The entire article is worth reading, but Larry Lessig is furious with Ralph Nader for suggesting that those progressives and liberals who are begging / urging him not to run are engaging in censorship.

I realized today just how angry I remain at Ralph Nader, former hero of mine, while listening to him on NPR today. Apparently, Mr. Nader is considering another run for president. When pressed quite effectively by Melissa Block to respond to the many many many who are begging him not to run, including the Nation, Mr. Nader responded that such a request was "censorship."

This man is truly outrageous. The only thing a Nader candidacy would do is increase the chance that Bush will be reelected. This man has become unsafe — to himself, and to the nation. If he has friends, they should be his friend and stop him from this.

I want to take this further. Nader’s argument (and I encourage you to listen to his interview on NPR) is specious. This is certainly not a first amendment issue, as http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001718.shtml">Lessig writes:

But I don’t believe in this endless-love view of free speech. Indeed, the whole reason we need a space for free speech is so some people can tell other people that their speech is wrong, or harmful, or both, (see, e.g., most of the comments to my own postings) and then the other people can decide whether to respect the views that were criticizing them. "Free speech" absolutely does not mean I have to like what you say. Nor does it mean I have to refrain from criticizing what you say. Such an idea insults, I believe, the very notion of free speech: which is to use argument to reach understanding, both about what to do, and about what to say.

And that’s the point. Nader, by suggesting that those people — myself included — who would call, write, email Nader and urge him not to run would be censoring him, is, himself, trying to stop debate on the issue by cowing people with the spector of censorship. This is the height of arrogance and manipulation, and for a man who claims to speak for the common man, he is using his elevated status in society to quiet other voices. How dare he misuse and misrepresent a civil rights issue in an attempt to quiet the criticism that he is getting from many of the progressive people he would claim to champion.