That’s like saying if you support gay rights protestors, you have to also support nazi protestors, or you’re being hypocritical. You’re looking at things on the wrong axis.
Yeah that’s exactly correct. Protestors and counter protestors both have a right to express their views, regardless of what I think of those views. As long as they don’t violate any laws in the process. That is literally one of the pillars the US is built on for instance. I don’t have to agree with you to defend your right to say those things I disagree with. The right to that freedom of expression is literally the 1st Amendment in the US.
I don’t know what the limits are on speech in Canada, but they’re likely similar, just not as extremely biased towards protection. The US defends too much honestly.
That doesn’t mean that your opinions and expressions are immune from controversy or disagreement. And speech is limited in certain circumstances, like direct threats. That’s not what’s happening here though.
Banning gender affirming care is a direct threat to trans people. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments and banning it denies trans people the fundamental right to exist. Refusing to spread a life-threatening disinformation campaign in Canada or hypothetically in the US is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.
We do not need to tolerate intolerance. Nor should we. Tolerance is a social contract or peace treaty. When one group, such as fascists, break that contract, they are no longer protected by that social contract.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A person’s freedoms do not end when they break laws, rather there are no laws against our freedoms. A person’s freedom to swing their arm ends at another person’s nose. The freedom of speech ends where a person’s right to exist begins. Allowing fascists to trick people into banning lifesaving medical treatments isn’t speech we should protect. As it infringes on the right of those people to exist who depend on those lifesaving medical treatments.
In the US, we are a nation of freedoms. We write laws to protect those freedoms. When the laws infringe upon our freedoms we change the laws.
Which is why both sides have the right to protest, criticize, and argue over their respective viewpoints.
If we attempt to ban certain forms of speech that don’t, say, immediately incite violence, then what we end up doing is allowing the intolerant people to force society to become intolerant by censoring opposing viewpoints, as long as they’re given any degree of control over the legislative process around what speech is allowed.
We have freedom of speech, but not mandated respect for the beliefs you say with that speech. While they’re free to say it, everyone is free to say anything they wish against it, to not listen to it, and to drown it out.
Society can already be intolerant of the intolerance without opening the door to legislation that could mandate intolerance of tolerant speech. We don’t have to legislate intolerant speech away to counter its usage.
It’s why I would argue that it’s a duty of care not to distribute as it spreads hate and hurt in the community and workplace. Probably wouldn’t fly in the US though.
If it is the person delivering the leaflets then a Nazi postal worker can decide not to deliver postal votes as they see democracy as hurtful to their cause.
This is the paradox of tolerance. We resolve the paradox your argument is describing by reframing our concept of tolerance. When viewed as a social contract or peace treaty, we are able to tolerate each other and can refuse to tolerate intolerance. Under tolerance as a social contract, everyone in society agrees to be tolerant. If one group, say fascists, choose to be intolerant to any other group, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement.
Thus we can reject fascist intolerance and bigotry while still tolerating each other. We can reject hate speech and targeted life-threatening information campaigns against lifesaving medical treatments while still enjoying free speech.
Also, fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to undermine our institutions for their gain no matter what we do. So our efforts should instead go to preventing bad-faith actors like fascists from taking power.
That’s like saying if you support gay rights protestors, you have to also support nazi protestors, or you’re being hypocritical. You’re looking at things on the wrong axis.
Yeah that’s exactly correct. Protestors and counter protestors both have a right to express their views, regardless of what I think of those views. As long as they don’t violate any laws in the process. That is literally one of the pillars the US is built on for instance. I don’t have to agree with you to defend your right to say those things I disagree with. The right to that freedom of expression is literally the 1st Amendment in the US.
I don’t know what the limits are on speech in Canada, but they’re likely similar, just not as extremely biased towards protection. The US defends too much honestly.
That doesn’t mean that your opinions and expressions are immune from controversy or disagreement. And speech is limited in certain circumstances, like direct threats. That’s not what’s happening here though.
Banning gender affirming care is a direct threat to trans people. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments and banning it denies trans people the fundamental right to exist. Refusing to spread a life-threatening disinformation campaign in Canada or hypothetically in the US is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.
We do not need to tolerate intolerance. Nor should we. Tolerance is a social contract or peace treaty. When one group, such as fascists, break that contract, they are no longer protected by that social contract.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
A person’s freedoms do not end when they break laws, rather there are no laws against our freedoms. A person’s freedom to swing their arm ends at another person’s nose. The freedom of speech ends where a person’s right to exist begins. Allowing fascists to trick people into banning lifesaving medical treatments isn’t speech we should protect. As it infringes on the right of those people to exist who depend on those lifesaving medical treatments.
In the US, we are a nation of freedoms. We write laws to protect those freedoms. When the laws infringe upon our freedoms we change the laws.
No. For a just, tolerant, and civilised society to exist, intolerance can’t be tolerated..
Which is why both sides have the right to protest, criticize, and argue over their respective viewpoints.
If we attempt to ban certain forms of speech that don’t, say, immediately incite violence, then what we end up doing is allowing the intolerant people to force society to become intolerant by censoring opposing viewpoints, as long as they’re given any degree of control over the legislative process around what speech is allowed.
We have freedom of speech, but not mandated respect for the beliefs you say with that speech. While they’re free to say it, everyone is free to say anything they wish against it, to not listen to it, and to drown it out.
Society can already be intolerant of the intolerance without opening the door to legislation that could mandate intolerance of tolerant speech. We don’t have to legislate intolerant speech away to counter its usage.
It’s why I would argue that it’s a duty of care not to distribute as it spreads hate and hurt in the community and workplace. Probably wouldn’t fly in the US though.
Who decides what is hurtful though?
If it is the person delivering the leaflets then a Nazi postal worker can decide not to deliver postal votes as they see democracy as hurtful to their cause.
This is the paradox of tolerance. We resolve the paradox your argument is describing by reframing our concept of tolerance. When viewed as a social contract or peace treaty, we are able to tolerate each other and can refuse to tolerate intolerance. Under tolerance as a social contract, everyone in society agrees to be tolerant. If one group, say fascists, choose to be intolerant to any other group, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement.
Thus we can reject fascist intolerance and bigotry while still tolerating each other. We can reject hate speech and targeted life-threatening information campaigns against lifesaving medical treatments while still enjoying free speech.
Also, fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to undermine our institutions for their gain no matter what we do. So our efforts should instead go to preventing bad-faith actors like fascists from taking power.