So you disagree with the principle of the paradox of intolerance?
To quote Karl Popper:
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 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.
It seems to me that KiwiFarms is exactly the type of "movement preaching intolerance" and they themselves have "placed itself outside the law" (cite: Moon's response to the NZ request to take down the Christchurch shooter's live stream).
So why should a tolerant society accept this intolerance?
As Popper points out: [this does] "not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies". But clearly KiwiFarms has gone beyond rational argument - they claim the right to harass people in the name of free speech.
Kiwifarms is a gossip site, offensive and obscene at that, but there is no evidence of "harassment and murder" being orchestrated or organized by its members.
To the contrary, any threats posted there are removed faster than on commercial platforms such as Facebook, and the website, its owner and its users make a point of "do not contact the discussion targets" quite often.
Why a US site should obey NZ law is also beyond me.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance and everything to do with the principle of free speech.
When we as a society become ok with harassment and murder, come talk to me. Until then, you're abusing the idea because you think it agrees with you. It's a gateway to censorship.
If this ability had been put into place 20 years ago it would be gay-oriented websites that were shut down due to their indecency. After all, the paradox of tolerance, right!?!?
No, it's real easy. free speech is free speech. If someone is found to be harassing, use criminal law to prosecute. Does criminal law have a higher bar than kicking websites off the internet? Yep, and that's on purpose.
Then I suggest you move to an authoritarian country where free speech rights aren't guaranteed. Because if you're in the US, it will never be false that free speech is free speech.
You will certainly be more likely to achieve your goals of limiting others speech.
Comments
So you disagree with the principle of the paradox of intolerance?
To quote Karl Popper:
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 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.
It seems to me that KiwiFarms is exactly the type of "movement preaching intolerance" and they themselves have "placed itself outside the law" (cite: Moon's response to the NZ request to take down the Christchurch shooter's live stream).
So why should a tolerant society accept this intolerance?
As Popper points out: [this does] "not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies". But clearly KiwiFarms has gone beyond rational argument - they claim the right to harass people in the name of free speech.
Please stop reiterating lies.
Kiwifarms is a gossip site, offensive and obscene at that, but there is no evidence of "harassment and murder" being orchestrated or organized by its members.
To the contrary, any threats posted there are removed faster than on commercial platforms such as Facebook, and the website, its owner and its users make a point of "do not contact the discussion targets" quite often.
Why a US site should obey NZ law is also beyond me.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance and everything to do with the principle of free speech.
When we as a society become ok with harassment and murder, come talk to me. Until then, you're abusing the idea because you think it agrees with you. It's a gateway to censorship.
If this ability had been put into place 20 years ago it would be gay-oriented websites that were shut down due to their indecency. After all, the paradox of tolerance, right!?!?
No, it's real easy. free speech is free speech. If someone is found to be harassing, use criminal law to prosecute. Does criminal law have a higher bar than kicking websites off the internet? Yep, and that's on purpose.
It's difficult to say how fundamentally I disagree with this premise.
Then I suggest you move to an authoritarian country where free speech rights aren't guaranteed. Because if you're in the US, it will never be false that free speech is free speech.
You will certainly be more likely to achieve your goals of limiting others speech.