Freedom of speech *is* the sine qua non for democracy; it is not a 'belief'.
No society that is incapable of deliberating upon its own future could in any sense be called a democracy. No society that's deliberations were restricted could properly consider its own future.
>he said somewhere in the
>conversation "i'd die for anybody's f-o-s even if that person is a fascist". and
>i thought for myself "i would not". everywhere in the world, especially where
>they are free, fascists have it _soooo_ easy that i really don't see what i
>would waste a second of my time fighting for their right while i could fight for
>the rights of the people they oppress.
Well, of course, you have to allow for a certain rhetorical flourish, but yes of course you have to defend the right to speak of those that you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, otherwise it is not free speech.
But it is a common misunderstanding that it is the 'rights of fascists' (an illogical formulation) that are being defended. On the contrary, it is the rights of the audience to consider their views that is being defended.
No social progress could come from a suppression of opinion. To forbid people access to 'bad' ideas does not succeed in making them good, just foolish. If you think that the voluntary principle of democracy is worthwhile - i.e. that decision making should come from the popular will - then the people need free access to all views (in proportion to their success).
The argument for suppression of 'hate speech' in general arises from the anxiety on the part of the enlightened at their ability to win the argument. But that anxiety should not be indulged: it is at base elitist and contemptuous of the mass of people.
>
>jc helary
-- James Heartfield