How far does a right to free speech extend?

[Diagoras]

I am just curious as to the range of opinion on RevLeft regarding whether there should be any restrictions on speech/expression. I have a few specific questions, but you are welcome to elaborate however you see fit.

-Is freedom of speech an absolute right?

-Should there be restrictions on libel/slander?

-Is the SC reasoning behind disallowing "shouting fire in a crowded theater" solid, or are ANY restrictions, no matter the "potential harm", unjustified?

-Does freedom of speech/expression extend to the protection (though obviously not endorsement) of racist/bigoted/sexist speech?

-Does freedom of speech/expression extend to "fighting words" or "hate speech" (i.e.- should only actions be punishable, not words?)?


Thanks for your time and opinions.

[BobKKKindle$]

Communists should oppose all restrictions on freedom of speech, not because we believe that there is an abstract "right" to speak freely, or that censorship if "immoral", but because an environment of free expression allows communists to agitate and spread propaganda without being faced with the threat of state violence. It is tempting to advocate censorship on the grounds that doing so will deny fascist groups a platform and prevent hate crimes from taking place, but the exact opposite is true - fascists try and portray themselves as victims who are being persecuted by the political mainstream because they seek to expose the failure of the establishment to recognize or address the needs of the dominant ethnic group, and so by censoring hateful material, the state will allow fascists to enhance this image and gain even greater support from the most alienated and abused sections of the working class. In addition, even if censorship is initially used against fascism, allowing censorship to exist as a tool of government policy lends it a degree of legitimacy, and creates the possibility of censorship being used against communists at some point in the future.

[KC]

We are against state suppression of speech but are more than willing to suppress the speech of our enemies ourselves (Nazi's, fascists, etc...).

[ZeroNowhere]

We are against state suppression of speech but are more than willing to suppress the speech of our enemies ourselves (Nazi's, fascists, etc...).
Wait, we are?

[Woland]

Hmm, what do people here think about the German law which makes Holocaust denial a crime?

[BobKKKindle$]

We are against state suppression of speech but are more than willing to suppress the speech of our enemies ourselves (Nazi's, fascists, etc...).

What form should this "suppression" take? If fascists hold a public meeting should we use physical force to prevent people attending, because we believe they could be won over to fascist ideas?

[KC]

What form should this "suppression" take? If fascists hold a public meeting should we use physical force to prevent people attending

Depending on the extent of the threat, yes.

[deLarge]

No, there should be no restrictions of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech "except here" is not freedom at all.

[ernie]

We are against state suppression of speech but are more than willing to suppress the speech of our enemies ourselves (Nazi's, fascists, etc...).
As long as by "we" you mean the proletariat.

[Cheung Mo]

I would have no problem with the use of violence to interfere with the activities of individuals and organizations advocating either fascism or theocracy. Anyone advocating a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/whatever state should be banned from holding political office.

[Diagoras]

I would have no problem with the use of violence to interfere with the activities of individuals and organizations advocating either fascism or theocracy. Anyone advocating a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/whatever state should be banned from holding political office.

I am curious to what degree of violence and to what extent of speech or activities? Would you make written words that are deemed (by whom?) fascist or theocratic illegal, public speeches, closed meetings...? I agree that no fascist or theocrat has any sort of right to wield power over others, but that isn't really a matter of "speech" so much as how power is distributed and to whom. Obviously they are related, but that is not really what I am curious about.

[Q]

We are against state suppression of speech but are more than willing to suppress the speech of our enemies ourselves (Nazi's, fascists, etc...).

To use another formula saying the same: no democratic platform for those who are anti-democratic. And yes, those would be fascists. Not because we're moralistically thinking democracy is "good", but see it as an objective condition for a socialist society.

[god0fmusic]

i say that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech, and whoever tries to repress your freedom of speech should be fought against till they allow you your freedom of speech.
if they censure one thing, they go on to censure another thing, till they take away all of your freedom. it pisses me off how teachers in school don't allow you to say what you want and when you want. school should be optional to beggin with, and classes should be open and "free" (free as in libertarian). they should be run through participatory democracy, but never denying anyone freedom of speech or thought. if people want to talk, it's because they have the need to talk, and the only thing which should be used to stop them is reason.
i mention schools because schools are the places where freedom of speech is almost completely absent.

the main reason why i am competely for freedom of speech is because people should learn their responsibility within a free society. if you opress people, they do not emancipate themselves. this is why the communist party fails, because it is coercive. people only learn to follow, and not to think for themselves. collective good is only achieved through individualism.

[choff]

I think if you place laws censoring what is considered "libel," "slander," or "potentially dangerous," you're opening yourself up to loose interpretations of said laws, and - potentially - further oppression. I object to the placement of any restriction whatsoever on free speech.

[Vanguard1917]

Hmm, what do people here think about the German law which makes Holocaust denial a crime?

Simple answer: Marxists strongly oppose such laws.

This post put it well:



Communists should oppose all restrictions on freedom of speech, not because we believe that there is an abstract "right" to speak freely, or that censorship if "immoral", but because an environment of free expression allows communists to agitate and spread propaganda without being faced with the threat of state violence. It is tempting to advocate censorship on the grounds that doing so will deny fascist groups a platform and prevent hate crimes from taking place, but the exact opposite is true - fascists try and portray themselves as victims who are being persecuted by the political mainstream because they seek to expose the failure of the establishment to recognize or address the needs of the dominant ethnic group, and so by censoring hateful material, the state will allow fascists to enhance this image and gain even greater support from the most alienated and abused sections of the working class. In addition, even if censorship is initially used against fascism, allowing censorship to exist as a tool of government policy lends it a degree of legitimacy, and creates the possibility of censorship being used against communists at some point in the future.

[bobroberts]

There should be no restrictions at all on speech. Any society where it is actually possible to restrict speech is probably one that is not desirable to live in.

[S.O.I]

in my view freedom of speach goes all the way to shittalk about other people... but theres nothing to say on the other side of that anyway so its not a big loss really;)

[Mindtoaster]

You will only need to suppress theocrats and fascists if they are actively winning over a majority or strong minority of the workers.

And if that is happening then guess what? You have failed at creating a socialist/communist society as no one would want a fascism/theocracy if the proleteriat was adequately meeting its material needs. Place absolutely no restrictions on free speech.

Not that Freedom versus Social Totalitarianism has anything to do with socialism anyway, its an economic system.

[S. Zetor]

Speech is not free at the moment anywhere that I know of, nor should it be, in my opinion. Of the comments above, I tend to sympathise most with KC's approach, though I'm not sure of course what it is in more detail. In sum, my view of freedom of speech doesn't boil down to "who has the right" to say something but to "who has the power" to enforce whatever limitations there are.

Freedom of speech is not a set of rules of who can say what, but politics, and thus the limits are just as liable to any reinterpretation according to the changing relations of forces in society as any other political issue.

I'm totally ok with formal banning of hate speech, for example. What is considered hate speech in pratice is a political process, which can't be avoided by amending legislation with a litany of definitions about what constitutes hate speech. It's good for many reasons to be precise, but it's for a good reason too why legislation has plenty of room for interpretation, with formulations like "for this, or that, or those, or for some other similar reason".

It can't be otherwise because reality always escapes formal definitions. Hence the importance of admitting that justice is always political (just like economy is always political), and can't be anything else. But of course there are schools of thought which believe that written legislation provides (or at least can provide, if you write it carefully enough) all the means for its own "proper" interpretation.

Good books on the topic of law, while I'm at it:

* Evgeni Pashukanis: Law and Marxism (1924)
* China Mieville: Between Equal Rights. A Marxist Theory of International Law (2005)
* Martti Koskenniemi: The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. The Rise and Fall of International Law (2002)

A couple of thoughts on what has been written in the thread:

- to say that there should be no limitations to freedom of speech (or for any other individual freedom for that matter), or otherwise we're on a slippery slope is an excercise in idealist thinking. The whole idea of a slippery slope is, in my opinion, idealist philosophy that tries to make pure concepts match with reality that's always full of contradiction. Definitions and the like are of course necessary to deal with reality, but reality always escapes definitions, so it's always kind of fuzzy. The point is that fuzzy can be accurate enough for all practical purposes.

- The German (and Austrian) anti Holocaust denial legislation (as well as banning certain symbols etc) is not too clever in my opinion, somehow it tastes pretty formal to me, though I tend to think it's probably not very harmful either. But I could be wrong, maybe people from Germany or Austria can give us their experience on what it means in practice. I don't think I would campaign for any ban like that, I think I would rather use my time campaigning for furthering and supporting immigrants' own activity to counter racism etc.

- with more unpolitical cases like libel, spreading false rumours in newspapers etc. I think punishment for that is right. With unpolitical I mean here e.g. claims that someone has stolen someone else's money, slept with someone else's spouse etc. when it's not true. That can be made political too, especially if it concerns people who are active in politics, and quite frankly I'm not a big fan of the paparazzi kind of freedom of speech.. I think it's got more to do with freedom to make money..

Probably in a socialist society where groups of people can publish what they want, gossip tabloids will have a place, because I think people will always be interested in gossip and who-did-what-to-whom kind of stories. But I think people's privacy (even of famous people) should be respected more than is the case now, by means of restrictive legislation too. I hate the hypocrisy of "but it might be politically important" what the prime minister does in his/her bedroom, and I'm all for shutting that kind of crap down.

-I tend not to find credible the claim that suppressing hate speech would benefit the right wing because they could then pose as victims (even though I afgree with Bibkindles' reasons for supporting freedom of speech otherwise). Whether or not they can pose as victims who by so doing gain the sympathy of a significant part of the people is dependent on other reasons.. like imperialist nationalism doesn't thrive on being a victim of suppression, but on imperialist privilege, and the fact that anti-immigration bigotry has a fair deal of support is more because they express sentiments and fears people have.. about losing their imperialist privilege. After all that's why the flow of immigration is mostly one way, to the rich countries.

At least in Finland both the far right and the far left whine all the time about being discriminated against. Either it's the "liberal" media (fascists) or "corporate" media (communists), but I haven't seen any change in their support.

- any freedom is always relative and up for negotiation if you're living with other people (whether in a house or in society). Circumstances change, and it's only to be expected that the degree of freedom can also change with them. In class society it's of course important to stress how this or that freedom advances movement towards revolution, and undermines capitalism and imperialism, but I guess it's safe to put it this way more generally too. That's way any demand for "complete freedom", if really made seriously and not tactically in a certain context, is a bit silly IMO.

[mikelepore]

In the U.S., they are mainly factual claims that are sometimes prohibited by law because they are considered harmful. This is what libel and slander have in common with "shouting fire in a crowded theater", false statements in an investors' prospectus, releasing information after signing a confidentiality contract, etc.

But expressions of feelings and opinions are almost always permitted. Being matters of opinion is what political, artistic and religious expressions have in common.

There are a couple exceptions. One exception is suggesting that someone should do harm to the president of the U.S. The other exception is any comment about hijacking or terrorism when you're on an airplane or in an airport. In these last two cases, expressing opinions and even making casual jokes are treated as criminal offenses.

Also, when suggesting an act that is illegal, there's a distinction between a general idea and a specific plan. You're allowed to say that one of these days someone ought to kill all the tall people, but you're not allowed to say that you suggest that we wait outside the local library next Thursday afternoon for the purpose of killing some tall people.

[FreeFocus]

The right to free speech is absolute, except in special cases. For example, there's no reason why someone should be able to shout "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire. In an anarchist society, members of a community could exercise the right of free association to bar a person who undertook an action like that from joining them in a social setting for a given period of time.

Libel can be exposed as lies. In an anarchist society, with the free exchange of information, it can be addressed easily and once the individual or group spreading purposeful lies that significantly harm others is exposed, the community can take appropriate action against them.

We are born with the innate capacity for language and for speech. If I utter words, they come out of my mouth, and I should be able to say what I want. If you initiate violence against me, you violate the principle of nonaggression and expose yourself as a violent, manipulative individual or group.

You do not have the right to forcefully prevent people from attending a fascist rally. People have the right to choose what ideas they believe. Might doesn't make right. If the fascists were organizing with weapons, fine, take it down. Otherwise, t's a battle of ideas and by resorting to force, you're making it seem as if our ideas are inferior.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

No, there should be no restrictions of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech "except here" is not freedom at all.
100% agreed.

[Robespierre2.0]

Under socialism, the degree to which freedom of speech is allowed will depend on the acuteness of the class struggle at the moment. Post-revolution, when the majority of people still have bourgeois influence to their consciousness, they can still easily be manipulated and swayed by propaganda- Reactionary ideas will spread like a viral infection and eventually lead to the full-blown restoration of capitalism unless the workers' government takes an active hand in suppressing them.

As always, the repression is exaggerated by the bourgeois media. If you support the workers' government or at the very least are indifferent to it, you have no reason to worry. If you are against it, be quiet and we'll still provide you free education and housing.

[duffers]

The right to free speech is absolute, except in special cases.

So it's infact not absolute then? This misleading rhetoric is rife amongst the questions of free speech.

Personally (and unlike our Lenin cult personality follower, I do not represent the proletariat), I believe fascism should be smashed by the fist and by the voice. They should not have the opportunity to justify their hate in anyway possible.

However, free speech in the absolute (without exception of "special cases) allows a lot of potentially undesirable elements into society. For instance, aforementioned fascism which is already very difficult to bear even today, where it is subtle and masked. But also issues such as pedophilia. I myself would be greatly adverse to such as act being promoted.

[Bilan]

Hmm, what do people here think about the German law which makes Holocaust denial a crime?

Suppression of opinion, however baseless, does not make it factual.
The suppression of the bogus holocaust denials is a much weaker tactic than using, and educating people on the facts of the holocaust, which make it very self-evident that the holocaust most certainly did occur.

[Coggeh]

There should be no restrictions at all on speech. Any society where it is actually possible to restrict speech is probably one that is not desirable to live in.
Are you saying a society which lets anyone shout anything racist/sexist in public at someone is a good one ?


I find it surprising when theirs some antifa thread up everyone goes ya , but then when we talk about what antifa actually do people go weird ?

[fabiansocialist]

Any society where it is actually possible to restrict speech is probably one that is not desirable to live in.

What about most Western states today, where there is some freedom of speech -- but it doesn't make any difference anyway as the words can't be translated into actions and realities? In the old days, tyrants, kings, and ruling elites were afraid of free speech because it could be used to subvert the existing order. That possibility has largely evaporated because the modern state/elite has at its disposal methods of propaganda, and technologies of surveillance, disinformation, and media propagation that were absent before -- as well as various unpleasant ways of nipping discontent in the bud.

What does "freedom of speech" mean when most people are glued to CNN and the round-the-clock media system of propaganda and disinformation? Who is listening anymore?

In short, we need to look not only at nominal "freedom of speech" but at ways of translating this into revolutionary action. That's the crux of the matter. We don't need more debating societies and people yelling their lungs out standing on soap boxes at street corners.

[FreeFocus]

So it's infact not absolute then? This misleading rhetoric is rife amongst the questions of free speech.

Personally (and unlike our Lenin cult personality follower, I do not represent the proletariat), I believe fascism should be smashed by the fist and by the voice. They should not have the opportunity to justify their hate in anyway possible.

However, free speech in the absolute (without exception of "special cases) allows a lot of potentially undesirable elements into society. For instance, aforementioned fascism which is already very difficult to bear even today, where it is subtle and masked. But also issues such as pedophilia. I myself would be greatly adverse to such as act being promoted.

Well, excuse me for not wanting to take a few additional minutes at the time to explain my idea in a different way. Fine, it's not "absolute," but it is a right that can rarely be tossed aside (really, only when others are directly put in danger).

While I do not like racists and will fight their ideas at every opportunity, to use force against racists who are merely expressing ideas is unacceptable. Their ideas are already poor and lack support, and you're saying we can't smash them intellectually?

[duffers]

Well precise articulation is part and parcel of conversation. Something is either absolute, or it is not.

Unfortunately, fascism in praxis has shown to be very underhanded and opportunist; I need not mention the rise of the Nazis, based on bogus claims and tactics. Crucially though, to listen and debate with these cretins is to justify their thinking. Fascism is a corruption of an ideology. As such, I don't recognise it as a legitimate political movement, and don't think these animals should be given the time of day.

[FreeFocus]

Well precise articulation is part and parcel of conversation. Something is either absolute, or it is not.

Unfortunately, fascism in praxis has shown to be very underhanded and opportunist; I need not mention the rise of the Nazis, based on bogus claims and tactics. Crucially though, to listen and debate with these cretins is to justify their thinking. Fascism is a corruption of an ideology. As such, I don't recognise it as a legitimate political movement, and don't think these animals should be given the time of day.

It's an internet forum. People make quick posts on occasion just to jot ideas down.

You don't have to recognize anything as legitimate. That's your right. You aren't justified in using force against people who are only talking, however. As I said though, if they had weapons, it would be a different story. As much as I want to see fascism, racism, etc, completely smashed, I don't think forcefully suppressing the ideas is the way to do it. If we undertook such action, the door would be opened to other things, namely initiating violence merely on the basis of what we don't happen to like.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Are you saying a society which lets anyone shout anything racist/sexist in public at someone is a good one ?


I find it surprising when theirs some antifa thread up everyone goes ya , but then when we talk about what antifa actually do people go weird ?

In a truly utopian society, that would not happen in the first place. I know this is a bit of a reach from reality, but that's why its utopian.

But if it were to happen, that would become the problem of the person shouting, and the person being shouted at and whoever is around at the time.

[duffers]

The need for precise articulation is even greater then.

Thoughts precede actions. Fascism being espoused is beyond thinking, this is views that this person supports and is willing to propagate towards action. And frankly, that a liberty that cannot be afforded to these cretins.

I don't not want to sully my consciousness trying to reason with these fiends, or get in the mud amongst them debating. I want to smash their views with my fist, unequivocally, and make it perfectly clear, that their thinking, however credible they or others perceive it to be is fundamentally wrong. You cannot teach an animal to eat with a knife and fork after all.