Last night I saw a post calling freedom of speech a liberal idea, and that as communists we should not believe in it. Overall it got mixed responses, and personally I thought it was a little reductionist :very-smart:. But that's besides the point. Earlier that same night, I had been thinking about how freedom of speech and censorship exists in the United States. Seeing that original post prompted me to write this down, and here we are.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment of the US bill of rights. However, this freedom is and has never been absolute. You've probably heard the stereotype of not being able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or not being able to say direct threats of violence :pit:. These exceptions are meant to protect people from dangerous speech. However, there are also mechanisms that exist to protect the State from dangerous speech, the speech that we would all like to say openly with our chests :sicko-yes:. This isn't just in the US either, it applies to all countries to some degree.
So why do American's specifically believe that freedom of speech is a uniquely absolute thing in America? Why do people wrongly believe that even if the material conditions are becoming worse here, at least we live in a country that guarantees our opinions? This is because while censorship exists in the US, it is often obfuscated from the State, so people do not make the connection. I've thought of three levels of censorship in the US, 3 societal mechanisms that allow the State to obfuscate censorship from itself, and I would like to share them. Think of this as one of those iceberg charts that goes from surface level to borderline conspiracy :pepe-silvia:.
In the first level, there is private censorship. Like everything else in the US, even the authority to censor opinion has been privatized. This is something I'm sure all of us are familiar with, given our history with R*ddit. Private companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit are freely and openly allowed to censor whoever they want, and sometimes, if necessary, they have people tell them special opinions of the state of what can and can't be said :fedposting:. Even when these companies don't listen to the state and work independently, they are still biased towards capitalist interests, and will privately censor leftist opinions. To the average American, this infringing of free speech is perfectly acceptable because these are private companies, and therefore perfectly falls in line with their liberal ideology :brainworms:. Unless of course they love our big wet orange boy :tromp:.
In the second level, there is something I like to call the "Screaming to the Wind" effect. Basically, it's when you're allowed to speak about something, but your voice is so minimized that no real action will come from it. "What freedom of speech does a homeless man have?" I say as I try to remember that one Stalin quote :stalin-approval:. In the same vein, you can have as many Trot newspapers as you could possibly read, but that still won't change the fact that FOX News :live-tucker-reaction: is the most popular news source in the country. In this level of censorship, you don't have to directly censor enemies of the state, you just have to dominate the space so that they get no traction. If traditional censorship removes your mouth :gamer-gulag:, this level removes everyone else's ears.
The third level, which I'm sure you've all been waiting for, is traditional, direct, state censorship. This level doesn't happen as much anymore because of the first two level, but when its needed the State pulls out the heart attack gun :gun-hubris: and gets to work. Let's say, hypothetically :shapiro-gavel: , someone is able to get around the first two levels. They work around private censorship, and build enough of an audience that they're no longer screaming to the wind. If the State believes them to be a legitimate threat, they will be censored in some shape or form. Their organization could be infiltrated and neutered :cpusa:, they could be sent to prison for bogus charges :debs:, or they could just be straight up assassinated :fred-hampton:. Often, it is all three, and many more I didn't bother mentioning. This level is the most direct form of censorship, and in order to maintain its image, the State must use extensive propaganda to limit blowback when it uses it :1984:. Luckily, it has the previous two levels of the censorship iceberg to invent reality and minimize public dissent. And then a week later, everyone will have forgotten, and we move on to the next story.
So, does freedom of speech exist in the United States? I'd say no, or rather, at least not to the degree that its meaningful. Freedom of speech isn't just something that lets you share cute doggos :swole-doge: and complain about your b*tch ex-wife. It's something that allows you to voice dissent to the State, with the ultimate expressed goal of the overthrow of the regime. If this change is never allowed to come, just how free was your speech in the first place? Of course, if this is true, then does freedom of speech really exist anywhere?
That's the end of my little spiel, hope you liked it. This wasn't based on any specific theory, so all of this is probably already in a book written by someone smarter than me, but thanks for reading my forum post instead of actual theory. People like it when they can make clean, concise universal models of things, and I'm no exception, but reality's a lot messier than political scientists want it to be, so there's probably something somewhere I forgot about. If you've got anything to add, feel free to share.
To paraphrase a quote from a 20th century communist author from my country: Of course we have freedom of speech here! Everyone is free to buy the majority of the shares of the Washington Post.
When it comes to discussions on individual freedoms (like free speech), I like to remember two things:
First, any notion of individual freedom is wiped away the second you enter your workplace. So for half of a worker's waking hours, they effectively live under a dictatorship that strips them of any freedom. And this is done without the voluntary consent of the worker unless they actually own the means of production.
Second, individual freedoms mean nothing so long as they are incapable of driving change. A homeless person can freely speak and a hungry person can freely practice their religion, but neither person can materially impact their society.
negative rights are a deception because they are enforced by a state controlled by the bourgeoisie
There is no such thing as a negative right. The implications of our biological, chemical, and physical state of being involve a wide range of requirements to be able to do just about anything.
too wasted and don't understand it that clearly in the first place, I'll just say "rights" from now on
You can't get wasted without liquor or at least strong wine. Can't have liquor without a distillery, and glassworks, and distribution networks.
People who talk about "negative and positive rights" are libertarians who believe that we are non-material beings who can be perfectly rational, access all the information in a market at once, and engage in contracts on even grounds.
The freedom to speak, but not the freedom to own vocal chords
I agree that there isn't proper freedom of speech in most western countries. What I find is that most people mean "at least here we have freedom of speech" in a self-centered sort of way. What they really mean is "all of my own political views are acceptable to have in this country." They might find private censorship and people not caring to be annoying and may even cry about freeze peach when it happens, but violations that the state makes to freedom of speech - whenever it happens - they conveniently happen to the guys who had it coming.
Exactly, I am always hiding my power level wherever I go because hogs are everywhere.
The American liberal, faced with this reality, tends to concede that truth is in fact drowned out by a relentless tide of spin and propaganda. Their next move is always predictable, however. It’s another lesson dutifully drilled into them in their youth: “At least we can dissent, however unpopular and ineffectual!” The reality, of course, is that such dissent is tolerated to the extent that it is unpopular.
Big-shot TV host Phil Donahue demonstrated that challenging imperial marching orders in the context of the invasion of Iraq was career suicide, when a leaked memo clearly explained he was fired in 2003 because he’d be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” [5] The fate of journalists unprotected by such wealth or celebrity is darker and sadder. Ramsey Orta, whose footage of Eric Garner pleading “I can’t breathe!” to NYPD cops choking him to death went viral, was rewarded for his impactful citizen journalism by having his family targeted by the cops, fast-tracked to prison for unrelated crimes, and fed rat poison while in there. [6] The only casualty of the spectacular “Panama Papers” leak was Daphne Caruana Galizia, the journalist who led the investigation, who was assassinated with a car-bomb near her home in Malta. [7] Then there’s the well-publicized cases of Assange, Snowden, Manning, etc. That said, I tend think to such lists are somewhat unnecessary since, ultimately, most honest people confess that they self-censor on social media for fear of consequences. (Do you?)
In other words, the status quo in the West is basically as follows: you can say whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t actually have any effect.
from https://redsails.org/brainwashing/
You’ve probably heard the stereotype of not being able to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or not being able to say direct threats of violence . These exceptions are meant to protect people from dangerous speech. However, there are also mechanisms that exist to protect the State from dangerous speech,
"Yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre." This widely familiar turn of phrase originates from the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, which upheld the prosecution of two Philidelphia socialists for distributing anti-draft literature in the middle of a historically unprecedented outbreak of industrial scale ultraviolence and megadeath. It was called 'The Great War,' because no other war compared to the incomprehensible scale of destruction which took place. There actually was a god damn fire in that theatre. The people shouting 'Fire!' were doing it because of all the fucking smoke in the air.
Even in the stereotypes of the status quo the socialists are proven correct
No but it's okay because dissent is punished by a mob not connected to the government. /pol/, atomwaffen, etc can do whatever they want and laws restricting this mafia like activity is actually violating freedom of speech. Is it really a freedumz when the left has it too?
Gamergate proved this. Say what you will about Anita's critique's but people went apeshit over them. Now, there's a mini-red scare anytime a video game does not follow the Haye's code.
Most people live under the illusion of free speech because they will never say anything radical enough to be silenced by the state.
Or, if they do, it falls into bucket two and goes without notice.
I think bucket two does the overwhelming majority of the heavy lifting, particularly in the increasingly alienated and atomized commerical world. You can be as radical as you like on Discord or in a back alley corner of Reddit. Since it won't inspire serious action, it goes without notice.
Do you have any examples of the third category happening recently? Within the last 20 years or so?
Just a few days ago there was that lawyer who got 6 months in prison for winning a case against an oil company. BLM leaders are regularly killed or go missing. Every political organization from the KKK to the DSA has government informants.
Hot take: theorizing about freedom of speech and whether it's good or bad or will exist under communism or whatever is a moot point for the time being. There is no freedom of speech under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not even as the liberals imagine it. It's an illusion, we're all constrained one way or another. Could it exist under a dictatorship of the proletariat? Maybe, maybe not, but first we need to actually establish that reality before any of this discussion will even be relevant.
:this: But I'd argue it can't exist under a DoTP - for instance, reactionaries shouldn't be allowed a platform. Existing under communism is, as you say, a useless debate at this point. Presumably it would, with no state to enforce the opposite.
Last night I saw a post calling freedom of speech a liberal idea, and that as communists we should not believe in it
:yea: who the fuck raised these removed? what scientist made these removed? what lab these removed come from?
Free speech is a liberal idea.
-
It's "rules and norms" shit which is only ever applied to people on the side of capital. How many leftists in the US have been silenced, imprisoned, or killed?
-
It makes an arbitrary distinction between speech and action, then twists itself into a pretzel defining things like "incitement".
-
You shouldn't be allowed to say anything you want. Can we stop caping for the rights of Nazis to spread their diseased ideology?
These "individual freedoms" are based on thinking of societies as collections of rational actors interacting with each other. It's fundamentally liberal shit and clearly, obviously doesn't work in reality.
Who cares? Many liberal ideas are good. You know, it wasn't just a thousand years of garbage that Marx then magically built on and magically invented Communism.
Is Leftists getting suppressed supposed to be an argument against free speech? I don't get your point.
Can we stop caping for the rights of Nazis to spread their diseased ideology
Ah yes, we all know this is the only type of speech ever targeted when Socialist governments decide to do away with notions of free expression.
Socialist projects everywhere have guaranteed what you call "individual rights" to their citizens. If you want to say rights as a concept should be done away with because they're liberal or whatever then I just don't care to argue with you, have a good day.
I didn't say all liberal ideas were all bad, just that free speech is a liberal idea as well as a bad one. And I didn't say anything else you're saying here, so I'd appreciate not having words put in my mouth. When I criticize the liberal concept of "free speech", it's not an invitation for you to grill me over every past socialist project's actions, either.
People's individual rights aren't worth anything when they're the individual right to trample others. Free speech means freedom for the rich and powerful to say what they want and suppress opposition. It's like freedom to own private property: anyone can buy a factory if they so wish! You don't actually have free speech, and you never have - the OP is literally about this.
If you want to say rights as a concept should be done away with
I said freedoms, not rights (and I didn't say either should be "done away with"). Jesus, that's a pretty big extrapolation from my post. I think you've sort of invented an opinion to get angry at here, because no one is saying people don't deserve rights.
In any case, the liberal concepts of both rights and freedoms are laughable. Society must guarantee everyone a safe and prosperous life as much as possible, and to do that it's sometimes necessary to prevent certain people from doing certain things. That's just how it works, and even most liberals acknowledge this in reality. You can get lost in the weeds of what that means, but it's always going to mean you're not allowed to say whatever you want, whenever you want.
Rights/freedoms are commonly used interchangeably, quit imagining slights against you.
Again, the fact that freedom of speech is what it is under Capitalism isn't an argument against the concept itself.
And Jesus, that’s a pretty big extrapolation from my post
You said that individual freedoms are laughable and don't work in reality, if you meant something else then you should've written something else.
Any rights/freedoms have limitations obviously, that's not the issue here.
Any rights/freedoms have limitations obviously, that’s not the issue here.
Honestly, I think we just have a communication issue here. Everyone here is saying the same thing - you shouldn't be allowed to say whatever you want. Which is explicitly limiting speech, and therefore runs counter to the concept of "freedom of speech".
As for individual freedoms, what I said:
These “individual freedoms” are based on thinking of societies as collections of rational actors interacting with each other. It’s fundamentally liberal shit and clearly, obviously doesn’t work in reality.
I see how that can come off that way, but what I meant is that any philosophical justification that relies on every individual being free to XYZ and rationally exercising that freedom, without considering that it affects others and their freedoms is clearly worth less than the paper you write it on. Arguably, that means there's no such thing as "individual freedom", but it sure as hell doesn't mean no one has rights. Which brings me to:
Rights/freedoms are commonly used interchangeably, quit imagining slights against you.
Debatable that they're the same, and the semantics are relevant in an argument like this. You can have a right to water and food, you'd never say a "freedom" to water and food unless you were trying to frame it like an AnCap.
More than communication I think we share two very different perspectives and have little common ground the more of your edits I'm noticing, so this argument is unproductive.
Sorry, I tend to hit post a bit early and go back to edit things until I'm completely happy with them. I'm not trying to do a gotcha or anything, and I certainly wouldn't edit a post after you reply to it without marking what was edited.
I think this discussion is needlessly heated, and I already don't appreciate a lot of what's been said. We should probably both step away. Have a good day.
-
This is explicitly anti-free speech, and only one of the problems with the concept. Defending free speech is inevitably just defending "the marketplace of ideas", because it's the exact same thing.
