This was a shameful and dangerous attempt to crush free speech, and it should never be repeated

THERE is something sinister about the attempt by Extinction Rebellion protesters to prevent the distribution of newspapers with which they disagree.

This is clearly a form of censorship. It is also a throwback to the very worst years of trade union militancy, which came close to strangling a free press and which was only defeated by the determined action of Rupert Murdoch.

How would Extinction Rebellion respond if far-Right protesters shut down BBC transmitters, or prevented the distribution of their favourite daily, The Guardian?

Freedom is absolute. Those who want it for themselves must defend it, especially for those they disapprove of.

The blockaders attack the ownership of many newspapers. But what would they prefer? No system is perfect, but competing privately owned papers encourage diversity of opinion and is a strong safeguard against dishonesty. State control, as modern China proves, leads only to servile and neutered media.

Extinction Rebellion themselves are astute self-publicists, and receive far more coverage than we suspect they would allow their opponents if they were in charge. Their general view, that anyone who does not totally agree with them is an enemy, suggests they would be far less generous to critics than British newspapers have been to them.

In any case, their angry discontent is absurd. Their views are given plentiful space, and they are far from alone in their concern for the planet. Take for instance the stunningly successful campaign to restrict the use of plastic bags, pursued doggedly by our sister paper the Daily Mail since 2008.

The newspaper blockade was a shameful and dangerous attempt to crush free speech, and it should never be repeated.