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]

[FONT=Arial]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.

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

[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.