I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

[Deesse23]

It's really very simple.  You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.  As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Now we get to what Karl Popper called the Paradox of Tolerance.  Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of our freedoms and freedom of speech and thought?  when do we have to stop being tolerant of those who would eliminate tolerance for us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

For example, Fascism, National Socialism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism.  We had the phenomena years ago in Algeria where as it looked like the Islamists were going to win a national election in Algeria, the leaders of the Islamist party proudly announced that if they won, that would be the last such election allowed to be held in Algeria.

Where do we draw the line on tolerance to save tolerance from the intolerant?

Thats exactly the point!

Im not saying one is better, or one extreme is better than then other. In fact i think both extreme positions are dangerous in and of themselves.
Off course it should be the goal to have "free speech" in terms of as free as possible, but i think that this depends on the circumstances. curent trend(s) in variuos parts of the world imo show this dilemma is real.

Free speech as much as possible, brings us back to square one again, but i am sceptical that the concept most/many americans share is the holy grail. Current events may prove them wrong, or prove me (and Szuchow) wrong, time will tell.

I just read your Popper link (thanks, im no philosophy afficinado), and i fully agree with him. He wrote in 1945 and seems to have taken exactly the lessons form th enazi era i was talking about, and those the founding fathers of post WWII Germany seem to have taken.

[Reltzik]

Is it really an either-or thing?  Either curtail the principle of free speech or the fascists take over?


Looking at the people in MY government, I Do Not Like This Idea.  Let the people presently running my country even think of having that degree of ability to censor, and atheists and liberals and civil rights group and labor activists and lgbtq+ activists and so many more would be silenced while the racists would be given free rein.  That would supercharge our fascists, not stop them.  My knowledge of Polish politics is... very abbreviated, but my impression is that the same is true in Szuchow's neck of the woods.


Could there not be some effective methods other than empowering people in government to censor ideas?  Some other way to fight the fascists?

I skimmed through this thread and didn't see it, but it's late and election night anxiety and etc and I might have missed it, so I'll just come out and ask.  What basis is there to believe that significantly curtailing freedom of speech is the only effective way to contain the fascists? Or that it's even the best way to contain fascists?  I can't really see this as a case of choosing the lesser of evils without first establishing that the evils are the only options on the menu.

[Szuchow]

Is it really an either-or thing?  Either curtail the principle of free speech or the fascists take over?

Principle is already curtailed. If you don't support people right to cry fire in crowded theater then any argument which use word principle will ring hollow. 

Looking at the people in MY government, I Do Not Like This Idea.  Let the people presently running my country even think of having that degree of ability to censor, and atheists and liberals and civil rights group and labor activists and lgbtq+ activists and so many more would be silenced while the racists would be given free rein.  That would supercharge our fascists, not stop them.  My knowledge of Polish politics is... very abbreviated, but my impression is that the same is true in Szuchow's neck of the woods.

It isn't the same. There is no systemic effort to silence atheists, anti nationalists and feminists, though gov certainly is using smear tactics about any group that is in opposition to it. There is also effort to silence opposition made by non governmental entities but for the purpose of this thread it does not really matter.

Frankly as far as I am concerned this idea is nothing more than slippery slope fallacy based on notion of gov being inherently bad.

Could there not be some effective methods other than empowering people in government to censor ideas?  Some other way to fight the fascists?

Perhaps. I'm however not so concerned with fascists wellbeing that I will try to find kid gloves to oppose them.

I skimmed through this thread and didn't see it, but it's late and election night anxiety and etc and I might have missed it, so I'll just come out and ask.  What basis is there to believe that significantly curtailing freedom of speech is the only effective way to contain the fascists?

What basis you have to state that creating law to make propagating fascism illegal will significantly curtail freedom of speech? As far as I am concerned it would have minor effect at worst.

Or that it's even the best way to contain fascists?  I can't really see this as a case of choosing the lesser of evils without first establishing that the evils are the only options on the menu.

When other option is gov doing nothing then I prefer it using law to curtail fascists threat. Doing nothing means leaving all other citizens to themselves and bowing before fascists alleged right to spread hatred. Doing nothing means being coward in the name of some imagined principle, that holds true nowhere in the world.

[Minimalist]

when do we have to stop being tolerant of those who would eliminate tolerance for us?

When they stop talking and start acting.  Those nazi bastards who planned to kidnap the governor of Michigan are a good example.  A bunch of loudmouth assholes sitting around bullshitting is one thing but when they start planning and gathering weapons for the purpose then bullshit becomes a criminal conspiracy.

[Szuchow]

The point is that fascism there wasn't stopped from seizing the power by protesting citizens so why should Poland be different.

As I said, each of the named countries had different reasons for embracing fascism:  Germany because they lost WWI and Italy because they "won."  I'm not familiar enough with the rise of Franco and Salazar to comment on them.

There were fascist movements in the US, Britain and France too but they did not gain traction to the point of taking over.  What you need to examine are the reasons why Poland is different.  I admit that I am biased but any time the church is involved I get suspicious of what those cassocked motherfuckers are up to.

I already named reasons for Poland lack of defenses against fascism. Doubtlessly there are other reasons like allegedly communist regime which made at least some people allergic to the left wing and willing to buy into right wing rhetoric no matter how extreme. But in the end ignorance suffices - one can't defend against something that one does not know.

[Minimalist]

There we agree.  I ran across this quotation quite by accident this morning on another site.



Typical of churches!

[Reltzik]

Is it really an either-or thing?  Either curtail the principle of free speech or the fascists take over?

Principle is already curtailed. If you don't support people right to cry fire in crowded theater then any argument which use word principle will ring hollow.

Sorta.  In an earlier post I sketched out the general sorts of curtailment that I thought were okay and those that were not.  The principle I'm defending is a bit more specific than "ability to say anything you want whenever you like".  That I'm willing to compromise on.  What I'm not willing to compromise on is the sort of speech necessary for democracy to function, which must include the ability of people to discuss ideas and policies, criticize laws and politicians, and organize to effect change through the legal process, etc.  That is the actual principle I'm defending, and I'm willing enough to rule out shouting fire in the crowded theatre or incitement to riot because that sort of speech isn't required for democracy to function.

I just don't have a handy phrase to refer to my principle.  Maybe "marketplace of ideas", but that's too broad in some ways and too narrow in others.  Is there some sort of curtailment of freedom of speech that accomplishes your goals without compromising that narrower principle specifically?  I don't recall anyone explaining in detail the specific policies or scopes of the freedom of speech that would be restricted.

Looking at the people in MY government, I Do Not Like This Idea.  Let the people presently running my country even think of having that degree of ability to censor, and atheists and liberals and civil rights group and labor activists and lgbtq+ activists and so many more would be silenced while the racists would be given free rein.  That would supercharge our fascists, not stop them.  My knowledge of Polish politics is... very abbreviated, but my impression is that the same is true in Szuchow's neck of the woods.

It isn't the same. There is no systemic effort to silence atheists, anti nationalists and feminists, though gov certainly is using smear tactics about any group that is in opposition to it. There is also effort to silence opposition made by non governmental entities but for the purpose of this thread it does not really matter.

Frankly as far as I am concerned this idea is nothing more than slippery slope fallacy based on notion of gov being inherently bad.

Not exactly.  It's based on the idea of government being inherently powerful, and that the power of government is available to whoever manages to get into office.  Civil rights serve as a check against that power, and removing civil rights removes the ability to check abuse of that power.  Since one of the fascists' goals is to claim that power and abuse it, I'm not happy removing a mechanism that helps prevent that from happening.

Call that a slippery slope if you like.  It's only a fallacy if the slope isn't slippery.

Could there not be some effective methods other than empowering people in government to censor ideas?  Some other way to fight the fascists?

Perhaps. I'm however not so concerned with fascists wellbeing that I will try to find kid gloves to oppose them.

Neither am I.  Fascism is a malignant tumor in society's brain that needs excised.  I'd just rather cut it out with a scalpel (or maybe a gamma knife) than a chainsaw.  Careful consideration of options isn't about protecting the tumor.  It's about protecting the rest of the brain.

(Even if the patient survived the chainsaw, the sloppiness with which it removed the tumor would likely leave portions of it behind to metastasize.  This creates an unintended, but accurate, analogy to the way that fascists frequently turn attacks on them into a narrative that law and order are breaking down and rights are being trampled on and someone needs to seize control to restore order.)

I skimmed through this thread and didn't see it, but it's late and election night anxiety and etc and I might have missed it, so I'll just come out and ask.  What basis is there to believe that significantly curtailing freedom of speech is the only effective way to contain the fascists?

What basis you have to state that creating law to make propagating fascism illegal will significantly curtail freedom of speech? As far as I am concerned it would have minor effect at worst.

It's not so much that law specifically that concerns me (though I've seen enough politicians who would happily equate atheism with fascism and take the opportunity crack down on atheists... it'd be completely spurious designation, but who could stop them?).  My real concern is the general ability to create laws against propagating ideologies designated harmful by the whims of whoever's in charge.  A government with the power to outlaw propagating fascism is also a government with the power to outlaw propagating LGBT acceptance, to name just one possibility.

Or that it's even the best way to contain fascists?  I can't really see this as a case of choosing the lesser of evils without first establishing that the evils are the only options on the menu.

When other option is gov doing nothing then I prefer it using law to curtail fascists threat. Doing nothing means leaving all other citizens to themselves and bowing before fascists alleged right to spread hatred. Doing nothing means being coward in the name of some imagined principle, that holds true nowhere in the world.

But is the government doing nothing really the only other option?  That was my question, and I don't think you've answered it.  Minimalist brought up an example of watching carefully for them to get too big for their britches (which fascists will inevitably do, it's part of the psychology) and then being ready to bring the hammer down hard.  Other things governments can do include countermessaging and addressing many of the issues that fascists leverage to draw their followers in in the first place.

And even if the only other option were "the government does nothing" (which I don't think it is), that's not the same thing as ME doing nothing.  There are a host of non-governmental options for fighting back.  It's not like I need the government's permission to organize my own countermessaging campaign.  Unless, that is, someone lets the government claim the power to restrict that sort of thing.

[Szuchow]

Sorta.  In an earlier post I sketched out the general sorts of curtailment that I thought were okay and those that were not.  The principle I'm defending is a bit more specific than "ability to say anything you want whenever you like".  That I'm willing to compromise on.  What I'm not willing to compromise on is the sort of speech necessary for democracy to function, which must include the ability of people to discuss ideas and policies, criticize laws and politicians, and organize to effect change through the legal process, etc.  That is the actual principle I'm defending, and I'm willing enough to rule out shouting fire in the crowded theatre or incitement to riot because that sort of speech isn't required for democracy to function.

Being able to spread fascist propaganda legally isn't necessary for democracy to function.

I just don't have a handy phrase to refer to my principle.  Maybe "marketplace of ideas", but that's too broad in some ways and too narrow in others.  Is there some sort of curtailment of freedom of speech that accomplishes your goals without compromising that narrower principle specifically?  I don't recall anyone explaining in detail the specific policies or scopes of the freedom of speech that would be restricted.

People can easily discuss ideas, criticize laws and politicians or organize without allowing for fascists propaganda being legal.

Also your objections rings hollow. You aren't pro free speech, merely pro specific form of free speech that you're ok with.

Not exactly.  It's based on the idea of government being inherently powerful, and that the power of government is available to whoever manages to get into office.  Civil rights serve as a check against that power, and removing civil rights removes the ability to check abuse of that power.  Since one of the fascists' goals is to claim that power and abuse it, I'm not happy removing a mechanism that helps prevent that from happening.

Call that a slippery slope if you like.  It's only a fallacy if the slope isn't slippery.

Spreading fascist propaganda isn't a civil right. I find it to be darkly hilarious that people are ok with this clichéd crying fire in crowded theater being illegal despite it being relatively harmless in the big picture, yet they don't want gov to censor fascists who definitely aren't harmless in big picture. For me this is a perfect sign of something being wrong with the way civilization went.

Neither am I.  Fascism is a malignant tumor in society's brain that needs excised.  I'd just rather cut it out with a scalpel (or maybe a gamma knife) than a chainsaw.  Careful consideration of options isn't about protecting the tumor.  It's about protecting the rest of the brain.

(Even if the patient survived the chainsaw, the sloppiness with which it removed the tumor would likely leave portions of it behind to metastasize.  This creates an unintended, but accurate, analogy to the way that fascists frequently turn attacks on them into a narrative that law and order are breaking down and rights are being trampled on and someone needs to seize control to restore order.)

I reject this analogy. Having laws against propagating fascism did not made Poland to be worse place. Not having will to actually enforce them, thanks to thinking that historically delegitimized crap like fascism deserve some consideration did. Laws against fascism aren't chainsaw but merely gov which not hide behind some imagined principle and takes care about citizens.

It's not so much that law specifically that concerns me (though I've seen enough politicians who would happily equate atheism with fascism and take the opportunity crack down on atheists... it'd be completely spurious designation, but who could stop them?).  My real concern is the general ability to create laws against propagating ideologies designated harmful by the whims of whoever's in charge.  A government with the power to outlaw propagating fascism is also a government with the power to outlaw propagating LGBT acceptance, to name just one possibility.

If gov want to oppress some group then it will find a way to do it. Also gov does not need to have a law against fascist propaganda to create law against some imagined threat. Law that make atheism illegal can be easily made without law that makes propagating fascism illegal ever being discussed.

But is the government doing nothing really the only other option?  That was my question, and I don't think you've answered it.  Minimalist brought up an example of watching carefully for them to get too big for their britches (which fascists will inevitably do, it's part of the psychology) and then being ready to bring the hammer down hard.  Other things governments can do include countermessaging and addressing many of the issues that fascists leverage to draw their followers in in the first place.

From my pov gov either tolerates spreading of fascist poison and makes no laws to stop it or it does not tolerate such and make appropriate laws. Observing is but a side note.

And even if the only other option were "the government does nothing" (which I don't think it is), that's not the same thing as ME doing nothing.  There are a host of non-governmental options for fighting back.  It's not like I need the government's permission to organize my own countermessaging campaign.  Unless, that is, someone lets the government claim the power to restrict that sort of thing.

Irrelevant. Fact that citizens can make counter manifestation does not mean that gov should allow for fascist manifestations in the first place.

[Reltzik]

Sorta.  In an earlier post I sketched out the general sorts of curtailment that I thought were okay and those that were not.  The principle I'm defending is a bit more specific than "ability to say anything you want whenever you like".  That I'm willing to compromise on.  What I'm not willing to compromise on is the sort of speech necessary for democracy to function, which must include the ability of people to discuss ideas and policies, criticize laws and politicians, and organize to effect change through the legal process, etc.  That is the actual principle I'm defending, and I'm willing enough to rule out shouting fire in the crowded theatre or incitement to riot because that sort of speech isn't required for democracy to function.

Being able to spread fascist propaganda legally isn't necessary for democracy to function.

I just don't have a handy phrase to refer to my principle.  Maybe "marketplace of ideas", but that's too broad in some ways and too narrow in others.  Is there some sort of curtailment of freedom of speech that accomplishes your goals without compromising that narrower principle specifically?  I don't recall anyone explaining in detail the specific policies or scopes of the freedom of speech that would be restricted.

People can easily discuss ideas, criticize laws and politicians or organize without allowing for fascists propaganda being legal.

Also your objections rings hollow. You aren't pro free speech, merely pro specific form of free speech that you're ok with.

Being able to discuss changes to the form of government through legal processes, like constitutional amendments or changes to the law, is necessary for democracy to function.  Citizens being able to discuss ideas and beliefs that would inform their decisions on whether to support such a change is also necessary for democracy.  I see no way that a government can curtail this for a specific type of change (such as advocating for fascism) without also letting the government curtail it for any other type (such as advocating for secularism).

Not exactly.  It's based on the idea of government being inherently powerful, and that the power of government is available to whoever manages to get into office.  Civil rights serve as a check against that power, and removing civil rights removes the ability to check abuse of that power.  Since one of the fascists' goals is to claim that power and abuse it, I'm not happy removing a mechanism that helps prevent that from happening.

Call that a slippery slope if you like.  It's only a fallacy if the slope isn't slippery.

Spreading fascist propaganda isn't a civil right. I find it to be darkly hilarious that people are ok with this clichéd crying fire in crowded theater being illegal despite it being relatively harmless in the big picture, yet they don't want gov to censor fascists who definitely aren't harmless in big picture. For me this is a perfect sign of something being wrong with the way civilization went.

Spreading propaganda of ANY sort is a civil right.

Neither am I.  Fascism is a malignant tumor in society's brain that needs excised.  I'd just rather cut it out with a scalpel (or maybe a gamma knife) than a chainsaw.  Careful consideration of options isn't about protecting the tumor.  It's about protecting the rest of the brain.

(Even if the patient survived the chainsaw, the sloppiness with which it removed the tumor would likely leave portions of it behind to metastasize.  This creates an unintended, but accurate, analogy to the way that fascists frequently turn attacks on them into a narrative that law and order are breaking down and rights are being trampled on and someone needs to seize control to restore order.)

I reject this analogy. Having laws against propagating fascism did not made Poland to be worse place. Not having will to actually enforce them, thanks to thinking that historically delegitimized crap like fascism deserve some consideration did. Laws against fascism aren't chainsaw but merely gov which not hide behind some imagined principle and takes care about citizens.

The same view of the law and freedom of speech which allows the suppression of fascistic speech as forbidden also allows for the suppression of criticism of religion and criminalizing the offending religious sensibilities.  My understanding is that Poland embraced both, to the point where creating an LGBT version of a religious icon is an arrestable offense.  How is Poland an example of the one type of power not coming hand-in-hand with the other?

It's not so much that law specifically that concerns me (though I've seen enough politicians who would happily equate atheism with fascism and take the opportunity crack down on atheists... it'd be completely spurious designation, but who could stop them?).  My real concern is the general ability to create laws against propagating ideologies designated harmful by the whims of whoever's in charge.  A government with the power to outlaw propagating fascism is also a government with the power to outlaw propagating LGBT acceptance, to name just one possibility.

If gov want to oppress some group then it will find a way to do it.

It is much harder for a government to oppress a group for an activity which is protected by constitutional provisions than one that isn't.  I've lost count of the number of times that such attempts by religious conservatives here in the U.S. were thwarted by constitutional protections.  And unless I'm mistaken, Poland has similar protections in its constitution, which also serve to protect against government oppression of those activities.

Also gov does not need to have a law against fascist propaganda to create law against some imagined threat. Law that make atheism illegal can be easily made without law that makes propagating fascism illegal ever being discussed.

True.  But it is difficult to craft constitutional protections that defend the freedom of thought required for atheism without them also defending less salubrious positions.

But is the government doing nothing really the only other option?  That was my question, and I don't think you've answered it.  Minimalist brought up an example of watching carefully for them to get too big for their britches (which fascists will inevitably do, it's part of the psychology) and then being ready to bring the hammer down hard.  Other things governments can do include countermessaging and addressing many of the issues that fascists leverage to draw their followers in in the first place.

From my pov gov either tolerates spreading of fascist poison and makes no laws to stop it or it does not tolerate such and make appropriate laws. Observing is but a side note.

You miss the point.  Suppressing speech (to use the overly broad term for the principle for which I don't know the name) is only ONE possible tactic for stopping fascism.  A government that selects a different tactic for stopping fascism, such as spreading the opposite message, is hardly tolerating it.  Saying that the government must either censor fascism or tolerate it is a false dichotomy.

And even if the only other option were "the government does nothing" (which I don't think it is), that's not the same thing as ME doing nothing.  There are a host of non-governmental options for fighting back.  It's not like I need the government's permission to organize my own countermessaging campaign.  Unless, that is, someone lets the government claim the power to restrict that sort of thing.

Irrelevant. Fact that citizens can make counter manifestation does not mean that gov should allow for fascist manifestations in the first place.

I'd addressed government response in the previous paragraph.  This one was to point out that a strategy focused around citizen response, rather than government response, was also a viable means of containing fascism.  It's not as simple as a black-and-white choice between government suppressing fascism or fascism taking over.

[Szuchow]

Being able to discuss changes to the form of government through legal processes, like constitutional amendments or changes to the law, is necessary for democracy to function.  Citizens being able to discuss ideas and beliefs that would inform their decisions on whether to support such a change is also necessary for democracy.  I see no way that a government can curtail this for a specific type of change (such as advocating for fascism) without also letting the government curtail it for any other type (such as advocating for secularism).

Again with bad gummint coming for us. Making spreading fascist propaganda illegal does not mean that anything else will be made illegal but I suspect that I'm wasting my time trying to explain it.

Spreading propaganda of ANY sort is a civil right.

Says you.

The same view of the law and freedom of speech which allows the suppression of fascistic speech as forbidden also allows for the suppression of criticism of religion and criminalizing the offending religious sensibilities.  My understanding is that Poland embraced both, to the point where creating an LGBT version of a religious icon is an arrestable offense.  How is Poland an example of the one type of power not coming hand-in-hand with the other?

Easily. Poland wasn't interested and is not interested in prosecuting fascists. It hardly can be considering that ruling party is fascist and for fascists abuse of the law is par of the course.

If anything Poland is good example of the fact that even good laws counts for shit when they aren't enforced.

It is much harder for a government to oppress a group for an activity which is protected by constitutional provisions than one that isn't.  I've lost count of the number of times that such attempts by religious conservatives here in the U.S. were thwarted by constitutional protections.  And unless I'm mistaken, Poland has similar protections in its constitution, which also serve to protect against government oppression of those activities.

Gov can always oppress said group for another reason. 

With fascists in power Poland constitution is irrelevant. It's not like they care about what's written there.

True.  But it is difficult to craft constitutional protections that defend the freedom of thought required for atheism without them also defending less salubrious positions.

Not really. It merely requires differentiation between being free to have views and being free to support criminal ideology. Poland constitution states that all people have freedom of speech, yet law against public propagating of fascism isn't unconstitutional.

You miss the point.  Suppressing speech (to use the overly broad term for the principle for which I don't know the name) is only ONE possible tactic for stopping fascism.  A government that selects a different tactic for stopping fascism, such as spreading the opposite message, is hardly tolerating it.  Saying that the government must either censor fascism or tolerate it is a false dichotomy.

Gov which does not arrest fascists is tolerating them. It sure should use different means to combat it, preferably by changing education program but I see no good reason for which spreading of fascist poison should remain legal.

I'd addressed government response in the previous paragraph.  This one was to point out that a strategy focused around citizen response, rather than government response, was also a viable means of containing fascism.  It's not as simple as a black-and-white choice between government suppressing fascism or fascism taking over.

It is irrelevant. Fact that citizens can oppose fascism does not mean that gov can sit on it's ass. Rather citizens should only deal with what fascist left after gov do it's part.

[trdsf]

I will cheerily (or even not so cheerily) recognize anyone else's right to speak their mind. That's miles away from letting it pass uncommented or uncorrected... or even listening to it in the first place.

The right to speech does not come bundled with either a right to be heard or a right to be unchallenged.

[Deesse23]

It was mentioned earlier that free speech is necessary for an open and fruitful discussion about ideas, even unpopular ones.

What is there left to discuss about the possible merits of fascism? Its not a matter of popularity. We already know that fascism is wrong and can (and will!) bring unspeakable suffering. We already know that it likes to "invade" societies via their open mindedness. I have no problems with mitigating this risk by denying this ideology access to the public marketplace of ideas.

It has been sold, its rotten, it has no place here on the market.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It was mentioned earlier that free speech is necessary for an open and fruitful discussion about ideas, even unpopular ones.

What is there left to discuss about the possible merits of fascism? Its not a matter of popularity. We already know that fascism is wrong and can (and will!) bring unspeakable suffering. We already know that it likes to "invade" societies via their open mindedness. I have no problems with mitigating this risk by denying this ideology access to the public marketplace of ideas.

It has been sold, its rotten, it has no place here on the market.

Historical fascism is in the realm of political science and historians. Modern fascism needs to be examined in public. The Hard Right wants people to believe they are saving society from The Left. If we don't refute their position only their side is heard.

[Minimalist]

It has been sold, its rotten, it has no place here on the market.

And yet it persists.  Personally I think Sallustius Crispus nailed it 22 centuries ago.

“Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.”
 
[Gaius Sallustius Crispus] (86-34 BC) Statesman and Historian during the last century of the Roman Republic

If Sallust is right, then democracy is a blip on the screen of history.

[Dānu]

Guess I'm not going to get an explanation of Deesse23's comment.