Here is the key contradiction: for the protection of democracy, we must limit certain behaviours, these behaviours including the right for certain people or organisations which have a certain power to use their power to spread information. The kind of problem alluded to includes the limitation of corporate media and dictating to information platforms which material they should and should not carry.

It is not wrong in my view to be scared by such a suggestion - after all, isn't it freedom that's being taken away by limiting these behaviours? If one accepts the first premise - that wide misinformation is putting democracy at risk - it would follow that in order to protect a genuine democracy (as to whether or not bourgeois democracy was ever "true democracy" is another question) we must resort to un-democratic motions.

I say "un-democratic" for a very simple reason: within a democracy, it is not merely popular vote of the people that matters, rather it is the guarantee of the rights and liberties which allow maximum utilisation of that right. The right to freedom of expression is one of them. So even if the majority of a population vote on a particular policy, that policy may still be un-democratic.

This paradox has been alluded to in the past, most importantly by prominent Marxist social critic Herbert Marcuse, who has an absolutely excellent essay[0] on the idea of tolerance within society. He maintains that mass culture serves to repress and hide and generally do away with subversive movements. This may sound like a good thing, but we must remember, as Marcuse notes, democracy is rule by the people, and if this means anything, then the people should have the right to subvert their own democracy. This right is currently blocked. It is also alluded to in the "paradox of tolerance", which believe was a contribution of Karl Popper.

It is an extremely tangled topic, and my personal view is that the simple liberalism of JS Mill is sufficient to get out of the quagmire which is sinking democracy. I maintain that the effects of high capitalism and mass culture have a very strong and distinct effect on what we ought to consider rights and freedoms and what the path is to the maximisation of human freedom, not a vulgar liberal view, which I used to sympathise with in the past.

A quote from the essay: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power."

[0] http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole...