...I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[email protected]

This isn't about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.

You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.

[email protected]

There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That's a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.

If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion--Satanism--was hate speech.

[email protected]

The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.

[email protected]

The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion.
Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions.
I favor John Rawls':

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.

[email protected]

Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn't just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.

[email protected]

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.

You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that this is a position my argument already states.

I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.

[email protected]

Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.

The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.

ZeroOne

War on terror ?

[email protected]

nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

the free speech thing is beautiful in theory but in practice its just being used as an excuse to enable fascists. let me see socialists have the same openness in the media and we can start to talk about the minutiae of it properly.

[email protected]

Strawman. You're implying that OP believes hate speech can't encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.

From their post:

If someone wants to say there is a master race ... Sure: they're free to say it.

Tell me where discussions of a master race will lead, if not putting down the lesser races. Tell me how that doesn't affect their freedom. Tell me how that's not hate.

Many seem to agree on "Freedom of speech, as long it doesn't harm others' freedom," but too many don't understand what harm is.

Yggstyle

Alright so expand on this:

nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

We're half way there. Why couldn't they do what they were doing before?

[email protected]

Surely, as he was in reality. I'll be paraphrasing this, thanks.

[email protected]

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

This past election was very eye-opening in that everyone on the left was so absolutely confident that Trump wouldn't win. So much so they had already started laying things out for their own fascist takeover.

And yes, the left can act in a fascist manner.

[email protected]

Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone's saying and not try to some them.

[email protected]

Well hey then that makes it their achievement! No idea but it wouldn't be surprising.

[email protected]

Remember that bill that would strip non-profit status from any group, based on the whim of the president? With no hope of appeal? That was very popular with Democrats, until Trump won.

Even if you assholes don't abuse something like that, you know that you aren't going to be in office forever? There's an election every 4 years, remember?

Don't go conflating Democrats with the left, though. There's some overlap, but they aren't the same.

[email protected]

Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);

The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won't get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.

[email protected]

There's a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.

[email protected]

I see you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news.

Schadrach

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn't enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there's a public religious display on government property]).