----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: [lbo-talk] "Freedom" of fascist speech is an absurdity
> Marvin Gandall :
>
> Actually, I don't think the left has historically supported freedom of
> speech for fascists for precisely the reasons you (Charles) mention.
> That's
> why it has generally tried to confront and disrupt fascist rallies as a
> matter of self-defence. But at the same time it has objected to legislated
> curbs on freedom of expression because it has adjudged, accurately, that
> these are more likely to be used against itself in times of crisis.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Yes, in my papers and posts to this list on these issues over the
> years,
> I refer to your argument here as the "pragmatic" argument for giving First
> Amendment ( in the U.S.) protection to fascistic racist speech. There are
> pragmatic and idealistic arguments. The idealistic argument is refuted by
> the "absurdity" argument I just posted.
>
> The pragmatic argument is essentially refuted or partially refuted by the
> facts of history, at least in the U.S. That history shows that
> Communists'
> supporting freedom of speech for fascists will not guarantee that the
> bourgeois state will protect Communists' freedom of speech. In other
> words,
> you are saying that we should support freedom of sppech for fascists,
> because by doing so , the bourgeois state will have to be consistent and
> protect Communist ( or Left) frreedom of speech some time in the future,
> because Communists have supported freedom of speech and organization for
> fascists.
>
> But the KKK and other fascists had freedom of speech all through the
> period
> of 1919 through the 1950's. And all through that time the freedom of
> speech
> and assembly of Communists was not protected by the U.S. state . There
> were
> the first First Amendment cases before Holmes and Brandeis , et al, in
> which
> Holmes in his socalled famous civil liberties decision voted to leave in
> _jail_ , I think it was Gitlow, or the other one. In Holmes', "shouting
> fire
> ,falsely< in a crowded theater" opinion, he cites shouting fire , falsely,
> in a crowded theatre as an example of speech that is _not_ protected by
> the
> First Amendment. It is an _exception_ to protected speech; and uses he the
> analogy to put socialist-left anti-World War I protestors in prison ,or to
> leave them I prison under the lower court decisions. Their anti-war
> speeches
> were exceptions, like shouting "fire",falsely, in a crowded theatre, to
> protected speech. Then a few years later, Brandeis writes a paen to free
> speech ( as my Constitutional law professor put it) and then votes to
> leave
> Comrade I forgot her name for now, she was a Communist in Californis ,
> leave
> her in prison for advocating Communism. In there about the same time were
> the Palmer Raids. Then later the Smith Act convictions.
>
> At no time in this period were any fascists, KKK or even Nazis I believe,
> jailed in the U.S. for their speech. Henry Ford had a picture of Hitler up
> in his office.
>
> So, I am saying that in fact respecting fascists' freedom of speech, not
> legislating against fascist speech, has not resulted in protection of
> Communist or Left freedom of speech "in return." The pragmatic strategy
> has
> a poor history. There was no "quid pro quo" : We oppose outlawing fascist
> speech, and the bourgeois state will not violate Communist or Left speech
> in
> "exchange".
>
> Do not rely on your respecting fascist "freedom" of speech to stop the
> bourgeois state from repressing left speech if and when the bourgeois
> state
> decides it is necessary to repress left speech. The bourgeois state. won't
> let you go back and say "look, we didn't advocate outlawing fascist speech
> back then. You must give us the same in return. " They are treacherous.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>