In reply to my
>Freedom of speech *is* the sine qua non for democracy; it is not a
>'belief'.
>
>
>(((((((((
>
>CB: No, popular sovereignty is the necessary cause of democracy.
>
>
But popular deliberation is part and parcel of popular sovereignty, and such deliberation, were it already subject to restrictions, would be no deliberation at all. No popular sovereignty without freedom of speech.
Put another way, popular sovereignty presumes the possibility that the popular will might have to go through some errors before it arrives at the truth. Nobody has immediate access to complete understanding, but can only approach such through debate. Getting it wrong is part of democracy.
If people are forbidden from expressing false or even reactionary views, they are thereby forbidden from overcoming those reactionary views voluntarily, through debate. You cannot legislate for true understanding. -- James Heartfield