Censorship in the name of democracy

This year it is commemorated that 40 years ago our country recovered the democracy and this is how the heading of all official documentation expresses it.

When we reflect on the meaning of the term, we imagine a country in which all its citizens can live under the same flag in peace and harmony, with the premise that their compatriots are brothers, where it is logical and lawful to have a different perspective on many issues.

This is why words such as debate, discussion, constructive criticism, etc. are so often used, so many tools that allow us to reach the agreements necessary to go through this “suggestive project of living together”.

And when we talk about debate, the first thing that (comes to mind) to consider is the National Congresssymbol par excellence of the exchange of ideas and projects where issues such as the confrontation of ideas, dialogue and respect should be on the altar.

You may be interested: They denounce that due to pressure from Kirchnerism, the presentation of the book “The scam for the disappeared” has been suspended

This is why it is so striking that in the “Casa del Pueblo” a forbidden an activity like Presentation of a bookand it is much more surprising that it was done on the grounds that “it affects the democratic and historical values ​​that Argentine society has made its own”.

If we are talking about democratic values, it is legitimate to ask, does democracy pre-censorship and prohibit the free exercise of the expression of ideas? Or does democracy debate ideas within the framework of respect for others?

Because prior censorship is strictly frowned upon in our Magna Carta and the exercise of freedom of speech is guaranteed within our legal framework.

If we talk about historical values, we have to keep in mind that science is a dynamic process. As new evidence emerges, it corrects itself in a permanent cycle. History as such does not escape this mechanism. That is why we must not let ourselves be carried away by those who want to impose a only historical truth “without right of reply”, because those who apply this method only want to impose their own vision on us “a story” and, thus, history ceases to be a science to become a tool of power to be imposed.

As a citizen, we perceive that when someone censors a different opinion, it is because he does not have the fundamentals who support his position, then, not being able to debate with the force of the arguments, he prefers forbid, cancelto silence, censor and impose the argument of force.

In any case, the procedure would be to analyze the work in question and refute with arguments and evidence, one by one, all the statements made therein, and in this way we would all end up learning something.

It is a pity that we cannot reach the truth by listening to all the voices, on the events that mourn our history.

Because when this truth is expressed without adjectives and with Documentation proof, is much stronger than the truths of so many people who brag about talking about democracy and human rights but they cannot overcome disqualification, insult, interdict and censorship as means of defending them.

In this sense and as a synthesis, serve this final reflection.

How best to honor Republic? Censor opinions? Prevent the free exercise of freedom of expression? Or allow everyone to express themselves and give their opinion, even if their ideas do not coincide with mine?

In short, after 40 years of democracy, some end up doing what they claim to be fighting, others opt for complicit silence, while few repudiate the censorshipIt is not by chance that Argentina is like that.

The author is president of the forum of retired generals