This is not a dialogue

Maybe you missed it, but you are not in a dialogue. Your views are irrelevant. Argue as much as you want – your opponents will be happy if you waste your breath. It's even better if you protest: they would rather you carry a sign than actually do anything. They will keep you talking as long as they can just to tire you out - to buy time.

It is their intention to impose their agenda on you. That's what all the weapons, the police, the drones and the surveillance cameras are for. That's what the FBI, the CIA and the NSA are for, and that's what all the President's laws and orders are for. It's what their church is for and all the racist memes, online harassment and bullying. Hence the aggression against homosexuals and the burning of heretics.

This is not a dialogue. How could you be so naive? A dialogue – from which some participants can be forcibly removed? A dialogue in which one side repeatedly shoots and imprisons the other? A dialogue - in which all networks, radio stations and printing presses belong to a few while the rest have to make do with markers and cardboard? This is a dialogue, really? You are not in a dialogue. You are in a power struggle. It just depends on how much strength you can muster against your opponents to defend yourself against them. If you are successful, they will accuse you of cutting off the dialogue and violating their freedom of speech - you can bet on that. They will try to lure you back into the conversation and play for time until they no longer need tricks to keep you passive while they build a tyranny.

This is not a dialogue – it is a war. They speculate that you won't realize it until it's too late. If freedom is important to you, if you don't care about all the people who are waiting for death or deportation, then do something.

The following text is an updated version of an article from the ninth issue of Rolling Thunder. There is a flyer to distribute at demos, the Free Spech FAQ.

Anarchists have defended free speech for centuries. This is important in principle: in the anarchist vision of society, neither the state nor any other institution should be able to determine what we can and cannot say. It is also important in practice: as a revolutionary minority, often the target of repression, our speeches, newspapers, websites and demonstrations are constantly under attack.

But we are not the only ones holding up the banner of free speech. Lately, the right in the US has begun to claim that an alleged failure to give equal attention to conservative views alongside liberal views amounts to a suppression of their freedom of speech.

By accusing "liberal" universities and media outlets of suppressing conservative views - a ridiculous accusation given the massive power structures and funding that propagate these views - they are using a discussion of the First Amendment1 to promote reactionary ideas. Supposedly progressive universities show their true colors when they mobilize institutional powers to give space to the right in the marketplace of ideas and even go so far as to censor and intimidate their opponents.

Extreme right-wing and fascist organizations are also free riders on the free speech wagon. Fascists rely on the state to protect them, and claim racist and homophobic organizations are a legally protected form of free expression. Most other industrialized countries in the world have laws prohibiting fascist groups from publishing hate speech; often these groups publish in the United States – which has no such laws – and spread it worldwide. In practice, state-protected freedom of speech helps fascists organize.

If defending free speech has started to mean supporting rich right-wing politicians and making it easier for fascists to recruit comrades-in-arms; It's time to question what lies behind this principle.

Despite the radical roots of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union that support government protection of free speech, this form of civil liberties empty the defense of free speech of any radical content. She does this by suggesting that only the state can guarantee our ability to express ourselves freely. This strengthens the power of the state and places it higher than the right to freedom of speech itself.

There appears to be a broad consensus in favor of free speech across the US political spectrum. While opponents may disagree about boundaries, such as what exactly constitutes obscenity, experts from left to right agree that free speech is essential to American democracy.

References to this tradition of unrestricted free expression lend legitimacy to groups with views outside the mainstream. Both fascists and radicals benefit from this. Lawyers often defend anarchist activities by citing the First Amendment, which prevents lawmakers from restricting freedom of the press or the right to peaceful assembly.

When it comes to free speech, we find allies among those who would never support us because of our direct action visions for a hierarchy-free world. The rhetoric of free speech and First Amendment rights gives us a common language with which to expand our reach. It makes our resistance more understandable to potential allies with whom we can build a deeper connection over time. But at what cost? This discussion of rights seems to imply that the state is necessary to protect us from itself, as if it has some kind of split personality like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde; On the one hand, he attacks us with laws, police and prosecutors, while he protects us with laws, lawyers and judges. If we allow this metaphor, it is not surprising that the arm that attacks us becomes stronger as we strengthen the arm that protects us. Once freedom is defined as the set of rights granted to us by the state, it is easy to lose sight of the real freedom that those rights are intended to protect and instead focus on the rights themselves. This leads to an unconditional acceptance of the legitimacy of the state. Consequently, when we build visibility and support using the rhetoric of the right, we undermine the ability to defend ourselves against the state. We also open the door for the state to impose the “rights” of others on us.

In the United States, most people take it for granted that in countries where free speech is not protected by law, it is easier for the state to isolate and silence radical groups. Who wouldn't be in favor of legal protection of freedom of expression?

In fact, in such countries the opposition is not always more isolated - on the contrary, the average citizen sometimes feels more sympathy for the opposition because it is more difficult for the state to portray itself as a defender of freedom. Laws do not tie the hands of the state nearly as effectively as public resistance. Given the choice between legal rights and popular support, we are much better off with the latter.

The Oxford Dictionary defines civil liberty as “being subject only to laws made for the good of the community.” This sounds ideal to those who believe that laws enacted by a hierarchical power can serve the "good of the community" - but who defines "the community" and its well-being if not those in power? In practice, the debate about civil liberty allows the state to sideline its opponents: if there is a legitimate channel for every form of expression, then those who do not adhere to the formalities are not legitimate. Accordingly, we can read this definition the other way around: under “civil freedom” all laws are for the good of the community and anyone who questions them must be against them. When we focus on freedom of speech, we see only two protagonists: the individual and the state. Instead of getting drawn into a debate about what the state should and shouldn't allow us to do, anarchists should focus on a third protagonist - the public. We win or lose our fight depending on how much sovereignty the population is willing to take back from the state and how much intervention they put up with. So if we have to talk about rights at all, let's not shout, "We have a right to freedom of speech," but rather state that the state has no right to oppress us. Or even better: let's develop a completely new language.

The discussion about free speech in a democracy assumes an equal distribution of power and that the main path to change is always through rational discussion. In reality, a capitalist elite controls most of the means, and power crystallizes ever upwards along various oppressive mechanisms. Against this order, it takes a lot more than can be achieved through talking to make social change possible. True free speech can only exist between equals - between parties who are not only equal before the law, but also have comparable access to all means and an equal say. Can an employee really be said to be able to express her opinions as freely as her employer when the latter can take away her livelihood? Are two people really equally free to express their opinions if one of them owns a news station and the other can't even afford to copy flyers? In the US, where donations to political candidates constitute legal speech, the more money you have, the more "speech" you can exercise. As the slogan says: Freedom doesn't come for free - and nowhere is this clearer than with freedom of speech. Ideas have no intrinsic power, even though the propaganda of democracy would have us believe so. Our ability to act on our beliefs, not just express them, determines how much power we have. In this sense, the image of the “marketplace of ideas” is surprisingly well suited: you need capital to play, and the more you have of it, the more likely you are to realize the ideas you invest in.Just as the success of some entrepreneurs and superstars is highlighted to prove that the free market rewards hard work and ingenuity, the myth of the "marketplace of ideas" suggests that the capitalist system persists because everyone - rags and riches alike - thinks it is the best idea.

But what if, despite the distorted playing field, some people manage to make issues heard that threaten to destabilize the existing distribution of power? As history teaches, freedom of speech is not so sacred after all. In practice, we can say anything as long as it doesn't change anything. The assumption that just speaking can never cause harm implies that speaking is ineffective: so anything that would be effective is not part of civil rights. During World War I, any attempt to cause "disobedience, disloyalty, mutiny, [or] refusal to serve" or to impede recruitment for the army was criminalized by the Espionage Act. President Woodrow Wilson pushed through this bill because he believed the antiwar activities would undermine the U.S. war effort. Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman were imprisoned under this law for printing anarchist literature that spoke out against the war. Likewise, there was the Anarchist Exclusion Act and the subsequent Immigration Act, under which any immigrant who "opposed or did not believe in any organized government" was expelled or prevented from entering the country. Berkman, Goldman and hundreds of other anarchists were expelled under this law. There are countless other examples that show that even the most democratic government does not shy away from suppressing free speech when it threatens the foundations of state power.So when the state presents itself as a defender of free speech, we can be sure that those in power believe that allowing criticism will strengthen their position rather than suppressing it. Thomas Emerson, liberal philosopher and member of the ACLU2, recognized that freedom of speech "can serve as a kind of safety valve to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution." Herein lies the real reason for freedom of speech in the United States.

Of course, anarchists should not organize against free speech.

However, the state's stranglehold on the debate over free speech seems to set the tone: either we tolerate censorship; or we tolerate the state protecting our enemies and their right to organize against us and others. This leads to paradoxical situations, for example when activists are accused of being anti-freedom when they stop a fascist speaker from speaking.

In contrast to state-protected rallies of the Ku Klux Klan and the like, there are models of free expression that are neither dependent on rights enforced from above nor condone oppressive behavior. Anarchists do not see language as something fundamentally different from action, but rather as a form of action: if it hurts others, if it reinforces hierarchies and injustices, we will act against it in the same way we would against other forms of abuse and oppression. This is just self-defense. When a racist politician gives a speech at a public university, his fee is paid for by tax money taken from working people and distributed to universities so that the money continues to circulate among the rich and powerful. Although the right-wing complains that conservative views are not given enough space; The fact that he has enough power to secure well-paid speaking engagements shows that his views are unlikely to be suppressed.

As a wealthy white citizen and public figure, his ability to express his opinions cannot be compared to the ability of, for example, the refugees he scapegoats. If their voices and agency were truly equal, the politician could say whatever he wanted, but he would not have the power to bend others to his agenda.

Confronting him directly, rather than just politely disagreeing, is not an attack on his right to express his opinion.

We are confronted with the special advantages that are granted to him: tax money, police protection, an exclusive grandstand. We oppose the power over our lives given by institutions built on violence; a power he seeks to expand by seizing opportunities to give speeches in order to acquire wealth, give legitimacy to his views, and recruit new followers to his racist endeavors. Opposing it is a political practice that does not reduce our freedom to "rights" but challenges the prerogatives of the state (which does not make a false distinction between speech and deeds, but judges both according to the same standards). This political practice makes it impossible for the state to portray itself as a defender of free speech, but rather makes it clear that we are the only ones who can defend and expand our freedom.

You might as well say that anyone who doesn't stop them from talking is as bad as they are, because that gives them the opportunity to organize themselves to impose their ideas on all of us. If freedom is worth something to you, don't stand by stupidly when others mobilize to take it away from us.

No, the fascists don't want to draw attention to their organization: they do most of their work in secret, for fear that the angry public might silence them. They organize public events only to show their strength to potential comrades-in-arms and in an attempt to introduce their views as a legitimate part of the political spectrum. When we openly oppose them, we make it clear to them - and more importantly to anyone who might want to join them - that they will not achieve power without a fight. Ignoring fascists only allows them to organize unhindered; and a look at history shows us that this can be quite dangerous. We'd better pull the plug straight away.

People do not become fascists because they are convinced of fascist ideas, but for the same reason that others join the police or go into politics: they want to exercise power over others. We must show them that members of fascist organizations do not gain power, but rather are publicly ridiculed. This is the only way to deter potential comrades-in-arms.

History has shown time and time again that fascism cannot be overcome by ideas, but only by the self-defense of the masses. If all ideas are discussed publicly, they tell us, the best one will win; Unfortunately, the unequal distribution of resources is overlooked. Fascists can be very useful to the privileged and powerful, which is why they often receive lavish donations; If they can buy more airtime and public visibility, we would be stupid to compete with them only in this field. We can argue with them forever; It's all wasted time if we don't stop their ideology from determining our politics.

Today, most racism manifests itself in almost imperceptible, everyday forms. But the visibility of fascism allows other right-wing groups to portray themselves as moderates and thereby promote their underlying racist views and the necessary unequal distribution of power and privilege. If we want to get to the root of racism in our society, we have to stand up to the fascists – day after day.

Fascists all over the world still terrorize and murder people who have a different skin color, religion or sexuality. It is disrespectful to their victims and at the same time naive to trivialize fascist violence in the present and past. Fascists prefer to use direct action rather than make the long journey through the institutions of parliamentary democracy, which is why they are dangerous even in smaller numbers. And that's why we always have to deal with them quickly and directly.

We oppose fascists because of their actions, not because of their words. We are not against freedom of speech, but against propaganda of terror and hatred. We don't have the power to censor them; Thanks to the “neutrality” of the capitalist market, they will continue to publish and print their hatred on the Internet. But we will kick them out of our communities wherever we can so that they don't amass the power to live out their hatred.

Government and police have never protected everyone's freedom of speech equally, and they never will. It is in their own interest to suppress views and prevent action when they oppose the current unequal distribution of power. They spend a lot of taxpayer money to protect a Ku Klux Klan demonstration with riot police, helicopters and snipers; If the anarchists are on the street, the same police come to break up the demonstration. Anarchists don't like a government muzzle, but we also don't want to let the state dictate and shape our freedom. The ACLU defends freedom by supporting the Ku Klux Klan and the like; First of all, we support self-defense and self-determination. After all, isn’t freedom of expression supposed to lead to a world without oppression? Fascists stand against such a vision, so we stand against fascists wherever and however necessary.

The peaceful spread of their views only serves to prepare fascists for violent actions. Fascists need an external appearance that is acceptable in society in order to implement their program; That's why anyone who gives them a platform opens the doors to physical violence against people. Public dissemination of hate ideology, whether people see it as violence in itself or not, always goes hand in hand with physical violence. Fascists refer to movements and ideas based on oppression and genocide; this shows us their intention to inherit this violent legacy - but only if they get enough support.

Opposition to fascism does not increase interest in their views. If anything, interest in fascist views is sparked by liberals defending fascists' freedom of speech and thereby giving them a semblance of legitimacy. If we allow them to drive a wedge into their opponents' fronts using free speech as an excuse, we are playing right into their hands. By tolerating racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism, advocates of free speech are complicit in the acts of violence made possible by fascist organization.

Nobody* has the right to organize violence against our community. But we also deny the police and the government - who have more in common with the fascists than with us - the right to decide for us when the fascists have crossed the line between freedom of expression and immediate threat. We will not give up our freedom to judge when and how we defend ourselves.

Originally published in Gai Dao #75 (March, 2017), translated by pilun

First Amendment, passed in 1791; prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, or the right to petition. The article also prohibits the introduction of a state religion and the preference or disadvantage of individual religions through federal law. ↩

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has existed since 1920, advocates for civil rights and liberal causes in general. Comparable to the Humanist Union in Germany. ↩

Evaluating an Economic Experiment in Minneapolis from a Revolutionary Perspective

A Statement from Fire Ant Movement Defense on Solidarity and Betrayal in the Prairieland Trials