> 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 .
----------------------------------
You're right to point out that there are no "guarantees" of freedom of
speech which can't be withdrawn - and will be withdrawn or circumvented - by
a ruling class or ruling group when its control is seriously threatened.
This is not only true on the macro level of the state, but also on the micro
level of organizations, including those in which we have all participated.
In advanced capitalist society, where civil liberties have attained their
highest expression, these formal guarantees are still no match for the
corporate state's monopoly of control over the means of mass communications,
and its ability to encroach on these constitutional guarantees, as we know
it has been doing since 9/11.
But I think this doesn't refute but reinforce that we have to look at this issue in "tactical" or "pragmatic" terms rather than as abstract principles which are presumed to be inviolate. From this persepctive, I think we'd all agree it is very much in the left's interest to defend whatever breathing space it has for as long as it can. I've always happened to see resistance to laws ostensibly aimed at "hate groups" as contributing to this objective. But because it is for me a tactical question, I have to hold open the possibility that "anti-hate" legislation in some circumstances could strengthen rather than weaken the social interests we support. I just haven't seen anything to date to persuade me.
Can you even contemplate a law banning fascist speech which is not so elastic that the state wouldn't use it against innocents - as, for instance, against US Muslims opposed to the imperialist policies of the administration? Could't even a state ostensibly restricted by legislation to curb free speech only for "fascists" not conveniently interpret their thoughts and activities as supporting "Islamo-fascism"? Couldn't the Patriot Act be justified by the authorities on this basis, if it were necessary for them to do so? Isn't this the "tactical" or "pragmatic" reason why we oppose ANY attacks on existing constitutional rights while recognizing their fragility?