The USA and the paradox of tolerance

[Final-Fan]

LuccaCardoso1 said:

Karl Popper described, in 1945, the paradox of tolerance, stating that a society with limitless tolerance will eventually become an intolerant one and that, in order to maintain a healthy tolerant society, intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — 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."

That was more than 70 years ago, but it somehow fits perfectly with today's USA. The unlimited free speech policy is just absurd. The USA, a "developed" country where you can legally be racist, and where you can legally be a nazi. Because of this, it's becoming increasingly polarized and extremists are becoming more and more common by the day. And that never ends well.

What do you think? Do you agree with the USA's 100% free speech policy or do you think they should maybe change that?

Freedom of speech is not 100% unlimited in the USA.  There are laws against incitement to violence, which sounds pretty in line with what Karl Popper is talking about in that quote. 

I cannot overstate how much I think that criminalizing dissent is not in the best interest of my country, despite how tempting it may be to criminalize dissenting to the notion that slavery was bad and blacks were unhappy to be slaves.  But I can't vote in your poll because it's too binary.  Freedom of speech shouldn't be prioritized over, say, stopping people from causing stampedes that kill people by falsely and maliciously shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, to use the hackneyed example. 

I also disagree that the deteriorating political situation is due to freedom of speech, and particularly not due to the problems you cite.  I think the bigger problem is the fragmenting of the national discussion—people tune in exclusively to people saying what they want to hear, except occasionally they listen to someone they hate to remind themselves of what they hate and get even more riled up against them.  They're in the "bubble" where they don't have to hear anything that could make them doubt their beliefs.  Simultaneously to this, and perhaps either as a result or a cause or both, there is a decline in respect for the truth.  Facts are equated with opinions, science is "just a theory", and a guy who literally can't stop himself from bullshitting is elected President.  I'd rather have a liar:  a liar cares about the truth.