********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

In today's Counterpunch there are two articles defending antifa that are problematic to say the least. One, written by Berkeley attorney Dan Siegel, advocates a ban on people like Richard Spencer giving speeches because they fall within the rubric of the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio that there is no free speech right to advocate violence when there is a likelihood that violence will actually occur. He endorses this ruling despite his acknowledgement that "Brandenburg occurred primarily in cases overturning the criminal convictions of people found guilty of supporting the Marxist teaching of the necessity for the violent overthrow of governments dominated by the capitalist ruling class."

The other is by Stephanie Basile who endorses the new book by Mark Bray that has become to the antifa "movement" what Regis Debray's "Revolution within the Revolution" was to the guerrilla movements in Latin America in the 60s and just as wrongheaded. Bray, like Siegel, endorses the kind of strict enforcement of hate speech laws, referring to European standards as a model. I suppose Basile is not aware that in France this law was used in the prosecution of Palestinian solidarity activists since opposition to Zionism is considered hateful.
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to