'Censorship is always an admission by the censor that his views cannot stand the heat of debate'

Tony Bennett wrote:John Milton: The need for ‘free and open encounters’ and ‘the strength of truth’:

John Milton, in Areogapatica: “And though all the words of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field - [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…?”

Dr Gerald McCann – a strong believer in the freedom of speech

Dr Gerald McCann: “I am a strong believer in the freedom of speech.. I have no objection to people purporting theories…”

Here follow extracts from an article, penned in 2006, by Robert Henderson: “If you think free expression is politically expensive, try censorship”, in ‘The Individual’ [Society of Individual Freedom, No. 45, July 2006]

We should begin the creation of free expression with a bonfire of legal restraints. Libel (including criminal libel) and slander should be replaced by a statutory right of reply. The cost of libel and slander suits is so vast that such laws can be, in practice, open to only the rich, or those backed by the rich, because it would be impossible for legal aid to be extended to libel and slander because of the vast number of legitimate cases. Hence a strong right of reply is the fairest practical solution to defamation.

There might be insuperable practical problems with a ‘right of reply’ in the case of books, but I can see no reason why the press, with publishers and broadcasters, could not accommodate such a system without it causing impossible inconvenience. In the case of books, they generally reach far fewer people than press or broadcast material and the people who are libelled in them tend to be those with greater power, wealth and influence than those libelled in the press and by broadcasters. Perhaps libel could be retained for books. Those who lost financially from a libel or slander by the press or broadcasters could still sue for loss of earnings…

Censorship is always an admission by the censor that the views which he or she espouses cannot stand the heat of debate. Those who censor are saying: “We have no case to argue, hence we will prevent the need to argue for it”. Anyone confident of their case will argue it. Indeed, those who are confident of their case and their ability to debate will positively enjoy doing so.

Free expression is not about being easy or pleasant. To be meaningful, it must be predicated on the idea that no man has the right to expect another to believe as he does, or expect him to pretend to respect that which he does not respect. Rather, it means that another’s opinions must be tolerated unless they are such as to breach the free expression of others.

The temptations of power will of course make those who hold it more likely to want to censor than those who are in opposition, because it is in the power-holders’ interest to censor - and the opposition’s interest to have debate...