Free speech and the limits of tolerance

( Original article published in Good Young Man’s Poison Room-Philosophy Department )

Text | MK Kong
Difficulty: ★★★☆☆

Freedom and tolerance are both very important in modern society, but the boundaries of these values ​​are difficult to define clearly. Recently, there have been related controversies in Hong Kong. Some people put their own opinions on the table, while others tore down other people's opinions. Coincidentally, events in Victoria also occurred in the United States last month (racist march and conflict in Charlottesville, USA on August 12). The foreign Facebook page "Philosophy Matters" responded by quoting Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. [1]

I would like to use this article to explain the idea.

We would probably agree that inclusion has its purpose. However, it is not easy to accurately understand this value. For example, someone might use the following principles to understand:

Tolerance principle: We should tolerate others.

The meaning of tolerance/tolerance (both words are referred to as "tolerance" below) generally refers to the willingness to accept some actions or remarks that one disagrees with. Therefore, taking this principle literally will have many seemingly absurd consequences. For example, if someone wants to take a shot at me, I should tolerate him even if I don't agree with his behavior. This immediately makes us think: tolerance has its limits, and not all behaviors and opinions are worthy of tolerance.

Popper once proposed the paradox of tolerance in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" to oppose unlimited tolerance. Popper wrote this book during World War II. The imaginary enemy was of course the Nazis in Germany and fascists in Europe and other anti-Semitic ideas:

Unlimited tolerance will inevitably lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant of others, and if we are not prepared to resist the attacks of intolerant people in order to maintain a tolerant society, then tolerant people will be destroyed along with the value of tolerance.

It is worth mentioning that this quotation is not complete. He continued:

In this statement, I am not advocating that we should always suppress those intolerant ideas and the like. As long as we can use rational arguments to counter public opinion, suppression is definitely unwise. But when necessary, we should have the right to suppress them, even if force is used. Because things can easily come to this: They have no intention of arguing with us. On the contrary, they regard all arguments as false, and even forbid believers to listen to any arguments and teach them to respond to arguments with fists or pistols. Therefore, in the name of tolerance, we should have the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should outlaw any movement that promotes intolerance, and make the incitement to and persecution of intolerance as sinful as the incitement to murder, kidnapping, or the revival of the slave trade. (Volume 1, Chapter 7, Note 4)

The whole problem seems to be that if an intolerant person attacks you with a "fist or a pistol," tolerance will be destroyed. But it seems that Popper wants to say more, saying that we should make it a crime to incite intolerance, just like inciting murder. What does it mean? Does that mean we should treat speech that incites hatred as a sin?

I think not.

First, Pop made it clear that his statement was not about suppressing the freedom of expression of haters: they should only be suppressed when they refuse rational debate and resort to violence. In addition, the reason why inciting murder is a crime is not just because of the statement of "killing so-and-so", but also requires evidence to show that the murder is likely to occur, such as a clear deployment and plan to kill. Therefore, if inciting hatred is a crime, the same requirements should apply. In that case, a more appropriate understanding is that the reason why inciting hate speech should not be tolerated is that it is likely to cause substantial harm to others, not because of the hate speech itself.

As I understand it, Popper's paradox only successfully pointed out that tolerating those intolerant behaviors will have the consequences of "self-destruction/destruction", while tolerating hate speech that does not bring any real danger of harm will not have such consequences. At the very least, the distinction between offensive behavior and offensive speech is important and should never be simply conflated. This perhaps makes the paradox of tolerance less interesting, but that's how I see it. I don't think it's really insightful.

If we only consider tolerance of different opinions or speech, this is clearly relevant to freedom of expression. Because a society that embodies freedom of speech should accept different and conflicting opinions. The question is, should all opinions and expressions be inclusive? If the answer is "no", it seems that society or the government has grounds for legislative prohibition or even censorship of speech. Thoughts and speech mostly do not harm others in the same way as shooting someone. This important difference means that we should be more tolerant of terrible speech than terrible behavior.

This generous attitude seems to be supported by an entire traditional philosophical theory. The great British philosopher JS Mill once proposed a harm principle:

Unless someone's behavior harms others, that behavior should not be prohibited by any force (including government and social authorities).

Under general understanding, this principle only considers whether a certain behavior will cause substantial harm, such as physical harm or significant damage to interests, and will not calculate pure emotional harm. Mill distinguished between harm and offense, and only the former should be prohibited. [2] The principle provides the basis for freedom of expression/freedom, so even defamatory speech is allowed. This principle, then, also means that we should tolerate all opinions and expressions that do not cause physical harm. [3]

The consequences of allowing defamatory statements are of course highly controversial. However, even if a certain behavior should not be banned by the government, it does not mean that it is exempt from all moral blame. For example, we can still blame someone for being mean and mean. In addition, if defamatory remarks sometimes cause substantial harm to interests, then these remarks are harmful rather than purely offensive. According to the above principles, these remarks should also be prohibited.

Of course, it is difficult to judge when it constitutes and whether it will cause substantial damage to interests. The point is, the reason why such speech is prohibited is not how hateful the content of the speech is, but the (possible) consequences of harming others. The same can be said about hate speech.

All in all, there are important differences between offensive behavior and hate speech, and they should not be confused casually. This article is not intended to conclude the coffin of whether hate speech should be banned, but at most it outlines a traditional liberal view of freedom of speech.

Postscript: I forgot to mention that some people may misunderstand the meaning of tolerance. The correct understanding is that tolerating certain remarks does not mean agreeing with them. Opposing and criticizing certain remarks does not mean that we do not tolerate it. Tolerance just means not to forbid him from doing or saying anything. To be intolerant is to forcibly prohibit him from doing or saying anything.

注腳： [1] 見臉書帖：https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyMttrs/photos/a.305663529533101.58006.305644206201700/1120975021335277/?type=3&theater [2] 見《自由論》第二章裡最後一個反對的回應。 [3] 密爾曾使用直接與間接傷害的區分意圖排除開他人（除了家人）的心理創傷。不過由於種種麻煩，本文採取不採取這對區分。如何詮釋此原則，自古為兵家必爭之地。較保守的人一般希望讓「傷害」包涵的範圍廣一些，例如包括心理創傷以至「敗壞道德」等等，以圖收緊言論自由。日後有機會再詳談詮釋這條原則或相關的議題的問題。有興趣的室友不妨參考密爾的《自由論》。關於傷害原則，網上較詳盡清晰的英文解釋可見於此：http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Mill/MillHarm.pdf

Last updated: 01/10/2017

Good Youth Abuse Room official website
Good young man abuse room Youtube
Good Youth Poison Room Instagram
Good Youth Abuse Room Patreon