By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The USA and the paradox of tolerance

 

What's your opinion on the free speech policy on the USA?

Free speech should be pri... 15 50.00%
 
Intolerant speech should not be tolerated 15 50.00%
 
Total:30

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?



G O O D B O I

Around the Network

True, i was thinking about tolerance yesterday.



"Legally be a racist." I don't know as much about the United States as you so you're going to have to explain that one.



pokoko said:
"Legally be a racist." I don't know as much about the United States as you so you're going to have to explain that one.

There's nothing in the USA that prohibits you from believing that there are "races" that are superior to others. You can freely hate someone based solely on skin colour and vocalize that, as long as you don't attack that person directly.



G O O D B O I

LuccaCardoso1 said:
pokoko said:
"Legally be a racist." I don't know as much about the United States as you so you're going to have to explain that one.

There's nothing in the USA that prohibits you from believing that there are "races" that are superior to others. You can freely hate someone based solely on skin colour and vocalize that, as long as you don't attack that person directly.

So ... what?  You want people to be arrested if they think that?  Prison?  Fined?  Expand upon this more, please.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

There's nothing in the USA that prohibits you from believing that there are "races" that are superior to others. You can freely hate someone based solely on skin colour and vocalize that, as long as you don't attack that person directly.

So ... what?  You want people to be arrested if they think that?  Prison?  Fined?  Expand upon this more, please.

It's impossible (and the things that would make it possible are pretty immoral) to arrest someone because of what they think, but if someone goes on Twitter, for example, and writes "I hate Obama because he's black" (that's a grotesque simplification, but you get the point), that person should, at least, be fined.



G O O D B O I

I value free speech, and think that so long as speech isn't a credible threat of violence it shouldn't be controlled by the government at all, however I believe that this doesn't extend to freedom of platform. A private platform holder should absolutely have every right to control what appears on their platform. I also think that free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences for that speech, and that speech doesn't deserve any special protection from discrimination outside of the government. You can't help your skin color, your sex, your sexual orientation, stuff like that, but you can help your ideas, so they shouldn't be protected from discrimination. If a workplace wants to fire someone for their ideas, that workplace should be allowed to do so. Public backlash to any decision on the part of private entities to express an idea, censor an idea on a platform they own, or fire someone that doesn't fit their corporate culture, it's all normal. In fact such backlash isn't just normal, it's to be expected, even encouraged, as it is itself a part of free speech and the public discourse.

Long story short, the US government is already protecting speech exactly as much as it should be and should not provide any further protection, and speech in society is as free as it should be and all the turmoil is normal and healthy, even if society as a whole isn't very healthy or united right now.



LuccaCardoso1 said:
pokoko said:

So ... what?  You want people to be arrested if they think that?  Prison?  Fined?  Expand upon this more, please.

It's impossible (and the things that would make it possible are pretty immoral) to arrest someone because of what they think, but if someone goes on Twitter, for example, and writes "I hate Obama because he's black" (that's a grotesque simplification, but you get the point), that person should, at least, be fined.

That would be quite interesting in a country with 300 million people.  Probably have to hire thousands of new judges just for social media, not to mention specialized law enforcement officers to hunt down these criminals.  What about forums?  Life, if someone said that here, would the FBI subpoena VGC records and IP providers? 

Very interesting. 



I am well aware of the flaw of 'tolerance of intolerance', and thus am blunt to the point that the buck stops before that point.

"I'll respect a person's right to be Jewish, Islamic, Polygamous, Bisexual, Smelly, Loud, A Hunter, and a Republican, but once they move into saying they have a right to block the above I will deny them"



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

pokoko said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

It's impossible (and the things that would make it possible are pretty immoral) to arrest someone because of what they think, but if someone goes on Twitter, for example, and writes "I hate Obama because he's black" (that's a grotesque simplification, but you get the point), that person should, at least, be fined.

That would be quite interesting in a country with 300 million people.  Probably have to hire thousands of new judges just for social media, not to mention specialized law enforcement officers to hunt down these criminals.  What about forums?  Life, if someone said that here, would the FBI subpoena VGC records and IP providers? 

Very interesting. 

I don't see how creating more jobs is a bad thing.

In Brazil, it's illegal to insult someone based on their skin colour, ethnicity, religion or nationality. There are almost 210 million people living in Brazil. In the EU, it's against the law to incite hate or violence against people based on their skin colour, ethnicity or nationality. There are more than 500 million people in the EU. Population should not be a problem in the implementation of a similar law in the USA.



G O O D B O I