Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

5

Nosferatu wrote

Absolutely, and it's regrettable that for whatever reason some anarchists have come to this position. We, as anarchists, understand the way the state operates, if they can ban Nazis, they can ban anarchism, if they ban pro-Zionist demos, they can ban pro-Palestinian demos. It is in this vein, that we as people who support those at the bottom of society must ensure, on principle, that the state does not interfere in the freedom speech of those who we despise. This does not mean, by any definition however, that we cannot organize in direct action, no-platforming etc. of those with dangerous views.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

the state does not interfere in the freedom speech of those who we despise

"Freedom of speech" is honestly a dangerous myth. No state gives its citizens freedom of speech. It's controlled speech. You can resist them controlling certain types of speech that were previously tolerated, but that can't be described as freedom in any way.

4

Nosferatu wrote

That was essentially the point of my argument, your concern for the phrase "freedom of speech" is semantic and there's nothing that kills an argument more than semantics. My whole argument is, and was, to say that the state's clamping down on view a should be something we protest just as much as the clamping down of view b even if we agree with view b and despise view a

3

ziq wrote

My bad, didn't mean to nitpick.

2

Nosferatu wrote

It's no problem I share your resentment for the faux-freedom we talk about but I just don't find it important or enthusing. I'd be on your side if someone began arguing that the Stalin-Goebbels idea of freedom of speech, i.e. freedom of speech for views you agree with, was in any way actually free.