>>11639>Discussion on free speech must necessarily be focused around the question: "should the state be empowered to judge or censor speech?"
This is a worthless framing. The most overt questions of speech today have left the state behind. It means absolutely nothing that the state won't censor what you say if the only way to have people hear it is via corporate social media, and corporate social media will
(But of course, for any sane person the important thing is not to fight against private social media services censoring right-wingers in a culture war sense, it is to fight against the very existence of such services.)
Why should we accept the censorship of the private publisher, or the publisher's co-op, or the anarchist zine team, but then balk at the censorship of the state? Then we may ask further questions: The state is an instrument of class rule, so in a worker's state why balk at the working class wielding censorship over the bourgeoisie?