Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

leftous OP wrote

you are aware the ALCU defended the right for neo-nazis to march through a town full of holocaust survivors right

People should have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. Like I said, precedent is a dangerous thing to play with in the US.

and considering chomsky is a literal friend to holocaust deniers i think he more likely belongs in the first category

Literal friend? Never heard of this.

if nothing else we probably ought to take exception to the fact chomsky thought it was a good idea to claim jews are the most privileged section of american society

I can agree with this. But it should be noted that many on the alt-right are radical Zionists and islamophobic. They actually pose a greater existential threat to the Palestinians.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

leftous OP wrote

okay but ever think it's a little weird that the first amendment is often used to protect bigotry (i mean look at aclu's defence of the charlottesville protests if you want a more recent example) but is equally as likely to fail in protecting causes you're more likely to care about? as far as i'm concerned, that's the precedent, and with it is a wider pattern of affording direct legal protection to fascists and other racist extremists - not just protecting their speech but also defending them from any kind of anti-racist action. i feel very confident in condemning anybody who contributes to that precedent.

Youre contradicting yourself here. You claim that the imperialist US government is the real danger...yet you want to give them tools to shutdown dissent? Why are you trying to empower the most dangerous force in the US government? As I said, the US is currently trying to classify solidarity with the Palestinians as hate speech. Governments in Europe are using hate speech laws to attack leftists.

Allowing the government to regulate speech is basically asking for yourself to be arrested since they can then claim what you're doing on Raddle is hatespeech.

This is why organizations like the ACLU are actually vital.

Regarding your points about the Faurisson Affair a basic Wikipedia search pretty much disproves everything here so I have to wonder what your source is.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

leftous OP wrote (edited )

I recognize the problem with liberalism.

But what you're failing to recognize is that the first amendment and those who protect it do so to limit the state. Yes, it's unfortunate that bigots can have a happy home in liberalism. However, limits on the state are the only way anarchists, leftists, and other allies are able to organize without being repressed. To argue against limits on the state while liberalism still exists is completely reckless and dangerous. It threatens everyone who dares to dissent.

Regarding your point about the Faurisson affair. According to what I read, Chomsky was not "literally his friend", because Faurisson included his essay without his knowledge or consent. I think I misread what you wrote otherwise, sorry about that. You're right that it does seem Chomsky failed to acknowledge the anti-semitism in Faurisson's holocaust denial.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

leftous OP wrote

Alright fair enough. My only point is that I will support the right to free speech as long as the state/capitalism exist, and those institutions that protect it, since I think it's our only chance to not get fucked in the interim. Especially in our current culture where everything we say or post is increasingly being tracked. But I totally agree with everything you have to say.

3