1

Democracy is characterised as rule by the people or rule by the majority. However, it has long been recognised that the majority cannot, without good reason, infringe the rights of minorities. Free speech, an important element of democracy, might infringe the rights of minorities by inciting hatred. Some jurisdictions already outlaw hate speech. Free speech has previously been abridged on the grounds of defamation, endangering national security, infringing intellectual property etc. So are democracies justified in not tolerating intolerance?

Improve this question
8
  • See Paradox of tolerance.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Sep 26 at 17:47
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    – J D
    Commented Sep 26 at 17:51
  • 4
    Every person probably falls in to at least one of the many overlapping minorities that exist. It's just self-interest to protect minorities.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Sep 26 at 18:01
  • 1
    @ScottRowe would be a good answer
    – Kaia
    Commented Sep 26 at 20:21
  • 2
    I just want to point out that this question is taking an extremely weak example. You want to start with "should majorities be able to vote that the minority be fed to piranhas" and work from there. Whether one has a right to have the government use the threat of violence to compel people not to tell other people to hate you or not, it's the sort of thing that one only thinks about if one lives in a community where one's real concerns are secure.
    – g s
    Commented Sep 26 at 21:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

“[A]re democracies justified in not tolerating intolerance?”, that’s the final question of your post.

The principle of tolerance is not specific for democracies. It is a basic principle for living together in any social group. Tolerance means:

The freedom of the individual ends where the freedom of others begins.

The idea, but not the explicit formulation above, is due also to Kant.

Improve this answer
2
  • not to nit pick, but i don't really get that. in a way, you seem to suggest that tolerance just exists, rather than can be e.g. lacking from or in a group, while also suggesting (kinda) that by limiting our freedoms we tolerate those of others. which is it?
    – user71399
    Commented Sep 26 at 21:07
  • 1
    @andrós Tolerance means to establish a balance between different interests in a social group. Tolerance is not to discover but to establish.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Sep 26 at 22:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .