...from the longtime former head of the ACLU, Ira Glasser (the ACLU has abandoned its core mission more recently); an excerpt:
So why did I do it? Why defend the right of people to express views when such people, if they gained the power to do so, would eliminate my views, and maybe eliminate me?
For me, the answer is strategic. I can never be certain who will have political power. I can never be certain that the only people who get elected will agree with me. I know – because it has happened many times – that people will gain political power who will, if they can, act to punish me or people I agree with, because of our views. So what I need is an insurance policy. I want insurance against the probability that people in power will suppress or punish me for my views.
This is a version of what I think is the most plausible defense of free speech, namely, distrust of government to figure out which speech actually lacks value. Of course, it depends on an empirical premise: namely, that a blanket rule prohibiting suppressing speech based on its content will, in fact be observed by fascists--or, more precisely, that when a judiciary is acclimated to such a rule, they will stick to it were a fascist in power. I wish I could be confident that is true, but I'm hopeful that in a large country, with a fairly independent judiciary, it will be.
Recent Comments