@anubis2814 So, by that logic, you lose that right because you've also decided that certain groups should lose that right... right?
The only way to square this circle is to hold these rules in place that people who are allowed to engage in free speech also be ready to stand up for everyone but those who refuse to also stand up for the free speech of others.
If free speech gets destroyed by free speech then its not a useful right. It must have at least social limitations. It is why Germany has removed the right to display or express fascist symbols and ideology beyond educational purposed. Freedom of expression is allowed for anyone who will also defend others rights to free expression. People who use free expression to destroy free expression are detrimental to free expression and are not allowed to have the right. There are limits to every single declared right. Like Justice Robert Jackson said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the same is true with every "right".
@anubis2814 Nonsense. The Popper Paradox is about *tolerance*. We should not tolerate hateful speech, but that doesn't mean we have the right to employ government agents to silence it by force.
Instead, we can show our intolerance with far less harmful methods, such as: boycott, disassociation, shame, "cancel culture" (remember how much that one pissed them off?), and exclusion.
These methods allow us to achieve the same goals without having to resort to techniques straight out of the fascists' own playbook.
@anubis2814 What do you think "free speech" means?
@anubis2814 So then, by that definition, when you claim someone "lose[s] that right" to free speech, what do you mean if not the government silencing that person by force?
