Free Speech Under Socialism

yeah it was justified, it's just that catalonia clearly did not live up to idealist anarchism

Free Speech is only threatened by authoritarianism and for the so-called "conservatives" to claim that only the "left" threatens it is beyond untrue.

HA!

when you believe in free speech so much that you send journalists to Guantanamo Bay

but in all seriousness I would have free speech enshrined in a socialist constitution

Well, the first thing you have to understand is that free speech does not exist. It's just liberal ideology that capitalists use to justify their own speech while actively suppressing the speech of everyone else. Oppressive speech becomes inherently justified because "muh free speech", but subversive speech is still quietly restricted and blocked and censored. Consider this:

1. Laws exist which restrict speech in order to protect capitalist interests, regardless of the existence of free speech protections. Copyright laws are the quintessential example, but other more specific laws exist such as it being illegal for American immigrants to be members of the Communist Party. Even when a speech law is not broken, there can be legal consequences; members of subversive political movements are often unfairly targeted by police, for example.

2. We don't have access to the means communication. Instead, we use communication platforms created and maintained and curated by the bourgeoisie, and on those platforms we must follow their rules. In many cases, access to these communication platforms is restricted to only the ruling class. We don't own the publishing houses, the social media sites, the television networks. We can only access them if we obey their rules and pay for their service.

It may seem oppressive and authoritarian to anyone hopped up on liberal ideology, but revolutionaries should not waste their energy defending free speech. It's not real. It's a spook.

This is a stupid, stupid assumption.
There's no point in making this concession - the fact of the matter is we can run our own sites and networks. 15 years ago, no one would confuse Facebook with some imagined "means of communication" that only the 1337est elites could possibly run. I know no-names who've created functional Facebook format mirrors for shits and giggles. The real problem, and it's a much bigger one, is we're allowing this consumerized mindset to seep into us and any functional sense of active unity to seep out. The more we believe it, and the more shit we allow to divide us when we do have some platform, however minor, the less we will be able to take advantage of what we do have.

...

thats such a hackish quote by bakunin, i mean wouldnt socialism already imply liberty?

anarchists are liberals that are trying extra hard to be edgy.
you can even tell that his "liberty" is more important than "socialism". not only does he create a false dichotomy within those (and btw. rejects safeguarding socialist achievements), he even displays socialism as worse than liberal capitalism.

Socialism is defined solely by who controls the means of production (i.e. workers themselves, rather than capitalists or nobles). It is, therefore, agnostic with regards to freedom of speech.

I personally strongly support it from egoistic (I want the right to say whatever I want), game-theoretic (rights need to be universal to apply to minorities, and nobody is in a majority 100% of the time) and pragmatic (free expression facilitates exchange of thought and therefore leads to better cooperation and reduces the number of blind spots and mistakes) standpoint. Admittedly, there are still ☭TANKIE☭s and assorted MLs (and a fresh influx of idpolers who jump into the radical bandwagon because they want to criminalize "hate" and forcibly remake social etiquette in their own image and liberals of all stripes* won't let them) who do not. Note that if you indeed value free speech, it would be hypocritical not to tolerate their retardation.

* note that US conservatives are in fact liberals. The words are not actually contradictory, they express different ideas altogether. Liberals support liberalism. Conservatives support preserving existing values. US of A is built on modern liberal values. Therefore…

...

A stabilized country is a whole different matter than one going through a revolution, let alone all-out civil war. I don't remember who used this figure of speech, but think of it like this: the less stable the ssituation, the shorter the distance between speech and action. In any civilized society, some crackpot going in a public place and literally calling for the mass murder of this or that people will be met with condemnation from the media, ostracism from society, and hopefully, truncheons from the police. Now if your country were a disaster zone, having lost WW1, getting burdened with massive indemnities, dealing with the enduing economic chaos and getting constantly beset by revolts, then that public speech just might turn into a pogrom right then and there.

So yeah, don't expect full civil rights while counter-revolutionaries still pose a material threat. The problem is ensuring that all rights will be reinstated once the dust clears, and States aren't exactly known for giving up any power they already have.

anarchists are not liberals

but they pretty much are

They aren't. It's fine to dislike them, but to ignorantly equate them to liberals makes you look retarded.