First, no government has ever allowed true freedom of expression.
Isn't this an issue of extents of allowing things rather than not allowing something at all? What is "True" Freedom of Expression to you?
We all know that many anarchist and communist were imprisoned and many continue to be harassed because they are seen as a threat to the government.
Indeed.
I would like to add that I think communism, that general kind of communism which was the most dominant, is a greater threat to the Anarchist and his thinking than is some Social Democratish capitalist statist government. It is fair to count the communists as on equal terms with the fascists.
So when people say let the fascist speak because freedom of speech, I ask what freedom of speech?
The extent of freedom of speech that exists in specific areas at specific times.
So that is, for example in most Western countries right now, your ability to open some Youtube channel, speak about anarchist books from Mikhail Bakunin to Rudolf Rocker and inviting panellists to debate this matter. With a limit that starts at you calling for people to attack state-institutions, I assume the limit would be somewhere around there.
Consider the reason why we don't want people yelling fire in a crowded theater—is an action with malicious intent and it could hurt others. Spreading a fascist ideology is the same thing.
That makes sense. But I naturally wonder now: Where does innocent harsh economic measures (for example) start and Fascist Terrorist Ideology start? Can it not even be possible that an Anarchist utters some form of speech that can potentially harm others. And with regards to harming others: When is there reasonable concern and when is it just overprotective anti-debate or even anti-intellectualism?
How would it be ethical and moral to allow such ideologies to be spread or worst give them a platform?
I agree that searching for a solution would be the natural thing to do for anyone who proclaims himself revolutionary. On this solution, what do you think would be the right manner of going about to counter such a scenario where such ideologies are being spread or even are on some platform?
I think the most effective manner, firstly as a basis, would be by educating the people not what to think but how to think for themselves as individuals. Then there are of course many other measures. But where do the measures against extreme ideologies become too extreme measures? At a gulag? Or before that?
This doesn't mean that I want some central government controlling speech and censoring people based on what they deem dangerous or not, I obviously don't want that.
Neither do I.
But I have no problem with communities such as a student body or people of a town deciding we're not going to give a platform to fascism.
Haha.. I know this is very popular these days and am afraid this phenomenon kind of poisoned my post to begin with.
But lets take some people as examples for this phenomenon now that it is mentioned:
George Bush
Greece's "Golden Dawn Party" 's Spokesperson Ilias Kasidaris
Stalin (if he was to be resurrected from the death for a day)
Average moderate right-wing people
And then even for those we might be inclined to not prefer to speak at universities... Couldn't certain critical contexts be set up in which students, by their free choice, get to decide to take part in these debates or just watch and listen what these people have to say? I for one think Stalin was total shit... But, on the other side, it would also be rather interesting to hear this person ramble on about his shit as to have some image of it. Whether this image be about his psychological state / his reasoning or something other than that.