The question is and always has been "free speech for *whom*?" What constitutes a "free" form of speech?

Being against the concept of free speech does not mean you are against debate or discussion -- it means that you keep in mind the character of this speech and what end it serves and reali e that speech doesn!t have some magic immaterial character that makes it not have a political meaning and material e"istence# $f we acknowledge that speech has a class character% and that speech is a social&political act% we then understand that certain speech needs to be suppressed by the proletariat 'ust as surely as they must physically suppress bourgeois reaction etc#

$n the ())* "free speech" meant that the tools for press etc had been provided to the workers of the ())*# "+ree speech" for the proletariat% freedom for proletarian speech was desired# )imilarly within the party "free speech" for communists can and must be allowed but this is not the same as all speech being allowed# ,rawing the line can at times be difficult% and people might disagree as to what kind of speech is progressive or reactionary even among socialists -- and that!s how you get necessary splits like the Bolsheviks&-ensheviks etc .or frivolous ones many other organi ations throughout history/# The parties of the ())*&0*1 did allow large amounts of debate -- they would not have stood for someone coming in and saying "y!know% we should ally with the fascists" or "we should become capitalist etc"# .2bviously in hindsight we can critici e types of speech that very well could be seen as friendly to capitalism that they wouldn!t have recogni ed 3market "reforms" etc4/

The class character of speech was absolutely understood in the ())* and 0*1% and they took actions showing this# This goes beyond 'ust class related speech as well# The very constitution you reference has% in article 567 'ust above the part you reference% a restriction on speech8

9:quality of rights of citi ens of the (#)#)#*#% irrespective of their nationality or race% in all spheres of economic% state% cultural% social and political life% is an indefeasible law# ;ny direct or indirect restriction of the rights of% or% conversely% any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for% citi ens on account of their race or nationality% as well as **any advocacy of racial or national e"clusiveness or hatred and contempt% is punishable by law#**

)o% the answer to "how do -< crowd 'ustify this" is that they reali e that "free speech"

can mean different things in different conte"ts% and that they understand speech has a class character and social power."free speech" for racists%se"ists% etc for instance% is actually something subverts the -ar"ist understanding of what a "free society" is/# $t is bourgeois "free speech"% the dominant view of "free speech" in society% the view that serves the bourgeois dictatorship .or in a revolutionary situation attempts to undermine the revolution/% that we are against#

)imilarly% while we understand that the bourgeois view of "rights" is absurd% we can also see where "rights" can be progressive -- for instance in the ())* the "rights" to always have employment% food% to housing% healthcare% education% to recall elected officials% all the rights of women% etc are progressive and different than bourgeois "rights" of what boils down to a "fair deal in competition" and are individual based paying no mind to how it relates to society as a whole#