• @RememberTheApollo_
    3•5 hours ago

    “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

    This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.

    You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.

    I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.

    • @[email protected]English
      1•10 minutes ago

      Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

      From context

      Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

      and key words

      only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

      and my direct statement

      speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

      I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.

      Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.