This entry had originally been called "Political Protest and the Rule of Law" because it was supposed to be some long piece about how, given our weakness, the Left ought to exploit every freedom that liberalism has made available in order to promote "liberal-socialism" or "liberal-anarchism," and this means having a mature respect for the rule of law. If we consent to play the game then if we win, we get to expect that our opponents will consent to listen to us. At the same time I wanted to argue that there are many instances where illegal acts are necessary to communicate "non-negotiable demands" to power, especially to neo-con and neo-liberal vermin who believe that democracy is only operative (if ever) during elections. We can protest extra-legally and so can our opponents should we win. But there are consequences for these actions, and we should be prepared to accept them.
I'm a free-speech fanatic. I'm opposed to Canada's "hate-speech" laws. I think Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn should be free to print every fool thing that pops into their stupid little heads, short of slander or direct calls to violence. I think it's extremely short-sighted for the Left to give the system one more club to beat us with. When our pointed criticisms of US or Israeli imperialism are then labelled as 'hate-speech" then we see how convenient our own attempts to protect persecuted minorities are for more amoral enemies of freedom.
Obviously, the state, the corporations and their legal functionaries are not going to respect absolute freedom of speech in any case. Their silence on censorship issues that don't threaten them, their silence in the extreme violations of civil liberties in the idiotic "War on Terror" attest to this. Silence? More like enthusiastic complicity in the suppression of freedom!! Obviously they're going to be hypocritical about freedom of speech and everything else.
On the other hand, as I said, why give them another weapon? On top of their blatant, shameless hypocrisy on civil rights, we can give them more hypocrisy ammunition in the form of anti-hate-speech laws? With free speech absolutism we can at least point to their violation of a sacred, hugely important freedom. With hate-speech laws they're able to cynically exploit the possible damage to the tender feelings of USians, the police, the military, white males and etc., as a result of our "mean-spirited" criticisms.
The only defences I've heard when this danger has been pointed out have been incomprehensible sophistries.
I've run out of time for writing my shit today. I'll write more tomorrow.