Free speech absolutism is civics 101 stuff, anyone that spent 3 minutes thinking about it after that realizes that the Paradox of Tolerance means it’s a self defeating naive proposition, and that consequently true free speech can’t include hate speech or even anti-democratic speech.
Nobody is advocating tolerance, at least I didn’t see it. This is about ensuring free speech cannot be subverted silently.
Note I pointed out that the issue is the arbiter of “tolerable”. Citizens need to make that decision with accurate information. In our case, that would be done through some department of the justice system combined with awareness and involvement by civil rights organizations.
Also, if you saw The Blues Brothers, you saw that Skokie Nazi march from the ACLU case, and the derision of them portrayed. Counter protests were equally allowed. This airs the issues in the light, where the unacceptable ideas can be countered.
The alternative is that those ideas spread quietly like a virus, unimpeded by facts that expose the flaws in those beliefs. Once people identify with the movement, it is very difficult to change their minds.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Free speech absolutism is civics 101 stuff, anyone that spent 3 minutes thinking about it after that realizes that the Paradox of Tolerance means it’s a self defeating naive proposition, and that consequently true free speech can’t include hate speech or even anti-democratic speech.
Nobody is advocating tolerance, at least I didn’t see it. This is about ensuring free speech cannot be subverted silently.
Note I pointed out that the issue is the arbiter of “tolerable”. Citizens need to make that decision with accurate information. In our case, that would be done through some department of the justice system combined with awareness and involvement by civil rights organizations.
Also, if you saw The Blues Brothers, you saw that Skokie Nazi march from the ACLU case, and the derision of them portrayed. Counter protests were equally allowed. This airs the issues in the light, where the unacceptable ideas can be countered.
The alternative is that those ideas spread quietly like a virus, unimpeded by facts that expose the flaws in those beliefs. Once people identify with the movement, it is very difficult to change their minds.