I'm of the mindset that it takes work to keep democracy, freedom and egalitarianism alive. You can't just let anyone publish anything and think that it will all work out in the end.
It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it grows instead of withering away in the light.
Perhaps the reasons why those groups grow so easily should be addressed instead of treating it like it is an inevitable force of nature that can have a dam placed in the right spot to keep it eternally contained.
No one is treating anything like an inevitable force of nature, nor is anyone claiming that it can be eternally contained.
But it should be obvious given the last decade or so, if you've been living above a rock, that the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous. One can no longer naively accept truisms such as "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and "the only answer to bad speech is good speech" when history has shown that the playing field is not level, and that despite being exposed to the light of day, running riot across the internet and being debated furously on all fronts, these groups only feed upon, harness and grow amidst the controversy and chaos. However, limiting the scope and velocity by which they can spread their message and recruit has proven effective in slowing their influence, if not stopping them altogether.
You're also presenting a false dichotomy here. We don't have to choose between restricting hate speech and fighting hate groups on other fronts, we can do both. However, just as one does not deprogram a victim from within a cult, one cannot effectively address the root cause of the spread of racism and hate in an environment where that message spreads unabated.
I haven't read a lot of primary sources from the period, but "the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous" and "limiting the scope and velocity by which they can spread their message and recruit has proven effective in slowing their influence" aren't things I'd expect to hear from a catholic pope in any century.
In cultural terms, these six decades were marked by the rise and rapid
development of the censorship policy of the Catholic Church, directed mainly
against printed books, as part of its struggle with the Reformation and with those aspects of Renaissance culture which it came to regard as immoral. Many well-documented studies have shed light on ecclesiastical censorship and on the various Indexes of Forbidden Books. Printed books soon came to be perceived as a dangerous channel through which Protestantism was able to enter the minds of readers and influence their thought.
There have always been racist groups in the US. Usually they become more popular after Congress gives minorities more rights. For example after reconstruction, it led to the rise of the KKK, which again experienced a resurgence in the 60s and 70s after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Why do so many people post this without reading it?
> 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 most unwise.
Every time I see "The Paradox of Tolerance" referenced in these kind of discussions, it continues to reinforce my view that it's pure sophistry. There is no paradox, it's simply a convenient tool for justifying censorship, which is ironically what it pretends to protect us from.
Ideals require integrity to function, not unlike how cheating during a diet won't get you anywhere. If you think the ideals of liberal democracy aren't strong enough to weather a few naysayers in the public forum then you probably never believed in them in the first place.
The paradox of tolerance is an issue to consider, but not necessarily a situation to avoid. Regardless of whether and when it's reasonable to call certain policies "tolerant of X" or "intolerant of X" or "intolerant of anti-X", the policies are value judgements, just as critical comments toward the policies are value judgements.
It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it grows instead of withering away in the light.