3 ms·

There’s a recent far right effort to reframe hate speech and intolerance as “free speech” younger generations are not buying it. Survey questions such as “is it

There’s a recent far right effort to reframe hate speech and intolerance as “free speech” younger generations are not buying it. Survey questions such as “is it ok to punch a Nazi?” Tend to get answered in the affirmative by younger generations. Rather than meaning “free speech is being met by violence” it should be taken to mean “intolerance won’t be tolerated”

Henchman21 6mo ago
I think younger folks are aware of the paradox of intolerance: do we extend tolerance to the intolerant? What heartens me is that the answer I get from young folks is usually something along the lines of "when you break the social contract the rules of the contract no longer apply to you" which neatly sorts things I think? The tolerant will not tolerate broken social contracts.
- elpocko 6mo ago
  Paradox of tolerance. It's not the intolerant that create a paradox, it's the tolerant who reserve the right to be intolerant against groups of people who are not on their short exemption list.
  - Henchman21 6mo ago
    Ah yes, appreciate the correction :)
casefields 6mo ago
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... >[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
- krapp 6mo ago
  The First Amendment means the Federal government has to allow a Nazi to speak, but we the people can still punch them in the mouth.

Henchman21 6mo ago

I think younger folks are aware of the paradox of intolerance: do we extend tolerance to the intolerant? What heartens me is that the answer I get from young folks is usually something along the lines of "when you break the social contract the rules of the contract no longer apply to you" which neatly sorts things I think? The tolerant will not tolerate broken social contracts.

elpocko 6mo ago
Paradox of tolerance. It's not the intolerant that create a paradox, it's the tolerant who reserve the right to be intolerant against groups of people who are not on their short exemption list.
- Henchman21 6mo ago
  Ah yes, appreciate the correction :)

casefields 6mo ago

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... >[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

krapp 6mo ago
The First Amendment means the Federal government has to allow a Nazi to speak, but we the people can still punch them in the mouth.