Free Speech

Looks like half of Holla Forums is for real while the other is just confused lolbertarians. Fuck your freeze peach and go back to Holla Forums.

Also without free speech there's no socialism because the state is gonna crack down on us for talking about it. Give capitalists free reign to suppress opinions they don't like and they're gonna suppress us first. Every socialist arguing against free speech is a goddamn idiot.

I have problems with punching Richard Spencer. It was tactically retarded and achieved absolutely nothing. It was literally just anarkiddies sperging out in public.

Maybe you would have a point if there was actually an ongoing revolution. There isn't though, and there won't be for a long while. Gathering up your lowlife friends to show those trash cans and windows who's boss is not "the revolution".

There's a difference between free speech and using a position of authority (platform) to legitimize things like genocide. There's a difference between talking to somebody and threatening somebody etc.

cia

The fucking irony of saying this when the radical left has consistently fought for Free Speech throughout its existence. Marx, Emma Goldman, Luxembourg they all recognized that free speech was a necessary part of building a free socialist society worthy of the name.

You accuse other of not being leftists but I 100% guarantee you're a college student who has never worked a real job or read any real theory. You just view leftism as an edgy identity you will give up in four years when you get a job with daddy's connections.

People like you are absolute cancer, please stop calling yourself a leftist and please stop posting on this board.

ANTI-SPEECH LAWS CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU
YOU DUMB FUCK
Over here in Australia, bullying laws were used to silence striking workers complaining online about being underpaid and treated poorly. It can, will, and does happen.

There's already a thread for this:

It boggles my mind that people don't understand this. A baby will not put its hand on a stove after getting burned once, but people will come back to censorship every fucking time.

What's not to understand? They're tumblrcunts who view the left as a tool they can use to virtue signal, and one of the virtue signalers' favorite tactics to appear moral is to label certain views immoral and crush anyone who expresses them. At this point I almost think they deserve the fascist society they're going to get by doing this.

yeah but i don't though

Fucking this.
/thread

Strayan here, link? this rings a bell.

OP, did you post as Broletariat before the 2011 bans on RevLeft? if so, you and the leftcom gang were pretty cool.

You guys need to look again
user is only talking about during the revolution

NO

So what you're saying is that you're retarded?

...

Sounds dangerous

Ok so your a kurdish fighter and isis rolls into a village and starts broadcasting their propaganda over a speaker system. Do you wait for them to stop before you shoot them?

OHP, guess we just have to leave them alone cuz it violates free speech

yes

opinion discarded

fixed that for you

dongs whalloping your face

...

What you fuckers dont understand is that user isnt talking about empowering a capitalist government to crush speech its empowering a revolutionary government to crush porky & fash speech

one of us sure doesn't

I don't care

...

BUT DO YOU THINK ISIS PROPAGANDA SHOULD BE ALLOWED? CHECKMATE FREEZE PEACH ADVOCATES

-t. Twitter

lol, a guy from Holla Forums criticizing user's post by calling it a post from Holla Forums, you fuckers have become sophisticated indeed

It circulates nonetheless. I don't see the point.

Thats right lefties, just lie down and take it, no need to fight back

jesus christ bordiga is pure cancer

cuz freeze peach. Would you support twitter changing their algorithms to make isis propaganda less common? or youtube changing their algorithms so when i watch one fucking video i dont get millenial woes and endless 'sjw cringe wreckt compilation' videos recommended to me forever and ever, radicalizing some kids who otherwise would have been harmless gamer neckbeards?

Why do you support the means by which people are converted to enemy ideologies, all socialists believe in seizing the means of production and that obviously includes the media, which when privately owned in insanely biased against the left

Yeah, but lefty twitter thinks that's a good argument. Our boy no-book muke was a fan of it.

If twitter would simply ban the isis accounts that wouldn't happen! lol, you cant argue suppressing islamist speech doesnt work by pointing to twitter

eh, don't even try user, these guys have been spooked so hard by porky propaganda about muh totalitarianism that they think any suppression of porky = evil

take your meds

lay down and take what? do words hurt you that much?

Those are indeed cancerous but that's a tech problem of control being centralized in the hands of twatter and youtube. And there's already a way around it. If you have Firefox or one of the forks, just get the Greasemonkey browser extension, and the Block Youtube Users script, which lets you to block users at will. I don't use twatter so idk what to tell you on that. It seems like they should let you block people.

Jim is a faggot

Thats fine for us, but are most people gonna do that? no, which is why the alt right is dominating online.

Ok consider this. Imagine your in WW2 in a russian tank and the order comes down to shoot a nazi radio tower.

OHP CANT do it, cuz radio transmissions are speech and that would be suppression of free speech.

socialism comes in america and you want to nationalize some tv stations to give it to the workers - ohp , no you cant because thats suppressing porkys speech

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if during the gulf war people argued that George Bush was 'oppressing' Saddams free speech by destroying his communication tower

the class war is a WAR bud

the same standards of polite civil society do not apply to it, why do you want to tie the lefts hand behind its back you pacifist

Too dangerous. No more left dictatorships, the last ones set is back too far

To add to this,
Grass Roots movements to terrorize the right and drive them out or underground is one thing, and organized state sanctioned repression is another thing

What does it feel like to be so absolutely BTFO?

idk Holla Forums why don't you tell us?

What is this perfect world people live in where everything can be debated? I'll never understand this reality in which some people some to exist.

Nah I'm pretty sure you'd know more about being giant fags.

Just keep doubling down, kiddo.

Agh that stings. You really showed me.

...

FUCK YOU FASCIST SYMPATHIZER, NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALALALAA

get annoyed until they git gud, just like more and more are doing with blocking ads?
Nice false equivalence. Destroying physical infrastructure a military force is using to coordinate direct, physical attacks on the scale of a well-equipped national army =! hotpocketing Stormniggers and Trumpens flinging spaghetti and making idle threats or Daesh's Comical Ali knockoff on social media
Personal free speech =! corporate or government think tanks shoehorning propaganda into everything and paid shilling yotsuba clones to death. The former should be protected, the latter should be illegal. The people should constantly criticize and seek to improve the system, not the other way around.
That would be really ridiculous considering the hilaribad bullshit the Iraquis were putting on air
Who the fuck's arguing politeness?
If somebody swings at me I'll swing back. If they're going to autistically screech memes or easily-refuted propaganda on social media until everybody is sick of their shit, I'm not going to stop them from fucking themselves over.
Also

Gee, it's almost like socialism is inherently totalitarian.

this.

free speech will be guaranteed by giving the means of communication of ideas to the workers. with this established the communal use of these tools there can only be socialist constructive free speech, as going against the foundation of this free speech will not be broadcasted through these means, it'd be against the collective interest of the workers using these and they wouldn't allow it to be abused against themself.

this is just as ridiculous as believing the capitalists would give their platforms to communist workers voluntarily.

as always, even freedom does not exists outside of the context of class struggle.

...

elaborate?

youtube.com/watch?v=lMc_cqZJ9LA

i'm talking about an established workers state and accordingly ownership over the MoP and the communication systems. i don't see the connection there.

Luxemburg was not refering to dissidents as in fascists and those who ordered her death but socialist free speech as in

If you give control of communication to anybody, they will use it. For better or worse.

/r/socialism is presumably controlled by Socialist workers, yet they are infamous for silencing other socialist workers for opinions they do not like. Even if /r/socialism was a real democracy, the users would probably not act much different, as the voting system shows. No one, whether a group or an individual, can be given control over speech, because they will inevitably use it to censor and silence views they believe are incorrect.

So basically, you would you allow free speech to fascists?

to ANYBODY? including the 'working class'? If you don't agree with giving the MOP to the workers your not really a socialist

not him but fuck off with your with me or against me bullshit

Yes, because the alternative denying people free speech because they are labeled fascists.

It is also absurd to say fascists are bad for what they say and not what they do. Many Holla Forumstards gladly call themselves fascists and nazis, but they're just basement dwelling retards, nowhere on the same level as brownshirts and SS soldiers, yet they can both be described as fascists.

Yeah fuck free speech.

The second you allow free press unless the entire world is communist you're going to gate a torrent of foreign anti-communist propaganda from every platform.

...

...

It's not the proles I'm worried about. It's foreign powers using "free speech" as a weapon to manipulate politics in their favour in concert with domestic fifth columns. As is exactly what happened with Gorbachev's dumb idea to allow free speech. If the entire world was communist I wouldn't have a problem with free speech, but until that point any socialist state needs to treat global politics like a war and offer absolutely no weakness that could potentially be exploited.

And it's not like capitalist countries haven't had the exact same idea and put it into practice. Not least of all the USA for all their harping on about muh freedumbs.

again, recycling the bullshit republic of letters/ free marketplace of ideas lolbert approach. Most leftists agree the free market does not produce optimal outcomes so why would a free market of ideas produce any better?

People aren't convinced by reason we are fickle social creatures who operate on peer pressure and consensus, therefore its a propaganda arms race, its easy to say 'free speech' when porky owns a megaphone to shout over everyone else, while leftists have to scream ineffectually into the wind. If free speech and reason convinced people, the world would have already been socialist long ago, its that cultural hegemony old Gramsci talked about

Lenin and Mao quoted him to a certain effect, saying that the opposite held true as well. Politics is a continuation of war by other means.

The idea that there is some clear boundary between struggle over the MOP and speech is a bourgeois idea, they are one and the same. Suppressing the Bourgeoisie isn't just taking their shit then allowing them to rant and rave and spend all their newly unemployed freetime doing anti-socialist podcasts 10 hours a day and doing propaganda sabotage etc.

If you're so insecure both in communism and in the competence of the masses, I'm curious why you're even a communist. You clearly don't think very highly of it's ability to speak for itself.
Any communist who goes against free speech is a retard authoritarian. Period.

You're literally describing fascism.

Well hello my fellow communalists, I was just reading my favorite author, John Lennon, when I had a thought. We should totally get rid of free speech, comrades. It would be so much easier to organize if we lost the right to speak and gave the government the power to censor those filthy commu- er I mean alt-right nazis and fucking excellent woman haters, right my gender non-descript friends?

Did you even read my post?

My point wasn't about "the competence of the masses". It was about foreign capitalist powers taking advantage of free press to use it as a platform for co-ordinated and heavily supported propaganda, which is historically what happened as soon as Gorbachev allowed free press and was absolutely instrumental in Yeltsin coming to power.

...

The Soviet Union fell because it was a degenerated, authoritarian state that no longer served the people. A democratic socialist state has nothing to fear from free speech.
The truth does not fear investigation.

sage

...

read

...

because the opinion of a stalinist is very valuable to me

Yes, the end of the USSR had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that western powers were working around the clock for the guts of a century to destroy it and those powers most certainly did not pounce at the show of any vulnerability.

And of course Yeltsin's victory and subsequent destruction of the USSR was legit and totally inevitable because the Soviets were evil. Western forces absolutely did not manipulate the shit out of Russian politics despite the fact that it seemed at the time that most people wanted to keep things largely as they were.

Yes, and that's why we can see so many democratic socialist states that have lasted longer than a decade.

Good thing you're so smart and above it all though.

so "emergency powers" then?

If socialism can't stand on it's own merits and has to rely on the same tactics that fascists use to survive, then socialism is a bad system. Sorry.
The benefits of socialism would be self-evident to the people who live with it, that's why all the democratic socialist states we've seen so far had to be suppressed by military force.
Authoritarianism is bad. Socialism is a vehicle to free the people, not to enslave them for a supposedly benevolent end. If a socialist feels the need to rely on fascism to save communism, they're not my comrade.

spinning in his fucking grave

All of you fuckers are so god damn spooked by lobert amerifag propaganda about free speech its insane, you imagine suppression of free speech as some sort of hollywood 'v for vendetta' dictatorship when in fact user was saying free speech for the workers, but not free speech for porky.

You are all spooked thinking any suppression of capitalist and fascist speech makes you emperor fucking palpatine, tell me would you allow capitalists to have the right to own guns during the revolution? the right to assemble and thus form groups? hell, why don't you give them their property rights back while your at it. Anyone who thinks class war should be fought with one hand tied behind their back because of some misguided bourgeois moralism is still spooked by porky.

All of this bullshit is based on the refuted, recycled lolbert trope of a 'free market of ideas',

Implying truth is convincing. Unfortunately human beings are not convinced by truth and reason, at least not in the short run. And as Lenin said if we had to do socialism peacefully we would have to wait 500 years for it!

If truth won, why haven't we won already? Either truth is not convincing, or leftism is wrong and we should all go home. Why is the alt-right gaining such an audience? because they're preaching 'truth'? or because marketing and narrative trump facts every time? I think anyone with a moment to reflect about it will come to the conclusion that human beings believe things because of a multitude of emotional and other reasons only ONE of which is reasoned debate.

Yes. And we know people are totally rational entities that aren't easily manipulated by propaganda because it's self-evident that capitalism sucks and literally everyone is a socialist.

lol.

Go back to /r/socialism you monumental faggot.

Fuck George Orwell. He's a literal snitch and his books aren't even good.

ad stalinim, noice bruh

...

Spooks are a meme. You don't just get to say "that's a spook" when someone says something you can't argue against.

see pic

says the guy using Reddit formatting.

wew

...

Is that the meme name for putting a blank line between your points?

Because you also are doing that.

Also

Oh my god. You're retarded.

Suppressing fascism by any means necessary is fascist? All violence is fascist?

This is an argument straight out of Sargon of fucking Akkads fucking playbook, its easy to say change and revolution are bad when your holding 90% of the property, thats why porky loves pacifism

What about if they don't suppress it by force, but instead sabotage the economy to wreck it and then use their massive media apparatus/empire that youve so conveniently left them with to blame it on socialism rather than the problems theyve created? Implying this isnt EXACTLY what happened in venezuela?

Again, what user is talking about is not 'enslaving the people' but rather not having bourgeious pricks like you moralizing against the working class when they use force to suppress fascism and capitalism, including the SPEECH of capitalists and fascists

Go fuck yourself, reddit

didn't know there were so many fascists on Holla Forums

Yes, the people that don't want to give free speech to fascists are the real fascists.

Jesus Christ, the pure undiluted liberalism you spew in each post is astonishing.

shut the fuck up and google this great man

And you dont get to ignore the rest of my argument by quoting only the first part

holy shit when did this board turn into /r/socialism?

it it walks like a fascist, and talks like a fascist, and strategizes like a fascist, then I don't care how many 14 year olds call it communism. It's fascism.

Should we let porkies and fascists own guns?
Should we let them own muh property?
Should we let them organize?
Hell should we even let them live?

If no, then why the fuck draw the line at not letting them have a platform for propaganda?
If yes, then you are indeed a turbo-liberal with spooks on the brain.

right and that will turn out perfectly and the authority that designates those allowances and non-allowances will for sure not turn selfish and turn it's back on the people like has happened every single time that logic has been used.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

Why are measures up to and including death permissible but not giving them a platform isn't?

Unless you're a pacifist who hates revolution this seems like a glaring contradiction.

Jesus Christ stop embarrassing yourself and read some theory use of force =/= fascism, fascism is a reaction against the rise of socialism, socialism is workers control of the means of production and you need a revolution and force to get to socialism

/thread

No, but I don't trust any authority to decide for themselves who is and isn't a capitalist or a fascists

Private property shouldn't exist

see first answer

you're a sociopath.

...

So in other words yes.

Right, killing porkies and fascists now is an unacceptable strategy for revolution.

Do yourself a favour and leave this board to never return, or read a fucking book. We're hitting levels of liberalism hitherto unknown outside of facebook.

Lol you dont need an authority to tell you whos a fascist, theyre marching in the street

As for capitalists its a simple matter once you nationalize a company to look at their list of top shareholders, its not that hard

Oh yeah and how would you make it not exist if porkies own it? by using 'evol fascist force'

"everyone I don't like is a liberal"

If you think we should let fascists and porkies organize, own guns and freely spread their propaganda you're absolutely a liberal. And if you think killing them is totally unacceptable you're a mega liberal.

Just join the Democrat party already.

Fuck off.

"hurr durr ur a liberal because you have morals and you think things I don't liberal spook DAE we should just murder everyone I don't like?"

What politics are there to manipulate? Why would the workers ever listen to some group telling them wage slavery is good for them?
The USSR wasn't a worker's paradise; it's self-evident what happens when a broken system sustained by authoritarianism liberalizes.

Convincing someone that Socialism is a better system is completely different than someone living in Socialism and seeing the difference. Convincing someone they're a slave and that being free is better is difficult, trying to convince a freedman that slavery is better is impossible.

Sage isn't a downvote.

You can't use the USSR as an example of a successful, free Socialist country being manipulated by foreign powers.
And who decides who is who? Who decides when the worker becomes a sympathizer, or a foreign capitalist agent, or a descendant of the bourgeoisie?
But they do act in their rational self-interest, and if Socialism is better for that, and they can clearly see that because they have lived in Socialism and Capitalism, then why would they believe some propaganda?

See post above.

What does allowing free speech have to do with allowing them to keep their instruments of propaganda?
And here I thought Venezuela was a failed Social Democracy that depended on oil money when oil crashed. I guess the people starving just think they're starving because of bourgeoisie propaganda.
Ah! There we go, already someone has called someone else a Capitalist and an enemy of the working class. Under your system if you had the power that means his speech muh privileges will have been revoked.
And who determines whether someone is that?

See post above.

Wut? Real socialism is anti authoritarian.

I fucking love it when tankies demonstrate exactly why their system is shit without even needing to get into power first.

Having an authority determine it is bad, having random individuals determine it is worse.
Alright, so because of their position in the hierarchy (which they were likely born into) and them acting in their rational self-interest, that means their rights, and presumably their descendants' rights, have been revoked?
This isn't an argument about using force or not.

People who obviously work against the revolution are counter-revolutionaries, therefor enemies and should be dealt with likewise. This is not the same as people who bear certain opinions which someone called "fascist/capitalist".

I'm mocking 14 year old titoist over there. Don't mind me.

If you're an ancom we may as well just end the conversation right here because we fundamentally disagree on an extremely important point and I can't imagine either of us changing our minds about that in this thread.

They already do. The vast majority of workers are fully convinced that the capitalist system is a good thing.
Of course it wasn't but in the foreseeable future we can never possibly get a workers paradise. There's always going to be some problems that foreign powers will be able to capitalize on and point to their own heavily distorted image and make out that adopting their system will make things better. This is the nature of propaganda, finding a weakness and exploiting that dishonestly.

The party.

Fucking what?
Looking at voting patterns in multi-party western countries does it seem like the majority of people are voting in their rational self interest?

But by disseminating those opinions they are working against the revolution. This is why we're saying we shouldn't give them a platform to do that. To do otherwise is just retarded.

Anyway I have stuff to do so I'm leaving this thread for now.

...

The US benefits heavily from neo-colonialism. You're probably not going to find very many Chinese sweatshop workers who support capitalism.
Also, you're implying that the USA has had socialism before I guess? All they've had is capitalism.
Socialism is getting more popular stateside anyway.

I hope you didn't lose too many good boy points for being out of bed this late.

News to me, isnt that what we're working on

Fascist/Capitalists are not someone who has a capitalist OPINION. they're only a capitalist if they own the mothefucking means of production

That's not what I meant. In liberal democracies there's a wide range of political differences, but there's no discussion on whether representative democracy is good or not and whether it should be changed, or voters should be disenfranchised. Similarly, in a Socialist state, there might be a wide range of disagreements, but no one is going to argue against Socialism.
That's because they live in Capitalism and are indoctrinated to believe that "it might not be perfect, but it's the best system there is". In Socialism they'd clearly see that's not true.
Name a genuine Socialist state/society that this happened to.
The post at the beginning of the thread about the party knowing best was satirical. Why would you even suggest a system that we've all seen the outcome to?
From the standpoint of what they've been taught about subjects they don't know much about. No senior citizen in the US is going to vote against social security or medicare.

Not only is that unproven, it goes back to me saying "because someone said it was fascist, that means it's fascist".

The difference is most proles don't know that capitalism is wage slavery, while if they experienced Socialism they would.

No, we're arguing about free speech, not whether force should be used at all.
And after a revolution, they no longer own it. Will we now judge them worthy of rights or not because they acted in their rational self-interest based upon how they were born?

whats hilarious is that ancoms also support expropriating the bourgeoisie, these guys are some sort of weird anarcho-pacifist chomskyite liberals. Alot of the characterizations of socialist expropriation ITT are straight out of fox news spooked grade ideology imo

what ive learned itt:

I leave with this anarcho-communist who explains the ethics of force:

youtube.com/watch?v=CXdV_IOggZM

as we know there is literally no middle ground between being an anarcho-pacifist and a repressive, orwellian stalinist. Literally no in between. You are one or the other.

bitch, please. No one is talking about punishing their descendants, or even them if they would merely go back to work and live a normal life rather than sabotaging the economy and being butthurt about losing their porky muh privilege.

Because your sitting here saying that expropriation of the MOP = fascism. How is there literally any more porky position than that. Are you sure you're even a socialist?

How exactly is the revolution gonna happen then? Well all just sit around saying welp guess we can't expropriate Bill Gates, I mean camon do we 'really' know hes a capitalist? *eyeroll* If a hierarchy can't determine whos porky and you say common sense can't be depended on, how the FUCK are we ever supposed to enact socialism? Are we just sitting in some epistemological never never land where who owns what property and corporations is just a mystery, and the top shareholders of publicly traded companies are just a 'oooo, mysterious mystery, don't mind the guy driving past in a ferrari'.

This is exactly the edge case being discussed though, what if some expropriated capitalist decides to be butthurt and him and his buddies sabotage the economy and then use their media to blame socialism rather than their 'wrecking'.

Porkys propaganda machine has been indoctrinating the fuck out of the masses for hundreds of years, do you really think the status quo of 'let porky propagandize as much as he can spend' is going to lead the class consciousness of workers to socialism?

...

which is something that I, of course, didn't say once. But, your argument falls apart if you don't infer massively unflattering things onto other people's statements.

Again, nobody is saying that they'll get to keep their instruments of propaganda.

There is literally zero discussion here whether expropriation should happen or not.

So, if they're butthurt that means you lose their right to free speech?
Absolutely no one has said that.
Again, this is about free speech, not expropriation.

They won't keep their media networks.

We're talking about a post-revolution society. In the current society, being against free speech is even worse of an idea, because while Fascists might be fucked, we'll be fucked even more.

take your meds

what a surprise the censorship shills don't understand humor or irony

Nothing says fash can't oppress other brands og fash. They're spooked enough.

piss off tbh

OP said:

So then we agree: its just about the 'degree' of oppressing their speech, then.

I don't see this clear demarkation between violating property 'rights' and free speech 'rights' they are both made up bourgeois freedoms, why is violating one bad but another a bridge too far?

Since you agree we will seize their propaganda instruments lets do another hypothetical example. What happens after seizing fox news and giving to the socialist media workers union, porky goes home, buys a printer to make capitalist propagand and posts it all over his city. and does an online youtube channel like Paul Jospeh Watson or the Blaze, but in his own house? is those considered grounds for seizing his property?

If yes you are suppressing speech, but if you say no you are basically saying porky can have a propaganda/media firm but only if its 'new media' on the internet. which in a few years will basically replace cable news anyway.

Capitalists are individuals, there is no qualitative difference, only a quantitative difference of the SCALE of propaganda

I just don't see why people are okay with fucking adults but not children. Why is fucking one okay, but the other is just a bridge too far?

That's the kinda thinking I can get behind.

Does that imply you think that porky is consenting to expropriation?

So oppressing porkys speech in a revolutionary context is as immoral as pedofilia to you?

ITT

With that kind of thinking all freedoms are made up by the bourgeoisie.
What's there to seize, his fucking computer and microphone? The difference is, at that level, his voice is just has loud as anyone else's. PJW is a retard and a lot of people listen to him, but his influence is pretty much nothing, compared to conventional news networks who essentially shape reality. When someone watches him, they know they're just watching a guy give his opinion, whereas when people watch the news they literally believe they're watching reality.

Except Capitalists don't act as individuals, like most people do, they act as giant news conglomerates shaping reality. Take that away from them and their opinion has as much influence as anyone else's.

...

So essentially, you would allow right wing new media companies, as long as they are not conventional radio/tv. Thanks for the clarification

Because their voice would be no louder than anyone else's, yes.
Keep dodging that point, it really makes your argument seem strong.

The only limit to free speech should be whatever any individual can bare with dignity. And when you can't bare it anymore, struggle with the other, and punch him if he really insulted you.

...

I mean it though, if you can't stand FOX, go throw a molotov through the window. You might be killed or arrested, but if you really can't stand it anymore, that is not an objection.

There are different gradations other than "innocent, immature child who needs to be sheltered from anything remotely sexual" and "filthy sex kitten ready to perform every disgusting erotic act in the history of mankind", and those gradations aren't organized according to the law. Kind of like there are gradations between "let porky blare his propaganda louder than anything else" and "ban every form of speech I don't like and take porky's computer and phone along with his toothbrush." Lack of nuance does at least as much to kill discussion as censorship.

...