"Free speech"

[ECD Hollis]

My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 12:18 am
My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)
There is freedom of speech and there is disruptive behaviour on a message board. If you are not contributing to this thread meaningfully I suggest you refrain from posting in it.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 13, 2007 12:30 am--> (Jazzratt @ November 13, 2007 12:30 am)
ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 12:18 am
My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)
There is freedom of speech and there is disruptive behaviour on a message board. If you are not contributing to this thread meaningfully I suggest you refrain from posting in it. [/b]
But you guys are posting propoganda? :mellow:

And also, it doesn't matter, if you guys promote freedom of speech I should be able to say whatever I want.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+November 13, 2007 10:02 am--> (ECD Hollis @ November 13, 2007 10:02 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:30 am

ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 12:18 am
My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)
There is freedom of speech and there is disruptive behaviour on a message board. If you are not contributing to this thread meaningfully I suggest you refrain from posting in it.
But you guys are posting propoganda? :mellow:

And also, it doesn't matter, if you guys promote freedom of speech I should be able to say whatever I want. [/b]
We don't promote 'free speech.'

We don't tolerate racist remarks or trollish behaviour.

If you don't like it, go post on freespeech.com

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by Martov+November 13, 2007 12:35 am--> (Martov @ November 13, 2007 12:35 am)
Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 10:02 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:30 am

ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 12:18 am
My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)
There is freedom of speech and there is disruptive behaviour on a message board. If you are not contributing to this thread meaningfully I suggest you refrain from posting in it.
But you guys are posting propoganda? :mellow:

And also, it doesn't matter, if you guys promote freedom of speech I should be able to say whatever I want.
We don't promote 'free speech.'

We don't tolerate racist remarks or trollish behaviour.

If you don't like it, go post on freespeech.com [/b]
Racist remarks? :mellow: You didn't read any of that from me.

I'm glad to see that you admit to not promoting freedom of speech.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+November 13, 2007 10:07 am--> (ECD Hollis @ November 13, 2007 10:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:35 am

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 10:02 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:30 am

ECD [email protected] 13, 2007 12:18 am
My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;)
There is freedom of speech and there is disruptive behaviour on a message board. If you are not contributing to this thread meaningfully I suggest you refrain from posting in it.
But you guys are posting propoganda? :mellow:

And also, it doesn't matter, if you guys promote freedom of speech I should be able to say whatever I want.
We don't promote 'free speech.'

We don't tolerate racist remarks or trollish behaviour.

If you don't like it, go post on freespeech.com
Racist remarks? :mellow: You didn't read any of that from me.

I'm glad to see that you admit to not promoting freedom of speech. [/b]
I didn't say that you said anything racist. But you posts consisted of

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

which adds nothing to the debate.


I'm glad to see that you admit to not promoting freedom of speech.

We tolerate a difference of opinion but it certainly has confined limits.

This is a revolutionary leftist forum, for discussion on radical politics. We cannot have right-wingers, fascists and liberals interrupting every second post.

As for real life, I scarcely care what fascists, or any non-leftist for that matter, has to say.

I just disagree with them.

That isn't to mention anything about how 'free' your speech really is.

[Jazzratt]

Right this bullshit has snowballed and gone way offtopic.

Split.

[pusher robot]

Providing the existence of private property, you have no right to appropriate someone else's property to facilitate your speech against their wishes. This is not a publicly-owned website, so they can have any speech rules they want.

It is not inconsistent to advocate free-speech rules for public property and still oppose it in your own domain. I will defend the right of someone to burn a flag in public - that's free speech; but they are not free to burn MY flag, or on MY property. That is not hypocritical.

How this plays out when all property is publicly owned, I'm not certain.

EDIT: Having said that, it is often productive to seek the counsel of many voices. That is probably why this website, at their discretion, has chosen to do so, to their credit.

[Marsella]

So, those who own property have every right to decide how it is used or not used.

Which raises an important point: whom owns property?

As for public property, or collectively owned property, following your analogy everyone would have the 'right' to voice opinion, but I suppose that the majority would decide. If they find racist views intolerable, then those views would be suppressed.

Just like you don't find 'Societies for Paedophiles' or some other generally hated group in our society.


EDIT: Having said that, it is often productive to seek the counsel of many voices. That is probably why this website, at their discretion, has chosen to do so, to their credit.

I agree.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:36 pm
As for public property, or collectively owned property, following your analogy everyone would have the 'right' to voice opinion, but I suppose that the majority would decide. If they find racist views intolerable, then those views would be suppressed.
It was realized, though, several hundred years ago that such an approach is not desirable. Not only does it inexorably lead to the suppression of all unpopular speech, it justifies a level of authoritarianism highly toxic to a self-governing mechanisms. Thus, the principle adopted mostly by the status quo that the only limitations on speech using public property are those of absolute necessity: speech that causes an imminent danger, or ones that are purely practical and do not distinguish on the basis of the content of the speech.

[Marsella]

It was realized, though, several hundred years ago that such an approach is not desirable.

I assume you're referring to a liberal-orientated philosopher?

If so, quote him or summarise his argument (I assume its a he)


Not only does it inexorably lead to the suppression of all unpopular speech, it justifies a level of authoritarianism highly toxic to a self-governing mechanisms.

But why is some speech unpopular?

Revolutionaries and their ideals are despised in the most advanced capitalist countries.

There is a purpose behind it.

As economic modes change so do ideals, values, opinions.

Its why we don't have people wanting to kidnap Africans and make slaves of them.

I would imagine that in a communist society, those wishing to hire others and profit off them, would be looked down upon with the same incredulity. Society regulates itself far more than any laws. Laws are just the concise (although sometimes not :lol: ) expression of that.

Furthermore, self-governance is far more democratic than simple words.

Deciding how your workplace is to be run, voting on a particular thing in your local area; that is not authoritarianism. Quite the contrary. If you want an example of how democratic communist institutions have been, I suggest you check out the Paris Commune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm).

Briefly, the commune abolished the police, elected workers representatives (which were instantly recallable and paid an average wage, as well as being workers themselves).

Plans were also drawn up to foresee the control of the workplace by the workers themselves.

And this was in 1871!



Thus, the principle adopted mostly by the status quo that the only limitations on speech using public property are those of absolute necessity: speech that causes an imminent danger, or ones that are purely practical and do not distinguish on the basis of the content of the speech.

The limits on speech in regards to public property are only limited to those of absolute necessary?

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at so perhaps you could give an example which will allow me to answer this abstract argument.

Your argument seems noble but not particularly correct - speech is discriminated on its content. Are you saying that speech that causes danger to others is discouraged?

Well if that is the case, then I would imagine that the same would apply in communist societies - only that the definition of dangerous would change.

[pusher robot]

I assume you're referring to a liberal-orientated philosopher?

If so, quote him or summarise his argument (I assume its a he)

Here is an apropos quote:

Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.J. S. Mill, On Liberty


But why is some speech unpopular?
Because it is not approved of by the majority, QED.


Society regulates itself far more than any laws. Laws are just the concise (although sometimes not laugh.gif ) expression of that.

Yes, laws are a codification of the accepted social behavior. But we're talking about expression, not behavior.


The limits on speech in regards to public property are only limited to those of absolute necessary?

That is the principle at least for limits based on content. The status quo deviates somewhat, but that is the general idea.


Your argument seems noble but not particularly correct - speech is discriminated on its content. Are you saying that speech that causes danger to others is discouraged?Only speech that causes imminent danger ought to be prohibited based on content. What is discouraged is up to other speakers.


Well if that is the case, then I would imagine that the same would apply in communist societies - only that the definition of dangerous would change.

Imminent danger means actually likely to cause violence in the immediate foreseeable future. Like, the next few minutes.

[Demogorgon]

I know the internet is serious business and all but just how hard is this for people to understand?

It seems every board I ever post on, regardless of topic, has teenagers (or adults who should know beter acting like teenagers) whining about how their "free speach" is being censored because moderators have shut down their pointless disruptions.

It isn't the case, I believe strongly in free speach, but this is a fucking message board, it needs to have certain standards set if it is going to keep to its intended subject matter. There are some boards that let you post whatever you want and they often work, but for a dedicated politics site, particularly one dedicated to discussion of a particular political viewpoint, certain restrictions have to be maintained in order tos top the board from spinning off in unintended directions.

This isn't an issue of politics, it simply about sensible administration of a website.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

DAMN! Could someone just give me the gist of what this guy wrote?


Yes, this site is owned by somebody and they can censor whatever they want. Personally I think they shouldn't, but then again I don't know what this particular guy wrote.

I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 07:24 pm
It is not inconsistent to advocate free-speech rules for public property and still oppose it in your own domain.
First of all, it is inconsistent to advocate free-speech rules for public property and then oppose the existence of public property (which many of the more radical libertarians do; I am not accusing you personally of doing that since I am not sure if you fall into this category).

If all land was private property, and if the owner of a piece of land had the right to restrict speech on his property in any way he saw fit, then the only place where you could speak freely would be on your own land - which for most of us means only the interior of our homes and maybe a few square metres of land around those homes.

Surely you can see the evils of such a society, based on the very arguments you quoted from J.S. Mill.

On a separate note, if it is always wrong to silence a peaceful opinion, no matter where, when or how that opinion is voiced, then it is just as wrong to silence it on your property as it is to silence it on public property. If, on the other hand, the owner of private land has the right to determine speech rules for the land in question, then the owner of public land - whether the government, the people, or whoever - has the same right to determine speech rules on public land.

In brief, it is inconsistent to advocate different property rights for private and public owners. Whatever you can rightfully do with your property, the government can also rightfully do with its property.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 08:43 pm
In brief, it is inconsistent to advocate different property rights for private and public owners. Whatever you can rightfully do with your property, the government can also rightfully do with its property.
I don't think this reasoning is sound.

The distinguishing characteristic of a state is that it has the power to compel compliance through the threat of applied violence. This, I think, makes it sufficiently unique that one cannot generalize principles from the individual to the state or vice versa. To hold otherwise leads to innumerable absurdities.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+November 12, 2007 07:18 pm--> (ECD Hollis @ November 12, 2007 07:18 pm) My post was erased? So, you guys don't promote freedom of speech? Now you know why I am not a leftist. ;) [/b]
So the reason you aren't a leftist is because of the moderator actions of this board? No offense, but that 'logic' sounds more than a little childish.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/freakazoid_fail.gif
ECD Hollis, posts are merged/trashed all the time. It's not because RevLeft is some kind of police-state, it's because the site needs to be kept clean and easy to read. That's why we have mods.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected]
I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.
I happen to agree with you. However RevLeft is hosted in Germany, and to permit fascists to post, even in OI, would probably raise some legal issues.


pusher robot
It is not inconsistent to advocate free-speech rules for public property and still oppose it in your own domain.
Umm... yes it is, as it would make you a hypocrite.

But then again, as a communist, I oppose private property.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 15, 2007 12:15 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 15, 2007 12:15 am)


Comrade Slavyansky
I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.
I happen to agree with you. However RevLeft is hosted in Germany, and to permit fascists to post, even in OI, would probably raise some legal issues.

[/b]
not only that, why should we have to justify ourselves to people who would gladly kill us given the chance?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 01:06 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 01:06 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am



Comrade Slavyansky
I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.
I happen to agree with you. However RevLeft is hosted in Germany, and to permit fascists to post, even in OI, would probably raise some legal issues.


not only that, why should we have to justify ourselves to people who would gladly kill us given the chance? [/b]
It would seem that often Revlefters have preached violence against the "ruling classes"- or at least rationalised its potential need. Yet this website survives.
Who has the greater devotion to free speech, then?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 01:40 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 01:40 am)
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 01:06 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 01:06 am)
COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am



Comrade Slavyansky
I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.
I happen to agree with you. However RevLeft is hosted in Germany, and to permit fascists to post, even in OI, would probably raise some legal issues.


not only that, why should we have to justify ourselves to people who would gladly kill us given the chance? [/b]
It would seem that often Revlefters have preached violence against the "ruling classes"- or at least rationalised its potential need. Yet this website survives.
Who has the greater devotion to free speech, then? [/b]
im referring specifically to the fascists.

If you want to talk about violence (and the discussion of) go and visit stormfront.

Personally, Im against a revolution via violence if at all possible but since the beourgioise will inevitably apply violent resistance its probably quite inevitable. If you look at the events following the russian revolution, the majority of bloodshed was a result of foreign intervention in an attempt to thwart the communists.

[Ol' Dirty]

This is a fucking website, not a country. This is a private website, so the owner can do what the fuck they like with it. Get over it.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 14, 2007 08:06 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 14, 2007 08:06 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am



Comrade Slavyansky
I for one have no problem with Fascists or whatever coming into the Opposing Ideologies section- I'll debate with them indefinitely if I have the time.
I happen to agree with you. However RevLeft is hosted in Germany, and to permit fascists to post, even in OI, would probably raise some legal issues.


not only that, why should we have to justify ourselves to people who would gladly kill us given the chance? [/b]
I wouldn't justify or reason with the fash, I just salivate at the opportunity to flame them, especially on my home turf (as opposed to trolling sf). Not to mention Jazzratt is the mod there, and he's very good at handling reactionaries there.

That might be a reason why we wouldn't have the fash in OI...too much flaming.