Karl Marx, Rheinische Zeitung, 1842
It seems unavoidable to me that the case against free speech is based on a contempt for the people, and a preference for the 'enlightened despotism' of the state.
Trust the people, I say. Why should some high court judge, censor or spineless bureaucrat be a preferable source of opinion than the mass of ordinary people.
Reactionaries have always supported the censorship of speech on the grounds that the foolish mob is easily swayed by agitators - what an insult that idea is!
Just ask the question: where should the judgement be passed on the spoken and written word? Should it be made in the courts, in the government buildings or on the streets. I say, on the streets.
Why should we invite the very people who have consistently attacked our interests to usurp our rights once again in respect of the most valuable thing of all - our ability to make our own judgements.
Progressives should not make the mistake of asking the state to enforce the 'correct' public opinion. If they do they will only earn the contempt of the very people they are trying to influence. People are not stupid and if you treat them as if they are they will turn on you.
As well as being premissed on a fear and distrust of the judgement of ordinary people, the case for censorship betrays a lack of confidence in the case for progressive thinking. Are the ideas of anti-racists really so much weaker than those of racists? Are our ideas so feeble that we could not expect them to stand up to the rank prejudices of the British National Party or the KKK?
I don't think so. -- Jim heartfield