Free Speech is necessary to a participatory democracy because it enables voters to make informed decisions based on the open exchange of ideas. Free Speech enables the public to express their concerns to their government, even if their concerns run contrary to public policy of the moment. In the 1930s, Nazi's claimed that speech should be restricted as a way of "protecting" democracy. Of course, the free speech they wanted restricted was anything that smacked of criticism of their policies. In the United States Socialist Eugene Debbs was jailed for speaking against the US involvement in World War I. In the 1960s, government attempted to curtail anti-war speakers from airing their sentiments with the claim that this kind of free speech lead to civil unrest. More recently, free speech in the UK was curtailed in 2005 when Maya Evans was convicted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Her crime? She read a list of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed during the Iraq War without police permission. How free is your speech if you have to ask permission to speak?
The freedom to express and exchange ideas seems to me to be central to what we claim the US stands for. And if the government cannot withstand criticism, maybe the problem lies with the government rather than the people. Again, we get back to the super patriots at Mt. Rushmore who believe that by curtailing the speech of others, they are protecting their own freedoms. The only way to prove them wrong is to allow them to prevail and then it's too late for everybody.
