>>> Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk 08/23/01 03:31AM >>>
In message <sb83b4d6.017 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
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.
((((((((
CB: I agree that freedom of speech is part of democracy, but it is derivative of the first principle, popular sovereignty.
Freedom of speech is not "the" sine qua non of democracy. Right to make a living, Due process , No state religion, equality before the law, anti-racism, women's equality, representational leadership (republicanism) are just as important to democracy as freedom of speech. They all are derivative of popular sovereignty.
This is important because most cries for "democracy" today, especially by the U.S. propagandists, are not premised on the idea that popular sovereignty is the first principle, the defining principle of democracy. Elections , for example, do not define demcracy. They are a mechanism in tryng to achieve democracy, but there can be elections, as in the U.S., that have been corrupted to avoid democracy. Similarly with freedom of speech. One has to examine the whole actual situation to determine whether a given system's "freedom" of speech still serve the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty.
What good is "freedom" of speech without freedom of the press. In the U.S. the press/mass media is controlled by monopolies. So, my "freed" speech only reaches a few people, whereas Rockefeller's speech reaches millions.
((((((((((
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.
((((((((
CB: I agree. Trial and error , practical critical activity, is part of the scientific and truth finding method, including by the People as a whole.
Also, the People as a whole are a diversity ( E pluribus unum). So, the truth of the "popular will" is many sided, requiring diverse input.
Still, the first principle here is popular sovereignty. The need for debate is derivative of that. Debate is not the first principle of democracy. It's value is in serving popular sovereignty. In cases where it contradicts popular sovereignty, such as the right of Nazis to debate, it must give way to the interests of popular sovereignty, i.e. democracy. Nazism is a principle of ANTI- popular sovereignty, per se. It has no place in a debate that seeks to serve 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.
(((((((((
CB: The debate over a truth is not endless. It is possible for the Great popular debate to reach significantly true conclusions. ( One of the truths reached is the one you are talking about, the method of debate to get at the truth; other truths I have listed above). Getting it wrong is part of democracy, but getting it right is also part of democracy at some point. Democracy is not permanent skepticism or uncertainty about all issues.
One truth we have learned in the last 100 years is that we don't have to continue debating whether fascistic racism , that particular reactionary point of view, is valid. It is not. We can say that conclusiviely. We don't have to remain skeptical about it. No longer any reason to debate it. We can make an exception to the general principle of freedom of speech for fascistic racist ( Nazi-like) speech. That exception best serves the fundamental principle and first principle which is popular sovereignty. Nazism is anti-popular sovereignty or anti-democracy , per se. We don't have to keep testing that out in the "marketplace of ideas" . It was proven conclusively in 1932- 1944.