Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech and the right to be given a platform are not the same thing. You’re already conflating things before you begin.
You’re not going to get a better exploration of the topic than here:
https://youtu.be/xz6TVGyQ_FA

I don't want to watch your movie. I asked a specific question. You can assume I asked two questions. (1) Who has the right to freedom of speech? 2) Who has the right to speak at in campuses?

R Totale Those are decisions that should be made by the workers and students who make those campuses function, surely?

On the one hand it sounds logical. From other side you never know what they will make. Maybe they will forbid black to act, or Vice versa white? Or decide to put there the KKK? Therefore, it is important the opinion of those people from whom I ask.

In addition, I can also expand this issue to include the right to speak on the street.

Another question: are you aware of the action in the 1980s when print workers refused to handle a Sun front page attacking the miners? Would you consider that to be an attack on Rupert Murdoch's freedom of speech?

I am generally a supporter of the seizure of Newspapers from the hands of any corporations and private owners. And not just Newspapers, but everything else.

Of course, I am not talking about the laws of the state, but about the ethical principle. Ethics and morals change in different societies, but I believe that there are ethically based fundamental human rights.

No, human rights and freedom of speech are not categories of the state. Personal freedom is the basis for any creative development. If you look at the demands of the Kronstadt rebels, you will see "freedom of speech, of the press, of Assembly" (but not for exploiters) .

I am a supporter of ethical socialism and "free labor personality", as socialists-revolutionaries-maximalists (wonderful Russian movement, close to anarchism).

I believe that the freedom of the individual is enhanced by the rights of others. Bakunin wrote that "I am not free as long as there are slaves somewhere in the world."

Bakunin wrote that the belief of the people (social lower classes) in their rights is the basis of an anarchist uprising, and if there is no such a belief , then the uprising will not lead to the creation of a new (anarchist) society.

Yes, the state also speaks about human rights and freedom and declares itself their defender, but we are not obliged to believe the bureaucracy.

"Poverty with despair are not enough to spark a social revolution. They are capable of producing... local riots, but not enough to raise the whole masses. There must be people's ideal, always historically produced from the depths of people's instinct, educated, enhanced and consecrated by number of noteworthy occurrences, severe and bitter experiences. People need a general idea of its right and profound, passionate, you might say, religious belief in this right. When such an ideal and such a belief meet with poverty, which makes people despair, then the Social Revolution is inevitable, close, and no force can prevent it."

Mikhail Bakunin

Me: No, human rights and freedom of speech are not categories of the state.

Yes, they are as. All "rights" are inherently legal concepts tied to the state because only a state can ensure, protect, and in the end violate those rights. It is the only institution that can take away right-wingers right to a freedom of speech.

Your statements are an unsubstantiated empty phrase that has nothing to do with reality. I have already quoted above from the documents of the Kronstadt rebels and i do it again ("Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists, left socialist parties; Freedom of Assembly and unions, and peasant associations.") https://e-libra.ru/read/250369-neizvestnaya-revolyuciya-1917-1921.html and Bakunin, which speak about rights.

Not the state, but the free community can protect the rights, as demonstrated by the Kronstadt rebels. And this is Peter Kropotkin: "Human Rights exist only in so far as a person is ready to defend them with weapons in their hands" [3]. Drawing attention to the historical experience of the peoples of England, France and Germany in defending natural rights, Kropotkin wrote that these rights "should not be begged from the Constitution", but should be "taken from battle".The law is nothing more than a piece of paper that can always be torn up or rewritten, and therefore it cannot enforce these perfectly natural rights. Only when we, realizing our power, become a force capable of taking these rights, only then can we force them to respect it." "[4].
http://kropotkin.site/pravo-cheloveka-na-zhizn

In those quotes from Bakunin, from the Krohnstadt rebels, there is no reference to rights (Bakunin's invocation is of what is ethically right as in "Recht"). In any case, freedom of speech, press, and assembly as rights came in the 40s, but before they were ethical and political principles.

Of course, Bakunin and Kropotkin talked about rights. And of course, They use some ethical sense of rights, in the same way as me ;) This is what I'm talking about two hours. And the Kronstadt rebels spoke about freedom of speech and press, freedom of assembly and unions, and peasant associations. So my topic that I opened here is called "Freedom of speech"

As for understanding the word "right": That's what the Oxford dictionary says. This word has many meanings. N 2 A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

with infinitive ‘she had every right to be angry’
‘you're quite within your rights to ask for your money back’
mass noun ‘there is no right of appeal against the decision’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/right

So What story are you going to tell now?

This is why your question really is just a red herring (and an example of how right-wing discourse, used to attack and try to discredit ANTIFA, quite effectively entered both mainstream and, sadly, a lot of leftist discourse)

Your remark is an example of insane behavior of people who have long been unaccustomed to the opportunity to discuss things.

As for understanding the word "right": That's what the Oxford dictionary says. This word has many meanings. N 2 A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

with infinitive ‘she had every right to be angry’
‘you're quite within your rights to ask for your money back’
mass noun ‘there is no right of appeal against the decision’

So What story are you going to tell now?

Mike Harman
The Kronstadt rebels were demanding freedom of speech from the Bolshevik state which was suppressing it, they weren't haranguing students who didn't want to have far right speakers at their university.

I'll tell you more. Kronstadt rebels demanded freedom of speech, the press. meetings, unions, and this was one of their program requirements necessary from their point of view for a new society and social revolution. It is about the ideas of the socialist-revolutionaries-maximalists, Kropotkin and Bakunin, which I quoted above. Let me also recall Bakunin's famous idea that "Freedom without justice is inequality and injustice, and justice without freedom is slavery and beastliness ." The Kronstadt uprising expressed the same ideas. However the Kronstadt rebels demanded freedom only for working people (including working intellectuals) and only for such political groups as anarchists and left-wing social Democrats. They were not going to give free speech to liberal democrats (cadets) like corporation lovers, and even to some socialist parties. This approach of social revolutionaries is possible. And if you are protecting it, I can understand that. Although, in my opinion, this approach has its disadvantages.

But the Kronstadt rebels did not give the word to the Bolsheviks associated with the Kremlin, but only those, who broke up with Lenin and his totalitarianism, and as for many of you, for example, I did not notice any attacks on the Leninists during your rallies or on campuses. )

So Yes, I understand the Kronstadt rebels, but honestly, if you allow the Leninists or Islamists or Hillary lovers to speak, then that's a different idea. That's why I'm asking questions. I like to understand the limits of tolerance.

R Totale
Those are decisions that should be made by the workers and students who make those campuses function, surely?

Me: On the one hand it sounds logical. From other side you never know what they will make. Maybe they will forbid black to act, or Vice versa white? Or decide to put there the KKK? Therefore, it is important the opinion of those people from whom I ask.

R Totale
Yes, if you let people make their own decisions then they may well make bad ones. That is always a risk. But if you refuse to let people make decisions about how to run their lives because they might make bad ones... well, you have the core of all authoritarianism right there.

I agree. But you just evaluated the right of campus students to put there KKK as bad. So you still have a certain opinion about what students do wrong and what's good. So I can ask you the questions in my post. Do you think it's right to admit Bolsheviks, Islamists, Zionists, Hillary supporters, representatives of Christian organizations to the campuses?

I think those two things are quite different, and being invited to address the Oxford Union is not the same thing as standing on a street corner yelling at people; but ultimately I suppose a similar principle applies,I think local communities should be able to make decisions about what kinds of behaviours and activities they want to encourage and discourage in their neighbourhoods.

I agree.

1) Do you know the context that allows Bolsheviks or nazi or Islamists to open their mouths?
2) What about the context of campus meetings or street demonstrations?

""In the few weeks that the Makhnovists were in Ekaterinoslav, five or six Newspapers of different directions were freely published there: the newspaper of the right SR "Democracy", the left- SR "Banner of revolt", the Bolshevik "Star" and others. However, the rights of the Bolsheviks to freedom of the press and Association were initially restricted because they themselves everywhere deprived the working classes of these freedoms, as well as because their organization in Ekaterinoslav took a direct part in the criminal invasion of the Gulyai‑Pole district in June 1919, and they should be punished severely in justice. But in order not to violate in any way the very principle of freedom of speech and Association, they were not hindered... all the rights inscribed on the banner of the Social Revolution.
The only restriction that the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, social revolutionaries and other statists was a ban on the creation of Jacobin "revolutionary committees" that would seek to impose their dictatorship on the people."

Vsevolod Volin (Eichenbaum), one of the leaders and ideologists of Russian anarcho-communism, a colleague of Nestor Makhno, the author of the fundamental study "the Unknown revolution".