Is it possible to have an authoritarian regime but still retain Freedom of Speech?

Many people have an aversion of anything that isn't democracy because of lack of free speech, suppressing ideas etc

Now, is it necessary for a fascist to suppress opposite ideas? Perhaps it's a relic of the past - I don't see why people still define regime types within the same boundaries as in the past 100 years. Things change.

So Sup Forums, could you mount a fascist regime but still retain all freedoms of the citizen?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore
twitter.com/AnonBabble

tfw bait shill threads get 250 replies but actual discussions are ignored

bumping

...

Yeah dude
I'm assuming that the media has to be controlled to a large degree to avoid subversion and degeneracy. Pluralism can be abused pretty easily. Other than that I don't see a problem, if there is good counter propaganda to anti state messages.

Here's a redpill.

Freedom of speech is stupid because most people are retarded and dont know what they want.

Bumping for greatest ally

There are examples of benevolent dictators who inproved their countrys but there very rare

Yeah, but you can ignore free speech. Free speech isn't actions.

People want to be controlled, this is fact. People want to be told what to do, what to work towards. But "muh free speech" is a strong deterrent against anything that isn't democracy

Why can't you seize control, and say to the people: You can talk all you want, I will allow free speech. Once you take action, I will thwart you.

Philosopher dictator is best dictator.

Sir Oswald Mosley was for free speech.
Honestly the best prime minister we never had.

Limited freedom of speech and constructive criticism.

>implying Sup Forums has anythign intelligent to contribute

He failed and wasn't even remotely close to being influential though

no

nobody is answering your thread because the question is retarded.

the more you know

Its not you low iq nigger

Btw op i hate zionists but you asked a good question, so bump

Singapore has an authoritarian regime and their free speech laws are more liberal than some democratic european nations.

Dont get me wrong it is not liberal by any means but free speech does not exist in allot of democratic societies.

There is one intrinsically problematic thing the idea: the ruling class and the bureaucracy are naturally averse to changes to the regime. Free speech is a time bomb for authoritarianism because it allows criticism to the regime to flow quickly and unchecked.

Kind of related is the Mandate of Heaven. It's an idea adopted by past Chinese historians that legitimizes new regimes by virtue of them simply destroying the old one. Much well viewed by the common chink and new dynasties, but once the rulers entrenched themselves they always tried to crack down on it.

Eat shit nigger. Non-country

exactly, the socialist europe is not free in any way

Singapore is a curious case, as you can hardly call them democratic desu. dominated by one party and had a dictator for 30 years, yet has never been discussed in the same way as other fascists

But I think it has something to do with race too. Asians are different than Europeans, therefore it'd be ridiculous to assume they'd operate the same under similar political systems.

Don't forget, Europe has a tradition of 200 years of edgy academics and liberal thinkers who would oppose their govt without any regard for the good of the people, but rather to stoke their own intellectual prowess. This is why Free Speech was traditionally curbed in EU, because of these populations

That's a good point. Although I don't think you can categorize the current ruling class as the same one 150 years ago.

At least my county is white :) and less jewish

A dumb jew? I thought jews were intelligent.
What is the point of having an authoritarian government if freedom of speech is allowed?

yes, you must not allow freedom of really anything

it only takes 1 cult of personality to tear your government down

Singapore has an excellent system in place to tackle modern social threats and squash issues almost before they start.
I wouldnt say there is complete free speech per say, but living here for a while has changed my opinion of the more radical definitions of free speech.

You wont get shitty SJW rallies here or riots because theyll send in their fucking privatized police force in riot gear at the drop of a hat.
They sent 50 riot police for the 5 guys that set a car on fire and imposed a district wide liquor ban on little india the next day that hasnt been lifted.

Short answer: No.
At least it's never happened yet.

>Philosopher state
>Plucked chickens technically have the same rights as a man.

I've been thinking about it for a long time. Short answer is Yes.
You constitutionally separate political freedom from freedom of speech. And create good institutions that gives space to discussing anything.

Then long answer should be a book.

Sure you could, it would just be pointless to call it a fascist regime. If you allow free speech, you by proxy allow pluralism in the state.

Depends on your definitions. Most of the US population couldn't vote in the beginning, yet they still had their first amendment.

Most democracies today do not have free speech in the First Amendment sense. At best they pay lip service to it whilst locking-up diversity-deniers.

People don't understand the relationship between democracy and liberty well. If you look at my country (Britain, not flag) then you see that over the millenium of relatively unbroken constitutional development we've had, limited government, jury trial, property rights and all other liberties came BEFORE universal suffrage, not after.

Democracy doesn't guarantee liberties. If anything, it's the other way round.

>You constitutionally separate political freedom from freedom of speech

So it's not freedom of speech than.

I need to visit Singapore again. Your country is fantastic. At first I thought all the fines for chewing gum and smoking were silly but then I saw its effects. I was amazed on how clean Singapore is.

yes, or rather, to the level that you could in a democracy, if you were beloved. the problem is that you can't choose to be beloved, and it's unlikely that your son will be

That is a very dangerous trade-off for an authoritarian regime thou. You get much increased instability during times of recession and crisis for access to a greater and richer view of ideas and complaints of the subservient classes (IMO at least). I imagine such a regime wouldn't struggle as much to come up with an answer to problems it doesn't know how to solve, but would also have to filter a lot of bullshit that would just weaken it. So as long as it adopted the right suggestions it would prosper. The problem is in knowing which suggestions are good.

Sounds better to me to restrict the freedom of speech or to just go more democratic.

>knew a lady from singapore
>she informed me that, at least at the time, oral sex that did not lead to vaginal sex was illegal as degeneracy
I mean I know a lot of you probably like this idea but you can't exactly call it free

Philosopher dictator, not state.

free speech is a kike lie designed to allow them to sow discord and subvert the culture

Here is your answer OP.

Free speech rights aren't dependent on the government model, but who is in control of the government. I have been pro-authoritarian anti-democracy for quite a while now because in democracies people don't know who to blame and the real leaders are hidden behind numerous layers and are usually (((them)))

i know that feel, jude

No.

Canadian living here and tbqh Id rather stay than go back. Its strict but they have all their shit together. My only complaint is the alcohol tax.

Freedom of speech would be the downfall of a visible all powerful entity like a supreme leader. Far too easy to criticize one man's shit, than something like today where you have something like tens of thousands of plutocrats controlling things but with differing opinions, different industries/offices, etc. Inb4 Shlomo

...

We could. But our societies are too pussies to allow any order, they prefer fucking chaos than freedom under strong laws and rule.

Interesting point, I'm studiying law and Singapore is such a weird political system, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore The sanctions for "minor" facts for us are very important there. And the repression against drugs is amazing

yes because free speech is the mechanism by which the regime would be kept on its toes and renew itself.
However benevolent and virtuous a regime might be in the beginning, like all things with time it would decay, corrupt, gain vices.
the criticism would hone the machine.

If Im nor mistaken the reason for the harsh drug laws was to combat opium, which almost destroyed parts of Asia. Its a port country though so they had to legalize either drugs or prostitution. The chose the latter. Apparently its pretty regulated and clean.

Freedom of speech should exist for individuals only
Otherwise you get kike media promoting multiculturalism under the guise of free speech

To be fair, Britain's elite society was beset by this thing called "honor" - they often took noble and just causes for the sake of being remembered, not necessarily because of regard for the lowest classes.

I'm not saying it's bad, but just a plausible explanation in my opinion of why Britain had ingrained liberties even before democracy.

A good example of this is William Wilberforce, the anti slavery proponent

Yes, if that is the will of the dictator.

In Spain, nothing happened as long as you didn't criticize in the media the regime.

Exactly, I would not be against such a system as long as public order and peace are maintained. The difficulty would come in when a leader has ill will towards his people but I do not see that happening in singapore anytime soon.

If I am not mistaken your country is also below population replacement but you dont see your government bringing in a replacement population from third world shit holes.

your first problem is falling for the MSM lies that any authority is tyrannical through and through. You can have limited freedom of speech. But it doesn't really exist, not even in the US.
It will stifle degeneracy and Jewish Marxist rhetoric, so it isn't free in the sense of having freedom of speech. The Third Reich burned degenerate books, but it isn't a loss because I don't care about freedom for degeneracy. It's the old lolberg talking point of freedom, they want freedom for subversion in their own nations, whereas the authority will remove the decadent and replace it with their own kin.