So while you are intolerant to Nazis (who you will define yourself) will you be making an exception for yourself, or will you not tolerate your own intolerance to wrongthink?
That discussion has been had so many times, it's not even funny. Of course you should not tolerate intolerance, that's not even up for discussion anymore.
And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.
"Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought."
I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act.
On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it had a moral agency. So which is it?
Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history.
If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.
> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities.
What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions?
Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C.
I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why persecute (with violence) the person A. Person B is morally responsible for their own action (we don't absolve people of murder even if someone suggests to them that they should murder someone). And I also agree that we should speak out against A's suggestion of violence.
So you can see, I am not advocating tacit tolerance of any intolerant acts, and yet disagree with your suggestion of persecution of person A (actually, not in all situations, but I disagree with it in general).
If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C.
Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.
Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can legally stop you from doing so. But they can very much hold you accountable for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg. publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).
"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C"
If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion.
I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?
"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.
People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.
Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes (such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I disagree.
So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out?
Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.
Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society.
However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.
But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with.
Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.
And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.