Free Speech Thread

Ive seen a few but got lost in the flood of replies that comes barreling in, and never really got the jist of what the arguement was. What is Holla Forumss view on Free speech? Why arent we letting every one have free speech? Why is free speech so valued in society, but nazism isnt. I find myself wanting to have free speech for everyone but i also hate nazis so fuck them.
Help me out.

I personally am absolutely pro-free speech but I'm also a market soc so I'm clearly not the consensus opinion.

The idea is mostly that free speech is an Enlightenment virtue that prioritizes the self and has no real basis in reality. It's a nice concept but doesn't come up unless it's being counterproductive.

So, the Nazis on the board might say they have free speech to talk and Holla Forums thinks that's retarded

I only speak for me but I'm aware that suppression only entrenches people further. Besides, I want to hear from the Nazis, the Scientologists, and the conspiracy theorists. And I don't mean I want them to feel comfortable speaking in coded language and using dogwhistles; I want them to feel comfortable going out in public and saying "kill all the niggers tbh." I want everyone to see them for what they are.

Which, of course, isn't shared by everyone here. There are people do idealize Stalin, Marxist-Leninism.

It's not a *bad* idea - it just usually doesn't come up well. If we're having a nice discussion about Nestor Makhno and the Holla Forumsack comes up and says "Makhno was a dirty fucking Jew", that doesn't help anyone here. But it's still freeze peach.

its obviously a HUGE issue for liberals what with their war against hate speech, i think the problem wiht them is that they often say "you cant say this/that" when its more productive to say "you shouldnt say this/that". Then i find myself thinking, well if they shouldnt say it, why are we letting them say it. Its a shitty circle of doubt.

Granted, most of Holla Forums aren't liberals and most of us *hate* stuff like identity politics, race and sex trumping economic servitude, etc

Their war with hate speech is different from Holla Forums and the mix between the two movements is rare.

I think that making something forbidden or tabboo just makes it more appealing and reinforces it

I support free speech because I think censorship will turn out to be counterproductive in the long term

i know that, been lurking and posting here for about 2 years so i know about the good old idpol debates

I'm pro free speech.
I don't consider hate speech to be free speech. I can't help but roll my eyes that someone is offended when someone tells them that what they're saying is offensive.
What next? Why can't I call customers in my work place cunts?
It's called politeness, it hardly hurts you to not call someone a nigger or a kike, so why does it bother you so much?
Free speech is about the right to criticize government or other powerful organizations, it isn't a right to piss off the powerless.

this

Oh, no no no! You have every right to be impolite! And people have every right to tell you to fuck off and kick you out! BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE "OFFENSIVE"!!!

So,

Freedom is never unrestricted. In order to be free you need to have limits. Once you stop me from being free, you have passed those limits.

With freedom of speech, the same. If we have a communal discussion on what to sow next year and you start talking for 1 hour when it was unofficialy agreed that everyone will talk up to 10 mins or you use your 10 mins to talk about how you are not allowed to have 3 "wives" instead, you are abusing your freedom of speech.

Same, when pol comes and spams BS and bait and then get banned, it's simple enforcment of freedom of speech.

I am of this mind

110% free speech and expression. There is no other answer.

fascists and libertarians wont give us free speech if they were in power, why should we not silence them if we have the chance? its a war, and we must use any means necessary to our advantage, instead of blabbering about how we "respect their personal liberty" bullshit. sure, it might be true that we can use their free speech to criticize their ideology and make them stay silent by themselves, but in this day and age where the right wing is gaining support, we have to use whatever means necessary to silence fascists from spreading their anti-communist bullshit.

Being polite is one thing. The state mandating certain words are forbidden is a whole other thing.

also relevant quote

That's a great edit of that comic and I agree wholeheartedly. The original always pissed me off.

Because it would be the height of conceited folly to believe that we are and will continue to be absolutely correct in all our opinions. How will people in the future ever improve upon communism without the freedom to speak of its flaws and errors?

You don't get to pick and choose what speech counts as free speech. If someone can choose whether or not your speech is free, then you don't have free speech. Do you think "gay propaganda" would be considered free speech under a regressive government? Do you think "communist propaganda" would be considered free speech under a fascist government?

Pic very fucking related.

Look at how banning free speech worked out for all the countries in history that claimed to be socialist: They were digging their own grave.

It's okay to restrict freedom of expression during revolution or war time, but eventually it has to be legalized unconditionally.

What is this liberal rubbish? Is this really what Holla Forums has become?

Surprisingly… I really like this Kierkegaard quote on the subject, pretty on the nose imo…

Is fascism or capitalism ever going to be the correct route for society?

Are you using the American definition of liberal (the one that's normally used here), or the sensible one (libertarian). The former oppose free speech while the latter are entirely correct.

Under feudalism capitalism was the correct route. We should never ban speech unless we are 100% sure that we're correct in our ideas, and we can never be that sure.


Yep, anyone who engages their brain must agree with the status quo. If they think differently, they're obviously stupid and need to re-think their crime-think.

But we're talking about a communist society. Would regressing to capitalism or fascism be worthy of discussion?

If you wouldn't let your enemies have guns, why would you let them have ideas?

it's quite simple if you understand that freedom is never absolut but relative
your view on freedom necessarily should reflect your relation to society
absolut ideas are cancerous idealism

don't be a hypocrit telling yourself how much you value others views
unless the fundamental issue is resolved, that is class antagonism, there can't be a truly free expression of oneself
without situational awareness talking about any freedom only leads to a void of meaning exchange of phrases

This is true. However, it is not down to personal liberty that I support free speech.

Even Lenin considered the revolution changeable, malleable. It was not set in stone.

The dialectic is a thousands of years long conversation. How can it play out to its conclusion if parts of it are brutally silenced?

Who decided who is the reactionary and who is the visionary?

All ideas MUST be held to account, if we are to live an empirically verified world. Censorship is a HUGE barrier to the scientific process and Socratic conversation that is the evolution of human ideology.

Right now, free speech is only creating infighting.
Those in power don't give a fuck what you're saying about them, nor does your opinion have any effect on their operations.

Free speech has become essentially useless to combat real problems and has been degraded to dumb teenagers and their social media wars.

Even the most bigoted speech and tirades are representative of a problem or issue that person and by extension society is facing. That issue should be addressed.

Silencing people only leads them to do it underground and give whoever is in power an ok to silence you as soon as you criticize them.

They aren't necessarily my enemies. There is always the possibility that we are striving for the same thing and they have the right answer while I have the wrong one.

Look. In my anectodal experience, some of the hateful racist shit I've seen spewed in the media has genuinely led to people being assaulted and abused. I don't understand this Holla Forums mentality that words don't lead to actions. This isn't about hurting feelings.

Free speech is a notion related to freedom.

Are the wagecucks not supporting their own slavery?
Are the votecucks not picking their own poison?
Are the godfags not numbing themselves with their opium?

Are these people's decisions not free? Where do you draw the line?
More importantly,Do THEY consider themselves free in taking these decisions?

Even if you think they are wrong, even if you can prove without a doubt they are, are they still not free to be wrong?
That's the problem with "democracy" and " freedom" , they assume the actors are perfectly rational and unbiased/incorruptible.

I don't have an answer to freedom, but I'm weary of people who take freedom in a more-is-always-better approach.

The problem with taking away freedom is that you're really just handing your freedom over to someone else. You're saying that Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, or tumblr are more fit to dictate what you should do than you are. They're still human, and I see no evidence to suggest that they're any better than average.

No I'm not saying anything about that, I 'am stating that i have no fucking idea.

However I'am worried about those who tout more-freedom-is-better as this often results in handing power to whoever is influential, like media moguls or their owners.

Freedom is tricky and simply stating that someone is ALLOWED to do something doesnt make him any more free.It ENABLES them.
Freedom is still a measure of how informed they are about the decisions they are making.


A great fool, an actual retard ,can be enabled to decide whatever, yet if he considers the voice of his caretaker only, he is no more free.Or is he? He probably thinks himself more free.

This

Banning free speech is absolutely the protection of spooks and I want nothing to do with that.

But shitposting isn't free speech

I say there's nothing wrong with letting them speak, but there's something wrong with not shutting them up.

Right but who gets to decide what is and what is not hate speech?

ALWAYS THE POWERFUL NEVER THE POWERLESS.

also


so you are arrogant and dismissive.

Figures for someone who thinks their opinion is so infallible thats others should be silenced.

Food for thought. Personally I advocate free speech with the exception of advocation of that which would abridge free speech. That would preclude advocation of fascist dictatorships and such.

this is so circular and backward its hilarious

Feel free to explain. This is basically the equivalent of >you can't fight violence with violence xD

...

We better ban pro-communist speech because people influenced by it may commit acts of violence.

Hitler didn't get elected because he was free to say what he wanted.
Hitler got elected cause he was allowed to have armed men on his speeches, cause when Kristallnacht happened nobody flintched an eye, cause, in the end, he was supported by the bourgies.

Take pol for example. The problem is not that it's filled with nazis. The problem is that whenever someone tries to say "well, maybe it's not all about ze joos" they get instabaned.

So, it's not speech that leads to action. It's the lack of opposition.

by your own rules you cannot advocate your own rules

Do u even recursion bro?

So you're telling me that revolution against the system and a grown man beating a teenage boy on the street are compatable? When the masses rise I don't think free speech laws are going to fucking matter.

Again, equating large political movements and random acts of violence. Stop thinking of everything in romantic terms for fuck sake.

Yes, let everyone speak their mind. we need to know who the fascists are in order to kill them after all.

They'll fit nicely alongside the liberals like the chumps ITT that will defend them to the death.

I don't see anyone defending fascists.

I can't speak for other countries, but for a while now in Australia the easiest way to pick a racist is to see who complains about section 18c of our racial discrimination act. If you aren't a racist you have nothing to complain about.

Interesting since a liberal democrat is trying to get rid of that act.

The principle is the exact same, the only difference is scale.

im fine with free speech unless you misgender me

I do not believe in free speech because it can corrupt the safe space that is supposed to make the rest of us feel… well… safe. It can be harmful to people's psyche, especially when ideas that contrast our own are presented and pushed too hard towards us, I believe we should end free speech as it is useless in the modern world

I pretty much agree with you. Though I wouldn't go as far to say that free speech is completely useless. There should be designated places for free speech, but there also must be safe places for the people that need them. Sort've like the smoking and non-smoking areas of a restaurant.

I visit boards like /liberty/ and Holla Forums for free speech.

AFAIK, in Australia Liberal means what Conservative means everywhere else.

...