[lbo-talk] "Freedom" of fascist speech is an absurdity

[Scissors MacGillicutty]

IIRC, Karl Popper makes a similar argument to Charles' buried in a footnote at
the end of v. 1 of _The Open Society_.  Tolerance of diverse and
conflicting views is
for Popper fundamental to his def'n of an open society.  Rejection of said
tolerance amounts to an attack on a fundamental property of open societies and
is therefore an attack on open societies themselves; therefore Popper says they
can be put down.

My copy of the book is boxed up in preparation for a move, so I can't check it.

The argument doesn't sit well with me, but I haven't found a good
rebuttal.  On the other hand,
it does highlight that a to oppose the right to dissent—maybe more
accurate to say a statement that opposes the right to dissent—is a
different beast from a dissenting statement plain and simple.  I
suppose that formally it would be considered a meta-statement over the
set of statements about an issue.

Make of this what you will.  I read Popper on Adorno (and some other
people associated with the so-called Frankfurt School) and it seemed
Popper was either (a) misinformed or (b) dishonest.

Make of this what you will.

smg
On 2/6/06, Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:


> CB: I use absurd here to mean self-contradictory. If one values freedom of
> speech so highly , it would contradict that high evaluation to support those
> who seek to abolish the freedom of speech, the very thing valued so highly.
> 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.