>>> kirsten neilsen <kirsten at Infothecary.ORG> 10/19/99 10:06AM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
> The exception I argue for is based on historical
> experience and fact: the incredible horror of WWII
> fascism
i think you could get quite a lot of people to agree w/ you here, charles, but just as many or more might agree w/ the statement following statement. the exception i argue for is based on historical experience and fact: the incredible horror of communism.
((((((((((
Charles: Yes, this problem of you raise is a real one, especially given the anti-communist propaganda of U.S. society. Black communists really face this contradiction and dilemma. My introduction and training to the position I argue and have developed the legal arguments for came from Angela Davis and Charlene Mitchell, both Black communists, so the decision was based on biting the bullet on this issue. Basically, (some) communists say we can't ignore the danger of fascists to protect ourselves as communists from the lies of the bourgeoisie, especially since we have not been much protected by the First Amendment anyway.
In part the reply is that Communists have not been protected by the First Amendment anyway. Especially at critical politcal moments, such as WWI, the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism. But that is not a reply that totally avoids the danger you mention. Part of the reply is to argue against the historical lie about actually existing communism. Also, Nazism and KKKism are explicitly racist and genocidal. Communism is explicitly anti-racist , anti-fascist and anti-genocidal, and pro-democratic in the sense that the working class is the vast majority of the population, and its power would be ultimately democratic.
((((((((((
i simply don't see how you can proscribe certain types of political speech, however abhorrent, without opening up the possibility (and reality) of more such limits.
((((((((((
Charles: Again my basic discovery on this is that it is something of an illusion that the greater limitations you mention, i.e. limitations on communist speech have not been the historical case. The first cases on WWI were jalings of socialists who opposed WWI. This was at a time before there were "communists", and these socialists had the same position on WW I as the Bolsheviks ( who weren't named the "Communist Party" yet). Then I am sure you are familiar with McCarthyism. So where has been the First Amendment protection for Communists.
Also, in France, England and Canada there have been anti-fascist speech laws that were not turned on or the basis for anti-communist speech laws. Also, the UN Convention on genocide is a world standard on this issue. It was raised by a Communist, Black attorney, Wm. L. Patterson, charging the "U.S." with genocide, though I don't recall him raising the incitement to genocide provision specifically.
Perhaps the best answer to the problem you raise is this: There is no way that an anti-fascist exception to the First Amendment could get anywhere legally in the U.S. without an enormous rise of the working class movement. In such a climate where the mass of the working class is class conscious and on the move, the equation of communists with fascists would not fly. So, as I say, this legal progarmmatic proposal must be seen as part of a full communist program in the context of significant working class movement and rising power. Without a real movement underpinning it, no legal proposal can do anything.
Thanks for the below. Hungary certainly has gone into the can today.
CB
((((((((((((((((
from the hungarian penal code:
Article 269/B:
Law XLV, year 1993.
Modification of the law IV of the year 1978 in the Criminal Code
The 20th Century's extreme political ideals brought such dictatorships to power through forceful takeover and exclusive control to Europe and Hungary, which took no notice of human rights and led to the extermination of Hungary's citizens.
The parliament has decided to install the following law, where the interests of Hungary have been considered as opposed to these nations, organizations or movements whose usage of these symbols opens painful wounds.
1 section the Criminal Code's law IV of 1978 is the following section 269/B
Usage of Absolutist Symbols
269/B Section
1.Whomever
a) distributes
b) uses very openly
c) exhibits in public
the swastika, SS symbol, arrow cross, **hammer-and-sickle,** **five-armed red star** or representational symbols and does not commit any greater crime, will be charged and fined.
2.Those in fault of the (1) paragraph who use the symbols for recognizational, educational, scientific, artistic or historical, i.e. the modern era's events, are not punishable by law.
3.Those nations whose official symbols contain the aforementioned symbols are not subject to prosecution under the (1) and (2) paragraphs.
4.The event at which these symbols are displayed must be dispersed.
translated by Georges G. Kovari III, 21 Feb 99