The question is and always has been "free speech for *whom*?

" What
constitutes a "free" form of speech?
Being against the concept of free speech does not mean you are against
debate or discussion -- it means that you keep in mind the character of this
speech and what end it serves and realie that speech doesn!t have some
magic immaterial character that makes it not have a political meaning and
material e"istence# $f we acknowledge that speech has a class character% and
that speech is a social&political act% we then understand that certain speech
needs to be suppressed by the proletariat 'ust as surely as they must
physically suppress bourgeois reaction etc#
$n the ())* "free speech" meant that the tools for press etc had been
provided to the workers of the ())*# "+ree speech" for the proletariat%
freedom for proletarian speech was desired# )imilarly within the party "free
speech" for communists can and must be allowed but this is not the same as
all speech being allowed# ,rawing the line can at times be di-cult% and
people might disagree as to what kind of speech is progressive or reactionary
even among socialists -- and that!s how you get necessary splits like the
Bolsheviks&.ensheviks etc /or frivolous ones many other organiations
throughout history0# The parties of the ())*&1*2 did allow large amounts of
debate -- they would not have stood for someone coming in and saying
"y!know% we should ally with the fascists" or "we should become capitalist
etc"# /3bviously in hindsight we can criticie types of speech that very well
could be seen as friendly to capitalism that they wouldn!t have recognied
4market "reforms" etc50
The class character of speech was absolutely understood in the ())* and
1*2% and they took actions showing this# This goes beyond 'ust class related
speech as well# The very constitution you reference has% in article 678 'ust
above the part you reference% a restriction on speech9
:;quality of rights of citiens of the (#)#)#*#% irrespective of their nationality
or race% in all spheres of economic% state% cultural% social and political life% is
an indefeasible law# <ny direct or indirect restriction of the rights of% or%
conversely% any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for% citiens on
account of their race or nationality% as well as **any advocacy of racial or
national e"clusiveness or hatred and contempt% is punishable by law#**
)o% the answer to "how do .= crowd 'ustify this" is that they realie that "free
speech" can mean di>erent things in di>erent conte"ts% and that they
understand speech has a class character and social power/"free speech" for
racists%se"ists% etc for instance% is actually something subverts the .ar"ist
understanding of what a "free society" is0# $t is bourgeois "free speech"% the
dominant view of "free speech" in society% the view that serves the bourgeois
dictatorship /or in a revolutionary situation attempts to undermine the
revolution0% that we are against#
)imilarly% while we understand that the bourgeois view of "rights" is absurd%
we can also see where "rights" can be progressive -- for instance in the ())*
the "rights" to always have employment% food% to housing% healthcare%
education% to recall elected o-cials% all the rights of women% etc are
progressive and di>erent than bourgeois "rights" of what boils down to a "fair
deal in competition" and are individual based paying no mind to how it
relates to society as a whole#