This 1000x. I'm very weary of the at times bad faith, at times ignorant, assertion of this "paradox." For me it seems rooted in a sort of Angloamerican philos

This 1000x. I'm very weary of the at times bad faith, at times ignorant, assertion of this "paradox." For me it seems rooted in a sort of Angloamerican philosophical analytic realism I associate with e.g. Quine, which is IMHO not just inane but pernicious in as much as it contributes to such things as this "debate" and, say, Constitutional Originalism. Words are how we use them. A civil open society has not just a right but a need to defend itself from those whose actions (words and deeds alike) threaten the stability of the society itself, not to mention, trespass on the rights and wellbeing of its constituent members. This is so obvious I find it hard to find examples I am willing to accept as "ignorance." Bad faith, albeit cloaked from introspective view perhaps by willful refusal to do so, is far more common.