Under capitalism, free speech is an unrealized ideal that is wielded selectively for the interests of capital and the ruling class. You can see that it rapidly falls apart whenever the ruling class wants it to, including but not limited to when it is threatened. The heart of free speech idealism is the US, where the Red Scare was used to suppress communists as well as anyone pushing against the official capitalist line. Free speech is only tolerated insofar as it does not threaten the ruling order.
The main function of free speech idealism tends to be national chauvinism, the idea that Western countries that possess it are superior to those that don’t. The dividing lines on what counts as having free speech are seemingly arbitrary unless you know the geopolitical boundaries of capitalism, where countries are favorable to the capitalist empire vs. not, or even just which countries have stepped out of line. “Free speech” gets evaluated by a NatSec think tank based on whatever they want the result to be as part of pressure campaigns to justify sending in their goon squads whether that’s groups like USAID or sanctions regimes or the IMF. The countries designated as the enemy for the purposes of capital are always “violating free speech” and oppressing “their own people”, forms of propaganda directed mostly inwards at the populations of “free” countries so that they are sufficiently misinformed to accept the violence done in their name to “the enemy”.
Free speech idealism also involves a sleight-of-hand that claims the state is separate from capital and that the former is at risk of tyranny while the latter is a force of nature and even freedom itself. So, when you get fired from your job and blacklisted for being a member of a socialist party, that actually gets characterized as freedom (of speech) for your at-will employer rather than a violation of your own freedom of association. In reality, capital is the most common suppressor of speech and association and ignoring this is a function of free speech idealism. And more fundamentally, the state is also an arm of capital, so the distinction is really just an expression of how capital negotiates between its functional appendages and different internal factions. When unions are getting too uppity, capital is happy to let the state crush their speech on top of their own efforts.
In addition, you don’t even have to look only at how the rules seem to change depending on conditions because the rules already in the books spell out the limits for you already even within the inconsistent confines of free speech idealism. You have theoretical freedom of association (from government interference) except for when it’s in the interests of “national security” (state infiltration of socialist orgs, for example). You have theoretical freedom of speech except when it “incites a riot” or is considered “treason”. If your efforts actually materially oppose the state itself, they no longer count as free speech. Let’s say a local corporate overlord has been illegally putting up hostile architectural elements on public property in order to discourage homeless people from living there (e.g. on a sidewalk). The state will generally just let them do that, they love that shit. But if you get a few buddies together and smash that shit + put it on the overlord’s doorstep, you will be prosecuted if caught, likely brought up on various charges relating to destruction of private property, terrorism, trespassing, possessing illegal weapons (hammers…), violating noise ordinances, conspiracy, etc. This then gives the state license to go after any organization this may have been part of, using drug and/or terrorism laws to treat you as a gang or insurrectionary group and bringing you up on those charges as well. They might not go as far as all that, but they’ll do a few of them. There’s your freedom of speech in clearing illegal blocking of a public right-of-way. You fuck with the interests of capital and the state fucks with you.
Under free speech idealism, freedom is provided to far right groups far more often than left groups and this is because the former intersect with the interests of popular factions of capital.
Finally, consider the realities of speech in countries that have just had revolutions and seek to maintain them. This doesn’t even need to be socialist revolutions, it can include national liberation revolutions that maintain a national capitalist order but oppose imperial capital. The empire will support and instigate coups, engage in sabotage and terrorism, support and create far-right groups to destabilize your country, use financial powers to create widespread poverty and suffering, and do their best to credibly threaten and then engage in war to force your capitulation. But if your country then stands up and fights against these things, such as expelling NGOs that do dubious things and work with US NatSec, the “free speech” police are suddenly knocking at your door. If you institute state-supported media that pushes back on international capitalist media or ban outlets that constantly lie to and propagandize your people against the revolution, you will be branded a harsh dictatorship that hates and fears the noble profession of journalism. You will be forced to give up your revolution or crack down on “free speech” by the oppressions of international capital.
As an abstract vague ideal it’s fine to like free association and relatively open philosophical spaces. In reality this isn’t how it actually works, it’s a propaganda tool and any successful revolution will need to clamp down on “free speech” due to inherent power differentials against imperialism.
Under capitalism, free speech is an unrealized ideal that is wielded selectively for the interests of capital and the ruling class. You can see that it rapidly falls apart whenever the ruling class wants it to, including but not limited to when it is threatened. The heart of free speech idealism is the US, where the Red Scare was used to suppress communists as well as anyone pushing against the official capitalist line. Free speech is only tolerated insofar as it does not threaten the ruling order.
The main function of free speech idealism tends to be national chauvinism, the idea that Western countries that possess it are superior to those that don’t. The dividing lines on what counts as having free speech are seemingly arbitrary unless you know the geopolitical boundaries of capitalism, where countries are favorable to the capitalist empire vs. not, or even just which countries have stepped out of line. “Free speech” gets evaluated by a NatSec think tank based on whatever they want the result to be as part of pressure campaigns to justify sending in their goon squads whether that’s groups like USAID or sanctions regimes or the IMF. The countries designated as the enemy for the purposes of capital are always “violating free speech” and oppressing “their own people”, forms of propaganda directed mostly inwards at the populations of “free” countries so that they are sufficiently misinformed to accept the violence done in their name to “the enemy”.
Free speech idealism also involves a sleight-of-hand that claims the state is separate from capital and that the former is at risk of tyranny while the latter is a force of nature and even freedom itself. So, when you get fired from your job and blacklisted for being a member of a socialist party, that actually gets characterized as freedom (of speech) for your at-will employer rather than a violation of your own freedom of association. In reality, capital is the most common suppressor of speech and association and ignoring this is a function of free speech idealism. And more fundamentally, the state is also an arm of capital, so the distinction is really just an expression of how capital negotiates between its functional appendages and different internal factions. When unions are getting too uppity, capital is happy to let the state crush their speech on top of their own efforts.
In addition, you don’t even have to look only at how the rules seem to change depending on conditions because the rules already in the books spell out the limits for you already even within the inconsistent confines of free speech idealism. You have theoretical freedom of association (from government interference) except for when it’s in the interests of “national security” (state infiltration of socialist orgs, for example). You have theoretical freedom of speech except when it “incites a riot” or is considered “treason”. If your efforts actually materially oppose the state itself, they no longer count as free speech. Let’s say a local corporate overlord has been illegally putting up hostile architectural elements on public property in order to discourage homeless people from living there (e.g. on a sidewalk). The state will generally just let them do that, they love that shit. But if you get a few buddies together and smash that shit + put it on the overlord’s doorstep, you will be prosecuted if caught, likely brought up on various charges relating to destruction of private property, terrorism, trespassing, possessing illegal weapons (hammers…), violating noise ordinances, conspiracy, etc. This then gives the state license to go after any organization this may have been part of, using drug and/or terrorism laws to treat you as a gang or insurrectionary group and bringing you up on those charges as well. They might not go as far as all that, but they’ll do a few of them. There’s your freedom of speech in clearing illegal blocking of a public right-of-way. You fuck with the interests of capital and the state fucks with you.
Under free speech idealism, freedom is provided to far right groups far more often than left groups and this is because the former intersect with the interests of popular factions of capital.
Finally, consider the realities of speech in countries that have just had revolutions and seek to maintain them. This doesn’t even need to be socialist revolutions, it can include national liberation revolutions that maintain a national capitalist order but oppose imperial capital. The empire will support and instigate coups, engage in sabotage and terrorism, support and create far-right groups to destabilize your country, use financial powers to create widespread poverty and suffering, and do their best to credibly threaten and then engage in war to force your capitulation. But if your country then stands up and fights against these things, such as expelling NGOs that do dubious things and work with US NatSec, the “free speech” police are suddenly knocking at your door. If you institute state-supported media that pushes back on international capitalist media or ban outlets that constantly lie to and propagandize your people against the revolution, you will be branded a harsh dictatorship that hates and fears the noble profession of journalism. You will be forced to give up your revolution or crack down on “free speech” by the oppressions of international capital.
As an abstract vague ideal it’s fine to like free association and relatively open philosophical spaces. In reality this isn’t how it actually works, it’s a propaganda tool and any successful revolution will need to clamp down on “free speech” due to inherent power differentials against imperialism.