Free speech must not be compromised

IN my view, Gareth Butterfield, in his column, was saying that censorship is a good idea (Derby Telegraph, November 24). It was an example of a turkey voting for Christmas.

Who is going to do this censoring? The “fact checkers” employed by Google, Facebook and their ilk? These rich, powerful organisations cannot be trusted to be independent due to their wideranging vested interests, and how can private corporations have the right to control our speech? What next? Is Royal Mail going to start opening letters to check the contents? Maybe MPs could be the censors, or their “expert” advisers

like Chris Whitty. Could Government departments like the Department of Health be trusted with the truth?

Well, a few days ago the Daily Mail published an online article raising questions about the handling of the pandemic. Using official government sources (which can be checked) they pointed out that the actual Covid death rate was less than half of that predicted, that hospital bed occupancy is about average for this time of year, that less than a third of intensive care beds are occupied by Covid patients, and that the overall occupancy of ICU beds is below average. The Department of Health used their Twitter account to state that this article was “misleading”. When challenged to produce evidence by the Mail, the Department of Health was unable to, and quietly deleted their statement without any explanation.

Can these people be trusted as censors? There are no halfmeasures with free speech, you either support it or you don’t. Censorship is a very slippery slope, and any competent journalist, should not set foot on it.

Tim Arnold, Belper