http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2026/10/blog-post_863.html

AGAINST "FREEDOM" OF FASCISTIC RACIST SPEECH AND ORGANIZATION<


by John Henry (Charles Brown)<


Legal protection of fascistic racist speech and organization is most obviously a threat, a clear and present danger to African Americans , Latiinos and other target oppressed nationalities and groups; it is also a direct, clear and present danger to progressives. <


However, some argue that freedom for oppressed groups and progressives depends upon permitting fascistic racist speech <


We might "freedom". divide these arguments into the "philosophical " and the "pragmatic". "Pragmatic" arguments "Pragmatic" arguments are basically of the form: the freedom of speech and assembly of oppressed and progressive groups depends upon courts interpreting the Constitutional First Amendment racist as protecting the "freedom" "unpopular". If unpopular fascistic is not protected, then oppressed and progressive group freedom will not be protected. Are we removing our protection by "freedom" racist speech and assembly? <


No. of fascistic racist speech and assembly has not in fact and at consistently protected freedom of oppressed and progressive group speech and assembly.<


on freedom of speech The Supreme Court until 1919. did not decide a case Thus, Abolitionist movement did not rely on for example the the Court to protect its freedom of speech. Even in the first Supreme Court free speech and assembly decisions, the First Amendment was not used consistently to protect progressives. In Schenck, Abrams and Debs the sent to jail peace activists and trade unionists, who Court opposed U.S. involvement in World War I (These activists opposed the war because 1t was a capitalist, of the working class). imperialist war not in the interest Despite Justices Holmes and the fact thet in this perlod Brandeis began to develop the modern doctrine still in Gitlow (1925) and whitney convictions were upheld of socialists and communists who spoke free speech and then In Whitney Brandeis wrote a paean to Labor Party, one of voted to jail a member of the Communist the founding parties of the Communist Party USA. Of course, earlier, Holmes and Brandeis' jurisprudential revolution was not in time to prevent the Infamous Palmer Raids?.The end of the 1940's brought McCarthyism and the Smith Act. Obviously, Pirst Anendment protection of progressives fades badly 3801n 1n this period, Dennis The Court's distinction in Yates begag one such failure to protect. between advocacy of abstract doctrine and advocacy of action so as to reach a different result than in Dennis solely on failure to give jury instructions is very flimsy and metaphysical. Of course, the result in Yates, overturning a conviction is important to those released from jail, but how can Marxists, who place a premium on the unity of theory and practice, unity of words and action, rely for their protection on an absolute di stinction between abstract doctritte and action ? On the other hand, throughout the period discussed above, the KKK and fascistic racists were allowed to pregch their hate. In two landmark cases, Terminello and Brandenburg the Supreme court protected fascistic racist speech. This history gives very support for the notion that protection fascistic Pacist translates by U.S. jurisprudential logic into protection of communists and progressives. rhetoric and word formulas the judges' opinions, communists and progressives and the fascistic racists are freed or never arrested in the first place. There is also from the tactical standpoint, the more direct threat・ Aside from the role of courts in protecting not protecting oppressed/progressive group freedom, the allowance of the existence and growth of fascistic racist groups directly, physically threatens their ideological targets: oppressed and progressive groups. This every week results incidents in our country. Specifically. in bigotted violent with respect to oppressed groups who are the main targets of fascistic racist organizations, It should be clear that obtaining court protection for freedom of speech and assembly would not be worth it if that "protection" is gotten in exchange for allowing fascistic racist organizations to exist; allowing the direct physical threat and racists gangs would not be worth the trade off of obtaining court protection for freedom of speech and assembly, even if the protection could not be had without the allowance of the existence of the threat ( actually this direct threat from fascists also exists for progressives, especially communists). Purthermore, there is not an extensive court accepted jurisprudence on Amendment rights of oppressed national Except for Jim Crow governments and laws, which are now outlawed, little legal dispute that civil rights organizations right to exist，Doris Brin Walker's Article United Doris Brin Walker's article "Limiting Racist Speech States "Freedom" Apparent the "pragmatic" Const Yout tones i Speec In the A Marxist View of the focuses on what I have protection by question: Are we removing our own legal termed opposing fascistic racist speech ? This is appropriate because among Marxists there should be no "philosophical" question real debate of fascistic racists. Such socalled free speech rights "philosophical" debates should only be between Marxists and liberals. However, I disagree with arguments. some of Walker's "pragmatic" Walker points as an example to the protection from the 1st Amendment for a Marxist conference at which she presented her in 1987. He also might consider my publish this article as so protected. freedom to write and play a role in these freedoms. The First Amendment does But Walker goes on to list countries - Canada, Britain - where she says the freedom of speech France, traditaons weaker than in the U.S.. Ironically, Communist Parties that are as strong or stronger than in two of those countries have It is well known that France's Communist Party is much the U.S. than the CPUSA. In terms of membership, the Canadian Party is not proportionally third country・ smaller than the C.P.U.S.A. England, the communist party is In disarray. but it has not been outlawed to any greater extent than in the This suggests that these of Marxists! countries! movements are winnLag freedom speech and assembly by other methods U.S. style freedon of speech tradition. than just a Walker has responded to this argument by pointing to the stronger history Marxism in the working classes those other countries than U.S., in part due to the U.S. western expansion and the a form of American resultant availability of cheap land, et al. - exceptionalism. truth to this. But history has not ended. are still building Marxism in the U.S. working class. The point is that we emphasize not only the legal protection from lawyers' judges reasoning in interpreting the Pirst Amendment, but more importantly the protection provided by a class conscious working class, a very protection for communists and Important component progressives in the other countries discussed as well as others. on the one hand, and rightly so, the great accomplishments of the U.s. people and working class under the state le・g・ the U.S. Bill despite 1iml ted democracy under capitalism. But contradictorily she warns against illusions about the role of the capitalist contrary to the legal and status of progressive, especially communist organizations•