3 ms·

And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run. „The paradox of tolerance sta

And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run. „The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ls15 4y ago
I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.
- nhinck2 4y ago
  I think you have failed to understand the paradox.
  - ls15 4y ago
    I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.
    - dorgo 4y ago
      So, "I think other people should not be free" is not covered by free speech?
      - ls15 4y ago
        I don't think that such a statement should have any legal (or other) consequences. It would (kind of) translate to "I don't believe in freedom", but it would not directly attack someone's ability to practice free speech. Context matters here, I think: If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech. If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
And what's ignored about the so-called paradox is the commonly omitted second half of Popper's quote: "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 unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." This already fits well within the realm of free speech, free association, and the retributive justice system. The intolerant and the tolerant (both of which are in their common parlance subjective terms) are not required to associate with each other. Either party has the right to speak its mind. Only when force is involved would intolerance be justified. And even then, such intolerance should exist only in an objectively assessed proportion to the prior intolerant acts carried out and no more. https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3 https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...

ls15 4y ago

I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.

nhinck2 4y ago
I think you have failed to understand the paradox.
- ls15 4y ago
  I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.
  - dorgo 4y ago
    So, "I think other people should not be free" is not covered by free speech?
    - ls15 4y ago
      I don't think that such a statement should have any legal (or other) consequences. It would (kind of) translate to "I don't believe in freedom", but it would not directly attack someone's ability to practice free speech. Context matters here, I think: If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech. If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

And what's ignored about the so-called paradox is the commonly omitted second half of Popper's quote: "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 unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." This already fits well within the realm of free speech, free association, and the retributive justice system. The intolerant and the tolerant (both of which are in their common parlance subjective terms) are not required to associate with each other. Either party has the right to speak its mind. Only when force is involved would intolerance be justified. And even then, such intolerance should exist only in an objectively assessed proportion to the prior intolerant acts carried out and no more. https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3 https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...