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

[Jim Devine]

alas, we can't say that "Free speech _means_ no state interference."
The meanings of words and phrases are not etched in stone. But I'd say
that in general, in the US, "free speech" does mean "no state
interference," since the editor's decision to spike a story does not
count as violation of FS, nor does a listserv moderator's decision to
oust an obnoxious poster. It's a conventional meaning, not a "true"
meaning.

On 2/7/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
> >
> >  In a nutshell, 1) I don't believe in "free speech for fascists" 2) I don't
> > support state intervention to proscribe them,
>
> This  guarantees misunderstanding. If you don't support state
> intervention, _then_ you DO believe in free speech for fascists. You are
> fighting the language, and fights against language are always losing
> fights, leading to the kind of confusion you describe. And this error in
> diction leads to confused political debate, because there ceases to be
> shared understanding when we turn to the question of leftists orgaizing
> to disrupt racist speeches and so forth. That discussion has to do with
> left tactics and their efficacy or inefficacy in given contexts, NOT
> with the question of free speech.
>
> Free speech _means_ no state interference. It has no other meaning. Do
> not use it in any other sense because if you do you will cause
> confusion.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

--
Jim Devine
Down with Big Brother Bush!