Must we tolerate intolerance?

[IzzyPop]

So I have been reading a bit on belief and one thing that keeps popping up it the books (and I am noticing here in E&M more than anywhere else) is that one of the major down falls of a tolerant society is the acceptance of the intolerant. I'm finding that I don't know whether or not to agree with them.

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

But if we do disallow hate speech, where do we draw the line?

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

Any insights here? I find that debate helps me clarify my own thoughts and positions in some areas, so I cannot promise consistency on my end of it, but I can promise thought and reason.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

While I support the various freedoms of people, inciting hatred is one exception. My justification? It ultimately infringes on the free will and the legal freedoms of at least one person. I oppose the right for Christians to incite hatred against a homosexuals, for Atheists against theists, for you against me, etc.

This stems from my one moral code: infringment of free will is morally wrong. Illegalising hatred ultimately upholds this code, albiet a little paradoxically.

 

[IzzyPop]

While I support the various freedoms of people, inciting hatred is one exception. My justification? It ultimately infringes on the free will and the legal freedoms of at least one person. I oppose the right for Christians to incite hatred against a homosexuals, for Atheists against theists, for you against me, etc.

This stems from my one moral code: infringment of free will is morally wrong. Illegalising hatred ultimately upholds this code, albiet a little paradoxically.

But where does one draw the line? I can't stand (I would go as far as to say hate) the current administration in our government. I march in protest when they come down my way. Does this constitute inciting hate? What makes it different if no?

 

[Voegelin]

The most evil example of "tolerance" was the embrace of Stalinism by western intellectuals. Willie Münzenberg and Otto Katz converted a large part of the literary/entertainment comlex to the cause. George Bernard Shaw is despised in the Ukraine today for applauding the Soviet system while it was murdering 7 million of its own citizens. The godfather of American public education, John Dewey, was an admirerer of bolshevik "education" and society. So were several reporters for the New York Times (that the Nation and New Republic embraced the system is no surprise). They all knew what was going on. They tolerated the repression and murders because, as New York Times reporter Walter Duranty said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs".

Today our intellectual betters have "moved on" to apologize for terror attacks by Islamic extremists and, as they did when the gulags were in operation, claim there is moral equivalency between what happens in America and what occurs under Sharia law. They also like to claim Christianity is morally equal to what is propagated by radical Islam. These are often the same people who embrace government discrimation by race, who have erected speech codes on college campuses, who drive dissenters out of academia by not granting tenure, who support the "fairness doctrine" in order to silence their political opponents, who lobby for "hate crimes" and who, in the EU and Canada have enacted "hate speech" laws.

But to answer the OP, no....no need to censor them. Let them enjoy their conceits.

 

[IzzyPop]

The most evil example of "tolerance" was the embrace of Stalinism by western intellectuals. Willie Münzenberg and Otto Katz converted a large part of the literary/entertainment comlex to the cause. George Bernard Shaw is despised in the Ukraine today for applauding the Soviet system while it was murdering 7 million of its own citizens. The godfather of American public education, John Dewey, was an admirerer of bolshevik "education" and society. So were several reporters for the New York Times (that the Nation and New Republic embraced the system is no surprise). They all knew what was going on. They tolerated the repression and murders because, as New York Times reporter Walter Duranty said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs".

I do not understand how this has to do with my question. Were the people shouting about how wrong this was oppressed because of their disagreement?

Today our intellectual betters have "moved on" to apologize for terror attacks by Islamic extremists and, as they did when the gulags were in operation, claim there is moral equivalency between what happens in America and what occurs under Sharia law. They also like to claim Christianity is morally equal to what is propagated by radical Islam. These are often the same people who embrace government discrimation by race, who have erected speech codes on college campuses, who drive dissenters out of academia by not granting tenure, who support the "fairness doctrine" in order to silence their political opponents, who lobby for "hate crimes" and who, in the EU and Canada have enacted "hate speech" laws.

Once again you seem to be all over the board. It seems that you disagree with tolerance in general, so the OP questions go beyond the scope of these incidents.

 

[Beanieboy]

So I have been reading a bit on belief and one thing that keeps popping up it the books (and I am noticing here in E&M more than anywhere else) is that one of the major down falls of a tolerant society is the acceptance of the intolerant. I'm finding that I don't know whether or not to agree with them.

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

But if we do disallow hate speech, where do we draw the line?

Claiming that homosexuality is a sin, is not hate speech, in my opinion.
After Mattew Shepard was killed, a preacher said that what the killers did was not wrong, because Mattew Shepard was gay, and that was punishable by death, and his blood is on his own head. This is hate speech, but borders on inciting violence - that it is ok to kill gay people according to the book of Leviticus.
To incite people to actually go out and kill gay people - be you a preacher or a radio talk show host - to say that it should be legal because the bible condemns them to death, so why aren't we dong God's work, etc., makes the person as, at the very least, a part of the intent to kill, while not having the guts to do it himself. Manson told his followers to kill, yet did no killing himself, yet, is in prison.

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

Hate crimes tend to be more violent (for example, Shepard was pistol whipped, beaten, urinated on, and beaten so badly that passersby thought he was a scarecrow at first.) Hate crimes are often used to "send a message." In "Four Little Girls", Spike Lee shows a documentary about how white supremists were bombing black churches to keep black people in fear. Unfortunately, they bombed one church where four girls were actually in the church.

When we talk of 9/11, we don't talk about it as an instance of hijacking, or destruction to a building. We talk about it as "terrorism." I lived in Minneapolis, nowhere near NY, but people in Minneapolis often wondered, "Are we next?" Many people lived in fear of flying. And that is the point of terrorism - to make people terrified.

How do you think black people felt when they heard about Byrd dragged to death? It creates fear in an entire community.

We can't talk about "terrorism" and then say that hate crime doesn't do the same thing. If anything, we should call it "terrorism" so that people will stop thinking that it is a "thought" crime rather than an intent to scare a population.

 

[Paulos23]

Tolerance can be a virtue, but tolerance combined with passivity is a vice.

I can be tolerance of people saying awful things about me, to talk against me. But when their actions start to curtail my freedoms and actions that do not effect or hurt anyone, that is over the line for me.

 

[IzzyPop]

Claiming that homosexuality is a sin, is not hate speech, in my opinion.
After Mattew Shepard was killed, a preacher said that what the killers did was not wrong, because Mattew Shepard was gay, and that was punishable by death, and his blood is on his own head. This is hate speech, but borders on inciting violence - that it is ok to kill gay people according to the book of Leviticus.
To incite people to actually go out and kill gay people - be you a preacher or a radio talk show host - to say that it should be legal because the bible condemns them to death, so why aren't we dong God's work, etc., makes the person as, at the very least, a part of the intent to kill, while not having the guts to do it himself. Manson told his followers to kill, yet did no killing himself, yet, is in prison.

Cogent point. Of course, I say that because that's where I tend to draw the line...

Hate crimes tend to be more violent (for example, Shepard was pistol whipped, beaten, urinated on, and beaten so badly that passersby thought he was a scarecrow at first.) Hate crimes are often used to "send a message." In "Four Little Girls", Spike Lee shows a documentary about how white supremists were bombing black churches to keep black people in fear. Unfortunately, they bombed one church where four girls were actually in the church.

But if hate crimes tend to be more violent, the punishment should be more harsh due to the higher level of violence perpetrated, not the motivations behind it.

When we talk of 9/11, we don't talk about it as an instance of hijacking, or destruction to a building. We talk about it as "terrorism." I lived in Minneapolis, nowhere near NY, but people in Minneapolis often wondered, "Are we next?" Many people lived in fear of flying. And that is the point of terrorism - to make people terrified.

How do you think black people felt when they heard about Byrd dragged to death? It creates fear in an entire community.

We can't talk about "terrorism" and then say that hate crime doesn't do the same thing. If anything, we should call it "terrorism" so that people will stop thinking that it is a "thought" crime rather than an intent to scare a population.

Hmmmm....I've not looked at it that way. Food for thought. I may return to this point after a bit of reflection.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I see tolerance as a result of my primary motivations, rather than as an aim in itself

I am tolerant and willing to listen to anyone (though not believe anyone) because I am interested in hearing truth.

I assume there is an element of truth behind most things people say, not necessarily what is said, but the motivation for saying it.

I am tolerant because I seek truth and do not feel I have all of it already

 

[WatersMoon110]

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

I think that the USA has to allow people to say any hateful things they want, and even to assemble as a large group to say hateful, horrible things. Because, let's face it, no matter what someone says, there is someone, somewhere out there who will be offended by it.

If we, as a country, start limiting the Freedom of Speech, we are changing the Constitution, even if it is seen as "for a good cause".

Personally, yes, I would probably really like it if the KKK were illegal. I think that they are horrible people, and I disagree with everything they believe. But if we limit what they can say, because it is seen as offensive, then who is to stop others from trying to limit what Feminists are saying or what Gay Rights Activists are saying?

I would rather allow people to say whatever they like, even hate and misinformation, than try to draw some other line, which I see as leading to an eventual loss of far more rights.

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

I very much agree with Hate Crime Legislation. I think that people who are driven to hurt others out of a hate of what those people are (rather than what they are doing - like other "crimes of passion") need to be treated differently, because they are different from other criminals, in my opinion.

 

[meebs]

So I have been reading a bit on belief and one thing that keeps popping up it the books (and I am noticing here in E&M more than anywhere else) is that one of the major down falls of a tolerant society is the acceptance of the intolerant. I'm finding that I don't know whether or not to agree with them.

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

But if we do disallow hate speech, where do we draw the line?

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

Any insights here? I find that debate helps me clarify my own thoughts and positions in some areas, so I cannot promise consistency on my end of it, but I can promise thought and reason.

This is one of those things that have been foremost on my mind lately.

Well i beleive in free speech. If that speech is to rally those into fighting or into hate then im dead against it.

Though if someone were to stand on a soapbox and say they just dont like an ethinic minority or a religion then to a point i can tolerate and respect that, even if i don't agree.

The hard thing is though - what is line between free speech and inciting hatred?

 

[WatersMoon110]

The hard thing is though - what is line between free speech and inciting hatred?

I believe that the legal line is if anyone is harmed after or during a legal assembly. Basically, that the KKK (I use them as an example both because I hate them, and what they stand for, and also because they both have non-violent, though hateful, rallies and perpetrate hate crimes) can get a permit and have a very hateful rally and that would be legal. But, if they, as a group or any of their members, attack a Black person at their little hate-meeting, their rally would be seen as "inciting hatred".

I am pretty sure that is how it works. But I might be wrong.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Reminds me of South Park =p

"We don't take kindly to panda bears!"


"Well, we don't take kindly to you!"


"Well, we don't take kindly to folks that don't take kindly around here."

anyway...I don't see much of any reason tolerate hatred. I suppose people have the right to say pretty much what they want. However, if someone tries to be hateful around me I will most certainly give them a piece of my mind about it.

 

[meebs]

I believe that the legal line is if anyone is harmed after or during a legal assembly. Basically, that the KKK (I use them as an example both because I hate them, and what they stand for, and also because they both have non-violent, though hateful, rallies and perpetrate hate crimes) can get a permit and have a very hateful rally and that would be legal. But, if they, as a group or any of their members, attack a Black person at their little hate-meeting, their rally would be seen as "inciting hatred".

I am pretty sure that is how it works. But I might be wrong.

Is that how it is in the states? I agree though that they have that right even though i can't stand them.

Im not sure what it is over here..

 

[WatersMoon110]

I agree though that they have that right even though i can't stand them.

Yeah.

I recently learned (from a very nice German student at my college) that, in Germany, it a crime to deny the Holocaust. Those that do face six months to six years in prison. I was amazed, simply because I've grown up in a country where everyone is allowed to say what they want (assuming it doesn't cause harm to others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). While I completely disagree with anyone who wants to deny the Holocaust, and I think that they are probably horrible people (and not just for saying such a horrible thing), it really goes against my beliefs to imprison someone just for saying something, even something hateful.

*wink* That was mostly on topic(ish).

 

[meebs]

Yeah.

I recently learned (from a very nice German student at my college) that, in Germany, it a crime to deny the Holocaust. Those that do face six months to six years in prison. I was amazed, simply because I've grown up in a country where everyone is allowed to say what they want (assuming it doesn't cause harm to others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). While I completely disagree with anyone who wants to deny the Holocaust, and I think that they are probably horrible people (and not just for saying such a horrible thing), it really goes against my beliefs to imprison someone just for saying something, even something hateful.

*wink* That was mostly on topic(ish).

Seems very much bang on topic to me.

 

[Beanieboy]

Cogent point. Of course, I say that because that's where I tend to draw the line...


But if hate crimes tend to be more violent, the punishment should be more harsh due to the higher level of violence perpetrated, not the motivations behind it.

If I walk in on you and see you with another guy, and in a fit of anger, shoot you, I am guilty of 2nd degree murder. If I right out a To Do list that says, "buy bullets, drive to Izzy's house, kill izzy" and follow through, I am guilty of 1st degree murder. If I am not looking where I'm going and get in an accident and you die, I'm guilty of manslaughter.

All are killing, but it is the intent upon which one is punished.
One who plans and kills a person fast with a bullet to the head will still get more time than someone that shoots (even if the person suffers more) out of anger or passion.

However, no one will argue that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder is "thought crime."

Hmmmm....I've not looked at it that way. Food for thought. I may return to this point after a bit of reflection.

Hate crime is really hard to prove, but I was pretty shaken by Shepard's death, assuming that we had moved past that. After that incident, more were reported - like the guy that was beaten, had gasoline poured on him, and burned on a tire fire. I went to a memorial service, realizing that it could have been me. As i waited for the bus to go back home, some drunk guys in a car drove by, and one guy yelled, "You're the next Mathew Shephard."

I was amazed at how twisted one has to be to think that that's funny, and how ironic it was to go to a memorial, and have someone say that right outside of where it was held.

And I knew he was right - I could be the next Mathew Shepard, and with drunk guys in a car who outnumbered me, who's to say they won't stop and actually do the same?

If one spraypaints, "Jimmy loves Sally" on a Temple, or paints a Swastika (that brings up memories of the Holocaust), while both are vandalizing property, one's intent is to cause fear, while the other just show's disrespect of property. The message is very different.

 

[Beanieboy]

Even the fact that the "gay panic defense", one that fails more often than it succeeds, is even used, is one reason that hate crime laws were proposed. The defense suggests that gay people are simply asking to be killed should they make an unwanted advance.
(Imagine all the dead men there would be if woman were allowed to kill anyone who made an unwanted advance on them.)

Sometimes the defense has worked, and people have been given lesser jail time, or even acquitted.

The fact that it exists says a lot.

 

[jayem]

All are killing, but it is the intent upon which one is punished.
One who plans and kills a person fast with a bullet to the head will still get more time than someone that shoots (even if the person suffers more) out of anger or passion.

To my knowledge, that's all hate crime legislation really is. I don't think it creates new crimes, but it allows enhanced penalties if it can be proven that the crime was motivated out of animus towards racial, religious, ethnic, or other defined groups. As always, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and as you note, it may be tough to prove.

But in terms of hateful speech, we have to "tolerate" it, because censoring speech through the police power of the state would simply be a worse evil. And the proper solution to hate speech is to allow the opposite ideas to flourish and drown it out. If we start suppressing offensive speech, we create a climate where expressing any and all ideas could be threatened.

 

[Beanieboy]

To my knowledge, that's all hate crime legislation really is. I don't think it creates new crimes, but it allows enhanced penalties if it can be proven that the crime was motivated out of animus towards racial, religious, ethnic, or other defined groups. As always, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and as you note, it may be tough to prove.

But in terms of hateful speech, we have to "tolerate" it, because censoring speech through the police power of the state would simply be a worse evil. And the proper solution to hate speech is to allow the opposite ideas to flourish and drown it out. If we start suppressing offensive speech, we create a climate where expressing any and all ideas could be threatened.

I agree - supressed hatred is far more dangerous than expressed hatred - but there is a line that one must draw.

Should we tolerate someone on a radio program explaining how to make bombs, the addresses of Temples in the city, when the Temple is open and easily accessible, and when services are, and talking about how Jews are taking your jobs, Jews want to convert your children, they own the media, they are agents of the devil and we have to fight back?

Inciting violence, even though you aren't doing anything yourself, is a crime.

There is a line.