Free Speech

[abbielives!]

i had a liberal tell me we shouldnt fight fascists because we would be violating thier free speech. :huh:
what is a good response?

[Guerrilla22]

If you live in the US, you can tell him that hate speech is not protected by the constitution.

[manic expression]

Society should not tolerate intolerance. Speech which is dangerous is not permitted in other cases. People are not islands unto themselves, what we do and say has an effect on others, and if that effect is racist and bigoted, it should not be allowed.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 13, 2007 05:24 am
Society should not tolerate intolerance. Speech which is dangerous is not permitted in other cases. People are not islands unto themselves, what we do and say has an effect on others, and if that effect is racist and bigoted, it should not be allowed.

couldnt the capitalists say that about us?
does this mean that free speech is bunk? (except maybe as a personal ethic)

[manic expression]

Originally posted by abbielives!+March 13, 2007 06:08 am--> (abbielives! @ March 13, 2007 06:08 am)
manic [email protected] 13, 2007 05:24 am
Society should not tolerate intolerance. Speech which is dangerous is not permitted in other cases. People are not islands unto themselves, what we do and say has an effect on others, and if that effect is racist and bigoted, it should not be allowed.

couldnt the capitalists say that about us?
does this mean that free speech is bunk? (except maybe as a personal ethic) [/b]
They have many times in the past, and they certainly will once we get some more momentum going. However, leftism is neither bigoted nor racist, and so such an argument wouldn't apply to us.

And "free speech" is, indeed, bunk if you ask me (others, like LSD, would disagree). The fact is that "rights" do not exist outside of the definition of society, and since society defines them, we can re-define them. There should be disagreement, but reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries should not be tolerated whatsoever. Free speech is just another word for permitting the spread of detrimental ideas, and that is unacceptable.

[Comrade Marcel]

Free speech is an abstract concept. There is no such thing as total freedom ever, only relative freedom. What you might view as free might create an environment of restriction and bondage for others. Including words, as words incite and ignite.

[RNK]

Yes, I agree... "free speech" is an almost useless term. One man may exercise his "free speech" and in doing so remove another man's right to freedom of quality of life. IMO, the rights of people to enjoy a secure and comfortable life free from discrimination and hate-mongering is infinitely more important than the right to run through the streets saying whatever I damned well please, and if I had to sacrafice my "right" to make racist remarks in order for millions of minorities to feel safe, then I'd do so in an instant, without hesitation.

[Fawkes]

Why aren't you allowed to yell "Fire!" in a theater? The reason you are not permitted to is because you are endangering others lives. Doing that is no different from telling people to arm themselves and shoot immigrants crossing the border. It is saying something that has a very high potential to harm someone very seriously, which is something we cannot accept.

[RNK]

Better example is why you aren't allowed to run up to someone and start yelling at them about how you're going to kill them and gut them like a fish and rape their mother. It's threatening and it is both verbal and emotional abuse. Surely no sane person can argue that we should let husbands verbally and emotionally abuse their wives because stopping them would be infringing on their "free speech"?

[abbielives!]

i agree that nazis need to be fought, but the issue brings up some interesting questions:

who gets to decide what kind of speech is dangerous?

and how do we defend against comrades being arbitrarily labeled "fascist"? (like how the old left in the US used to accuse the new left of being cia agents)

[Fawkes]

who gets to decide what kind of speech is dangerous?
If a group of people seek the destructon of an entire ethnicity or people of a certain sexual orientation --- in other words, things they cannot change --- that is dangerous. This is of course disputed because of the fact that many leftists support the beating of fascists and speak "hatefully". In defense of those leftists, a political ideology is not the same as an ethnicity, and the only reason why fascists are violently oppossed is because many of them seek the total destruction or removal of certain ethnic groups.

[RNK]

It isn't about whether or not the speech is dangerous. It's about the justification of that danger. When I preach about the destruction of the ruling class, it is a defensive act, defensive against the harmful and oppressive actions of that ruling class. I say it in defense of myself and of everyone who is being abused or oppressed.

When a WN preaches about the destruction of the black or jewish race, it isn't out of any moral sense in them to defend against oppression. Blacks do not control America, and they do not systematically oppress whites. WN language is offensive in nature, not born out of any urge to defend themselves or anyone else, but born of an urge to offend and dominate blacks and any other ethnic group.

Of course, some WN's may claim that they are infact acting in defense of their "race". But historical fact does not back that claim up. And that's the main difference. The exploitation and abuse of minorities by white supremacists can be proven. But I dare any fascist to try and prove that they are being exploited and abused by an ethnic minority.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by abbielives!@March 14, 2007 09:36 pm
i agree that nazis need to be fought, but the issue brings up some interesting questions:

who gets to decide what kind of speech is dangerous?

and how do we defend against comrades being arbitrarily labeled "fascist"? (like how the old left in the US used to accuse the new left of being cia agents)
The people in control of society get to decide.

Comrades will always be targeted by a bourgeois government in some way or another.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by abbielives!@March 13, 2007 05:07 am
i had a liberal tell me we shouldnt fight fascists because we would be violating thier free speech. :huh:
what is a good response?
To me, it's funny that the same US liberals who say it's useless to do anything against Bush because he's a fascist, also say we shouldn't do anthing to protest real fascists because it would be violating their free speech.

I agree with the others who said that "free-speech" is a bourgoise illusion in modern society. In addition, hate-speech is not simply speech. The aim of nazi groups is to terrorize and intimidate the groups they target.

You could say it's free-speech for the KKK to burn a cross on the public sidewalk in front of someone's house. But is that speech designed to present some argument or opinion about a political matter - or to terrorize and intimidate people who "step out of line"?

[Question everything]

I always figured that after the revolution we'd do the same thing the US is doing shut ever one up by acting like patriot (or in our case revolutionaries) and being load mouths and jerks. For now though tell that liberal that if they were beating on his friends or him, he wouldn't be a preppy pacist, and maybe he should fight before that happens.

[RGacky3]

Free Speach is only free if everyone has it, its not free if someone is deciding what can be said and what cannot, be it an Anarchist of a Nazi.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:47 pm
Free Speach is only free if everyone has it, its not free if someone is deciding what can be said and what cannot, be it an Anarchist of a Nazi.

so how would you suggest dealing with fascists?

[RASHskins]

kill them

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:46 am
kill them

LOL

[RNK]

I agree.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:47 pm
Free Speach is only free if everyone has it, its not free if someone is deciding what can be said and what cannot, be it an Anarchist of a Nazi.
yay !!! liberalism rulez pass the joint

So basically, you're saying that you're perfectly fine with Nazis spewing their beliefs?

to the Orignial poster,

I usually say,

"I don't believe in free speech for fascists"

or I say

"Telling me to not suppress the fascist's free speech is suppressing MY free speech"