Do you support censorship?

[Comrade Samuel]

I love how you are the second person who does not see the blatant and obvious contradiction between your introduction and the rest of your story.

"Oh no, I support free speech, except for X, Y, Z, Q". You want to increase censorship in comparison to what you are allowed to say now, and yet you say you support free speech? "Nope, I'm fine with free speech, except for those who disagree".

By that logic you seem to support entirely unrestricted freedom of expression which sounds like a great idea, that is some until a few racial slurs escalate into riots in the streets, the media is allowed to lie and keep the masses ignorant, exploitable fools and people are threatening one another so much that it just keeps the whole world in a constant state of terror.

It's not about not about putting away everyone who happens to disagree with us, it's about making sure civilized society can survive long enough for us to one day reach a point of world-wide communism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Ask stalinator if he supports censorship.

[Caj]

I do not support censorship, except for reactionaries, nazi's and anti-feminists, pornography and hate speech.
For some of them I would be lenient after the revolution, such as having them go through re educational programs. Nazi's, no. Hang 'em higher!

Condensed version: I support free speech for everybody that agrees with me and my personal morality.

OK, I never said I would suppress violence in media, normal pornography, or all free speech, but I think that women deserve the simple respect of not having men all over the nation seeing extremely violent pornography and learning from it (and I am a man!). I know that most men can tell the difference between porn and real life, but come on, some things just go too far and impede on the revolutionary leftist battle against the sexual objectification of women.

With the abolition of the wage system, pornography, like any other form of labor, would cease to be exploitation and objectification. Even under capitalism, there is no basis for the censorship of pornography, so long as it is consensual and between adults. It's like any other form of capitalistic labor; it's exploitation, but to illegalize it, and thus deprive the worker of this form of labor, would only make his or her situation worse.

entirely unrestricted freedom of expression which sounds like a great idea, that is some until a few racial slurs escalate into riots in the streets, the media is allowed to lie and keep the masses ignorant, exploitable fools and people are threatening one another so much that it just keeps the whole world in a constant state of terror.

Yes, because free speech is what leads to these problems.



This is how I think we should deal with the suppression of counter-revolutionary views: Instead of using coercion, execution, and "re-education camps" as Anarchrusty suggested (seriously, wtf?), let's simply deprive reactionaries of the means to communicate their reactionary ideas to a large audience. As socialists, we advocate the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat. The means of production is indispensable to the propagation of ideas. Simply deprive reactionaries the use of the means of production.

[Questionable]

I find it pretty unbelievable that revolutionary leftists support any forms of censorship, including hate speech. These laws are almost always used against us. Assaults on democracy hurt those who need it the most.

But shouldn't it be a tactical choice? I'm not going to say something like "Free speech is an unbreakable principle that must never, EVER be violated or bad things will happen" because that would be non-materialist (I'm not implying you do that, but I've personally met others with this logic). I support anti-censorship under a bourgeois state because it always serves the ruling class, but in a workers' state, there could arise circumstances where censorship of counterrevolutionary sentiments could further our cause.

[Ele'ill]

I don't approve of censorship.

[AdamWebster]

Censorship is wrong in all its forms, no matter the subject. Yes, racism and nationalism is wrong, but banning it won't solve the problem. Instead of making it a crime, or even simply blocking, educate these people in why it's wrong. Censoring it makes you as bad as they are, because you too think you're opinion is better than everyone elses.

[l'Enfermé]

An interesting work by Marx that touches on this subject. On Freedom of the Press.

Some quotes from Chapter 5, Censorship:

The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.

If the censorship law wants to prevent freedom as something objectionable, the result is precisely the opposite. In a country of censorship, every forbidden piece of printed matter, i.e., printed without being censored, is an event. It is considered a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers. It is regarded as an exception, and if freedom can never cease to be of value to mankind, so much the more valuable is an exception to the general lack of freedom. Every mystery has its attraction. Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers. The censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.

If the censorship is honest in its intention, it would like to prevent arbitrariness, but it makes arbitrariness into a law. No danger that it can avert is greater than itself. The mortal danger for every being lies in losing itself. Hence lack of freedom is the real mortal danger for mankind. For the time being, leaving aside the moral consequences, bear in mind that you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose with a free press?

And so on. I was going to copy-paste more quotes but it's best to read the whole thing if you're interested, it's worth it.

I just have to agree with Marx.

[gorillafuck]

when conflict increases, censorship will increase. it has nothing to do with whether your ideology espouses support for it or not. censorship arises from the tendency of the dominant order to maintain itself.

[Rooster]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.

[Caj]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.

[Questionable]

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.

Reactionary movements have lead the proletarians astray before. I'm definitely not saying they're "stupid," but fascists can make their ideas sound very good, and in the current society the average working-class member is probably too busy maintaining their livelihood to study the difference in politics.

[Brosip Tito]

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.

It's the authoritarian idea that the Vanguard and the workers' state is separate from the working masses. That the working class need not involve itself with the work of it's leadership.

i.e. it is dangerous.

[Caj]

Reactionary movements have lead the proletarians astray before. I'm definitely not saying they're "stupid," but fascists can make their ideas sound very good, and in the current society the average working-class member is probably too busy maintaining their livelihood to study the difference in politics.

We're talking about censorship in a post-revolutionary society. Class consciousness is a precondition for revolution.

[Drosophila]

To some degree. I don't think things like Fox News should be allowed to exist.

[gorillafuck]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.

I'll repeat myself.

when conflict increases, censorship will increase. it will not matter whether your ideology espouses support for it or not. censorship arises from the tendency of the dominant order to maintain itself.

this is why in the past, liberals, anarchists, and every sort of social libertarian has engaged in censorship and authoritarian methods.

[Brosip Tito]

To some degree. I don't think things like Fox News should be allowed to exist.

How would a corporate news network ran by capitalists exist in a society where all capital has been expropriated into the hands of the proletariat, and the mode of production changed to a socialist one.

If you are talking within current capitalist society, I will disagree. Censoring one group of capitalists over another only provides them the idea of martyrdom. Their opinion will come out, and those who believe it will believe it. Censoring anyone suggests that you fear it, or that people are too stupid to educate themselves (though, the FOX audience suggest that they are).

[Questionable]

We're talking about censorship in a post-revolutionary society. Class consciousness is a precondition for revolution.

But is it safe to assume that reactionary attitudes won't survive shortly after the revolution? For instance, what if sexuality prejudice was still left over in a post-revolutionary society, and the majority of the proletarians decided to outlaw it. Should this take place?

I'm not trying to be condescending to anybody. These are honest questions, and I'm sure most of the people here know better than me

[~Spectre]

No extra-weapons for the capitalist state.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I believe is Socialist Constitutionalism in which the Basic Law of the DotP would provide for the protection of GLBT rights and the rights of other minorities against majoritarian oppression. As a Luxemburgian and to my mind the dictatorial aspect of the DotP is strictly limited to prevent the bourgeoisie from restoring capitalism. Other than that IMO the DotP ought to be democratic, much more democratic that bourgeois constitutional democracies with respect to protecting human rights.

[dodger]

Truth the first casualty of war...we saw that in Vietnam. Coventry was allowed to be bombed in WW2 because to defend it would have alerted the Germans we had broken their Electra Machine. Making high blown statements about freedom and worthy pronouncements about an uncertain future is empty talk. If we want to take responsibility then we'll want to be served by a media that respects us that we can contribute to. We are after all literate, we can read, more importantly we can write. Some more lucid than others. For sure due to our work hobby's or life experience...or just a knack for the written word should make our press more vibrant. The collective approach is paramount, only then will we truly get to grips with the problem. At present our media is frankly dire. We know that. It has deteriorated it has to be seized and knocked into something worthwhile.