> > Fascist "freedom" of speech is "freedom" to advocate the abolition of
> > freedom of speech. Abolition of freedom of speech is inherent to any
> > fascist state, by definition of fascist state.
Or more-or-less any totalitarian state. Stalin and Mao leap to mind.
Or any of several dozen third-world kleptocrat dictators, from the ones like Mugabe whose rationale is more-or-less Marxist to the ones like the late Shah of Iran whose line was "pro-Western" and made some claims to be "progressive".
> If those who seek to abolish the freedom of speech succeed
> in their effort,
> something you value most highly will be destroyed. It's elevating this
> specific group's freedom to speak above everybody's else's freedom
> to speak,
> because this group is using its speech to advocate institution of a form of
> government that will do away with the protection of freedom of speech.
> Fascists, by definition, eliminate freedom of speech.
Even if we grant your premise (which I will only for the sake of argument) that "fascist" speech should be supressed, there remain some huge problems. Who is to judge? To enforce? How would we ensure honesty in their enforcement?
Where do you draw the line? And is it only fascists who need suppression? What about those who advocate "dictatorship of the proletariat"? By early 1918, Kautsky was attacking Lenin for censorship and suppression of free speech. Should some of the Left be supressed as well?