In his famous essay
On Liberty, the philosopher John Stuart Mill explains very clearly in chapter 2 why free speech is a necessary condition for knowledge on a topic, how censorship necessarily guarantees ignorance, thereby debasing the worth of any opinion on the censored topic. Sadly, governments around the world continue to ignore this very practical consideration as they enforce ignorance on their own citizens. In Germany, it is illegal to say that the appalling official execution of millions of Jews did not occur in the Second World War, in England, it is illegal to protest that god hates British soldiers (the US does better: its Supreme Court last year affirmed that the First Amendment to the Constitution allows vile Christian groups to protest publicly, even at funerals, that god hates US soldiers because America treats gay and lesbian people as human persons). The latest example of wilful ignorance for dubious reasons which I've learnt about comes from South Korea.
Choe Sang-Hun reports in
"South Korean Law Casts Wide Net, Snaring Satirists in a Hunt for Spies" (2012) that the National Security Law, which "makes it a crime to praise, sympathize or cooperate with North Korea if such acts threaten national security" (p. 2, ¶ 4), continues to be used in a seemingly arbitrary way, which the United Nations Human Rights Commission and other rights groups argue violates the rights of South Korean citizens. As Sang-Hun explains, the dangerously vague wording leads not only to injustice, but absurdity, for example in the case of Park Jung-geun, whose satirical work, obviously making a joke of North Korea, led to the seizure of his computer and repeated interrogations by police, for art work which he describes as "obviously harmless to anyone who’s not language-impaired" (p. 2, ¶ 11).
As I've already suggested, apart from the immorality of such laws, I can't understand why the South Korean government does not want it's citizens to be able to have any well-founded, well-balanced and well supported opinions about the situation in North Korea, which is so truly awful that solid, tested opinions would almost certainly be even more negative than most already are. On any objective evidence, North Korea is a disaster, and of course, it also shows the results of censorship and the denial of free speech. North Korea is an economic disaster because decisions are based not on evidence, reason or healthy argument and disagreement, but by ideology. North Korean law does not allow its citizens to access different opinions or to state different opinions; the certain result is that errors, mistakes and wrong opinions cannot possibly be corrected, and the results are obvious: disaster for the North Korean people, economically, socially and politically as they worshipped their "Dear Leader" until recently and now his son. I am sure that the opinions of North Korean's about their despotic leaders is sincere, but sincerity does not make any opinion true, or right. And the opinions of North Koreans about their legally protected leaders are largely false and worthless. And this worthlessness is a direct result of the censorship the protects them from any criticism: it also protects opinion about them from truth or reasonableness.
I think South Koreans can be trusted to realise these truths about the situation in North Korea, and if some disagree, surely it is better to have that opinion openly stated so that it can be addressed and rebutted. The same is true for the laws in Germany that prevent people saying that the Nazi government did not legally kill millions of Jews. Such opinions are very offensive, vile and generally disgusting, as well as being false, but it seems to me much better to let people say them, present their evidence, and be proved wrong, again, and again, and again. Just because an idea is insulting, offensive or vile is not a good reason to ban it. Those are very good reasons to argue against it, but if it can't be openly and peacefully stated, how can anyone argue against it, and thereby persuade people that it's wrong?
The opinions and actions of the Westboro Christian church in the US, who make anti-gay protests at the funerals of American soldiers killed fighting for their country ("Even Hurtful Speech", 2011; Liptak, 2011), are extremely offensive, I think they are a hateful group of religious people, but I also agree with the decision by the US Supreme Court last year that US law
must allow them to preach their ugly message of hate, intolerance and unreason. And the historical evidence is clear: it's commitment to protecting the right to free speech of its citizens from government interference has not destroyed the United States of America: long the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and also pretty well off economically to the benefit of its residents.
Even Hurtful Speech [Editorial]. (2011, March 2).
The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03thu2.html
Liptak, A. (2011, March 2). Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals.
The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html
Sang-Hun, C. (2012, January 7). South Korean Law Casts Wide Net, Snaring Satirists in a Hunt for Spies.
The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/world/asia/south-korean-law-casts-wide-net-snaring-satirists-in-a-hunt-for-spies.html