Reminder: Paradox of Intolerance

[OneGrassRoot]

The right-wing, including Musk using a huge platform to amplify right-wing hatred, is pretty much in full Nazi mode. They always accuse us of being the intolerant ones. I frequently return to this:



In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1]

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 most 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

^^^^ We are so there.


I prefer the term acceptance versus tolerance; I'd much prefer to be accepted than merely tolerated, but still...the point stands.


[img][/img][/url]

[Mc Mike]

1. Rec, thanks OGR, nt

[mucifer]

2. It's why President Zelenskyy had to outlaw the russian political party in Ukraine . He got

some push back and then the full invasion happened.

[Celerity]

3. The outlawing took place well after the full invasion happened.

Zelenskiy Signs Law Banning Pro-Russian Political Parties In Ukraine

May 14, 2022 19:12 GMT

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-law-bans-pro-russia-parties-zelenskiy-signs/31849737.html

KYIV -- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has signed a new law banning pro-Russian political parties.

"The president of Ukraine has signed a law banning pro-Russia political parties! The law will come into force on the day following the day of its publication," Olha Sovgirya, a deputy from Zelenskiy’s ruling Servant of the People bloc, wrote on telegram on May 14.

The Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, passed the bill on May 3, banning pro-Russian political parties that engage in anti-Ukrainian activities.

On March 20, Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council suspended 11 pro-Russian political parties while martial law was in place in the country.

snip

[live love laugh]

4. How does this work with the concept of Free Speech?

To me we are damned if we prohibit it (the Fascists want it and are pushing the envelope so it happens imho) and damned if we allow it.

It’s a slippery slope.

[Kid Berwyn]

5. Hate speech isn't free speech.

Inciting violence isn’t free speech.

[dchill]

6. Exactly. Not so slippery, after all.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. Hate speech IS free speech in America! Proof is last 6 years!

Arrests in Germany for planning exact same thing, powerless in America to prevent J6, by the exact same methodology plotters in America!

And in America they get to plan and incite again for second attempt at coup!

[Zeitghost]

12. Hate speech is absolutely free speech

Inciting violence is not.

You are free to be a bigot, you are not free to incite violent acts.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

14. That's the problem, hate speech should not be free speech, and is not if in a violent conspiracy.

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2022, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

…reasoning is as follows, though the reasoning by scotus…must be imminent danger of violence to be prohibited hate speech… is just messed up…

2. The TSI Comports with the First Amendment
Rehl next asserts the TSI “violates the First Amendment because it rests solely on [his] political views and First-Amendment protected statements.” ECF No. 439 at 1. Not so.
This Court has already rejected a similar argument based on the Section 1512(c)(2) count in the FSI. Nordean I, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 52–54. As before, the First Amendment does not protect the conduct with which Rehl is charged. Rehl and his codefendants are charged with several conspiratorial agreements as well as “conduct involving acts of trespass, depredation of property, and interference with law enforcement, all intended to obstruct Congress’s performance of its constitutional duties.” Id. at 53; see generally TSI ¶¶ 25–124. No matter Defendants’ “political motivations or any political message they wished to express, this alleged conduct is simply not protected by the First Amendment.” Nordean I, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 53; see also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972) (“[W]here demonstrations turn violent, they lose their protected quality as expression under the First Amendment.”).
Rehl’s contrary arguments—to the extent the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude them altogether—do not cause the Court to question this reasoning. To start, he objects that “[m]any of the alleged statements preceded the dates of the alleged conspiracy” and “there is no allegation in the Indictment that [his] statements met the clear and present danger standard.” ECF No. 439 at 2. On the second point, Rehl points to the Supreme Court’s well-known decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (“[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law
34

violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”).
Rehl blurs the distinction between statutes that criminalize speech itself and the Government’s use of a defendant’s statements as evidence of a separate crime. Brandenburg deals with the former, but this case involves the latter. The Government has not charged Rehl with speech crimes. Rather, Section 2384 “proscribes ‘speech’ only when it constitutes an agreement to use force against the United States.” United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 114 (2d Cir. 1999). The TSI charges Rehl and his codefendants with “conspir[ing] to use force, not just to advocate the use of force.” Id. at 115. So it raises no concern under Brandenburg or related cases. And to the extent Rehl also challenges the Government’s use of his statements as evidence, Supreme Court precedent forecloses his argument. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993) (the First Amendment “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent”). Thus, the First Amendment provides no basis to dismiss any count in the TSI.

[marble falls]

16. Free speech is speech without prior restraint. You can't be punished for saying it, but ...

... you can be sanctioned for the result, for example fighting words, or speech designed to cause a breach of public peace, like yelling 'fire' in a theater. 'Fire' is free speech, but free speech is no defense for inciting a riot.

Thumbnail version of your case law. Nice research.

[BSdetect]

7. The russians used this "tolerance" to spread propaganda to help trump 2016

With help from Cambridge Analytica etc

A tactic the intelligence services claim they knew about and that McConnell refused to expose.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. The old meet hate speech with free speech is not working! Meet intolerance with more tolerance?

How that working out??

[msfiddlestix]

8. I always felt word "Tolerance" as to encourage embracing diversity was extraordinarily wrong headed

To "tolerate" is to accept what always should be unacceptable behavior. eg. hate speech/behavior, rudeness,etc.

Tolerating is choosing to endure the inappropriateness, the unacceptable. eg, someone on the bus coughing in your face, you pretend not to notice or look the other way to avoid conflict. We tolerate to the extent that we have to, but we do NOT EMBRACE it

"Tolerate diversity" was an oxymoron and still is.

The graphic above aptly explains the obvious.

[calimary]

13. As a mom, I guess I wasn't so tolerant.

I learned this trick from a counselor/therapist, for when our boy got overheated. We called it “the position.” It involved mom basically crowding out the bad behavior. I sat down on the floor, back braced against a wall, and held him. Took him in my arms loosely enough to allow for some (but not a lot) of movement. His little ear was right there where I could softly (very low-volume) talk into it, to soothe and smooth, and promote quiet and mellowing-out instead of the wild thrashing and shrieking. And we sat like that, with me utterly enveloping him from all angles, til he submitted and calmed down - easy enough cuz he was 2 or so.

I had to do that outside some store, on a sidewalk in front of the building, away from the stirred-up kid-crazed action inside, just him and me. I remember lapsing into kind of a gentle back-n-forth movement, like rocking, maybe, the whole time. And we stayed like that for - I dunno - 15 minutes or so? Like we both took a time-out together.

And now that I think back - I think that was the only time I had to get so “extreme” with him, if you want to call it that. It was effective. He never exploded like that again. But the correction didn’t seem to stifle him or emotionally cripple him in any way. He went on to what seems to be unrolling as a very successful and creative life, as a musician, band leader, performer, composer, sound technician, and even a black belt martial artist (which fed into the physicality in the band’s stage show).

He was sweet and gentle with animals, and caring and compassionate with friends. DAYUM, that, and Catholic school and katmrate school and Cub Scouts. He’s turned into a whale of a great guy!

Now I’m NOT claiming that just some wonderful me made that happen. It was the technique! The strategic TECHNIQUE! I’m so glad someone shared it with me. A total non-violent, gentle, personal-touch type of assertion of dominance, I guess, and one that was not punishing or negative or critical. I thought it was magic! And I’ve sent thank-you vibes to that psychologist-advisor ever since.

Maybe it’s an example of intolerance of adverse behavior? Apologies for the length. This whole conversation about tolerance and intolerance just got me thinking back.

[highplainsdem]

9. K&R!

[Whiskeytide]

15. Unfortunately, a democratic society is dependent ...

… upon the tolerant and reasonable people rising to positions of authority, while the haters are simultaneously marginalized and rejected (along with their undemocratic ideas and authoritarian philosophies).

Such a democracy necessarily has a strong concept of free speech. But - if your speech is twisted and full of hate, and encourages violence, you are not supposed to be listened to nor embraced by the reasonable, thoughtful members of society. It’s the core concept of critical thinking.

BUT - American democracy is no longer functioning like that. We don’t marginalize the haters, we tend to elevate them and give them platforms to spew their hatred — See, e.g. AM radio, Cable news, and The internet.

Combine that with the attacks on our education system - including higher education - and it’s a perfectly designed plan to eventually cause the stupid among us to overthrow our democracy.

I’m not sure what can be done to stop it at this point. A lot of their $ and our blood has already been poured into making it happen.