3 ms·

This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting transl

This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.

rfrey 5y ago
That is a particular solution to the paradox of tolerance, it is not the paradox itself
zarzavat 5y ago
The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech, indeed they want to abolish entire groups of people. What is legally protected as speech and what is actually speech cannot be equal. For instance, speech that involves property damage is not protected, even though that is a common kind of speech in certain circumstances (e.g. graffiti "Romans go home") Conversely, some groups abuse free speech protections in order to intimidate others, e.g. Westboro Baptist church picketing funerals. I would call this an action because the primary intention is not expression but rather intimidation. It may be that such actions must be legally recognized as speech in order to maintain the enforceability of speech protections, as intent is a nebulous concept, but it is not obviously so and many jurisdictions don't recognize such things as speech.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech The argument you're making is that free speech is important so we need to protect it by censoring people who advocate imposing censorship. But then you're advocating imposing censorship, which implies you should censor yourself. Which is why it's a paradox. You still have to choose between "don't censor things" and "censor things" with the knowledge that if you choose "censor things" it's not just you who will be adding to the list of banned knowledge.
  - tomcooks 5y ago
    It's not a paradox if you guarantee equal chance to express oneself in written form or speech and equally punish violent behaviour, which is what PP wanted to express I believe.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  Westboro Baptist is a grift. It’s founders and leaders are lawyers. They intentionally yell offensive things to enflame public opinion in the hopes that someone assaults them or the police violate their rights. Then they sue for tons of money

rfrey 5y ago

That is a particular solution to the paradox of tolerance, it is not the paradox itself

zarzavat 5y ago

The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech, indeed they want to abolish entire groups of people. What is legally protected as speech and what is actually speech cannot be equal. For instance, speech that involves property damage is not protected, even though that is a common kind of speech in certain circumstances (e.g. graffiti "Romans go home") Conversely, some groups abuse free speech protections in order to intimidate others, e.g. Westboro Baptist church picketing funerals. I would call this an action because the primary intention is not expression but rather intimidation. It may be that such actions must be legally recognized as speech in order to maintain the enforceability of speech protections, as intent is a nebulous concept, but it is not obviously so and many jurisdictions don't recognize such things as speech.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech The argument you're making is that free speech is important so we need to protect it by censoring people who advocate imposing censorship. But then you're advocating imposing censorship, which implies you should censor yourself. Which is why it's a paradox. You still have to choose between "don't censor things" and "censor things" with the knowledge that if you choose "censor things" it's not just you who will be adding to the list of banned knowledge.
- tomcooks 5y ago
  It's not a paradox if you guarantee equal chance to express oneself in written form or speech and equally punish violent behaviour, which is what PP wanted to express I believe.
wombatpm 5y ago
Westboro Baptist is a grift. It’s founders and leaders are lawyers. They intentionally yell offensive things to enflame public opinion in the hopes that someone assaults them or the police violate their rights. Then they sue for tons of money