I see the paradox of tolerance come up from time to time, and often with links to Wikipedia, usually implying that intolerance should be suppressed. A perusal o

I see the paradox of tolerance come up from time to time, and often with links to Wikipedia, usually implying that intolerance should be suppressed. A perusal of the literature around the topic suggests that moral philosophical consensus is that intolerance should, in fact, be tolerated except in cases of imminent danger to the tolerant society or individuals in it. (Note: I cannot tell from your post where you fall on this point. This is a more general response on the paradox of tolerance as I typically see it in this sort of context.) From the section of Popper in the Wikipedia article: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. Rather, he claims that: > we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary... Thus, tolerance of intolerance is the default, with suppression of intolerance reserved as a last resort. From the article (original emphasis): > Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed > Thomas Jefferson had already addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the United States and its unity, saying, "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Another moral philosopher, Rawls, agrees that tolerance should be the default, and suppression of intolerance used only as a last resort (emphasis mine): > In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concluded in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant ... Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance .... More Rawls: > This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit 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." In the Wikipedia article, there are several examples of people calling out the hypocrisy of tolerating intolerant viewpoints, but there are no claims that the default stance against intolerance in a tolerant society should be suppression. EDIT: added a missing subordinate clause to clarify the first paragraph.