An Essay for "24 Hours of Democracy": A Canadian Contribution I have always felt somewhat helpless as I've listened to the raging debates in the United States about Freedom of Speech and the Internet. As a Canadian, I have no Congressman or Senator to pester, no basis for participating. Canada has yet to propose any equivalent legislation; but all Canadians know that our government has a way of making parallel moves when they sense a wind blowing from the south. The invitation to participate in "24 Hours of Democracy", however, is too good to pass up. We are all concerned with keeping democracy in good health, and my alarm at the latest American assault on their own dearest principles is great enough to overcome my natural hesitation to stick my nose in. A quote from a Canadian politician offers a thought to ponder on the issue. It had always dismayed me that the U.S. had a virtual monopoly on quotable prose about democracy. Canada's Constitution and Bill of Rights have little to compare to the sheer poetry found in the writings of Jefferson, Paine, and William James. A few years ago, however, I ran across something from a speech by John Diefenbaker, a Canadian Prime Minister that I had admittedly never liked. He said, "I am a free Canadian. I am free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I swear to uphold for myself and for all mankind." Whoa. Take a back seat, Jefferson. That isn't bad. The thought that deserves consideration is the phrase I don't recall from American documents: "Free to speak without fear". It is one thing to be theoretically free to speak your mind. But can you do so without fear for a long court battle over the limits of your freedom? Without fear of lawsuit? Without fear of losing your job because your employer doesn't like association with controversy? Without fear? Save for a few years of youthful rebellion, the overwhelming majority of people are cautious souls. People may speak privately of their grievances against an employer; not one in thirty will march into the boss's office with the same complaints. When consequences are expensive and difficult, even a small risk of suffering them is enough to enforce silence. Freedom from fear is a fragile thing that must be protected with heavy armor and cradled in silks. So it came to be that our society, all the nations that have democracy, built up stronger and stronger protections around the Freedom To Speak Without Fear, until it became the first among rights and the cornerstone of all law. I do not oppose measures like the American restriction of speech on the Internet because I support the kinds of communication that they intended to suppress. I oppose them because for every truly awful indecency, there are ten that are only a little bit awful, a hundred that are just marginally awful, and a thousand that are not awful at all but just harmlessly naughty - and all of them will be made afraid of the law. Laws that touch in any way upon freedom to speak should be made by master craftsmen who sculpt with gossamer and spidersilk. They should be tightly restrained, leashed like attack dogs, lest they cause the tiniest hint of fear to do surprising, disproportionate damage to the courage of the populace. Freedom to speak without fear is the foundation of democracy, and however unworthy some of its users may be, every chip from that foundation should be treated as a wound to us all. Roy Brander, P.Eng. Calgary, Canada Home Page: http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~branderr E-mail: branderr@cuug.ab.ca