Should hate groups be able to spread their hate?

[anarchy666]

I have always believed in freedom of speech (complete freedom,) but when I hear these KKK asses spread this homophobic/sexist/racist hate, I just want it to stop. I also believe in anarchy, so in an anarchist state, how could it be stopped? Should people be able to speak their racism/zexism/homphobia?

[Zurdito]

I believe in popular action to stop them, but not calling on the state.

Contrast with UAF in Britain which agrees with voting for the Tories to keep the BNP out!

[Mujer Libre]

In an anarchist society they wouldn't be stopped by 'laws' or any state action- because obviously the state wouldn't exist. Rather, I'd imagine that hate groups would be directly challenged (most likely verbally and physically- depending on what these groups were actually doing) by people who oppose them. Direct action in action, if you will.

[anarchy666]

[quote=Mujer Libre;1100048] because obviously the state wouldn't exist.quote]
When I said state, I ment like the state or condition

[mykittyhasaboner]

well the people would beat the living shit out of them for one, having probably just been through the overthrowing of the state. and also the kkk for one would cease to exist, for these haters would have defended the gov. during the revolt, thus, we would have killed them all!(or maybe not, just pointing out the possibilty)

[Robespierre2.0]

Simple. They would be dealt with according to how strong proletarian power is.
In a theoretical 21st century socialist state, since capitalists still control most of the world, I think they would be dealt with harshly- imprisonment and execution for the hardliners. The proletariat cannot afford to let agents of the bourgeoisie spread ideas that divide the working class while the class war is still raging.

I think as capitalist power declines, though, racists will be more few and far between, which means we'll simply ostracize these individuals.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Send them to forced labor camps. Well, leaders of bible thumping heterosexist groups should be forced at gun point to cross dress for the rest of thier lives.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No, in the society you refer, they wouldn't exist and they will not be bound by that nationalism ideas.

[Sendo]

I doubt racist ideology would hold much sway in an egalitarian and cooperative society where everyone can be provided for. As for nationalism, I think there would ideally be a federation of people's assemblies, that would take away nationalist fervor.

Corporate monopolization of the channels of communication would also end. Without the constant bombardment of propagandist lies the playing field would be equal. And assuming we are correct in being non-fascists, we should win the war of words. I don't fear paper tigers and cultish behavior, it is a symptom, not an independent force. Similar to terrorism or whatever: the tactic is not itself an entity, it is the result of frustration, desparation, legitimate grievances, etc. KKK and the like would lose all steam post-revolution.

Additionally, free speech means nothing if it does not extend to your enemies. The freedom to have gossip columns is insignificant, the only real freedom of speech is the absolute freedom of speech. By definiton you cannot have some Standards and Practices committee deciding what "acceptable" free speech is.

Let people in their personal day-to-day talk heckle the Klansmen and Neonazis.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I am slightly appalled by the results so far. People should be able to spew whatever crap their heart conspires - I sometimes enjoy having to read a lot of it online. :D

I think even threats should be tolerated; however, actually planning to physically harm someone should be resolved.

[thejambo1]

they should be banned and put down when and wherever they are found!! to many liberal people say that freedom of speach should be allowed but these racist etc organizations should get no platform to spout their garbage.

[Sankofa]

No, they should be muffled.

[Dimentio]

In an anarchist society they wouldn't be stopped by 'laws' or any state action- because obviously the state wouldn't exist. Rather, I'd imagine that hate groups would be directly challenged (most likely verbally and physically- depending on what these groups were actually doing) by people who oppose them. Direct action in action, if you will.

Sounds great. Mob rule rules.

[Dimentio]

Clearly, what is the definition of "hate" in this context by the way? If some dope (village idiots will always exist) sits on a park bench in the future anarchist society and shouts that the communists has placed remote-controlled GPS nanobots into his brain, I'm not sure that corrective action is needed.

Capitalism has survived for several centuries without being loved by the population. Not everyone will need to love the communist society either for it to work.

As for traditional xenophobic groups, I guess they will vanish down to a minimum.

[Dystisis]

I think the material conditions will basically make this entire question obsolete.It won't be in their interest.

As for any theoretical censorship, I am for a reasonable amount. But as said, I doubt it'll be a huge problem in the future.

[Coggeh]

Muffled and beat down whenever the situation arises , fascism should never be allowed to gain a foothold in any society .

[Reuben]

In an anarchist society they wouldn't be stopped by 'laws' or any state action- because obviously the state wouldn't exist. Rather, I'd imagine that hate groups would be directly challenged (most likely verbally and physically- depending on what these groups were actually doing) by people who oppose them. Direct action in action, if you will.

Im always intrigued by the attempts of anarchists to reconcile their desire for a stateless society with the percieved need to stamp out certain kinds of undesirable activities. Usually we hear some vague notion of 'people's justoce' and Mujer Libre has laid bear exactly what this means.

The obvious question is how will 'hate speech' be defined and who gets to define it. Presumably those engaged in direct action. And what of those who are not attuned to or able in the art of violence, would they get a say in determining what kinds of speech need to be 'physically challenged'? Of course the people as a whole could engage in some kind of democratic process and determine what kinds of 'hate speech' are sufficient to justify coercion, coercion which could be dispatched forthwith, but does that not sound a little too much like a state?...


The point about laws is that by specifically designating what one cannot do, they have the potential to make clear what one can do - ie the presumed right to do all that which is not illegal. Simply establishing the principle that groups and individuals can engage in direct action against 'hate speech' represents a potentially unlimited restriction on personal freedom.

[Mujer Libre]

Reuben and Serpent- you've both demonstrated that you have no idea how anarchists go about decision-making, and have jumped to the usual clueless conclusion about "mob-rule." Obviously, decisions for community action will be taken by communities, by consensus or whatever other means that group has agreed to use. It's not a question of villagers armed with sticks and torches.
Presumably those engaged in direct action. And what of those who are not attuned to or able in the art of violence, would they get a say in determining what kinds of speech need to be 'physically challenged'? Of course. Again, it would help to know a little about anarchism before you type...
Of course the people as a whole could engage in some kind of democratic process and determine what kinds of 'hate speech' are sufficient to justify coercion, coercion which could be dispatched forthwith, but does that not sound a little too much like a state?... See above...

[Os Cangaceiros]

There seems to me to be two options. I tend to look at it like this:

1. Freedom of speech exists, and hate groups say whatever they want.

2. Freedom of speech doesn't exist, and hate groups cannot say whatever they want.

In my opinion, the potential risks of freedom of speech disappearing dwarf the potential risks of some toothless yokels ranting about whatever group is destroying the fabric of society. Presumably, as Sendo mentioned, these ideas wouldn't even manifest themselves significantly in an egalitarian society, as our ideas are clearly superior.

I've often felt that those people who feel that hate groups (or "counter revolutionary elements") should be suppressed have a very dim view of the average person's intelligence and ability to recognize bad ideas when he or she sees them.

[Coggeh]

There seems to me to be two options. I tend to look at it like this:

1. Freedom of speech exists, and hate groups say whatever they want.

2. Freedom of speech doesn't exist, and hate groups cannot say whatever they want.

In my opinion, the potential risks of freedom of speech disappearing dwarf the potential risks of some toothless yokels ranting about whatever group is destroying the fabric of society. Presumably, as Sendo mentioned, these ideas wouldn't even manifest themselves significantly in an egalitarian society, as our ideas are clearly superior.

I've often felt that those people who feel that hate groups (or "counter revolutionary elements") should be suppressed have a very dim view of the average person's intelligence and ability to recognize bad ideas when he or she sees them.
Their should be no platform or free speech for hate speech , do you believe in absolute free speech ? would it be ok for a pedophile society to set up and propagandize about the wonders of touching little kids ? of course not so why should we let racists have a platform .
Fascists use democracy to smash it , would you allow hate speech in a football stadium when its being directed at one of the players ? no so why allow it out on the streets .

"Only one thing would have stopped our movement-if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."
Adolf Hitler.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Their should be no platform or free speech for hate speech , do you believe in absolute free speech ? would it be ok for a pedophile society to set up and propagandize about the wonders of touching little kids ? of course not so why should we let racists have a platform .
Fascists use democracy to smash it , would you allow hate speech in a football stadium when its being directed at one of the players ? no so why allow it out on the streets .

"Only one thing would have stopped our movement-if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."
Adolf Hitler.

People can say whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't act on their words.

And that's not to say, by the way, that people cannot be held accountable for their words, just as they can be held accountable for their actions. For instance, the much overused example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

And, again, if the average person/proletariat/whatever is so easily swayed by fascist and/or hate group rhetoric, even in an egalitarian leftist situation, then I think we're pretty much fucked anyway, wouldn't you say?

[Coggeh]

People can say whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't act on their words.

And that's not to say, by the way, that people cannot be held accountable for their words, just as they can be held accountable for their actions. For instance, the much overused example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

And, again, if the average person/proletariat/whatever is so easily swayed by fascist and/or hate group rhetoric, even in an egalitarian leftist situation, then I think we're pretty much fucked anyway, wouldn't you say?
oh course not , its the idea of their being an open fascist organization , u don't need that many members to start an org . they must never be given the chance to organize and free speech for them would grant them a perfect chance . not to long ago in madrid the pigs sided with fascists and arrested antifascist protesters in a demo , when these attacks do start on minority's do we let it for the law to stop it or do we sacrifice more antifa ? instead of just stopping it before it has a chance to grow .

[Vendetta]

I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats.


On the KKK. That basically sums up my opinion, more or less.

[apathy maybe]

That's a great quote.

Anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want. But if they expect to not have their views challenged...

When it comes down it is, groups like the KKK or nazis are a danger to society, and so while they can say what they want, they can take the consequences for what they say.

If someone comes around ranting about how women should be in the kitchen, or how "them towel heads" should go back to where they came from, they can expect to get called out, insulted and generally despised.

If someone comes around saying that anyone who isn't white should be beaten up and driven out of the country, then they should expect to be beaten up and driven out of the area. Fuck them.

[Reuben]

Reuben and Serpent- you've both demonstrated that you have no idea how anarchists go about decision-making, and have jumped to the usual clueless conclusion about "mob-rule." Obviously, decisions for community action will be taken by communities, by consensus or whatever other means that group has agreed to use. It's not a question of villagers armed with sticks and torches. Of course. Again, it would help to know a little about anarchism before you type... See above...
So presumably what we are talking about is some kind of commun8ity forum which which would make decisions aas to which forms of hate speech necessitated physical direct action?
Would it make general rules or simply respond to problems on an ad hoc basis, dealing with groups engaging in hate speech as and when they arise?

get back to me and vanquish a tiny piece of my ignorance on the matter of anarchism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Reuben and Serpent- you've both demonstrated that you have no idea how anarchists go about decision-making, and have jumped to the usual clueless conclusion about "mob-rule." Obviously, decisions for community action will be taken by communities, by consensus or whatever other means that group has agreed to use. It's not a question of villagers armed with sticks and torches. Of course. Again, it would help to know a little about anarchism before you type... See above...
Consensus? I'm fairly certain the person espousing radically negative hate speech will never relent to a baseball bat in their face.

What you're describing is mob rule.

[Black Dagger]

What you're describing is mob rule.

Actually it's called communism.

'Mob rule' is where a group of people take 'the law' into their hands (and consequently ignore existing law by their actions) usually in an emotionally charged manner without reasoned discussion or debate - how is that like a communist society at all?

In an anarchist or communist society there aren't state-sanctioned laws - so it is up to communities to decide what is an appropriate course of action in regards to localised hate groups.


]

So presumably what we are talking about is some kind of commun8ity forum which which would make decisions aas to which forms of hate speech necessitated physical direct action?

In most speculation as to a communist or anarchist society there is this idea of community associations/neighborhood assemblies - in that context, the matter of a localised hate group would surely be raised in a neighborhood assembly (though probably first in a household assembly) - perhaps as you suggest, a specialised forum may be held if the matter is deemed urgent/serious enough (such as if there is the potential of violence etc); either in the form of an ad hoc neighborhood assembly to tackle the issue or depending on the size of the hate group - of the association of neighborhood assemblies.

Given that this hypothetical is taking place within a communist society i doubt the violence would be the first resort of a neighborhood assembly (though of course this would depend on the nature of the hate group and other factors) - but how a group of this nature is 'dealt' with (if at all) would nevertheless be up to the community via their existing organisation.



Would it make general rules or simply respond to problems on an ad hoc basis, dealing with groups engaging in hate speech as and when they arise?

Both i think.

Community associations or neighborhood assemblies are usually envisioned as directly-democratic organs of a 'local community' comprised of the inhabitants of that given space, with each member of the community able to participate in debates, and decisions affecting this neighborhood/area - which includes establishing basic rules for the community.

James Herod talks of the following structure:



Households
Households are units of roughly two hundred people cohabiting in a building complex that provides for a variety of living arrangements for single individuals, couples, families, and extended families. The complex has facilities for meetings, communal (as well as some private) cooking, laundry, basic education, building maintenance, various workshops, basic health care, a birthing room, emergency medical care, and certain recreational activities. Households are managed democratically and cooperatively by a direct assembly of members (the household assembly).

Projects
Projects include all cooperative activities (more than one person) in agriculture and husbandry, manufacturing, higher education, re-search, advanced medicine, communications, transportation, arts, sports, and so forth, plus cooperative activities undertaken within the household itself (cooking, teaching, child care, health care, maintenance, etc.). The buildings are designed and constructed for these various activities. Internally, projects are managed democratically and cooperatively by a direct assembly of members (the project assembly). Some projects, perhaps most, are controlled, in the larger sense, directly by the neighborhood, through the neighborhood assembly. Other projects are controlled by agreements worked out among sev-eral or many neighborhood assemblies.

Peer Circles
Peer circles are units of roughly thirty to fifty people. All persons in the neighborhood belong to just one peer circle, located at their primary project. For some this is in the household, but for most it is located at a project outside the household or even outside the neighborhood. All projects are broken down into such circles. These circles meet within the project to discuss issues and, where necessary, coalesce into projectwide general assemblies. Votes are taken within meetings, but they are tallied across meetings, within each project. Peer circle meetings are necessary because genuine face-to-face discussion and deliberation are seriously constricted in groups larger than fifty people.
Because households contain many persons whose primary project is not within the household, but who are nevertheless living there and will want to be engaged in the self-governing of the household, I will refer to the household assembly as a distinct entity, different from project (workplace) assemblies, even though the household includes peer circles for such projects as cooking, teaching, child care, and health care.

Neighborhood Assembly
The neighborhood assembly is the core social creation. It is an assembly of the entire neighborhood, roughly two thousand people, meeting in a large hall designed to facilitate directly democratic discussion and decision making. In practice, of course, the size of neighborhood assemblies will vary considerably. Yet its upper limit is determined by the number of people who can meet in one large hall and still engage in democratic, face-to-face, unmediated decision making.

An Association of Neighborhood Assemblies
Neighborhood assemblies join together, by means of a pact or a treaty agreement, to form a larger association. An overall agreement defines the association in general, and there are also specific agreements for particular projects.

The neighborhood assembly is the neighborhood governing itself.

The neighborhood makes its own rules, allocates its own resources and energies, and negotiates its own treaties with other neighbor-hoods. The neighborhood controls the land on which it sits, and all projects and households within it.


----------



get back to me and vanquish a tiny piece of my ignorance on the matter of anarchism.

This is a matter of communism as much as it is one of anarchism.

[Unicorn]

In a socialist society hate groups should be banned. Today the capitalists would just exploit "anti-hate" laws to go after communist groups.

[Black Cross]

I think the material conditions will basically make this entire question obsolete.It won't be in their interest.

I'm not so sure creating an egalitarian community will end hate, or even hate speech. And just cos it's not in their interest doesn't mean they won't do it. It's not in my interest to go head to head with cappie pricks, but I do it anyway. On the other hand (maybe this is what you meant and I'm just dumb), I don't know why the kkk, nazis, cappies or the like would come to a communist/anarchist society unless it was with a military. If they had just come to start shit, they should definitely be dealt with. Brotherhood, as said by Malcolm X, is a two-way street. If they won't accept me, then why the hell would I accept them. Kick their asses out.

Sidenote: Funny that the majority on this poll move to muffle (I as well). We're all a bunch of fascists.

[Keyser]

I believe in popular action to stop them, but not calling on the state.

I agree.

The bourgeois state and it's institutions cannot be used by the working class to combat the fascist threat. The organised activity of the working class to crush fascism and hate groups is the only method open for revolutionary socialists, communists and anarchists.

Violent force should still be used against them though, including the killing/execution of those fascists who pose a direct threat of oppressing the working class and those fascists who engage in violence against the working class and other sections of society.


Contrast with UAF in Britain which agrees with voting for the Tories to keep the BNP out!

The Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is completely impotent in dealing with the fascist threat and the UAF's tactics and methods only serve to weaken both the organised working class and the anti-fascist struggle.

But the UAF is irrelevant in the wider struggle.

[Cencus]

In a socialist society hate groups should be banned. Today the capitalists would just exploit "anti-hate" laws to go after communist groups.

Most of Western Europe has anti-hate laws already and to my knowledge they are used, to my knowledge, almost entirely against racists

[Keyser]

Most of Western Europe has anti-hate laws already and to my knowledge they are used, to my knowledge, almost entirely against racists

That is not the case.

In the Czech Republic, the bourgeois government has already banned the youth movement of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and is trying to ban the party itself.

Communist symbols such as the hammer and sickle have also been banned.

These laws fall under the Czech Republic's ban on 'political and social hate crimes'. These laws also ban nazi and fascist symbols such as the swastika.

If you rely on the bourgeois state and the capitalist ruling class to deal with fascism, you end up giving away a great deal of power to the bourgeois state and ultimately the bourgeois state will use their powers against the working class and against socialists, communists and anarchists.

Remember, fascism is the political mechanism of the capitalist class and the bourgeois state by which to unite a divided bourgeois society against a strong and organised working class, to destroy it and use terror to stave of any challenge to the power of the bourgeois state and the capitalist class.

[Cencus]

That is not the case.

In the Czech Republic, the bourgeois government has already banned the youth movement of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and is trying to ban the party itself.

I said WESTERN Europe, to my knowledge the Czech republic has not magicly moved from east/central to west.

In thew U.K. hate laws have been applied, with mixed results against members of the B.N.P., in Austria & Germany anti-holocaust denial laws have been used successfully on many occasions against neo-nazis, most notably the imprisonment of Irving in Austria in 2006, the self declared historian David Irving, a hate monger of the highest degree who gives intellectual credence to the holocaust denial movement.

[crimsonzephyr]

I'm not going to vote because im a bit undecided. I think all should be able to say what they want but when someone says hateful things, who's to decide whats "too far"? At this point, in our current society, i think they should be restricted. Once or if a communist society is reached, we shouldn't have to worry about hateful thoughts going mainstream.

I dont understand why someone would hate another person but they should be able to say what they want. If they are allowed to say what they want i dont see how we can benefit from it as a society but on the other hand, how does not letting them speak help us?

[Partisano]

I believe that they should be free to say what they wish, y el pueblo is free to challenge their ideas. Ideas are not to be suppressed; they are fought with other ideas, and if there were plans to physically harm others, the gloves come off, and they shall be muffled.

[Cencus]

If it was shown by unbiased research (I know there really is no such thing but play along eh?) that after the peddlers of hate had given speeches, violence against ethnic minorities increased would it still be ok for them to spurt their filth?


Is someone's right to say what they want no matter the consequences more important than someone else's right to life without threat of violence?

[Unicorn]

I said WESTERN Europe, to my knowledge the Czech republic has not magicly moved from east/central to west.

In thew U.K. hate laws have been applied, with mixed results against members of the B.N.P., in Austria & Germany anti-holocaust denial laws have been used successfully on many occasions against neo-nazis, most notably the imprisonment of Irving in Austria in 2006, the self declared historian David Irving, a hate monger of the highest degree who gives intellectual credence to the holocaust denial movement.
Wrong. Muslim anti-Zionists have been convicted of hate crimes against Jews in Western Europe. In fact, more Muslims than Neo-Nazis are convicted of these crimes.

Although violence against Jews is not acceptable the sentences have been unjustly harsh since the perpetrators had no racist motive.

[Keyser]

I said WESTERN Europe, to my knowledge the Czech republic has not magicly moved from east/central to west.



The countries of both Eastern and Western Europe are industrialised, developed capitalist societies and economies with bourgeois liberal democracy as the adopted political system in all of those respective countries.

Thus all of the countries in both Eastern and Western Europe and their respective societies are similar in the nature of economics, politics and their class structure, not to mention the level (or lack thereof currently) of class struggle.

In short, what applies to a country like the Czech Republic can equally apply to a country like France or Britain.



In thew U.K. hate laws have been applied, with mixed results against members of the B.N.P.,


No 'hate law' will stop fascism and groups like the BNP.

Fascism is not the method by which the bourgeois state and capitalist class choose to rule society at present, because the power of the capitalist class and the bourgeois state are not at present faced with the threat of an organised working class and a revolutionary upsurge.

Fascism is a very specific political and economic method, used by the capitalist class and it's bourgeois state to crush the power of a organised working class and the threat of a revolution when the power of capitalism is directly challenged in times of deep economic and social crisis.

It is no coincidence that Benito Mussolini took power in Italy when the Italian bourgeois state was under threat from a possible revolution by the working class in the aftermath of WW1. Italy was in the early 1920s going through a peroid of intense class struggle and the capitalist system was in a state of paralysis and crisis and the traditional method of bourgeois rule, through a parliamentary liberal democratic system, was no longer able to preserve the power and serve the interests of Italian capitalism.

The same applied to Germany in the period of 1929-1933 and the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party to power.

If at any point in the future a similar era of economic, social and political crisis were to happen in Britain, with the British ruling class divided and paralysed by an upsurge in the militancy and organisation of the working class, make no mistake about it that fascism will become the methods by which the British ruling class would resort to, in order to preserve it's power. Such realities mean that 'hate laws' are irrelevant in dealing with the fascist threat.

As long as capitalism exists and as long as the bourgeois state exists, fascism will always be a danger and a threat. Only a working class led revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois state can put a permenant end to the fascist threat.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I believe in muffling racism, nationalism, and other reactionary anti-worker rhetoric as well as "muffling" stupid anarchist vigilante justice against such crimes.

[Awful Reality]

Put them in a gay interracial orgy.

To be serious, they probably wouldn't exist. There's no reason for Fascism in a communist state. However, if they did, send them to re-education.

If they started acting upon it, kill them.

[Sendo]

Put them in a gay interracial orgy.

To be serious, they probably wouldn't exist. There's no reason for Fascism in a communist state. However, if they did, send them to re-education.

If they started acting upon it, kill them.

you think there is no possibility to reform people?
Do you think they are born good or bad, this absolutist, dichotomy of humans is too similar to Protestant Christianity for my tastes. Only kill people in self-defense or on the battlefield. Only cowards would kill loud-mouthed idiots. People can reform and if not throw them in prisons (which would only exist for violent crimes like murder) with or without labor. It costs very little to pay for prisoners' food and housing.

I'd watch that bloodlust, unless you've seen a man killed, no, unless you've known what it is like to kill someone you have no business advocating unnecessary violence. Use your discontent to be passionate and active; don't let it become the noxious poison of hate, it will consume and distract you. Too often I see people more concerned with going off on vendettas at the expense of his own group or organization, resulting in net loss by any standard.

It's one thing if someone comes after you; it's quite another to want lethal policing.

[scottlol]

Although free speech is essential for a free society to operate, there are limits. Obviously making threats based on someone's minority status or advocating genocide and the like should not be tolerated. I would go even farther then that because hateful words, even if they are not directly advocate violence, can be harmful to members of the community. An assault on mental health can be just as damaging as a physical assault.

[Crest]

I think it would be best to ban hate groups, such as Nazi organizations or KKK spinoffs. The real KKK will never survive the revolution.
However, despite this, I don't thing it would be in the budding nation's best interest to waste money trying to end hate speach altogether, where money may be better off elsewhere. That would be up to the social movements dedicated to ending hate.

[Unicorn]

There was practically no hate speech in the USSR although nobody was prosecuted for that crime.

It is not a problem in a socialist society.

[Mujer Libre]

There was practically no hate speech in the USSR although nobody was prosecuted for that crime.

It is not a problem in a socialist society.

I think that's a terribly naive thing to say.

Firstly, how do you know there was no hate speech in the USSR? Secondly the USSR is hardly the flawless template for a socialist society. And thirdly, how do you explain the sudden, exponential rise in racist incidents in the countries of the former USSR since the early 90's? While certainly the steep increase in inequality and poverty has had something to do with it, I think it would be extremely fallacious to say that racism was newly imported with capitalism.

[Laurie]

I have been fighting discrimination,hate and it's consequences for a long time now.
I am 52 and entered this really young.
I have found through the years that their actions need to be squashed, but they, have the right and we have the need to let them go publ;ic.
Why?, it is very simple.
It is not easy to find them and halt them when they are forced underground.
In countries where they are totally censored they still continue to turn lose their hatred and recruit.
We all know about those underground publications and parties, probabl;y most of us have even supported or participated in them.
When we are above ground we are easier to detect and squash.
The racist build on the "forbidden fruit".
Ethically I can not say "silence" them because they do no matter what have the right to think as they want and yes even to discuss what they want.
HOWEVER..when they bring it to my hometown or anyplace else, we ALSO have the right to stand against them.
It is cheaper and easier to go after them uncensored then it is to have to run the sewer lines at night looking for them.
Laurie..I believe this is the forum I belong in LOL

[Laurie]

UNICORN!..I am going to disagree, I am in touch with Russian Antifa and your racist are among the top 10 in the world for violence and outright nerve.
You may not know they are there unless you are active antifa, but Russia is a notorious supporter of them.
Laurie

[RHIZOMES]

If we censor them, they only become martyrs. A better way is popular action such as Antifa to retaliate. But they should be allowed to say whatever the hell they want, just face the consequence. For example, if I said I wanted to kill everyone and I hated some random group of people, it would be my right to say it but noone would want to be friends with me because they'd think I was an asshole. Same with fascists.

[Comrade-Z]

Direct, transparent, participatory censorship.

For instance, if someone got up on a soapbox in a modern day town square and starting saying that we need a "Child Rape Party" that had a platform of forcing every adult to rape a child, that speaker would be heckled down and possibly threatened and roughed up if the person kept up at it after getting booed. Same thing with people in post-revolutionary society advocating something obviously wacko and dangerous such as Nazism. For things like ordinary liberal pro-capitalist sentiments, on the other hand, I think it would be more useful for us to engage them in open debate and refute their positions rather than just participatorily silence those opinions. We will have to draw the line somewhere, just as we implicitly do in the present day between things that are upheld by our "absolute free speech" and some things that our society (not to mention our government) see as flat out intolerable, abstractions of "absolute free speech" be damned. In general, I think we should lean towards engaging and refuting hate speech rather than just muffling it, though.

[KC]

What kind of revolutionary leftist wouldn't fully censor such groups? Seriously, the results of this poll are just ridiculous. Fascists and other reactionaries are our enemies. Should we really let them have such a powerful weapon as the media? Are you kidding me?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Let them say whatever they want, if we silence them they'll move underground and become more dangerous. My study and experience tells me the KKK is mostly dead and only good at holding barbecues and cross-burnings, neo-Nazis are the real threat and as long as we can see and hear them we're able to follow what they're doing.

[Comrade Rage]

Hate groups and their members should be muffled, bound, gagged, gualagged, beaten and toe-tagged.

This one is a no-brainer.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Hate groups and their members should be muffled, bound, gagged, gualagged, beaten and toe-tagged.

This one is a no-brainer.

Then you just prove their anti-Communist out-look to be somewhat justified.

[Comrade Rage]

Then you just prove their anti-Communist out-look to be somewhat justified.
It already is justified, as fascism and communism are incapable of coexistence. One must declare war on another, in fact, we are at war with the fascists right now, a war of words.

That war will not end once America becomes communist, and we will have to use any means at our disposal to rid the world of fascism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It already is justified, as fascism and communism are incapable of coexistence. One must declare war on another, in fact, we are at war with the fascists right now, a war of words.

That war will not end once America becomes communist, and we will have to use any means at our disposal to rid the world of fascism.

Then what makes you any different if youre willing to kill a man for his beliefs.

[Comrade Rage]

Then what makes you any different if youre willing to kill a man for his beliefs.
What makes me different is that I believe in total equality of the sexes, races, and a classless society. Fascists believe in a firmly regimented system of segregation and surveillance.

They stand for the enslavement of humanity, and I stand for it's liberation.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What makes me different is that I believe in total equality of the sexes, races, and a classless society. Fascists believe in a firmly regimented system of segregation and surveillance.

They stand for the enslavement of humanity, and I stand for it's liberation.

But in order to liberate most people you're willing to enslave other people.

[Comrade Rage]

But in order to liberate most people you're willing to enslave other people.Whom...fascists? Society needs to be protected from them and their random, racially motivated street violence.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Whom...fascists? Society needs to be protected from them and their random, racially motivated street violence.

What about protecting people from politically-motivated violence?

Let society take care of itself, people know whats better for them more then you or I do.

[Vanguard1917]

Marxists are 100% against state restrictions on free speech in capitalist society. We're fully opposed to allowing the bourgeois state to control and dictate public opinion. We demand absolutely unrestricted freedom of expression - even for reactionary scum.

After the workers' take power, and the proletarian state remains vulnerable to counter-revolution and is engaged in a civil war against its enemies, it's true that the workers' state will need to take exceptional and temporary measures to restrict the free speech of those who have taken up arms against the workers' state.

However, this will be a short-term measure. In the long-term, the workers' state, unlike the bourgeois state, has no interest in policing public opinion. On the contrary, socialist society will provide individuals with previously unprecendented freedoms, including a genuine freedom of expression - something which has never existed in capitalist society.



-----------------------------------------

For those who are interested, here's what Trotsky had to say on the matter in a 1938 article on the freedom of the press.

Freedom of the Press and the Working Class

A campaign against the reactionary press is developing in Mexico. The campaign is directed by the CTM (Confederation of Mexican Workers) leaders or, more precisely, by Mr. Lombardo Toledano personally. The object is to “curb” reactionary press, either by submitting it to censorship, or by banning it completely. The trade unions have entered the path of war. Decidedly incurable democrats, corrupted by their experiences with a completely Stalinised Moscow, headed by “friends” of the GPU, have greeted this campaign, which can only be described as suicidal. In fact it is not difficult to see that, even if this campaign would triumph and bring concrete results to the liking of Lombardo Toledano, the ultimate consequences will fall back on the working class.

Theory, as well as historic experience, testify that any restriction to democracy in bourgeois society, is eventually directed against the proletariat, just as taxes eventually fall on the shoulders of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is usable by the proletariat only insofar as it opens the way for the development of the class struggle. Consequently, any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor. In the last analysis, the accentuation of class struggle will force bourgeois of all shades, to conclude a pact: to accept special legislation, and every kind of restrictive measures, and measures of “democratic” censorship against the working class. Those who have not yet realised this, should leave the ranks of the working class.

“But sometimes” – will object certain “friends” of the Soviet Union – “the dictatorship of the proletariat is obliged to resort to exceptional measures, especially against the reactionary press”

To this we reply: First, this objection equates a workers’ state with a bourgeois state. Although Mexico is a semi-colonial country, it is at the same time a bourgeois state, definitely not a workers’ state. But even from the point of view of the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the interdiction or censorship of bourgeois papers is not at all a matter of “program” or “principle", nor an ideal situation.

Once victorious, the proletariat may find itself forced, for a period of time, to take special measures against the bourgeoisie, if the bourgeoisie adopts an attitude of open revolt against the workers’ state. In this case, restrictions to the freedom of the press go hand in hand with all other measures used in preparation for a civil war. When forced to use artillery and aviation against the enemy we will obviously not tolerate this same enemy maintaining his own centers of information and propaganda inside the camp of the armed proletariat. Nevertheless, even in this case, if exceptional measures are prolonged long enough to create a permanent situation, then they carry the danger of going out of control and, giving a political monopoly to the workers’ bureaucracy, becoming a source of its degeneration.

We have before us a living example of such a dynamic, with the hated suppression of the freedom of expression and of the press in the Soviet Union. And this has nothing to do with the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the contrary, it helps protect the interests of the new caste in power against the attacks of the workers’ and peasants’ opposition. This highly bonapartist Moscow bureaucracy is currently aped by Messrs. Lombardo Toledano and co. who confuse their personal careers with the interests of socialism.

The real tasks of the workers’ state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production – which includes the production of information – in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers’ state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation. One of the principal causes of the degeneration of the state machine is the monopolisation of the press by the Stalinist bureaucracy which risks to transform all the gains of the October revolution to a pile of ruins.

If we had to search for examples of the nefarious influence of the Comintern on workers’ movements of various countries, the actual campaign led by Lombardo Toledano would furnish one of the worst. Essentially, Toledano and his doctrinary companions try to introduce into a bourgeois democratic system methods and means which, under certain circumstances, might be inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, they don’t in fact borrow these methods from the dictatorship of the proletariat, but from its bonapartist usurpers. In other words, they infect an already sick bourgeois democracy with the virus of the decadent bureaucracy.

The anemic democracy of Mexico is facing a constant, mortal, daily danger from two directions: First from the foreign imperialism and, second, from the agents of reaction in the interior of the country, who control the high volume publications. But only those blind or simpleminded could think that the workers and peasants could be freed from reactionary ideas by the banning of reactionary press. In fact, it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.

It is essential to wage an unrelenting battle against the reactionary press. But the workers cannot leave a task they have to fulfill themselves through their own organisations and their own press, to the repressive fist of the bourgeois state. Today the government may seem well disposed towards workers’ organisations. Tomorrow it may fall, and it inevitably will, into the hands of the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie. In this case the existing repressive laws will be used against the workers. Only adventurists who think of nothing but the moment’s needs can fail to guard themselves against such a danger.

The most efficient way to fight the bourgeois press is for the workers’ press to develop. Of course, yellow papers like El Popular, are unable to undertake such a task. Such papers have no place among the workers’ press, the revolutionary press, or even the bourgeois press of good reputation. El Popular serves the personal ambitions of Mr. Toledano, who himself is in fact in the service of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Its methods: lies, calumnies, witch hunts, are methods à la Toledano. His paper has neither program nor ideas. It is evident that such a sheet can never strike a resonant chord in the working class, nor win them over from the bourgeois press.

So we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the struggle between the bourgeois press starts with the eviction of the degenerate leaders from workers’ organisations and in particular from the liberation of the workers’ press from the tutelage of Toledano and other bourgeois careerists. The Mexican proletariat needs a honest press to express its needs, defend its interests, broaden its horizon and pave the way for the socialist revolution in Mexico. This is what CLAVE intends to do. So, we start by declaring an unrelenting war against the bonapartist pretensions of Toledano. In this effort, we hope for the support of all advanced workers, as well as Marxists and authentic democrats.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm

[KC]

What about protecting people from politically-motivated violence?

Let society take care of itself, people know whats better for them more then you or I do.

Karelin declared that the Tsay-ee-kah had no right to pass upon this important question, which should be left to a special committee. Again, passionately, he demanded that the Press be free.


Then Lenin, calm, unemotional, his forehead wrinkled, as he spoke slowly, choosing his words; each sentence falling like a hammer-blow. “The civil war is not yet finished; the enemy is still with us; consequently it is impossible to abolish the measures of repression against the Press.


“We Bolsheviki have always said that when we reached a position of power we would close the bourgeois press. To tolerate the bourgeois newspapers would mean to cease being a Socialist. When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward—or go back. He who now talks about the ‘freedom of the Press’ goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism.


“We have thrown off the yoke of capitalism, just as the first revolution threw off the yoke of Tsarism. If the first revolution had the right to suppress the Monarchist papers, then we have the right to suppress the bourgeois press. It is impossible to separate the question of the freedom of the Press from the other questions of the class struggle. We have promised to close these newspapers, and we shall do it. The immense majority of the people is with us!


“Now that the insurrection is over, we have absolutely no desire to suppress the papers of the other Socialist parties, except inasmuch as they appeal to armed insurrection, or to disobedience to the Soviet Government. However, we shall not permit them, under the pretence of freedom of the Socialist press, to obtain, through the secret support of the bourgeoisie, a monopoly of printing-presses, ink and paper…. These essentials must become the property of the Soviet Government, and be apportioned, first of all, to the Socialist parties in strict proportion to their voting strength….”

-Ten Days That Shook the World


As for the question in general, Axel put it best.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Karelin declared that the Tsay-ee-kah had no right to pass upon this important question, which should be left to a special committee. Again, passionately, he demanded that the Press be free.


Then Lenin, calm, unemotional, his forehead wrinkled, as he spoke slowly, choosing his words; each sentence falling like a hammer-blow. “The civil war is not yet finished; the enemy is still with us; consequently it is impossible to abolish the measures of repression against the Press.


“We Bolsheviki have always said that when we reached a position of power we would close the bourgeois press. To tolerate the bourgeois newspapers would mean to cease being a Socialist. When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward—or go back. He who now talks about the ‘freedom of the Press’ goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism.


“We have thrown off the yoke of capitalism, just as the first revolution threw off the yoke of Tsarism. If the first revolution had the right to suppress the Monarchist papers, then we have the right to suppress the bourgeois press. It is impossible to separate the question of the freedom of the Press from the other questions of the class struggle. We have promised to close these newspapers, and we shall do it. The immense majority of the people is with us!


“Now that the insurrection is over, we have absolutely no desire to suppress the papers of the other Socialist parties, except inasmuch as they appeal to armed insurrection, or to disobedience to the Soviet Government. However, we shall not permit them, under the pretence of freedom of the Socialist press, to obtain, through the secret support of the bourgeoisie, a monopoly of printing-presses, ink and paper…. These essentials must become the property of the Soviet Government, and be apportioned, first of all, to the Socialist parties in strict proportion to their voting strength….”

-Ten Days That Shook the World


As for the question in general, Axel put it best.

Thats great for a soviet but as an anarchist I cant deal with the idea of ever banning free speech. To ban free speech is to become the repression and oppression we are all fighting against and doesnt help us but makes our enemies proven right and us more like them. These attempts to cage the human soul are against everything I stand for and believe in.

[MarxSchmarx]

One thing that's a major source of confusion in this thread is the difference between DE JURE and DE FACTO censorship.

There might be de jure freedom of speech where anyone can say whatever they want and we have full freedom of the press. But then there's de facto censhorship, like corporate self-censorship of certain stories that hurt advertisers. We leftists complain about this all the time.

I'll be my ranch that hate-mongering bullshit, like crap music, will get ignored. Even under capitalism it is dying. And there is everything to be said for creating a social and cultural context where this kind of crappery is ignored.

To invoke the STATE to come in and smash them is like killing a cockroach with a semi-automatic. It is unnecessary and has too many negative side-effects.

In the Red Utopia, and the transitional stage, I see little appeal for this kind of message. It simply won't resonate, and there isn't a need for LEGALIZED censorship. If a few assholes want to waste their time frothing at the mouth, I'll have better things to do then tattletaling to the people's militia.

[BobKKKindle$]

I do not support attempts by the state to apply censorship to groups which promote hateful ideas (for example, fascist parties) as this enables such groups to make it seem as if they are being denied free speech, and so assume the role of a victim, and would also establish a precedent for the imposition of similar restrictions on left-wing groups. Calling for state censorship is also an implicit recognition of the state's legitimacy, and so is a concession to the bourgeois political apparatus.

However, this does not mean that we should allow such groups to freely express their views, instead, we should confront hateful movements on the streets by holding counter-demonstrations whenever they try to hold a march or organize a rally, and at the same time we should also offer a political alternative to the groups which are often targeted by hate groups through agitation in working class communities. This position is radically different from calling for state-censorship and was adopted by the ANL in the 1970s to reverse the growing electoral success of the National Front.


There was practically no hate speech in the USSR although nobody was prosecuted for that crime.

In the USSR, various forms of "hate" were supported and enforced by the state, for example, through laws banning homosexuality.

[The Intransigent Faction]

*sigh*. Hopefully my reply sticks this time..unless I'm having delusions of posting when I really haven't.
In any case:
As important as freedom of speech is, I believe that such freedoms do come with inherent responsibilities to an extent. A good example, though I'm not entirely sure of the current status of this bill, is the "Defense of Marriage Act" here in Canada which would guarantee the right of the religious to preach hatred veiled only slightly if at all by religion. This Act would allow public quoting of scripture which condemns homosexuality..and as I've heard nothing to the contrary that would seem to include excerpts like Leviticus 20:13. In essence, this would legitimize death threats under the guise of religion. If one accepts the proposition that we should not use our freedoms to deny others of theirs, then this is wrong as it would deny much to the LGBT community. Emphasis is all too often put on the rights of the aggressor in these cases. Westboro Baptist Church is a great example. Westboro faced at least threats of serious legal action for their hate speech the moment they touched down here, as I recall.
On the other hand, as Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". The amount of attention given by the sensationalist press to such fringe groups due to their controversial nature only furthers their aims. Their claims are far more ineffectual when the argument that they are being denied first amendment rights is not validated.
So to summarize, I would say that freedom of speech applies to the extent that it does not involve outright threats, and that in the current system the best thing to do is ignore them. I do respect Iowa governor Tom Vilsak's legislature to ban them from disorderly conduct within certain distances of a funeral, however.
Of course I doubt anyone here's fooled by the media's invitations to Westboro. To people like Hannity & Colmes it's all in the interest of ratings.
My point remains that in extreme instances where any constitutional freedom is used to ultimately violate the rights of others, priority ought to be placed on those who are being denied rights. Otherwise, perhaps it is best to avoid that urge to tell hate groups to be quiet, and just let 'em rant on and expose their true nature.

[WorkingClassHero]

Personally, I think that hate groups like the KKK and the Westbury Baptist Church should be bound and gagged but... everyone has a right to their opinion, which can be an unfortunate thing at times considering some of the individuals that have this right. Overall, freedom of speech is one of the most valuable human rights there are. I think the limit ends when they begin to threat or endanger who/whatever they hate. (Not like they're not already just by existing.)

And since the principle of free speech applies to everyone, that includes the opposing side, the ones that overthrow bastards like that.:D

[Bitter Ashes]

Community pressure, not legislation.
Any legislation that forbids anyone to advocate allocating blame acording to skin colour or sexulity can also be twiseted to include anyone who allocates blame according to class.
As much as I despise groups like WBC, or the KKK, I think it can bite us in the butt if they're challenged in the wrong way it can deal a blow to the left too.

[Module]

I don't think there's a clear cut answer to this. In a communist society there is no economic structure to allow for a material exploitation of socially reactionary, divisive views to effect certain social group's access to work and resources. However, under capitalism there certainly is; "hate" can have real consequences for the social groups concerned. 'Hate speech' can hypothetically be "ignored" in a post revolutionary society, but I don't think it can be ignored under capitalism. I don't agree with state involvement, but I also don't agree with hate groups being allowed to spread their hate, by the community.
However, as Brad said, time shouldn't be wasted on some marginalised nutters that have little influence, or relevance to every day life. Certain 'hate groups', like the BNP for instance, have some leftists foaming at the mouth the minute they try hand out leaflets, and whilst they should be confronted, people shouldn't be treating them as if they're a major threat whilst there are far bigger (but perhaps less exciting, for some) threats to the working class - like capitalism for instance! - that seem to get proportionately little attention!

[Melbourne Lefty]

Not censored by the state, they should be opposed by the community, if the community doesnt want to oppose them then thats just too damn bad, using the state to restrict opinion is wrong.

[Sean]

Not censored by the state, they should be opposed by the community, if the community doesnt want to oppose them then thats just too damn bad, using the state to restrict opinion is wrong.
This. I'm always wary about opening the floodgates for state oppression.

[redguard2009]

Short answer? No.

Long answer: Why isn't there a "No - we should hang them upsidedown, stick a knife in their stomach and let them bleed to death" option?

Problem with free speech is that, taken to its extreme (propagation of hate and intolerance) can impede the basic human freedoms of safety and security for those who are targetted. Now you may say, "no tolerance for intolerance is hypocritical", and I'd probably agree. But I consider intolerance for spoken words and purposeful actions to be a far cry from intolerance for race or skin colour. A black person, for instance, can not help but be black -- a racist, on the other hand, can help being a dirty scumsucking bastard. Thus, the racist deserves a rusty railspike in both his kneecaps.

Even non-violent aural racism can have an enormously damaging affect against those it targets. Besides the obvious fear and shame that it can't help but bring to the surface in its victims, it creates a barrier to social and racial assimilation and co-existence as the victimized group -- who sees a great number of the majority race talking about their genocide and the rest of that majority race turn a blind eye -- sees itself more and more as a seperate people, a seperate society which introverts onto itself and makes racial divides even wider.

I've little doubt in my mind that if subtle racism that exists throughout the US today continues, we will see the race war that those fascist loons always go on about. Except it'll most likely be the victims instigating it.

[A_Ciarra]

In a post revolutionary world I wouldn't want any direct laws on speech in my community or whatever - however I would be depending on community members (along with me) to "oppress the oppressors" just short of barbaric behavior. Of course I'm kind of an animal and believe fascist's deserve zero rights - they are to be firmly oppressed (all but for thought crimes).

I would also hope that anti-fascist's around the globe would come to a consensus that massive awareness training on civil and human rights is needed, and that this would come along with the revolution. Imprison or execute fascist's and require the remaining population (including revolutionaries) to attend some sort of awareness training almost throughout their lives. Retrain the population, educate them just like you would with reading, writing and arithmetics. Where fascism creeps up, reform is in order.

I would also hope there is some sort of global constitution revolving around human and civil rights and that the people would tend to what goes in in their communities very firmly. Uproot the shit mentalities, be leaders setting a healthy example, and be willing to remove the rights of those that wish to practice fascism. If everything were allowed to fly, tyrant's would RULE the earth as they do now. This would also have to "be global" to give this f*cks no place to hide (or we will come after you there too).

:star:

[ibn Bruce]

My logic says 'let them say what they want, state censorship is a dark road to head down'... but my gut says that its hard to yell vitriol with a gun in your mouth.

I do not know which has precedence.

[Yazman]

I can't support censorship. I fight hard against it in capitalism so to make a turnaround and suddenly support it would be not only ridiculous but also hypocritical!

[pastradamus]

In answer to the poll I voted "no".

No Democracy for the Enemies of Democracy.

[Pogue]

In regards to this question, you have to look at it a certain way.

Most liberals when assessing this question, will look at it as though its freedom of speech versus none. They'll do the whole 'If we didn't let them speak, we're just as bad as them!' or 'What would stop them doing it to us!'

Well, the simple fact is, we don't live in a world where liberla democracy is pure and clean and solid. We live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, we live in a clas ssociety. There are enemies of our class, such as the fascist racist types who spread hate against gay people, immigrants, black people, etc etc. So we, as a class should fight them.

Should we rely on the state to censor them? Absolutely not. The state is run by the bourgeoisie and is our enemy. It does not have convictions, it does not have values. Yes, the state would censor us if they could. but more likely, they'd attack us if there was ever a proletarian revolution/uprising. As they attack us at the moment. So we should never rely on them. We should rely on ourselves, because those who spread hate speech divide and attack our class. The state will support them when it works for them. So we should censor them by opposing them, by countering their arguments and fighting back against them when they come to attack our class. As a class we have to stamp out this divise bullshit such as racism, homophobia etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

In answer to the poll I voted "no".

No Democracy for the Enemies of Democracy.

Interesting. How do you know who is an enemy of democracy?

- August

[ScarletShadow]

Interesting. How do you know who is an enemy of democracy?

- August

Sometimes it's hard to determine. Oftentimes it's... not.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

The first rule of society should be citizens need to respect equal rights and have equal rights.It should be put above evverything else

[Hoxhaist]

As Stalin would say words are weapons, we deny our enemy guns why would we not deny our enemy their words.

The words of the enemy will allow them to collude and plot and plan against the revolution and inevitably those words will become weapons to violently tear apart our path to communism

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I support freedom of speech but in this case it runs against the number 1 rule of a communist society


ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL,SHOULD LIVE EQUAL AND HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.


So I have to say they need to be outlawed.

[HoChiMilo]

if we want to censor them, we're turning our backs on the people on the hollywood blacklists of the 50s.

yes, action against them is fine. eff the state in the (A).

[MarxSchmarx]

As Stalin would say words are weapons, we deny our enemy guns why would we not deny our enemy their words.

The words of the enemy will allow them to collude and plot and plan against the revolution and inevitably those words will become weapons to violently tear apart our path to communism

The problem with this approach is that by banning words we inadvertently empower them.

This is one the key secrets to the unnatural longevity of capitalism. It realized that legal free speech is meaningless, that if they repressed socialist speech like the Japanese did then they are creating more of threat than if they let the communists say what they wanted to but be ignored.

Indeed, the very act of censorship uniquely empowers what is being censored. The analogy to guns is misguided and inapt.

We need to be confident enough in our own message that we can proclaim:

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

[Cynical Observer]

the state should vilify them with counter-propaganda, but it would set a dangerous precedent if they curtailed the right to free speech. of course if the people were to take matters into their own hands and start killing a few racists, well, i think the state could "overlook" that :D

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I think people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. If you wanna sit around with a couple of your friends and talk about how much you hate the niggers, spics crackers faggots ect, you should get to do that. If you want to have your own special newspapers about the aformentioned subject, go for it. But the minute you act on your violent words, thats when I throw a brick at your face.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Joel Feinberg, I believe, made distinctions for censoring speech. My professor in philosophy of law has a good example of restricting speech.

My professor says we need laws that prohibit yelling fire in a crowded building. Fair enough. Feinberg says we can prohibit speech that is analytically false. I'm not sure I agree with Feinberg.

Speech exists to communicate an argument. If you are unable to yell racial slurs at people, you can say "society should allow me to yell racial slurs at people." You can't say "nigger" communicates the idea that "society should allow me to yell racial slurs at people."

Arguments require a noun, or pronoun, accompanied by a verb. "Evil" followed by pointing communicates that, "You are a bad person." This makes this few seem a bit inconsistent. "Nigger" could communicate an idea, then.

Therefore, we consider intentions. If someone approaches you, in an attempt to convince you you're inferior, they have that right. However, "intention to harm" is given by the manner by which someone approaches an individual. Racial slurs are intent to harm. Censoring them communicates the idea that society disagrees with racism, by default, but that's legitimate.

As long as ideas can be communicated, that is the important thing. Arguably, censoring the means people can use to communicate is harmful. However, we weigh harm of censorship versus harm to individuals. Certain offenses aren't harm, according to Mill, but modern psychology suggests otherwise. Some offenses are harms if directed towards an individual.

Society could theoretically let enemies of the state speak "once a year" in a town hall. This would be too far. The line we draw is a fine one, and our motivation should be only to protect individuals from physical harm, perhaps.

I'm almost changing my vote to "never" after reasoning out my own argument, here. I'll have to think about it later.

[Oneironaut]

Like MarxSchmarx said, censoring people is only going to give them an excuse to ***** and moan about hypocritical leftists are. Let's be honest, do you actually think in a scarcity free society where people have the freedom to develop themselves and not sell themselves as slaves are going to buy into some hate group's propaganda? Capitalist society already views them as outcasts.

[BogdanV]

People should be free to say whatever they want, but then again, those with antisocial ideas should be "attacked" with rational, peaceful discussions, intelligently adapted according to the individual's mind.
In the end, education is the key, but you could also have some sort of commune police, made of volunteers, following the commune's laws as they were set by the people on their accord.

[Comrade Anarchist]

yes but if people were educated better then they wouldnt listen to them hopefully

[Oktyabr]

One of my own sayings has been: "Freedom of speech is fine as long as your speech does not infringe on others' freedom of speech"

Really badly worded, I just remembered it.

[Chambered Word]

And, again, if the average person/proletariat/whatever is so easily swayed by fascist and/or hate group rhetoric, even in an egalitarian leftist situation, then I think we're pretty much fucked anyway, wouldn't you say?

That's how Adolf Hitler got into power, because quite frankly I think alot of the masses and the public are complete morons. In every single revolution you've always needed a much more intelligent leader to give the revolution some direction. The public aren't very bright and everyone needs a leader to believe and support, and when Hitler gave Germany such a leader - especially in the hard times of the Depression era - who said he would be able to solve everything (even though there were so many logical loopholes in what he preached) the public bought right into the whole thing.

Freedom of speech should be allowed until people start using blatant deception such as completely false statements and statistics to use in their arguments (which is how alot of rightists and Evangelists gain support). There's some ambiguity with the definition of a hate group - you could pick out a socialist party and call them a hate group for hating capitalists and the current government, etc.

I say let them the hatemongers have all the free speech they want, and when we find out who they are we rally in a properly organized force and purge them. As long as we have enough balls and have the ability to smith some arms we can hardly lose.

[Mujer Libre]

The public aren't very bright and everyone needs a leader to believe and support
Sorry, if you have such contempt for most people, why on earth are you a communist?

[Invariance]

Hitler gained a 36.7% vote. That does not constitute a majority. It constitutes a vote largely supported by the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie factions. The working class comprised a majority of other anti-Nazi political groups. Hitler came to power via deals with conservatives and liberals alike. Lack of class consciousness does not equate to stupidity. Nor should communists show contempt for the failure of the working class to take matters into its own hands. Communists should constantly point out that potential and how it would create a better society. So far as "freedom of speech", I think there draws a line where merely putting forth an opinion becomes an incitement for racist attacks and racial hatred. I think those people should forcibly be made to shut up, and I'm unconcerned whether this upsets people's sensibilities of free speech. Obviously subtlety should be applied, however. Class war isn't about fairness, its about the violent suppression of the ruling class. This includes their ability to say whatever they want and to plead their defences of capitalism. The tears of philistines are the nectar of the Gods.

[just another alias]

this is not a simple matter at all

Although i am generally a believer of the freedom of speech, their must be limits!
i am an Arab living in America so i know exactly how the abuse of this freedom can effect people.

i propose that (for the first time) that there should be an intervention from the state. While people should be able to say what they want they shouldn't be able to target certain people like the KKK does with blacks.

Now, i do recognize the difference between "fuck niggers" and lynching one. but sometimes words can hurt as bad as actions

[Il Medico]

I hate to say it but freedom of speech can't just be free for some. They will probably just end up self censoring anyways.

[Il Medico]

Sorry, if you have such contempt for most people, why on earth are you a communist?
Yes, if you think the people are idiots, then why are you a communist?

[khad]

I think people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. If you wanna sit around with a couple of your friends and talk about how much you hate the niggers, spics crackers faggots ect, you should get to do that. If you want to have your own special newspapers about the aformentioned subject, go for it. But the minute you act on your violent words, thats when I throw a brick at your face.
Ha, then I say we allow free speech just to know exactly whom to target. :rolleyes:

[Nwoye]

i don't see how you could support suppressing any form of speech, no matter how inflammatory or disgusting it may be.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I look at the issue from both prespectives. Obviously different people are going to have different ideas about what "hate" is. For example, we promote tolerance and equality towards all groups of people, but certain hardcore right-wingers may interpret our ideas as "hate" since our eventual aim is to overthrow the Capitalist system. This could be interpreted as hatred towards rich people and other such things. Of course this isn't considered "hate" to us. Same goes for other groups. Hell, even Nazi groups. They don't usually view their message as "hate" while others do. With this said, all groups should be able to promote their messages, but of course there should be limits. Like obviously something like a Nazi group beating up members of minority groups completely unprovoked shouldn't be allowed.

[Eva]

The beliefs of a person should always be left entirely to the discretion of each individual. Also, I think that censorship ultimately ends up sweeping under the rug topics that are extremely relevant in today's society and should be out there for the public to discuss.

Strangely enough, having hate speech be out there for everyone to see, ends up being beneficial. It can be used as a tool to inform and educate the people about the history and prevalence of a very real threat to social justice, and the degree to which such beliefs are absurd and dangerous. The best way to create awareness and strengthen the civil rights movement is to allow these people to say (not do) whatever nonsense they want to say.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I agree with alot of your points, Eva. I feel that if an idea is more in the open more people can be exposed to it and learn about it. Like if more people know about the Nazi ideas of hate, more people will come to realize they're bad. Eventually they could be swept under a rug for being insignificant if very few people follow it.

[mikelepore]

It's interesting that the wording of the poll question is pinned to the goals of the haters, their objective to "spread their hate." Why not make everyone else the frame of reference for the question? No one's right to speak is safe if there exists any kind of permission committee that must pre-approve the contents of someone speech before the speech can be made. If you censors haters, you have just unleashed a power that will later be used again yourself.

[khad]

It's interesting that the wording of the poll question is pinned to the goals of the haters, their objective to "spread their hate." Why not make everyone else the frame of reference for the question? No one's right to speak is safe if there exists any kind of permission committee that must pre-approve the contents of someone speech before the speech can be made. If you censors haters, you have just unleashed a power that will later be used again yourself.
Then why does this forum restrict and ban reactionaries? Certainly a Commie Club member has an answer for this.

[mikelepore]

I wasn't around when that policy was enacted, and I can't explain all aspects of the subject. The policy is helpful in those circumstances when it prevents trolls and hecklers from disrupting one of the few venues of leftist discussion. It's not censorship because an internet forum is not a society where people live, and anyone can start their own forum for no cost. An internet forum is more like someone's own living room where they have invited friendly people to enter.

[swampfox]

Let the hate groups say whatever they want - they have the right to do so.