On one hand, this feels very “thoughtcrime”-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I’m curious to see how this plays out.
I feel like as long as the banned speech is extremely specifically defined, I don’t care if they look like martyrs. “The holocaust never happened” is easily defined as holocaust denial, and it’s easy to enforce.
The problems arrive when a law is passed with an ambiguous, poorly defined meaning like “hate speech”. Hate speech can really mean anything someone else doesn’t like.
On one hand, this feels very “thoughtcrime”-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I’m curious to see how this plays out.
Popper’s paradox
The only way for tolerance to exist, is to not tolerate intolerance.
That reminds me of the south park episode with Mr Slave
The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral or legal standard, but as a social contract:
In other words: the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
I feel like banning their speech will only make them look like martyrs
I feel like as long as the banned speech is extremely specifically defined, I don’t care if they look like martyrs. “The holocaust never happened” is easily defined as holocaust denial, and it’s easy to enforce.
The problems arrive when a law is passed with an ambiguous, poorly defined meaning like “hate speech”. Hate speech can really mean anything someone else doesn’t like.