Some will say: "Freedom of expression is democracy; to prevent propaganda is to prevent democracy." Certainly, but it must be remembered that the freedom of expression of one or two powerful companies that do not express the thoughts of the individual or small groups, but of capitalist interests or an entire public, does not exactly correspond to what was called freedom of expression a century ago. One must remember, further, that the freedom of expression of one who makes a speech to a limited audience is not the same as that of the speaker who has all the radio sets in the country at his disposal, all the more as the science of propaganda gives to these instruments a shock effect that the non-initiated cannot equal.
I refer in this connection to the excellent study by Rivero,* who demonstrates the immense difference between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in this respect:
In the nineteenth century, the problem of opinion formation through the expression of thought was essentially a problem of contacts between the State and the individual, and a problem of acquisition of a freedom. But today, thanks to the mass media, the individual finds himself outside the battle [...] the debate is between the State and powerful groups [...] Freedom to express ideas is no longer at stake in this debate. [...] What we have is mastery and domination by the State or by some powerful groups over the whole of the technical media of opinion formation [...] the individual has no access to them [...] he is no longer a participant in this battle for the free expression of ideas: he is the stake. What matters for him is which voice he will be permitted to hear and which words will have the power to obsess him. [...]
It is in the light of this perfect analysis that one must ask oneself what freedom of expression still means in a democracy.
[*] "Technique de formation de l'opinion publique," in L'Opinion Publique (1957)