Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:49 PM CST

i have had plenty of discussions and arguments with people about the idea of free speech vs. keeping the KKK and neo-nazis out of your town. The constitution and \"free speech\" believing people just don\'t seem to get it, but this article puts it very well with \"stopping people who are using these rights to organize to deprive other of rights\".
I swear, if I hear one more person use that quote about defending to the death your right to say....
I can\'t imagine what goes through someone\'s head that they would defend nazis.
Wow, was all I could say about the city using a bus to get the fascists to their rally point...compared to anti-capitalist/globalization folks who are beaten, gassed, etc. wow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 09:29 PM CST

Cemendur--My friend, thank you for generously offering constructive criticism. It\'s true that in the piece above, which may well occasionally switch cavalierly back and forth between arguments that would make sense to liberals and arguments that make sense in the context of our values and world view, there might be a little ideological murkiness. It wasn\'t written with ideological precision in mind, exactly.

However, I think the instance you mention is NOT an example of that. In the selection you quote, there is NO mention of \"rights,\" just a statement that we helped others exercise a freedom of speech. It wasn\'t that we were protecting their rights, it was that we were helping emphasize and offer a freedom. If you read closely and consider the sentence you mention, you\'ll see it\'s not a liberal statement, but an anarchist statement. Indeed, we were not \"exercising our rights,\" a liberal idea, but \"exercising our FREEDOM,\" an anarchist idea, and assisting others to do the same, another anarchist idea.

Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 11:27 PM CST

You are correct.

Some thoughts on the subject, not actually a critique of this article, but some thoughts sparked from it.

I would include \"Freedom of Speech\" as a type of \"natural rights\" concept originating philosophically with John Locke.

In a document that I have not read in some time, John Locke\'s, \"Two Treatises on Government\", he originates the mystical conception of \"Natural Rights\". He also proposes a consititutional government, both concepts which highly influenced the wealthy landholding framers of the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of the Bill of Rights. It had a particular impact on Jefferson. In theory, these rights are to be protected by the state.

In our modern world, state protected speech theoretically includes political speech, advertising, and \"indecent\" speech. Unprotected speech includes \"obscenity\", false advertising and incitement. An historical court case (not gonna bother looking for it) granted free speech to money. i.e. money = free speech. A decision that to this day the ACLU has not questioned, indeed they have upheld this \"right\".

While anarchists generally agree with the concept of \"freedom of speech\", we/I do not see it as a state protected \"right\", nor anything else as a right to be protected/regulated by the state.

One concept which contributes greatly to this discussion is the concept of \"hate speech\". It is generally thought of as a liberal concept of state protection from hate speech- thus hate speech is not a free speech right at all it is rather another example of a grotesque abuse that should not be sanctioned by any society. This concept has been adapted to anarchist thought.

See: http://www.anti-racist-action.org/faq.php#10

I am sure, you are quite aware of that document. Again, you are correct, that specific quote did not put forth \"freedom of speech\" in the Lockian \"rights\" category as I had suggested.

Just clearifying to myself the anarchist conceptions of \"free speech\" vs the Lockian concept and to anyone that questions the confrontation of hate speech.

Unfortunately, the elite have already attepted to use the concept of hate speech toward their agenda - specifically targeting anarchist and environmental activists. One receint example is the labeling of the Anarchist People of Color website as \"hate speech\" by CyberPatrol, which it certainly is not. \"A companera who tried to access the APOC site from a public terminal got a big mustard colored screen that said \"Access denied\" and the reason given: \"The website\'s content is inappropriate.\" APOC\'s site is listed under the \"category\" of \"hate speech.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 07:20 PM CST

Wow! Exceptionally inspiring. Good use of tactics, excellent analysis, and generally a pretty well written account.

On your theoretical analysis of \"freedom of speech\", I agree with your general idea but would offer a critique.

You at least partially contradict yourself when you said, \"This was definitely one of our accomplishments for the day, that we made it possible for protesters to move around the area at will, exercising their freedom of speech beyond the restrictions of the police cordon.\"

For the loyal opposition crowd, the liberal/leftist/reformist attendees, who are at best independent thinkers or Naderites, at worse Kerry or Monica Moorehead supporters, you were indeed opening up space, allowing them to \"excercise their right to free speech.\"

You said, \"First of all, for an anarchist like me, the question of

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:38 AM CST

I\'m not from the US, so don\'t know how this kind of event tends to take place. But if they\'re holding a rally they surely need an audience. If you simply ingratiated youself into the audience, pretending to be intrested, and on a prearanged signal begin your protest would that not be more effective? If you\'re in the crowd you can drown out the speech, and the police can\'t identify their targets, unless they want to charge the facists they have no choice but to let your protest continue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:44 PM CDT

\"if you don\'t belive in free speach for your enemies you don\'t believe in free speech\" Noam Chomsky

The direct action thing on those guys doesn\'t work. Lennon and the cunts that followed him are a good example. The Soviet government literally tried to force tollerence down peoples throats. The legacy of that policy backfired. Facism and white supremacy are more popular in Russia then ever before. It dwarfs what the US ever had even in the bad old days. As for Europe, the Israel problem is perpetuating the rise in that shit down there.

The free speech law the US has may be statist but it is an unwritten rule in my opinion. I\'m not bothered by those people as long as they don\'t harm me. Words are not action, they\'re pretty much irrelavant.

[ Reply to This | # ]