There's a category in America where I live
of people who are known as 'First Amendment Absolutists'.
I consider myself one of them.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress may make no law
of any sort respecting the abridgement of Freedom of the Press or of Expression or of Free Assembly
and those of us who say that, that
amendment means exactly what is says and nothing else.
That it's written so it isn't, so to speak, no 'wiggle room'
are known as the First Amendment Absolutists.
It only answers half the question
but faces us, of course, because it usually isn't Congress or the State that tries to abridge Free Expression
or Free Speech.
Many a Journalist hopes to be martyred one day by an attempt to censor him by the authorities.
They live for this moment.
There are even singers like the "Dixie Chicks" who think that they can claim martyrdom of this kind.
Actually,
in  the present situation the main threat to free expression comes from public opinion.
So for a Democrat -- someone who believes in popular sovereignty --
it's a very great problem:
the public pressure.
The pressure of the masses, if you like.
It's the one that you most likely have to face
and it's also much the hardest to resist
because you'll be accused of being an elitist.
You can't even be accused of being a racist if you simply say,
"no, I'm sorry, I reserve the right
to criticize anything I like," and in particular
if you reserve the right, and insist upon the right
to criticize
faith
or religion
[at] that point you may find yourself in
some difficulty
and your editor will not tell you you're under pressure from the FBI to shut you up.
He'll tell you you're under pressure from 'The Community'
Part of growing up is to say "the community can go to hell".
