What gives censors any right to censor? 

You have reached the limit of 10 free articles per 30 days. To continue, log in now or sign up for a digital Richmond Times-Dispatch subscription for only $8.99 per month. Click below to subscribe – you’ll have unlimited access to Richmond.com while supporting local journalism. If you’re already a subscriber, log in below. If you need help, check out the FAQs at RTD 101 or contact us.

Thank you for Reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thanks for reading the Richmond Times-Dispatch! You have reached the limit of 10 free articles every 30 days. To continue, sign up for a digital RTD subscription for only $8.99 per month. Click here to subscribe. If you’re already a subscriber, click here to log in.

Thank you for signing in! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thanks for reading the Richmond Times-Dispatch! You have nearly reached the limit of 10 free articles every 30 days. Please consider a digital RTD subscription for only $8.99 per month. Click here to subscribe. If you’re already a subscriber, click here to log in.

Current seven-day subscribers to the Richmond Times-Dispatch can add unlimited digital access to their account for no extra charge. Your digital package includes unlimited use of Richmond.com on desktop, mobile web and our mobile app, as well as our replica e-edition. Add digital to your current active seven-day print subscription and upgrade to All Access. 

Take the RTD on the go for just $1.99 a week. With your digital-only subscription you\'ll receive unlimited access to Richmond.com, our mobile website, mobile app and our replica e-edition. Get started now for $1.99 per week for 26 weeks ($8.62 monthly,) then $3.99 per week for 26 weeks ($17.28 monthly,) then $4.85 per week.

Receive your newspaper every day and get unlimited digital access at no additional charge. You won\'t miss anything. Your digital package includes unlimited use of Richmond.com on desktop and mobile web, as well as our electronic replica edition every day.

Receive your newspaper Monday through Saturday. Your subscription includes popular sections such as RTD Culture on Thursdays, Richmond Drives on Fridays and RTD Metro Business on Mondays. Plus get unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Four-day home delivery (Thurs.-Sun.) plus digital

Your subscription includes popular sections such as RTD Culture on Thursdays and Richmond Drives on Fridays. Plus receive unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Four-day home delivery (Fri.-Mon.) plus digital

Your subscription includes popular sections such as RTD Metro Business on Mondays and Richmond Drives on Fridays. Plus receive unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Receive the Sunday newspaper, stuffed with money-saving offers, with unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

The following services are print only and offer no digital access

Receive the newspaper every day. This option does not include unlimited digital access.

Receive the newspaper Monday through Saturday. This option does not include unlimited digital access.

Receive the newspaper Thursday through Sunday. This option does not include unlimited digital access.

Receive the newspaper Friday through Monday. This option does not include unlimited digital access.

Receive the Sunday newspaper. This option does not include unlimited digital access.

The racist goons in Charlottesville have inspired a fresh debate over whether the government should allow speech by racists, goons, and assorted other troglodytes.

For some, the answer is clearly no. “The ACLU Needs to Rethink Free Speech,” argues a fellow with the UCLA School of Law. “Censor White Supremacy,” advocates a writer in The Week. “Speech in America is Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control,” bemoans campaign-finance scourge Richard Hasen in the Los Angeles Times.

Here in Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe has temporarily banned demonstrations at the Lee monument in Richmond. City leaders in Portsmouth are debating whether to adopt a similar ban, at least with regard to hate groups. On the other side of the country, Nancy Pelosi wants a permit revoked for an alt-right rally. Transit authorities in New York and Washington have been trying to limit controversial (and even noncontroversial) advertising. And so on.

Those demanding censorship sometimes try to put a fig leaf on the demand. “This executive order has nothing to do with infringing upon First Amendment rights,” McAuliffe claimed, even though that was its whole point. In The Week, Matthew Walther contends that defending “abstract rights” of even the worst people is not “to defend speech but to demean it, to diminish it to the level of undifferentiated random noise.” Sure, that’s probably it.

Defenders of free speech have offered some familiar but still trenchant rebuttals:

Who decides what is acceptable? Do liberals really want to give a Republican Congress and, for Pete’s sake, Donald Trump the authority to decide which speech to punish?

Where do you draw the line? In Europe, courts have fined and imprisoned people not just for classic hate speech, but also for “glorifying terrorism” with a puppet show, saying mean things on Facebook, and posting “cruel humor” on Twitter, among a great deal else.

What about blowback? As Washington Post ombudsman Margaret Sullivan suggested in a recent column: “Imagine a civil rights march that is shut down because officials fear a violent response from racists.” She quotes Justin Silverman, of the New England First Amendment Coalition, who points out that until relatively recently “rallies for equality and civil rights were considered offensive and unpopular.”

These are all good arguments, but they suffer from a common flaw: They are conditional. They allow for the possibility that censorship might be acceptable if we could ensure that the right people imposed it, that they would draw the lines in the right place, and that good ideas would never be censored.

In the real world, those conditions cannot be met all the time, which makes the arguments powerful. But there are two other points that need drawing out as well.

The first is that the right to speech is not merely instrumental. In The Week, Walther argues that “freedom of speech is not a first-order good; it exists only to facilitate the flourishing of ... society.” Ergo, speech that doesn’t facilitate somebody’s conception of flourishing can be censored. (You hear the same arguments in the campaign-finance context: Speech by powerful interests can be curtailed in the name of a “level playing field.”)

This is just drastically wrong. It treats people as mere means to somebody else’s end, as Kant would say — not as ends in themselves. The blood-soaked history of the 20th century should have discredited that collectivist vision of society for all time, but apparently it still holds appeal in some quarters.

The other point that needs drawing out has less to do with the people who are speaking than the people who stand in judgment of the speakers. The current debate has focused on whether certain vile ideas have any value, and whether the people who espouse them deserve to be able to voice them. This looks at the question from the wrong end.

The more important question is: What right does anybody have to shut them up? That is the real threshold issue.

By way of analogy: Smith might not care for country music. He might, in fact, despise it. But Garcia is still free to play country music all he wants. And here is the crucial part: Garcia is not free to do so because country music is inherently deserving of protection. Or because, if country music is banned, classical music might be next. Or because someday Garcia might be in charge and want to stop Smith from playing the Beatles.

No. Fundamentally, Garcia is free to play his country music for one immutable reason: Smith has no right to make him stop. What comes out of Garcia’s stereo is simply not for Smith to say.

A. Barton Hinkle column: What gives censors any right to censor?

Fill out this form to submit a Letter to the Editor.

Fill out this form to submit what\'s on your mind to Your Two Cents.

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond, VA © 2017 BH Media Group, Inc. | Terms of Use