“If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

Paarl Web, a subsidiary of Naspers, printed R3 million worth of party propaganda for Mugabe after Caxton declined the deal. Business Day reported the story, and now there is some uproar about this.

We are, admittedly, dealing with a tough scenario here. I assume there are very few Mugabe supporters amongst Thought Leader readers, so it might be tempting to create our own, isolated, rules for how Freedom of Expression should be interpreted.

The written word is a strong communicator. It can be heated, biased, derogatory, inflammatory and inaccurate. But it also allows for reflection, thought, and personal introspection. It invites discussion, argument and calls for an opinion, informed or otherwise. Above all, it is passive and should be encouraged as a primary source of opinion making, especially in a country as volatile as Zimbabwe.

If publishers take away Mugabe’s right to publish pamphlets on the eve of his election, they are taking away Zimbabwe’s right to a fair and due process.

For starters, it is not the publishers’, or our right to do so. Had South Africa issued nation wide sanctions against Zimbabwe, the scenario would be different, and we would be obligated to follow our country’s stance.

[To read more, please visit Thought Leader where this post originally appeared. Some good comments there too!]