> In the 1970s, Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party’s right to march in Skokie.
Well, that doesn't mean that
a) they were right to do so then, or
b) a better understanding can't have been reached since then.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a very real thing. If you want to make free speech absolutism a religious principle within your own beliefs, go wild, but for those of us who just want to make this world the best place we can to live in, we have to consider what the consequences of different kinds of speech are.
And the consequence of being tolerant of hate speech is that the speech of those being hated diminishes. Their freedom diminishes. Their safety diminishes. Sooner or later, they are driven out of communities that permit hate speech against them.
"Free speech for all", in the sense that absolutely anyone is fully free at any time to say anything they want, and everybody remains equal in this, is a fantasy. And American jurisprudence has rejected that level of "free speech" since very early on—there are laws against libel, incitement to violence, false advertising, and other forms of speech.
This phrase needs to be used (and understood) more often. People who act in bad faith use this to their advantage and make our society worse. Look at the response to the Kirk murder: people were fired for daring to say something negative after his death.
Unfortunately, I wish it were that easy. But in reality, criminalizing certain speech does not suppress it or prevent people from holding those opinions.
Björn Höcke, the leader of Germany’s far right AfD party, was convicted of using Nazi slogans, and Germany has very clear laws preventing Nazi speech.
And yet, AfD is now the country’s 2nd most powerful party.
Sadly, criminalizing bad speech does not change the minds of those who hold those opinions, nor prevent their spread.
We legislate morality all the time. Slightly less so these days, with the reduction of laws against things like same-sex marriage, miscegenation, and such, but what do you think laws against murder, theft, and fraud are?
"That's not legislating morality!" you say. "Those are there to prevent real harms, or damage to society!" Well, so are laws against hate speech. They cause real, measurable harm to the people they are targeted at. The damage they do to society you can see all around you right now.
Our laws and our morals have always been inextricably entangled.
It seems to me that people who make that argument just think that the things they say it about (like hate speech) shouldn't be considered immoral.
Covid policies in a nutshell. The funny part was all those smart people still to this day don’t understand how badly they got played. I guess many didn’t though. Many of the most ardent supporters were the recipients of vast amounts of upward wealth transfer… it takes an immense level of privilege to support any of that nonsense.
Well, that doesn't mean that
a) they were right to do so then, or
b) a better understanding can't have been reached since then.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a very real thing. If you want to make free speech absolutism a religious principle within your own beliefs, go wild, but for those of us who just want to make this world the best place we can to live in, we have to consider what the consequences of different kinds of speech are.
And the consequence of being tolerant of hate speech is that the speech of those being hated diminishes. Their freedom diminishes. Their safety diminishes. Sooner or later, they are driven out of communities that permit hate speech against them.
"Free speech for all", in the sense that absolutely anyone is fully free at any time to say anything they want, and everybody remains equal in this, is a fantasy. And American jurisprudence has rejected that level of "free speech" since very early on—there are laws against libel, incitement to violence, false advertising, and other forms of speech.