Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on October 24, 2009 11:49 AM however, I simply assumed the topic "freedom of speech" is implicitly within a democratic context. One thing about these types of conversations is that people tend to use terms and think everybody means the same thing.  What is democracy to you, and why does freedom of speech have to be within democracy?  Do you mean a particular political system?  Can freedom of speech not exist outside of that system?  Freedom of speech simply means that you are free to speak.  Must it be in a given political system? Maxi

Yes, definitely. Without unalianable rights, there is no freedom of speech. Anything else would be trivial and naive. Of course you can try to speak your mind anywhere else, but then it is not guaranteed that you are not unconsciously breaking a restrictive policy and become subject to sanctions.

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 24, 2009 12:14 PM Does that mean that there was freedom of speech in the Soviet Union?

No, it is not the occurence of occasional liberties, it is the existence of an unalianable right that makes the "freedom of speech". Therefore I strongly advocate that it is not possible to have that outside a political framework (not meaning that it will be banned altogether without a framework).

In fact, my conclusion is that there is no freedom of speech anywhere, only some people are naturally born free to do anything regardless of the repercussions, even if it meant death, in whatever system. There are only various degrees of the so called freedom of speech in different political systems, but no real freedom. In the United States you cannot say openly either that your boss is stupid, if you want to keep the job.   

Originally written by Matthias Hammelehle on October 24, 2009 6:40 PM it is not the occurence of occasional liberties, it is the existence of an unalianable right that makes the "freedom of speech".

That was exactly my point when I commented on Maxi's "Freedom of speech simply means that you are free to speak." Under communism, people were free to speak at home, or when walking with no witnesses in wilderness yet this was not enough for the freedom of speech to exist. 

There is a book about Soviet Russia in the 1930s, called I think, "The Whisperers". Evidently, one had to even whisper inside one's apartment (due to bugs, etc.). If you watch the movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The Lives of Others"), you can see that even in one's 4 walls, one was not safe. Other systems were even more extreme than punishing speech: in Maoist countries, wearning the "wrong" type glasses could get one arrested. Speaking a foreign language defined one as "bourgoise", at least in Cambodia, under the Khmer. In some ways, Maoism was even more extreme than Stalinism. How Saudi Wahhabism deals with free speech "violations": http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/24/saudi.sex.braggart.journalist/index.html

Originally written by John Bunch on October 25, 2009 12:33 AM one had to even whisper inside one's apartment (due to bugs, etc.).

Again, I thought I would get away with an oversimplification even though I was aware of it. Your correction is spot on, John, but the situation you describe was far from common in the communist Poland. Obviously, the handful of people from the opposition (elsewhere referred to as "dissidents") were monitored in their own apartments, but "normal" people normally were not...

Yes, what John is saying is absolutely not true: regular people, not conspirators against the government could say whatever they wanted to, especially among friends, in the street, in the store, in their apartment, even that they did not like the government or that a particular member of it was stupid or a swine. People went to church on everyday basis, unless somebody was a high party official. Nobody was persecuted for religious reasons. They did not go to church if they wanted better paid party jobs. The whole system was just terrible, based on falseness and deceit. I do not know if it was the fault of the system or merely of the people. 

It might have been different in Russia, or rather in the Soviet Union, and I think it was.  

There was no freedom of religion for people of other religions than Christian; this is for sure, in Poland.    

Can you say, John, that you do not like your boss, openly, without any repercussions, that you think his approach to certain things is totally wrong, that the company's policy is to take advantage of people and pay the least they can get away with. Can you tell the policemen openly that they are too aggressive sometimes, and do not think before they act? Can you tell a soldier that what he is doing is basically killing other people and exposing his life to danger, neglecting his family. Can you tell them that, openly? I think theoretically you could: you might not go to jail for it, but bye bye to your job. You could even probably get arrested for saying certain things to a police officer, depending how you said it and where. Of course, I am using here a general you.  

Only an artist can say whatever he or she wants to say, but the message is usually in disguise, because people cannot take naked truth, in any country or system. This is why metaphors exist and other ways of artistic expression.   

Only an artist can say whatever he or she wants to say, but the message is usually in disguise, because people cannot take naked truth, in any country or system. This is why metaphors exist and other ways of artistic expression.

And why artists get jailed, banned, or can't get their work published, displayed or performed. 

Maxi