I think that you should not be allowed to make death threats or yell fire in a crowded theater, that includes rhetoric that causes destruction and harm such as holocaust denialism or cross burning, rightist rhetoric always leads to destruction so it should be limited by a dictatorship of the proletariat. True free speech doesn’t exist under capitalism anyways.
>>2756895>True free speech doesn’t exist under capitalism anyways.Correct. Because it doesn't exist, why ask this question? First get me real freeze peach and then we'll talk.
Free markets don't exist, yet they ask if you support them.
>I think that you should not be allowed to make death threats or yell fire in a crowded theater
What you mean to say is "people should be punished" for these things; allowance is no condition upon ability.
>rhetoric that causes destruction and harm
These are subjective categories, so must be defined
>True free speech doesn’t exist under capitalism anyways.
Whats the difference between "true" and false free speech?
>>2756985>What you mean to say is "people should be punished" for these things; allowance is no condition upon ability.Don’t be a smart aleck Anon
>These are subjective categories, so must be definedYou know things like murder, starvation, torture, genocide, shit like that
>Whats the difference between "true" and false free speech?Being able to say stuff that you wanna say
Let's see what Lenin had to say on the matter
<”Freedom of the press, from the monarchists to the anarchists, inclusively” . . . . Very good! But just a minute: every Marxist and every worker who ponders over the four years’ experience of our revolution will say, “Let’s look into this-what sort of freedom of the press? What for? For which class?”
<We do not believe in “absolutes”. We laugh at “pure democracy “.
<The “freedom of the press” slogan became a great world slogan at the close of the Middle Ages and remained so up to the nineteenth century. Why? Because it expressed the ideas of the progressive bourgeoisie, i.e., its struggle against kings and priests, feudal lords and landowners.
<No country in the world has done as much to liberate the masses from the influence of priests and landowners as the R.S.F.S.R. has done, and is doing. We have been performing this function of “freedom of the press” better than anyone else in the world.
<All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.
<This is a fact.
<No one will ever be able to refute it.
<And what about us?
<Can anyone deny that the bourgeoisie in this country has been defeated, but not destroyed? That it has gone into hiding? Nobody can deny it.
<Freedom of the press in the R.S.F.S.R., which is surrounded by the bourgeois enemies of the whole world, means freedom of political organisation for the bourgeoisie and its most loyal servants, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries.
<This is an irrefutable fact.
<The bourgeoisie (all over the world) is still very much stronger than we are. To place in its hands yet another weapon like freedom of political organisation (= freedom of the press, for the press is the core and foundation of political organisation) means facilitating the enemy’s task, means helping the class enemy.
<We have no wish to commit suicide, and therefore, we will not do this.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm
<For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press.
<For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/04.htm
<Under the bourgeois system (i.e., as long as private property in land and in the means of production persists) and under bourgeois democracy, “freedom and equality” remain purely formal, signifying in practice wage-slavery for the workers (who are formally free and equal) and the undivided rule of capital, the oppression of labour by capital. This is the ABC of socialism, my learned gentlemen—and you have forgotten it.
<It follows from this ABC that during the proletarian revolution, when the class struggle has sharpened to the point of civil war, only fools and traitors will seek to get away with empty talk about “freedom”, “equality” and “unity of labour democracy”. Actually everything depends on the outcome of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the intermediate, middle classes (including the entire petty bourgeoisie, and hence the entire peasantry) inevitably vacillate between the two camps.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/23.htm>>2756992>murder, starvation, torture, genocideand its words which cause these things?
>Being able to say stuff that you wanna saywhat arent you currently allowed to say?
>>2757002>muh trumpbrainbroken (sad)
>>2757002>Not Even Ragebaiting>UnironicLiberal>Democrap flagthe most obvious bait is the bait which declares itself to not be bait
My position is freedom of speech is good and noble. But in a transition period towards communism, there needs to be the use of apparatus, that educates, and enforces ideological hegemony.
The fact is, hostile bourgeois forces will use the media to propagate political propaganda or slop, for their own gain. Whether it's power or greed.
Of course, arguing against freedom of speech in a bourgeois society is stupid. And the very concept should be taken more seriously.
>>2756895you should be entitled to free speech, but it mustn't be abused. so many dickheads just say unfiltered schlock, just petabytes of garbage in comparison to the amount of actual good faith discussion that it renders impotent any given exchange of ideas because it's discourse is so diluted by memeshitters, ragebaiters, and other bad faith chicanery. there should be consequences for saying ignorant and deliberately divisive and incendiary shit, even if it's something small, like you have to pay a fine every time you are found to be in flagrant abuse of your free speech. of course, there should also be outlets for the aforementioned retardation, otherwise people would harbor pent up frustrations and ultimately the restrictions would contribute to a general sense of malaise, because the vibes are important and people would feel as though they're being restricted even if they necessarily aren't.
>>2757021>>2757023Drumpf is illiberal Leninist authoritarian reactionary
Ayatollah is classical liberal constitutional monarch. Ayatollah stands against American Leninist totalitarianism of Drumpf. Ayatollah will usher in new age of liberalism where third worlders are finally equal to first worlders. Ayatollah represents apotheosis of liberalism. Drumpf represents illiberal Leninist-Hitlerian Twin-Totalitarian Authoritarianism.
Death to America. Long Live Liberalism! Long Live Democracy!
CP is illegal. Lolicon is illegal. Child sex dolls are illegal. Obscenity is illegal. Now operating systems without age verification measures on the signin (like Microslop) is illegal. Now ADULT porn sites are firewalled by ISPs in some states.
>>2756908P much this.
>>2757099False and malicious statements against the federal government are illegal. Just bring up the fact that John Adams persecuted newspapers with the Sedition Act of 1798, so a Founding Father violated free speech before the ink even dried.
Nevermind the fact that it was an
amendment and not part of the Constitution (booj autofellatio) proper. Meaning it was appeasement of radicals. The juxtaposition resulted in the creation of ancaps.
>>2757131jefferson argued against the sedition act and it expired in 1801. john adams was generally reactionary anyhow, also opposing the secularism of the states, which violates the first ammendment as well:
<Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any otherhttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102 Unique IPs: 15