Tolerance Paradox

Freedom of speech remains a complex topic of discussion and debate, and if you've been following by blog for the three years of its existence, you can see that I myself have wavered on it; sometimes I feel like I'm a free speech absolutist and sometimes I'm of the opinion that some things shouldn't be allowed to be said by some persons in some positions. This short post will try to examine the reasons for my ambiguity on this matter, and ask you to reflect on your own opinion on free speech.

The free speech absolutist in me asserts that I may not agree with a word you're saying, but that I'll fight for your right to say it; I'm sure you're all familiar with that popular trope. And I wish so hard that I could 100 percent stand by that assertion; I even wrote a rather extensive post a couple of years ago to make the point that even the most abhorrent opinions should be allowed to be published, if only to be able to know who our ideological opponents are. If racists aren't allowed to be openly racist, we'll never know who they are, and what's more, they'll just convene in shady rooms and questionable online forums to plot their racist plans in secrecy. This still makes a lot of sense to me, and I truly wish we lived in a world where everyone could be allowed to say anything they want.

But we don't, and four years of having Donald Trump in the Oval Office, still the most powerful position in the world, has proven that we don't beyond any shadow of a doubt. You see, the only environment in which discussing free speech is even necessary, is democracy. That is to say that free speech is essential to uphold a democratic society; what else is democracy than an eternal discussion or debate between conflicting opinions, world-views and ideologies? For that discussion to have any worth at all we need to be able to freely express our ideas and opinions; that's the main argument for the position of free speech absolutism. And I'd like to stress that I'm talking about democratic society, not just a democratically elected government. Democracy isn't just a form of governance, it's a feature of our culture; democracy starts within the family and is ideally extended into the educational systems, workplaces, the media and society as a whole. Authoritarianism is also a culturally defined, not just by a government; you'll see that authoritarian societies, the ones in which father is still the sole head of the household, are often accompanied by more authoritarian forms of government.

The problem with free speech absolutism is summarized in the title of this post. The paradox is that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant; that's exactly what happened with Trump's election and is what's still happening in the Republican party as a whole. In the name of tolerance, the tolerant should reserve the right to suppress the intolerant in order to protect tolerance. That's the paradox of tolerance as described by philosopher Karl Popper in his work "The Open Society and Its Enemies", and the reason why I've seemingly changed my opinion on the topic of free speech; I want to be a free speech absolutist, but in the end I can't stand by that wish...

Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: 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.
_{source: Wikipedia}

I believe that Trump's presidency has been a hard lesson to learn the wisdom of Karl Popper's words. Democracy was almost lost on January 6th, and with many Republican government officials and voters still not willing to concede that Biden won the election and still protecting Trump in the impeachment trial, it's in my opinion legitimate to ask if American democracy can survive another Republican presidency. I was inspired to write this short brain-fart by the almost four hour long panel discussion in the below linked video, where leftists, centrists and conservatives discuss a range of topics, including the question if Marjorie Taylor Greene's barring from a spot on the Education Committee is a violation of her first amendment rights. But I assure you that, if you're interested in contemporary American politics, the rest of this discussion is very interesting as well. Regardless if you watch it or not, I invite you to think about this tolerance paradox and apply it to your own opinions about freedom of speech...

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep safe, keep healthy!