• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    294·
    1 day ago

    You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.

    This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.

    There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.

    It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        3·
        5 hours ago

        “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.

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

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          1·
          10 minutes ago

          Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

          From context

          Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

          and key words

          only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

          and my direct statement

          speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

          I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.

          Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            1·
            33 seconds ago

            Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.

            By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      22·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        3·
        5 hours ago

        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.