I hate to make on of /those/ threads, but who does and doesn't support freedom of speech on leftypol?

I have no problems with free speech, people can say what ever the hell they want.

Tbh the bourgeois are not dangerous if you strip them of property. There aren't that many of them.

You would if no one took you seriously and/or persecuted you for it

Agreed completely. We can't give freedom to people actively trying to undermine freedom.

The only exceptions to freedom of speech I have is when someone is making threats they plan to act on or trying to get people to commit a violent crime against an individual or group unsarcastically. I'm also against defamation and libel but I think how it is handled normally in law is fine. I don't support silencing opinions or people that say something offensive about a minority group or any of that kind of shit. I am against indoctrination of people more so children into religions but I'm not sure how that should legally be handled.

No but they will rally the prole against you.

I'm tired of these tankies pushing their agenda in every single thread about anything

Your mistake is a vanguard party. Parties are inherently corruptible and ultimately serve the bourgeoisie, so therefore the revolution can only happen once the proletariat is class conscious as a whole. You cannot force a revolution. It must happen organically by and for the proletariat.

i believe in freedom of speech if it doesnt upset anyone or disturb the natural order

You do realise that was evident bait?

Define that in your terms.

Vanguard membership would not be limited to just some aristocracy. Anyone could join the party and things would be voted on democratically. It would just have a harsher grip on the populous to enforce things. If you think you're ever gonna get fascist to be class conscious you're deluded.

Freedom of speech for leftists, tyranny of silence for reactionaries and liberals. We shall remove them from the political discourse like a surgeon displaces a tumor.

The problem with vanguard party's power isn't directly governed by the proletariat. Workers' councils should work as the organs of the revolution. The revolution should be directed by the proletariat, not a party that claims to work in the proletariat's best interest. Also, fascists would be a very small percentage of the population. They aren't significant, especially when the proletariat is almost entirely class conscious.

I'm for it because I feel removing it is a double edged sword.
I'm a mouthy person and I prefer being able to say what I want without getting my head cracked in all the time.

No. In the U.S. the proles would turn fascist before communist. The Vanguard can be kept in check I already stated above. I advocate a state and a vanguard with direct democracy that anyone could join. I also advocate stuff like law enforcement, being organized on a local level but funded by the state.

It sounds like you want more of a militia than a vanguard party. Also, class consciousness would form during intense periods of class struggle.

For some reason my NaziSense is tingling.

Kulaks' uprisings continued for a decade. Just giving you a heads up.

Did it ever happen organically? Because all revolutions that did not drown everything in blood (and almost always failed) were organized, not spontaneous.

I'm sorry, Step One of your revolution is to somehow make proletariat class conscious before you seize the power?

Yes, I'm a council communist. Revolution must be orchestrated by the proletariat, not a vanguard party.

But which of these organized revolutions have actually led to non authoritarian socialist states?

Not necessarily. I want a party that funds the nations. But I don't adhere to the traditional vanguard notion no.

There's nothing wrong with crushing your political opponents.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It's like you people never read Marx.

Freedom of speech is a meme and all but pointless if no one is saying anything worthwhile.

Freedom of speech is cool, because I'm the only one who gets to use it consciously.

ShMa V:4

I agree to a limit. The bourgeoisie and other people who contributed to the exploitation of the proletariat should be put to the guillotine, however this can be done in a libertarian way via workers' councils. People who simply have different opinions should not be put to death.

Marx was quite vague in his description of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You could perceive it as an authoritarian dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, but you could also perceive it as workers' rule through democratic means, or you could perceive it as rule through workers' councils.

Forgot pic.

it was bait

Capitalist states don't believe in freedom of expression in times of crisis .Look up the freedom of speech cases around WW1, especially Schenck v. United States. That case established the bullshit "shout fire in a crowded theater" that liberals today use to crack down on everything. Freedom of speech would exist in the socialist stage in a manner similar to today, I.E. you can say some things but don't get too overly critical. In communism freedom of speech would really exist.

in gommunism will we have ethix in gaming journalsim

Here's the thing dude. The councils will be subverted following the revolution. Even during a revolution, there will be bourgeois who choose to align with us so they can undermine the future councils. Because of this, I do not believe in the abolition of a state immediately. Also keep in mind, unless all the other capitalist countries in the world revolt as well they will come overseas to subvert us. This is why the vanguard is needed, but that does not mean abandoning local management, and it does not mean having no checks on the vanguard. It just means there there will be an authority to act as a last resort.

Also: Marx was vague but Engels was not.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
–Friedrich Engels

Becuase the meaning of the word was anything but vague.

Dictatorship clearly meant Roman-style dictatorship. I.e. the ultimate decision-making authority (that belongs to the workers in case of DotP) in the time of crisis. For example, revolutionary tribunals are not exactly bound by any specific code of laws. They are trying to do what is right, rather than to follow protocol/established procedure (it hadn't been developed yet, anyway).

From our contemporary "civilized-western-world" perspective it is clearly authoritarian behavior (in the meaning of "an example of power abuse and corruption" - which makes sense given context of "civilized" world being capitalist - nobody sane would trust government to do what is right).

This is why it is extremely unlikely for this initial (post-revolutionary) socialist state to be commonly recongized as anything but authoritarian. There is no established norms to follow through and people must rely on ad hoc judgements, which is a red flag (apologies for the pun) for most people. Moreover, socialist state is generally in a hostile capitalist environment, giving it strong incentive to develop strong central authority.

Since I don't see anything unusual for post-revolutionary socialist states to be authoritarian (in everyday meaning of the word), I can't really consider it as a significant argument against organizing revolution. After all, IMO, the only alternative, the "organic" revolution, is basically Palestini Intifada - disorganized violence with low chance of success and 10-to-1 casualty rate for the rebels. I'm not "class conscious" enough to join this yet. I'd rather force a revolution in an organized manner.

Moreover, even if this "organic revolution" succeeds, I consider for it to be improbable not to descend into some authoritarian clusterfuck anyway.

In my opinion, the best chance for democracy is to have a strong vanguard party (democratic centralism, yes) with well-developed administrative capabilities that can handle as much decision-making as possible without resorting to ad hoc judgements, thus reducing possible unchecked power abuse.

A Capitalist country will subvert the Communist one out of necessity. If it doesn't the workers of the capitalist will see the success of the Communist country and revolt.

Since all speech is a spook and therefore my property I can do with it what I will

...

People who support freedom of speech for fascists should be thrown into a gulag along with the fascists. Or just lined up and shot for wasting everyone's time with their retarded liberal narratives about rights.

Under capitalism i support free speech except for people who infringe on people's individual freedom such as fascists.

After a revolution and under socialism i think it is important to stop people who would bring the downfall of socialism from gaining political power such as fascists and porkies

Liberals already do that

Would you like to explain how you're going to identify who the fascists are when they're not openly declaring their ideals?

fucking authoritarians

kys.

lol

I bet he got better grades than those laughing whores.

Sure, and good grades are what brings you happiness and fulfillment in life :^)

Freedom of speech is essential for a free and open society. Yes, this includes "hate speech" and the like.

Nobody who unironically says this has ever been right about anything. It's a mainstay meme in SJW communities. I suggest you leave as soon as possible.

It's a thorny concept. Under certain circumstances you have to restrict it because certain people are giga-autismal and will go "bu-but muh free speech" when you're telling them not to shout "HE'S GOT A BOMB" at police during an active shooting while pointing at an Arab bystander.

Basically nobody actually believes in complete free speech, because that would mean all of the following is protected

Generally speaking, though, people should be allowed to voice their ideas. No idea should be off limits, and thought crime should just plain not exist in any sense. In practice, the degree to which people have free speech is a good barometer of how oppressive society is. Also, autists who tell you that free speech isn't an abstract concept, but a law that only protects you from government are batshit insane and probably neo-feudalists who support the "right" of private property owners to also restrict what you are allowed to express on their property.

My idea of a good standard is based on neurology. Some sensory input (including vocal cues) bypass a human's higher reasoning, going straight to their limbic system and triggering a more basic instinctual response. Anything like that, especially anything that is intended to bypass people's capacity for reason, should not be protected. Outside of that, there's misleading people and misrepresenting the truth that ought to be disallowed. Otherwise I don't see a problem with speech.

TBH the more ridiculous and horrible someone's ideas are, the more attention they deserve because either A they're right in which case they're sending an important signal or B something has gone very wrong with their understanding of reality and we should try to figure out how they arrived at that conclusion. For A, see "capitalism is literally destroying the world." For B, see "the Holocaust was a hoax."

This. The only thing that censorship can protect are weak, flawed, false, harmful ideas. While an environment of free speech will promote stronger and better ideas, one of repression will nurture weak ideas, the originators of which will be naturally attracted to the levers of power behind any censorship mechanisms, corrupting them further to stamp out good ideas and promote theirs. Suppression of speech is the final resort of corrupt scoundrels who can't talk their way out of intellectual attack.

The model of constant, ruthless, limitless inquiry that has been validated so unanimously by the success of science should also be the ideal by which all discourse is conducted.

I think the simplest standard is to never, ever prosecute expressions, but instead to prosecute non-speech acts that accompany them. Like child pornography, doing, aiding, or supporting its production already involves the commission of crimes that can occur without speech. Similarly inciting violence, interfering with the course of justice, being a public nuisance, etc…

Unless you're just making a factual observation and pragmatic prediction, that's the lamest possible argument.

One additional layer of ambiguity is that "revolutionary", "seize the means of production" and "dismantle the state apparatus" doesn't necessarily mean violence, or even direct political attacks. Simply as the proportion of the economy controlled by syndicates expands, the power and relevance of both capitalist private business and rigidly hierarchical government will shrink until they become unprofitable and vanish. Although I admit this failed to happen, for instance, with the kibbutzim in spite of their prosperity and power within Israel.

Hopefully the proletarians/society at large have commandeered the largest means of communication. I would say that at this point the question becomes 'do we need a separate enforcement body to quash subversion?' and the answer I think basically depends on the condition of the proletariat. An advanced revolution/proletariat would not need a separate body. However I could see, for instance, a detachment of print workers going and wrecking a bourgeois press though or radio workers gathering people to topple fascist radio (the way the fascists tried to do against Pacifica way back when).

I can understand where comrades would have misgivings on my idea, but I think if DOTP was smart, it would give bourgeois lots of freedom, but formal freedom, and restrict its actual freedom. Basically, the way the media woks already, being 'free' to all but the truly subversive opinion. Meanwhile, lots of pro-proletarian opinions could abound in the news, rightly discrediting subversion as backwards.

The problem with this is that you do no more than say something and still be responsible for an atrocity. You'd run into problem with people saying that you have prosecuted people just for saying something. If there's a serial killer and you finger somebody with circumstantial evidence and the mob lynches them, you are guilty, but all you did was say something. Prosecuting you would be prosecuting for the act of speech. I'm not saying it's right or good, but them's the breaks. A lot of people see actions as things-in-themselves, which is how you get bumfuck retardation like the categorical imperative.

On top of this, it opens a can of worms about accountability. If you say "cops are killing black people they have to be stopped" and then someone else goes and kills a cop, but first posts online saying they did it for you, can you be prosecuted? There's a huge problem with the whole concept of free speech, which is how vague so many of the related concepts are.

The free market of ideas is a dangerous concept because it assumes that people in general are rational and will go with ideas that make sense vs. ideas that they like. It does a good job pwning incredibly stupid shit like religion, but look how popular libertarianism is.

Not very?

You aren't wrong about how the idea that "the truth will always win in the end" isn't baseless idealism, but the "free market of ideas" is not to allow any and all opinions to run about unchecked. Poor ideas must be quashed, but with better ideas, not force. Suppression does nothing but drive those ideas underground where they cannot be contested or disproven, and given an air of taboo-ness and victimhood that makes them more more desirable and empathetic. Hiding from reality leaves you vulnerable to its inevitable confrontation. Exposure is needed for inoculation.

Among people who regularly exchange ideas online, it's pretty popular. It's less popular than liberalism, which is also a point against the system. How popular is leftism?

If only people listened to reason.
This is true, yes. I don't disagree with any of this. The problem with the free market of ideas is that it implies people will just sort of naturally arrive at the truth because of something spooky like the invisible hand. My take is that you need to rigorously meet bad ideas with better ideas, but this is not to win over the people with bad ideas. It's to win over the people who can be won over, and to show them that the people with bad ideas are being unreasonable. Even that may not be enough, depending on what ideas you're dealing with. My main point is don't get seduced by idealism, as you rightly saw.

Somewhat true, though remember you wouldn't actually be prosecuting them for the content of their expression, but for the (actual, intended, or reasonably probable) result of the act of expressing or using it in specific instances. Making, promulgating, or using expressions identical in content but in a different context would still be perfectly legal.

That's a dangerously misguided (but unfortunately common) philosophical mindset that must be undone in both the public and legal spheres.

Look, I'm not saying the marketplace of ideas is a perfect system, it isn't, and it has many deep flaws that are unique to it. But, like the scientific or democratic ideologies it is closely related to, every alternative is far worse.

I do, but communist scum needs to be psychically removed.

I support it.

Are you unironically putting forth this argument or are you telling a joke that's going over my head? If the system we've got has "many deep flaws" the situation cries out for criticism. My criticism is don't put too much stock in this admittedly flawed system.

Rolled 3 (1d6)
Psionic crystal shard, take that!

I'm saying that all the "solutions" suggested have been repeatedly proven as infinitely and intolerably worse.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize this system.

"Oyy veyy don't you dare deny the shoah"

Rolled 3 (1d6)
Isn't that, kinda', sorta', exactly what the system in question demands?

Uh, ok. So you would have no issue with my criticisms then.

The general meaning of tolerating fascist/bigoted speech applies, regardless of your fee fees. If anything, the state protects people from the consequences of their own bigoted speech.

This

The state protects people from the consequences of ALL actions, including criminal ones, because it takes upon itself the distribution of justice, which is the reason you can't beat up a thief or a rapist unless it's in self defense. And since saying words isn't a crime in said state, obviously people will be protected from the "consequences".

I support freedom expression in almost all cases. I don't think censorship for any reason is ever justified. It only leads to stagnation and authoritarianism.

Censorship is always just an expression of fear. You basically admit that your precious utopian fan-fic system is in reality so fragile you need to suppress dissenting thought or else risk having it "implode" somehow.

Same reason why le ebin Hoppe physical removal is so popular among AynCraps. They fear ideas like egalitarianism are far too popular among humans and would "destabilize" their precious utopia, so they need to be suppressed.

So just for clarification, you're fine with fascists organizing and propagandizinh, is that about right?

Yes. Now go cry in a corner little trotsroach.

Better that than letting fascists quash dissent.

Not that guy, but while I would theoretically favor an omnipotent, omniscient god-emperor watching over us all and striking down fascists from on high, there is no way to construct a chain of succession that would be invulnerable to such tools of repression eventually falling into the wrong hands.

So in the real world? Yeah, organized fascist propaganda all the way, so long as I'm allowed to counter them likewise.

It's actually my former liberal self fam.

Than this is just a hobby for you and you really need to go be a liberal somewhere else. No one takes human rights seriously until it's their door being kicked down.

Or you could crash their rallies, rip down their posters and attack them if they spew their retardation in public, like leftists have been doing for 100 years now.

Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe they are in good company

see (checked)

this, tbh

you should really try growing up.

fascist.