David Scharfenberg’s Dec. 11 Ideas piece pulls up short of advocating actual censorship, despite its headline “The case for online censorship.’’ Yet a troubling assertion appears in the fourth paragraph:

“The basic argument for free speech,’’ Scharfenberg writes, “is that, in the marketplace of ideas, the worst ideas will wither. But that model depends on old mechanisms for discarding abhorrent ideologies — newspapers ignoring the Klan march or booksellers refusing to stock Aryan Nation screeds.’’

This is as historically false as it is revealing. It implies that the free citizens of the republic require elite gatekeepers to protect them from bad ideas. This is a claim that comes up periodically, particularly after a bitter election.

In this case, the open contempt of many in the media for those who might deviate from what they deem to be acceptable opinion appears to have played a role in the outcome. A little reflection on this fact might be in order.

The entire notion of a democratic republic presupposes the ability of the people to participate in an open debate without the guidance of their so-called betters. You are either for this form of government or you are not. Choose wisely.

Mark Weinburg

Melrose