "papers" as debate exerpts, they are all carefully edited to favour his side of the argument. He also makes sure to only post so far as his last post, that way he always gets the "last word". :rolleyes:

If anyone's actually interested in the real free speech debates that redstar's "paper" is based on, however, I advise them to read the original (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44331).



Spirit Of Spartacus: That's just raving, sorry. sad.gif You can't just have free speech for one set of views, and then tell everyone else to piss off.
Umm, yes you can? It's called silencing racists, sexists, and homophobes while permitting otherwise free discussion.

Simple in theory, impossible in practice.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Of course they are lying hypocrites, but locking them up just because they think differently will not work. People must want our society - if we begin restricting things, then what will be different from our current society?

Well, the problem is...WHO must want the society we're trying to create? If you expect capitalists and the ruling class to "want" socialism, then I'm afraid you're very mistaken!



Then what is the point of revolution? What if an ordinary worker says that capitalism was better, or that this or that is not right/was better before? Are we going to send them to camps too?

Well, that's not really a valid argument. It's unlikely that an "ordinary worker" would say that capitalism was better, unless:

(a) He/she is masochistic and wants to be oppressed.

(b) We as socialists screw up socialism so badly that the workers prefer the old capitalist order despite its exploitation.

© He/she is a class traitor who sides with the bourgeois class interests...in that case they're an enemy of the People.



But they will be martyrs, they will get more supporters. Why? Because the new government will look scared, it fears these "voices", thus that is why those "opinions" are forbidden.

I agree. They will be martyrs. But for what cause will they be martyrs? The cause of the revolutionary proleteriat? No! They will be martyrs for the cause of the old, oppressive order. They will be martyrs for the capitalists. The people who carried out the Revolution, i.e. the Proleteriat, will NOT want to follow such "martyrs" anyway, unless the socialist system is not catering to their demands and hence has ceased to be socialist.



Instead of punishing everything wrong, try to educate them, show them what is right and why their views are wrong. The reason communism crushes all other systems is because it is hard logic - there are no "races" or "more successful people" in communism. This is our true weapon - the superiority of communism itself as an idea.

Peaceful persuasion cannot work for the reactionaries, whose class interests are tied to the present order. Those who CHOOSE to tie themselves to the old order will go down with that old order, to the dust-bin of history.

If we could convince the reactionaries through peaceful persuasion alone, then what's the point in having a Revolution in the first place? Why don't we just sit down with the capitalists and imperialists, tell them they're exploiting people and then work out a peaceful way to end this exploitation? How do YOU justify a violent Revolution if you believe in peaceful persuasion in all cases?

And by the way, I never said we should "punish" those who uphold the old order. We're not Fascists. In a socialist order, we should simply give them no outlet for their reactionary ideas. They will always introduce splits and revisionism among our ranks. When Nikita Khruschev allowed freedom of expression to "EVERYONE" (including reactionaries), that's when the process of revisionism started in the USSR.
And this process of revisionism ended with capitalist restoration.



Exactly. Nazis, for example, can create their own parties and organizations, but extremely very few people vote for them, yet we don't live in a nazi society, on the contrary, most people stay away from racists and their organizations. By development in society people have naturally abandoned those ideas.

How sweet! But sadly, history has proven otherwise. The Nazis started out as a little party ranting and screaming, and nobody listened to them. Comes the crisis of the Great Depression in Germany, and they find a way to fool the People. The result? The Nazis come to power.

Most people stay away from racists and their organizations in normal times. Yes. But during a Revolution, with so much upheaval and change, the reactionaries can easily find an audience for their nonsense. And when they do that, people like you regret having allowed them free speech. But then it's too late...

[Janus]

Well, that situation would be more of a safety concern and therefore should not be allowed.

Generally, freedom should be allowed as much as possible without infringing on another person's. In this case, it would.

Furthermore, I don't see who would actually do that unless they were mentally unstable. These types of hypothetical situations are probably rare at best.