DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

The Question of Freedom of Speech Facing Socialists

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 1 2017 21:41
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Stopping meetings like milos stops lots of friendly racists/ homophones/ misogynists from forming connection in real life and and so vastly reduces there ability to act on those beliefs in real life

Here, hear! Down with homophonic oppression! ;-)

foiled by spell check again!

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Apr 1 2017 22:45

Spell cheque surely?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 1 2017 23:05
Serge Forward wrote:
Spell cheque surely?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 1 2017 23:36
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Stopping meetings like milos stops lots of friendly racists/ homophones/ misogynists from forming connection in real life and and so vastly reduces there ability to act on those beliefs in real life

Here, hear! Down with homophonic oppression! ;-)

foiled by spell check again!

Their, they're...there's no reason to get upset.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Apr 4 2017 07:37
Quote:
And, frankly, there is a fatal contradiction in your post that others have pointed out before in this kind of talk. On the one hand, Milo Yiannassholish is just some "random internet asshole", therefore apparently impotent and demonstrations against him a waste of time; and yet on the other, you're opposed to demonstrations against that asshole and others like him because you think it gives him media attention and "causes him to trend on twitter and become more powerful." Either speech is impotent and reactionary speech is not something we should worry about, therefore even if demonstrations against him raise his profile it's hardly anything to get ruffled about; or speech has consequences, potentially dangerous ones, in which case it's entirely justifiable to organize against reactionary speech. Pick one.

My position is NOT that Speech doesn't lead to anything, of course it does.

But free speach is necessary in order to air out ideas and get rid of bad ones, the only way you can do that is listen to bad ideas and show that they are bad ideas.

My position is that what is most Dangerous is Milo being seen as some free speach martyr, and that he idea out there is that leftists simply cannot debate Milo on his ideas and have to resort to shutting him Down ... which IS the common view.

If right wingers shut Down a socialist or anarchist confrence the viewpoint out there would probably be that their ideas were Dangerous to the system and the system was unable to actually argue the issues on their own merits.

ideas are Dangerous but communicating them and debating them is absolutely necessary.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Apr 4 2017 10:17

https://soundcloud.com/socialjusticewarriors/womensstudies101

This podcast was quite interesting on the topic of Milo at Berkeley

Sharkfinn
Offline
Joined: 7-11-13
Apr 8 2017 17:31
DevastateTheAvenues wrote:
Here you go: freedom of speech is bullshit bourgeois philsophical wankery. And the reason why it's​ such is the belief you stated in your post--that "words don't kill people", As if speech is an isolated act, or as if there was an unbridgeable gulf between reactionary ideas and reactionary violence. Fascists, right-wing militia types, and other violence-prone reactionaries appear with their ideas formed as if from the ether. This, as I've said before, is the height of bourgeois-idealist ideology.

And, frankly, there is a fatal contradiction in your post that others have pointed out before in this kind of talk. On the one hand, Milo Yiannassholish is just some "random internet asshole", therefore apparently impotent and demonstrations against him a waste of time; and yet on the other, you're opposed to demonstrations against that asshole and others like him because you think it gives him media attention and "causes him to trend on twitter and become more powerful." Either speech is impotent and reactionary speech is not something we should worry about, therefore even if demonstrations against him raise his profile it's hardly anything to get ruffled about; or speech has consequences, potentially dangerous ones, in which case it's entirely justifiable to organize against reactionary speech. Pick one.

Sorry I haven't had time to respond before. Basically the contradiction in this case is not in my argument but in the tactic of no platforming. Milo is not being silenced if he's getting more attention elsewhere. That aspect was a waste of time.

Some people are saying that he was prevented from harrassing individual people, and if so then fair enough. But he was later saying that he was going to come back. People who actually silenced him after the pedophile thing where American archconservatives around the more traditional far right media sphere: born again christians, Glen Beck, ext. Their influece got him fired from breibart. That's what I mean by him being the "enemy we want", there are much more popular and dangerous people around than that nihilistic asshole. The problem for me is how leftist are talking about this stuff as if we had any real influence over who gets to speak. We don't.

Freedom of speech is an institution that works as far it individuals are able to use it as a defence against state censorship. And of course it doesn't mean the right to speak unopposed. Maybe it's liberal wankery to you but it wasn't for the wobblies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_fights#Major_IWW.27s_free_spee...

There is a contradiction within the institution of freedom of speech in that it provides people with the ability to undermine the freedom of others, that's why most contries have clauses against hate speech, but that's difficult. In Sweden for example, nazi images are banned but so are anarchist ones, and it doesn't prevent either groups from organising.

There isn't "an unbridgeable gulf between reactionary ideas and reactionary violence", but there is a gulf between speech and physical acts of violence. We should be organising to prevent the latter and that's going to involve physical confrontation of fascist trying to asseble their forces, driving them out of the neighbourhood and so forth, dont' confuse be with freedom of speech fundamentalist, its not the institution for its own sake. But challenging hate speech in general is not something we even can do, unless we become state censors.