|
|
|
|
|
|
by dulse
3110 days ago
|
|
|
I'm genuinely conflicted on this perspective, because I feel very defensive of both gay people and free speech. It's a complex issue, I agree that intolerant speech can be more complicated than "it's just words." What do you think about the choice of the ACLU to defend the neo-nazis' right to protest in South Carolina? I abhor the content of their speech, but I think I agree it's important that it's defended. On the other hand, what about the restrictions on neo-nazi speech in Germany after WWII? I think I agree that this restriction of speech was a good idea, as it prevented the possibility of that thinking continuing to take root and spread. The difference between the two scenarios in my intuition is that one feels far removed from being "real" -- I don't sense that neo-nazis are close to taking over American government (Trump jokes aside) so I see it as important to protect it as minority speech; but in post WWII Germany, it was much closer to "real" that the hate speech would transform into hateful action, including restricting speech on the other side. So the probability of the outcome of speech matters (or the popularity of the speech) in my mind, and the more minority the speech, even if abhorrent, the more important it is to protect; but, as the speech approaches majority or becomes "action" then my intuition starts to flip. But it's always maximizing protection for minority speech, and draws a bright line between speech and risk of action. |
|
|
In a nutshell - tolerance is a mutual agreement, and the protections of tolerance only apply to those who would uphold those protections. If you deliberately step outside these bounds - "gay people are evil" clearly doesn't tolerate gay people - you have lost the right to be tolerated.
I disagree with the ACLU on protecting neo-nazis on those grounds. They have positioned themselves outside of civil society, with the deliberate goal of destroying that society.
Does that mean we should restrict neo nazi speech? I honestly don't know. I do believe we shouldn't protect it, and I do believe we should shun people who subscribe to those ideas, but does that mean we should make it illegal? It's a very tough question.
It's not what I'm arguing, either. But I am arguing that Sam disingenuously conflates two things, and to make it more interesting would like to get rid of speech that harms his business interest while he's OK with speech that has provably caused physical harm over and over.
He's unhappy with his ethics being questioned, and dresses it up in a free speech argument. That is what I dislike about this.
[1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...