Do Communists and Fascists deserve to have free speech?

Neither of these groups have any respect for concepts like "free speech" and are only utilizing their rights to sow subversion and to destroy whatever liberal state was gracious enough to provide them a free and open platform to spread their ideology. Isn't it self-destructive to allow these people to have a platform for their speech?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wQDd1tkmZ1E
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Do Communists and Democrats deserve to have free speech?

Neither of these groups have any respect for concepts like "free speech" and are only utilizing their rights to sow subversion and to destroy whatever fascist state was gracious enough to provide them a free and open platform to spread their ideology. Isn't it self-destructive to allow these people to have a platform for their speech?

stopped reading when I read this
>deserves

the argument for free speech is very simple
A. it's beneficial for reasons of accountability and effective debate
B. it's WORSE having a censor
C. without free speech minority groups have no reason to engage in the democratic system and quickly become lawless

you might think nat/soc and commies should be silenced; but that's your opinion
given the option, everyone would nominate groups to be silenced and there would be no agreement
this means an authority acting as censor would be under constant attack and always seen as partisan

in turkey the muslim brotherhood and PKP (kurds) are censored because they are "terrorists"
these groups might make up as much as 10% of the primary turkish vote

in south east asia, censorship is often leveled against critics of the government, activists of all kinds, enemies of corruption
as soon as an agency is given power to censor, it becomes a tool for corrupt politicians and interest groups

/thread

>Isn't it self-destructive to allow these people to have a platform for their speech?

It's self destructive to disallow it.
It isn't free speech if you're telling people they can't shit on free speech.

It's only destructive when they are trying to take actual action to suppress free speech, in which case the efforts should be curtailed. Like if an authoritarian faggot like you tried to legislate to censor commies and fascists since their speech isn't free enough.

Add Islam to the list. You don't give an explicitly theocratic and imperialist religion freedom speech.

it seems ironic that traditionally authoritarian political blocks are now themselves the victims of censorship; while at the same time being accused of historical repression

Exactly. Do I want to hear sperglords from /pol/ yell about how the only true race is white people, or tumblr fags yell about how we need to recognize and love all 9834834 genders? Fuck no. But I'll be damned if anyone ever tries to keep them from having the freedom to do so. It's like the Westboro Baptist Church. I sure as fuck don't like it, but for free speech to truly be free, you have to allow the most extreme and fringe people to be free to speak their minds.

Add Christianity to the list. You don't give an explicit theocratic and imperialist religion freedom speech.

that's a bit of a dichotomy voltaire

we can strike a balance between free speech and protecting society, it's doesn't have to be all or nothing

I mean there's obviously a balance you need to have, you don't want to let it get to the point where people are telling people to kill others.

Look at it this way, mate: if you deny these sorts of groups their voice, you also lose your ability to mock them.

>Isn't it self-destructive to allow these people to have a platform for their speech?

Yes, it is, but then, where is the free speech right of the Communists and the Fascists?

This is an contradiction dude.

If you restrict speech, then it's not free speech. It's that simple.

I see where you are coming from, but honestly I would question the "red line" approach

we ban violence, so we ban "inciting violence" through speech, the media etc

but doesn't this approach inevitably lead to a serious bias in how we approach the exception to free speech?

someone says we should beat up mexicans, most peopel would want that kind of speech censored

but what about someone who says "everyone should self-harm"
is that any better?

or what about "nobody should vaccinate kids"
"take this loan you can't afford"
"support isreal"

the way our laws are structured, there is a presumption that violence in particular is the greater evil, and the more clear cut of free speech which harms the community

youtube.com/watch?v=wQDd1tkmZ1E

pretty funny rant about why we need free speech for accountability and, unfortunately, arseholes and bigots are the price we pay for that right.

thanks for the fake news

If you have a society that champions free speech and then limits free speech of a group, people begin to ask questions and feel sympathy for groups who are banned by society.

As the saying goes: "if you don't show Hiroshima in the theatres, then you'll see it in real life"

Repressing free speech is counter productive anyway. Look at the laws against holocaust denial for example, they just made retarded edgelords think they are some kind of martyrish freedom fighters.

>the only true race is white people
what?

I don't agree with you, but i'd cuck myself to protect your right to assert yourself over me.

I think we've seen in the middle east how censoring terrorists has pushed people who sympathies with them out of open forums, and into channels of information that can tailored by extremists

yes. But when they get violent we put em down.