|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Making the World Safe for Fascism: Free Speech and the Worship of Civil Liberties |
Current rating: 0 |
by prole cat
(No verified email address) |
07 Sep 2004
Modified: 02:03:15 PM |
|
As leftists we question or reject the sanctity of many sacred American institutions... My argument is not that the principle of free speech has no value, for it does… Instead, I argue that the right to free speech is only one right among many, and that when we raise free speech above all other rights we play into the hands of our political enemies. (First published in issue #3 of The Dawn, an anarchist communist newspaper from Oakland, California, in September of 2004.) |
Americans are raised to hold some things sacred. God, motherhood, the flag, and free markets are among the icons our children genuflect before. As leftists we question or reject the sanctity of some or all of these institutions, in varying degrees according to our ideology and inclinations. And yet we have our own herd of sacred cattle at whose cloven feet we worship. Chief among these holy relics is the United States Constitution, most especially it’s first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. In particular the first amendment, that includes the civil right to the exercise of free speech, is held sacrosanct.
In the coming paragraphs I will seek to dethrone this ideological demigod. My argument is not that the principle of free speech has no value, for it does. Nor will I take an unrealistic, anarchist-purist position that we should neglect the protection of these rights in the civil arena, in the court rooms or even the legislatures. Morality dictates that while the state exists, people need protection from the state by whatever means are possible and effective.
Instead, I offer this simple formulation: that the right to free speech is only one right among many, most of which are not enumerated in the Constitution. And that when we raise free speech above all other rights, human and civil, we sometimes, oftentimes, play into the hands of our political enemies.
Is being a fascist a “right”?
Nobody on the left likes fascists, or others who are openly racist. We compare George Bush to Hitler, insulting both. We deplore the racist heritage of the Ku Klux Klan, and the racist demagoguery of such latter-day groups as the National Alliance.
Our varied approaches to opposing these organizations may be summarized as follows: first, there are those who hope that if we ignore them they will just go away, sometimes voiced as “We should not give them free publicity”. This school of thought usually dismisses far right groups as “marginal extremists”, and unworthy of our attentions anyway.
And second, are those who think we should openly confront the fascists and other racists. (While both of these categories contain tendencies with varying degrees of pacifism and militancy, this somewhat strained dichotomy should serve for our purposes.)
It is to the first category of leftists that I direct my comments, to those who decline to challenge fascists on the grounds that they are irrelevant anyway, that opposition only gives them an inflated sense of importance, and besides, “They have a right to express their views, however much I may disagree with them.” I believe that this position typifies much of the left, and that this view is mistaken, even dangerous.
Do fascists matter?
First, let us quickly consider whether openly opposing far-right groups is worthy of our time. While fascist/racist groups may in fact have small membership roles, this fails to measure their political impact. For one thing, extremist groups create space in which moderates can move. For example, when the National Alliance calls for the forcible expulsion of all immigrants, it makes it safer for George Bush to propose a racist “guest worker” program. When taken to task for his racism, he can respond, “I’m no racist, those guys are the racists. I have a centrist position.” (In a similar fashion, and whether we intend it or not, anarchists and communists exert a leftward tug on liberal politics.)
Also, under certain conditions the ideas of extremist groups can have an impact far beyond the effect they have on the politics of the mainstream. Consider that in 1840 the American abolitionist groups of the north and the south, as well as the “separatists” (southerners who favored secession from the union) were dismissed as irrelevant radicals. Twenty years later, under the influence of a peculiar convergence of factors, the entire nation split along the political lines of these formerly marginal, extremist schools of thought.
Those who dismiss fascist/racist organizations betray a lack of understanding of the nature of ideological struggle, not to mention a certain Pollyannaish pacifism.
Is being safe from hate mongers a right?
Having shown that directly opposing fascists is a noble and relevant calling, we are now prepared to respond to claims that this somehow “infringes on their right to free speech”. This mode of thought manifests itself in ways that often border on the absurd. Every time a comment is removed from an Indy Media web site, a huge discussion about free speech ensues (as if the First Amendment requires citizens to provide a forum for the ideas of those they disagree with! Controlling the content of one’s own web site or newspaper is not censorship. But that this argument is so often raised, shows the extent to which the sanctity of free speech is embedded in our consciousnesses.)
Less incredibly but still mistakenly, many argue that staging counter-demonstrations to fascist/racist gatherings in an attempt to intimidate and silence them, infringes on their right to free speech.
Before directly addressing this argument, we should pause to consider exactly what, then, is this “right” called free speech?
Free speech, as detailed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a civil right. That is, it is a right that accrues by virtue of citizenship, according to one’s relation to the state. This Amendment guarantees a citizen protection from the government infringing on his speech. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” There is no guarantee that if you practice your legal right to speak, your neighbor won’t get pissed off, come over and black your eye! There is an entirely different set of laws that addresses such an occurrence, but that has no bearing on free speech. In a similar fashion, counterdemonstrations to fascist/racist rallies must contend with permits and such, and if violence erupts there are criminal penalties to consider… but all this has less than nothing to do with free speech rights. The government is (supposedly) legally restricted from abridging free speech. A conscientious human being, on the other hand, has a moral obligation to oppose hate speech!
Community pressure is a legitimate social force. Organizations of all descriptions, when considering where to locate, take into account not just legal zoning restrictions, but the likelihood of a friendly reception by the surrounding community. If we allow fascists and other similar cretin to believe that they are safe parading through our communities, we have failed in our responsibilities as members of that community, and we will pay a price accordingly.
Unlearning our privileged ignorance
One troublesome aspect of the free speech defense of the fascists, is the continuing reverence for the Constitution that it belies. The Constitution is above all a property rights document. It is not worthy of our respect, much less our reverence. The majority of our fabled “Founding Fathers” (always capitalized, like “God” in the Bible) were slave owners, which is doubly ironic in the context of the present topic, opposing racists! The Fathers were neither saints nor prophets, and the Constitution is not holy writ.
But the most disturbing element of the whole free speech debacle on the American left, is the measure of ignorance that it betrays regarding social privilege. If my great calling in life is the protection of speech, if I find threats to this right to be the most heinous crime imaginable, what does that say about my life circumstances? More importantly, what does it say about my ignorance of the life circumstances of a huge swath of American society (to say nothing of the world at large)?
If I value speech above all else, than I must never have been cold, or hungry, or been forced to drink bad water. If the worst thing I can imagine a police officer doing, is preventing me from venting my spleen, I must not have even the slightest hint of what it must be like to be a young black person living in a housing project, poor and without prospects, and guiltily of stealing and selling drugs until proven innocent. Or to be a Latino factory worker desperately dodging the immigration officers while struggling to earn a few dollars to send back home to his family. Or to be a little black girl, cowering behind a fire hydrant when the Klan marches by…
It is this incredible gap in experience that lies at the root of the left’s foolish notions about fascism and free speech. Only someone speaking from the perspective of comfort and blissful ignorance, would begin to suppose that the right of some bigot to spread his hateful ideas, is more important than the right of a young child of color to feel safe in the bosom of our shared community. The civil rights of fascists, the aggressors, matter far less than the human rights of our darker-skinned brothers and sisters, their victims.
http://www.the-dawn.org
http://www.prolecat.com |
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Todays Leftwing Liberal, Tomorrow's Right Wing Conservative, Free Speech or Die |
by Kurt Brown, alias Saint Ram Bone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
07 Sep 2004
|
 |
Sheriff Jack Tillman loves to silence me. I caught him stealing. He is still in office. I was jailed and abused. IF you want to silence free speech, you might as well have the entire planet suck the smokey end of a shot gun. Damn fool.
Free Art Music Comedy Science Details of horror of investigating crime in government.
Introducing Sheriff Jack snatch Till-man, the punchie thief with a badge, versus the auditor/artist, the Brown Recluse, Kurt Brown, Saint Ram Bone. |
|
Re: Making the World Safe for Fascism: Free Speech and the Worship of Civil Liberties |
by Chris
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2004
|
Well written as usual.
I think the ideas are relevant to my own experience but I am wary of taking these ideas too seriously because I don't know if I agree with the premise.
In the first place, I don't know that Free Speech is considered any more valuable than guaranteed housing, health care, abolition of private property, dismantling of the military industrial complex, abolition of the prison-industrial complex, reclaiming the environment, sexual liberation, queer liberation or civil rights to most leftists.
Free Speech is certainly in the same category as any of these other values, but these other goals of the left are certainly at least as important as these other rights.
I think that the reason that Free Speech has been given the sanctity it has been given is because it is one of the few rights the proletariat has gained. We still don't have a right to free property or to a clean environment or to free health care or to most of the other things that should be our rights. But we do have a right to speak our minds freely without fear of interference from the government.
In reality there are only two problems with this right to free speech, first of all we do get inferfered with in all sorts of ways, and secondly, perhaps related to the first, is that free speech doesn't mean as much if the means of expressing that speech are not also available.
For instance, since most of the airwaves are owned by private corporations, we have to start these pathetic independent media centers, which are powerful granted, but not as powerful a means of communicating as having access to the airwaves. So if we have a right to free speech but not the means to speak then we are in some ways being limited. All the airwaves should belong to the public and should be a tool for the public discourse, rather than a tool for the advertising and entertainment industry which is what they are.
The issue of priviledge is certainly legitimate, although I would also consider that poor people are some of the people who under certain circumstances most value their right to free speech, such as the Black Panther movement of the 70's or the farmworker's movement. These movement's have totally relied on their ability to speak truth to power which is at the core of their or was at the core of their ability to organize and to struggle for justice.
Now on the other hand, defending Nazi's, which is the job of the ACLU, might seem like the role of a priviledged pampered class, but still I think there is a place for this type of discussion. On the IMC we have a policy of restriciting "hate speech" such as the posts by the national vanguard, which is clearly a white supremacist group. We consider white supremacist groups to be propagators of "hate speech" and so we have discussions about what to do about these people.
Generally we all agree that they don't need to be on the website, although some would prefer to rate them off the page and others would prefer to just delete them off the page.
Funny but this issue came up for me recently at an anti-war protest. This group of counter-protesters have been coming to our protests lately to harrass us with their signs and to video tape us while we are protesting. They claim that we own the media and the media doesn't represent their perspective because it is owned by Hollywood Liberal Leftists. So when we had a microphone at a recent event they wanted to also speak at the microphone. I think we generally don't let them speak at our protests and we didn't give them the microphone this time either, but I do personal think we should have more discusion about this, not that I want to give voice to fascists, but I don't want to be a fascist myself by exluding them. If I let them speak it might be an oportunity to open up a dialogue and maybe even persuade them to our side.
BTW What on earth is this previous comment about? It didn't leave a website or an email address or even a context really. |
|
ACLU, nazis, free speech and nut balls |
by prole cat
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2004
|
I really have no problem with the ACLU opposing government attempts to silence nazis and others (although I might question the priorities of using limited funds in such efforts.) As I tried to make clear, I think shutting up nazis should be a community function, not a state function.
Responding directly to chris's thoughtful comments, I think the reason free speech is held so sacred is that the capitalist powers encourage its' sanctification: they KNOW that free speech doesn't threaten them, as long as they own the media, the political process, etc. So by allowing me to rant to my heart’s content (knowing my efforts are doomed by limited exposure), they allow themselves to crow about the openness of american society, all the while growing ever richer. “Wonderful thing, this free country with all its free speech and best of all those FREE MARKETS...”
As soon as they feel threatened, though, the gloves come off (Palmer raids, McCarthy, Patriot Act, etc.) Is modern america fascist? No, even under Bush we still have certain limited “rights” (actually privileges that the government revokes as it sees fit- see “free speech pens”.). Are we truly "free"? Not hardly, not while the corporate bosses own everything.
Referring to the first comment, I don't mind nutballs posting, really, but I wish they wouldn't spam us with photos that slow down the loading of the pics in the feature. If it was up to me, I'd just delete it, hyuck, hyuck... But seriously, I would, and would not lose a moments sleep over it. |
|
PS |
by prole cat
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2004
|
chris wrote, "...Generally we all agree that they don't need to be on the website, although some would prefer to rate them off the page and others would prefer to just delete them off the page..."
What's the difference? One is perhaps a more majoritarian procedure, but don't they both constitute the dreaded "censorship"? |
|
Re: Making the World Safe for Fascism: Free Speech and the Worship of Civil Liberties |
by john conner
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2004
|
|
There is another way of interpeting the 1st amendment as well. I had to read madisons papers who many call the true archetect of the consitution. If you read him and the other "founding fathers" you find their idea of what the first amendment was about has little resemblance to the neo-liberal idea of letting klan groups rally cause its their right. They were into a "market place of ideas concept" where different ideas would in effect slug it out in open forums and the best idea would win, much like the greek model (agropa?). The people who wrote the constitution never had it in mind that the 1st amendment met that the Klan had the right to rally and not be challenged. In fact--from my readings--its is very evident that when we get in the streets and shout and argue these thugs down we are doing exactly what the 1st amendment is all about--not some flacid stay away concept--but in the streets. Remember the bill of rights was signed as a compromise document. Many states (and individuals) were completely distrustful of large centralized power structures and argued vehemently against forming a large nation state. The constitution passing was a near thing. the Bill of rights was created to try to protect us against what the anti federalist saw as the tendancy of oppression by large centralized power structures. In fact the supreme court has formally held that the reason we were given the 2nd amendment was to overthrow the government if/when it became oppressive. So though you can look at the Constitution as a document designed to protect property rights--thats not true at all of the Bill of rights. And when you read the floor debate on the 1st Amendment it paints a clear picture that passively sitting around while a group like the Klan or Nazi's rant and rally is not what they had in mind at all. So in away the passive liberals are in fact betraying the very concept of a first amendment by not hitting the streets and arguing back against bad ideas. |
|
amen, here here, and right on |
by prole cat
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2004
|
"So though you can look at the Constitution as a document designed to protect property rights--thats not true at all of the Bill of rights..."
Quite so. The bill of rights directly addresses civil liberties. It was an afterthought, as you say a product of compromise, but it is admirably libertarian as far as it goes. |
|
Re: Making the World Safe for Fascism: Free Speech and the Worship of Civil Liberties |
by bobpeters61
robertpeters (nospam) bellsouth.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Sep 2004
|
The rights of the right-wing extremist neo-terrorist scum are the price we pay for having our rights.
It's also our right, and even our duty as progressives, to counterprotest the demonstrations of the fascists.
If we give up that, then we've lost our own best tool to influence public opinion away from that of the corporate media moguls.
That's why I even gave equal time to the counterdemonstrators at our last peace rally. Even if I did try my best to comment things to make them look stupid. |
|
