Yascha thank you for a truly important article. The Open Society and Its Enemies is a fantastic book, although new editions should probably contain trigger warnings for fans of Plato and Hegel.
Popper was highly critical in his book of historicists who had a teleology, a model of historical progress that led to their preferred nirvana. I think a large part of the supposed crisis in liberalism is really a conflict between a pluralist liberal system and what are deemed to be Progressive values. The Progressive wing of liberalism often has a naive faith in the power of reason that starts with the Enlightenment and leads, ineluctably, to an era of tolerance and peace. Provided you agree with them.
At what point does respectful disagreement in rational discourse become intolerance? Should we censor those who have a different view of Trans rights, or the right to life, lest they move the Overton Window? The reality is that these criticisms of current Progressive thought could move public opinion. An honest appraisal of liberalism is that it can mean ideas you disagree with gain currency. That is how it's supposed to work. It is still vastly better than any alternative.
Thank you, Eamonn! It was a lot of fun re-reading big tracts of Open Society to write this article. And I agree that liberals need simultaneously to be less self-satisfied and more self-confident: less self-satisfied about their right to decree what "true" tolerance what consist in, and more self-confident that tolerant societies will ultimately prevail.
I've been a free reader for a while. This article made me a paid subscriber. Masterfully written and argued. This should have been a chapter in Andrew Doyle's book on Free Speech.
This question of censuring the "intolerant" (racist, negationist,..) is again more salient nowadays with Elon Musk takeover of Twitter and other 'social media' phenomena.
Legislative attempts to limit these expressions are indeed, as put forward in Yasha's article, complicated to say the least but are worked on in the European Union.
One alternative approach to Censorship with good intentions, which may have a mitigating effect on the expressions of intolerance and the diffusion of fake news starts with stopping using the expression 'social media' : they are MEDIA, just like the classical ones (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and anyone who expresses him (her-) self there must be held accountable in the sense that the people expressing themselves must be identifiable, not anonymous and not hidden behind a pseudo.
Ending anonymity on the Internet circumvents the issues of tolerance / free speech etc ; it just brings us back to a situation where each person must take responsibility for its words. It will not limit free speech but I'm quite confident that it will reduce the amount of disseminating and sharing extreme and hateful ideas. In this schema, the "publishers" (Meta, X et al.) will be held accountable only on verifying and publishing the identities of the contributors. I'm aware of the objection about the importance of anonymity in fighting totalitarian regimes (the Samizdat of Soviet Times) but we must have enough trust in our liberal regimes to find this objection factually irrelevant.
Yes, it's long been my position that social media companies should face a choice. Either they don't favor or disfavor content on the basis of viewpoint, in which case they can keep their current protections against legal responsibility for what they publish. Or they can continue censoring and favoring based on viewpoint, in which case they should be subject to the same rulers as traditional media.
As for anonymity, I feel more torn. Bots certainly can and should be suppressed. But there's a long and proud tradition of anonymous political speech, and it's not clear to me it's a good idea in the long-term to make that impossible.
Yes, but that anonymous political speech in the pa1!st was in the form of print media. I would suggest that the mistake virtually all of us born in the twentieth century have made in the early decades of the Internet Age is to conceptualize online texts media as a new form of print media.
This, however, is an illusion. We are deceived because we have been conditioned to categorize a new text-based medium with previous ones.
But, as time as shown, this clearly wrong. You, Yascha, may have approached writing the above as you would a traditionally published article. But those of us posting reactions (certainly in my case, but I suspect this is the overwhelming norm), are doing so off the cuff. We're not publishing pamphlets that will be passed around a Carolignian or Georgian coffee house, we're standing up on a box in Hyde Park Corner.
There is no great liberal tradition of speaking anonymously in the public square. The humble New Englander at the town meeting in Rockwell's painting did not have a bag over his head.
I am broadly sympathetic to your argument that censorship does not really suppress intolerance. But the "Wild West" phase of the Internet has proven Hobbes correct: Without any sort of state to provide a framework which allows all citizens to be heard and - more importantly- - to be safe, it is simply a war of all against all. And now we see that what happens online does not stay there, but leads to everything from insurrection on Capitol Hill to Islamophobic-racist pogroms in England to an epidemic of suicide among middle schoolers.
I like your rule. It looks like the best starting point—one question. The trad media rules would only cover the content of sources and not the selection of which source a consumer is shown. Yet, one of the most common complaints regarding teens is that they are led quickly to the content that is most dangerously addictive to them personally. Would you suggest extra rules to cover this?
Great point! The algorithmic nature of the web is what leads so nany young teens to radicalization. I have taught teenage boys whose parents are highly educated liberal professionals, or in some cases high ranking military officers and government officials who do everything "right" to instill a love of liberal democracy and critical debate in homes full if books and reputable news sources. Yet somehow their sons get sucked down into a rabbit hole of insane QAnon and Nazi conspiracy theories because you click on one or two videos, and soon your FYP looks like it's being curated by Joseph Goebels.
We have seen now on multiple occasions the ability of state or non-state actors to mobilize millions of youth virtually overnight, so that a cause about which they knew or cared nothing a week before is now the issue about which they care mist passionately.
Getting rid of, ir at least dramatically reforming the way these algorithms on social media work would go a very long way toward getting people out of their echo chambers and into a public square in which you are presented with a variety of viewpoints.
Great points. It kind of surprises me that internet anonymity is not more of a hot topic. I am hoping to see some debates on the pros and cons. Personally it seems to me that it should be abolished. I would love to see more discussions and more articles on this topic.
Thanks for such an informative and enlightening essay. I agree with all of your sentiments. However, I read Popper’s argument as slightly more coherent than you seem to see it, although I agree it’s “less clear than it could be,” particularly, as you note, in not defining “intolerant.”
I would summarize Poppers’s argument as follows:
1] “Unlimited tolerance” is a mistake (it can lead to intolerance).
2] Here’s proof: A leader might require followers to answer arguments only with violence. QED.
3] Corollary: “We have the right to suppress [the intolerant] if necessary.”
4] The suppression rule should be the same as the rule against incitement of murder.
(Note: #4 is quite different from your criterion, “We need to tolerate offensive views—but not violent actions.”)
#1 is Popper’s central point and he feels obligated to give a proof; that’s #2. He then lists an obvious corollary, #3, which obligates him to show us a useful limit to place on tolerance, that’s #4. (He awkwardly interchanges #2 & #3, but this is not a logical mistake.)
So this is a minor point of disagreement. You say, “he implies that it would **only** be permissible to repress those who teach their followers ‘to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.’” That implies that #2 does much more than prove #1; it also shows the dividing line between what we should tolerate and what we should not.
I don’t think that’s right. I would suggest that he’s simply sticking with the tradition of giving the simplest proof which, as usual, is an extreme case, and he places his suggested operational limit where it is expected, at the end.
As you note, Popper adds, “as long as we can counter them by rational argument … [don’t suppress them].” That’s helpful, but he seems to realize it’s not a workable definition of the limit. And we have seen it grossly stretched by the most intolerant.
I think #4 may solve this problem quite nicely if intolerance is properly defined.
You provide a very helpful discussion of where to draw the dividing line, but you don’t consider Popper’s answer − draw it the same way that we draw it for incitement to murder. I find this to be a suggestion well worth discussing, not just because it’s Popper’s answer to the central question but because it’s simple to state, carries a strong presumption of reasonableness, and, to me, at least, seems satisfactory.
BTW, incitement to murder seems to be defined as urging or persuading another person to commit a murder. This rules out just saying, “I think murder is a good idea.”
So, I would suggest a follow-up essay in which you address Popper's suggestion and give a clear definition of “intolerance,” if that’s possible. You might also situate this relative to Marcuse’s essay on Repressive Tolerance, which I think lies behind most of those hiding behind Popper’s Paradox.
Even the criterion of "incitement to murder" for intolerant speech may be tinged with gray. Assuming that Henry II actually did say "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?", was that incitement to murder Thomas Becket in 1170? History has not yet given us a unanimous answer on that one.
Thanks, I completely agree. If more clarity is workable, I'm all for it. There are probably legal precedents that would provide a bit more clarity. I'm only thinking that starting from a point that has a history of careful thought may be better than starting from scratch.
A deeper criticism of Popper’s suggested rule for deciding what to tolerate is that it only addresses the question of legally sanctioned punishment. Other commenters have raised questions of cooperation (say by publishing intolerant ideas), and there’s the question of ostracism (canceling). I believe these larger issues are central to our struggle against intolerance and deserve more careful analysis.
Excellent, Yascha. This really should be preserved in some more permanent form, like a book or magazine article.
You might have thought it wasn't news-cycle timely, but the British government has just launched a campaign to harass and prosecute people who engage in "hate speech" on the Internet. That appears to include folks like J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova who question biological men competing in women's sports.
BTW, I was lucky enough to attend lectures by Popper at LSE back in the day (yes, I'm old).
It seems like the core of all this is a proposition: we need only be intolerant of speech which unjustly causes material harm. And if we take that standard, the laws of the US are pretty close: there are free speech carve-outs for libel and slander, as well as incitement to imminent illegal activities (and "incitement" is generally pretty narrowly-scoped as I understand it -- it doesn't allow for a lot of "well, he said these things, and it was bound to eventually cause a murder" or those sorts of justifications).
Some people want to define "material harm" much more broadly (for example, hurting someone's feelings is not material harm...unless it is done repeatedly in a pattern of behavior and becomes harassment). That is the fight we need to have, the hill we need to die on: ensure that material harm remains a very narrowly-construed idea.
It seems that the American Civil Liberties Union has been infected by the illiberal left and is compromising in a serious way its commitment to free speech.
As I read, I had the immediate thought that, when it comes to free speech, pretty much everybody wants to the commissioner of their game of Calvinball...the game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. There is only one rule: it can't be played the same way twice.
Great piece! Agree whole-heartedly. Free speech, with open debate in a marketplace of ideas, is essential. But here's a related conundrum: the question of tolerance for subcultures that themselves are intolerant. To what extent should open societies tolerate (and welcome) immigrant groups that are intolerant, say, of LGBTQ people or atheists or women's freedoms? Is it enough to hope that exposure to the broader society, over time, will result in more tolerance overall?
Do they break the law? If no, then we have no reason not to tolerate them. If yes, then we don't need censorship. We have other laws that already address the problem.
Superb and very timely essay. You mentioned that you'll be writing more on this and related topics for publication here. Good! Eager to read. Thank you,
Great article and very thought provoking. An erudite dissertation for sure.
Being a practical type, some of us ask, when told there is a “need for censorship,” what do those in the ruling classes fear so much that they wish to censor and imprison the miscreants?” Is it antisocial behaviour so defined in Law in Britain which issues “Anti-social Behavioural Orders," even to dogs that bite humans? Or is it thoughts or actions those that the ruling classes say – in their ideological opinion - is “bad” for the continuance of – or a threat to -the current success of liberalism since the age of enlightenment? Or do the ruling classes just want to censor speech simply because such utterances are against their ideology?
Censorship is always present and demonstrated in the acts of silence or omission as our present -day, daily press demonstrates, which depending on the NEWS outlet, leaves the reader with a very different take on the “facts” and what actually happened in any NEWS story.
As was said with respect to the political situation which occurred in German in the 1930’s “…but as is always the case when those in power get to decide on what is allowed and what is verboten, the nature of societal taboos shifted with the political winds. As Nazis and other far-right nationalists gained more power, it was increasingly left-wing political speech that was officially outlawed—or unofficially stopped by the use of violence.” Yashir posed the question “… how do a society guard against such happenings,” or words to that effect.
We would all agree that there is zero place for the violently intolerant and they and their actions, defined and laws written and imposed, and must be outlawed especially if violence and intimidation are the tools to silence critical speech- which is what happened in Germany of the 1930’s. It is critical that these Laws are fairly and “blindly” enforced by “one tier” policing and a sympathetic judiciary. Which seems to have failed in the UK and is cited by some sources as a base cause for the violent unrest.
The ugly head of ideology, plain left or right politics, is a “viewpoint.” “Either they don't favor or disfavor content on the basis of viewpoint, in which case they can keep their current protections against legal responsibility for what they publish. Or they can continue censoring and favoring based on viewpoint, in which case they should be subject to the same rulers as traditional media” which is crucial to all this question of censorship.
The readers comment “only when we can correct the asymmetry of the rule of law, - and its (sic “blind”) application -can we retain liberty, safety, and economic security,” rings very true in these turbulent political times.
“We need to tolerate offensive views—but not violent actions.”
When I read this excellent article and the insightful comments, it gave me some hope. Unfortunately, those who read articles like this and are able to make cogent comments are usually not the ones with power. They don’t have a “a seat at the table” or have “the gift of the anointed”. We have to live with the consequences of our actions and those of others. We have to tolerate the intolerable in this day and time. Only when we can correct the asymmetry of the rule of law, can we retain liberty, safety and economic security.
truly excellent essay. thanks for writing it! i especially appreciate the idea of reading poppers footnote in context of the entire arc of his life. an honorable approach indeed—if only this could become the norm for how we parse each others most questionable words and ideas.
Of all the big issues Facing the USA and the West in the November election, and there are many, the one that preoccupies me most is the attitude of American people towards the state of Israel and the Arab world that is trying to choke it to death. Does the USA intend to continue protecting Israel and maintaining the world order or will it, like the UK, cower in the face of Muslim anger and entitlement and simultaneously abandon its diplomatic effort in the Middle East and pander to Islamist militants (including some naive US born students) and their anti-Semitic demands on American soil.
This is the issue on which Democrats and Harris are most vulnerable. At this moment in time Trump is the ONLY western leader who has the courage to resist Islam. All the others are sleepwalking towards obliteration. The mind virus has captured them.
Infinite credit to Douglas Murray for his prescience on this subject.
Yascha thank you for a truly important article. The Open Society and Its Enemies is a fantastic book, although new editions should probably contain trigger warnings for fans of Plato and Hegel.
Popper was highly critical in his book of historicists who had a teleology, a model of historical progress that led to their preferred nirvana. I think a large part of the supposed crisis in liberalism is really a conflict between a pluralist liberal system and what are deemed to be Progressive values. The Progressive wing of liberalism often has a naive faith in the power of reason that starts with the Enlightenment and leads, ineluctably, to an era of tolerance and peace. Provided you agree with them.
At what point does respectful disagreement in rational discourse become intolerance? Should we censor those who have a different view of Trans rights, or the right to life, lest they move the Overton Window? The reality is that these criticisms of current Progressive thought could move public opinion. An honest appraisal of liberalism is that it can mean ideas you disagree with gain currency. That is how it's supposed to work. It is still vastly better than any alternative.
Thank you, Eamonn! It was a lot of fun re-reading big tracts of Open Society to write this article. And I agree that liberals need simultaneously to be less self-satisfied and more self-confident: less self-satisfied about their right to decree what "true" tolerance what consist in, and more self-confident that tolerant societies will ultimately prevail.
I've been a free reader for a while. This article made me a paid subscriber. Masterfully written and argued. This should have been a chapter in Andrew Doyle's book on Free Speech.
Thank you so much, Adrain--very grateful!
Fabulous article. Thank you.
Thank you, Janice!
This question of censuring the "intolerant" (racist, negationist,..) is again more salient nowadays with Elon Musk takeover of Twitter and other 'social media' phenomena.
Legislative attempts to limit these expressions are indeed, as put forward in Yasha's article, complicated to say the least but are worked on in the European Union.
One alternative approach to Censorship with good intentions, which may have a mitigating effect on the expressions of intolerance and the diffusion of fake news starts with stopping using the expression 'social media' : they are MEDIA, just like the classical ones (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and anyone who expresses him (her-) self there must be held accountable in the sense that the people expressing themselves must be identifiable, not anonymous and not hidden behind a pseudo.
Ending anonymity on the Internet circumvents the issues of tolerance / free speech etc ; it just brings us back to a situation where each person must take responsibility for its words. It will not limit free speech but I'm quite confident that it will reduce the amount of disseminating and sharing extreme and hateful ideas. In this schema, the "publishers" (Meta, X et al.) will be held accountable only on verifying and publishing the identities of the contributors. I'm aware of the objection about the importance of anonymity in fighting totalitarian regimes (the Samizdat of Soviet Times) but we must have enough trust in our liberal regimes to find this objection factually irrelevant.
Thank you, Pierre!
Yes, it's long been my position that social media companies should face a choice. Either they don't favor or disfavor content on the basis of viewpoint, in which case they can keep their current protections against legal responsibility for what they publish. Or they can continue censoring and favoring based on viewpoint, in which case they should be subject to the same rulers as traditional media.
As for anonymity, I feel more torn. Bots certainly can and should be suppressed. But there's a long and proud tradition of anonymous political speech, and it's not clear to me it's a good idea in the long-term to make that impossible.
Yes, but that anonymous political speech in the pa1!st was in the form of print media. I would suggest that the mistake virtually all of us born in the twentieth century have made in the early decades of the Internet Age is to conceptualize online texts media as a new form of print media.
This, however, is an illusion. We are deceived because we have been conditioned to categorize a new text-based medium with previous ones.
But, as time as shown, this clearly wrong. You, Yascha, may have approached writing the above as you would a traditionally published article. But those of us posting reactions (certainly in my case, but I suspect this is the overwhelming norm), are doing so off the cuff. We're not publishing pamphlets that will be passed around a Carolignian or Georgian coffee house, we're standing up on a box in Hyde Park Corner.
There is no great liberal tradition of speaking anonymously in the public square. The humble New Englander at the town meeting in Rockwell's painting did not have a bag over his head.
I am broadly sympathetic to your argument that censorship does not really suppress intolerance. But the "Wild West" phase of the Internet has proven Hobbes correct: Without any sort of state to provide a framework which allows all citizens to be heard and - more importantly- - to be safe, it is simply a war of all against all. And now we see that what happens online does not stay there, but leads to everything from insurrection on Capitol Hill to Islamophobic-racist pogroms in England to an epidemic of suicide among middle schoolers.
I like your rule. It looks like the best starting point—one question. The trad media rules would only cover the content of sources and not the selection of which source a consumer is shown. Yet, one of the most common complaints regarding teens is that they are led quickly to the content that is most dangerously addictive to them personally. Would you suggest extra rules to cover this?
Great point! The algorithmic nature of the web is what leads so nany young teens to radicalization. I have taught teenage boys whose parents are highly educated liberal professionals, or in some cases high ranking military officers and government officials who do everything "right" to instill a love of liberal democracy and critical debate in homes full if books and reputable news sources. Yet somehow their sons get sucked down into a rabbit hole of insane QAnon and Nazi conspiracy theories because you click on one or two videos, and soon your FYP looks like it's being curated by Joseph Goebels.
We have seen now on multiple occasions the ability of state or non-state actors to mobilize millions of youth virtually overnight, so that a cause about which they knew or cared nothing a week before is now the issue about which they care mist passionately.
Getting rid of, ir at least dramatically reforming the way these algorithms on social media work would go a very long way toward getting people out of their echo chambers and into a public square in which you are presented with a variety of viewpoints.
Great points. It kind of surprises me that internet anonymity is not more of a hot topic. I am hoping to see some debates on the pros and cons. Personally it seems to me that it should be abolished. I would love to see more discussions and more articles on this topic.
Thanks for such an informative and enlightening essay. I agree with all of your sentiments. However, I read Popper’s argument as slightly more coherent than you seem to see it, although I agree it’s “less clear than it could be,” particularly, as you note, in not defining “intolerant.”
I would summarize Poppers’s argument as follows:
1] “Unlimited tolerance” is a mistake (it can lead to intolerance).
2] Here’s proof: A leader might require followers to answer arguments only with violence. QED.
3] Corollary: “We have the right to suppress [the intolerant] if necessary.”
4] The suppression rule should be the same as the rule against incitement of murder.
(Note: #4 is quite different from your criterion, “We need to tolerate offensive views—but not violent actions.”)
#1 is Popper’s central point and he feels obligated to give a proof; that’s #2. He then lists an obvious corollary, #3, which obligates him to show us a useful limit to place on tolerance, that’s #4. (He awkwardly interchanges #2 & #3, but this is not a logical mistake.)
So this is a minor point of disagreement. You say, “he implies that it would **only** be permissible to repress those who teach their followers ‘to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.’” That implies that #2 does much more than prove #1; it also shows the dividing line between what we should tolerate and what we should not.
I don’t think that’s right. I would suggest that he’s simply sticking with the tradition of giving the simplest proof which, as usual, is an extreme case, and he places his suggested operational limit where it is expected, at the end.
As you note, Popper adds, “as long as we can counter them by rational argument … [don’t suppress them].” That’s helpful, but he seems to realize it’s not a workable definition of the limit. And we have seen it grossly stretched by the most intolerant.
I think #4 may solve this problem quite nicely if intolerance is properly defined.
You provide a very helpful discussion of where to draw the dividing line, but you don’t consider Popper’s answer − draw it the same way that we draw it for incitement to murder. I find this to be a suggestion well worth discussing, not just because it’s Popper’s answer to the central question but because it’s simple to state, carries a strong presumption of reasonableness, and, to me, at least, seems satisfactory.
BTW, incitement to murder seems to be defined as urging or persuading another person to commit a murder. This rules out just saying, “I think murder is a good idea.”
So, I would suggest a follow-up essay in which you address Popper's suggestion and give a clear definition of “intolerance,” if that’s possible. You might also situate this relative to Marcuse’s essay on Repressive Tolerance, which I think lies behind most of those hiding behind Popper’s Paradox.
Even the criterion of "incitement to murder" for intolerant speech may be tinged with gray. Assuming that Henry II actually did say "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?", was that incitement to murder Thomas Becket in 1170? History has not yet given us a unanimous answer on that one.
Thanks, I completely agree. If more clarity is workable, I'm all for it. There are probably legal precedents that would provide a bit more clarity. I'm only thinking that starting from a point that has a history of careful thought may be better than starting from scratch.
A deeper criticism of Popper’s suggested rule for deciding what to tolerate is that it only addresses the question of legally sanctioned punishment. Other commenters have raised questions of cooperation (say by publishing intolerant ideas), and there’s the question of ostracism (canceling). I believe these larger issues are central to our struggle against intolerance and deserve more careful analysis.
Excellent, Yascha. This really should be preserved in some more permanent form, like a book or magazine article.
You might have thought it wasn't news-cycle timely, but the British government has just launched a campaign to harass and prosecute people who engage in "hate speech" on the Internet. That appears to include folks like J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova who question biological men competing in women's sports.
BTW, I was lucky enough to attend lectures by Popper at LSE back in the day (yes, I'm old).
It seems like the core of all this is a proposition: we need only be intolerant of speech which unjustly causes material harm. And if we take that standard, the laws of the US are pretty close: there are free speech carve-outs for libel and slander, as well as incitement to imminent illegal activities (and "incitement" is generally pretty narrowly-scoped as I understand it -- it doesn't allow for a lot of "well, he said these things, and it was bound to eventually cause a murder" or those sorts of justifications).
Some people want to define "material harm" much more broadly (for example, hurting someone's feelings is not material harm...unless it is done repeatedly in a pattern of behavior and becomes harassment). That is the fight we need to have, the hill we need to die on: ensure that material harm remains a very narrowly-construed idea.
Excellent essay. It reminded me, however, of how depressed I was a few years ago when I read this in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU4.IctA.zgYuL7ZKJ9H9&smid=url-share
It seems that the American Civil Liberties Union has been infected by the illiberal left and is compromising in a serious way its commitment to free speech.
Mike Bacon
Westbrook, Maine
As I read, I had the immediate thought that, when it comes to free speech, pretty much everybody wants to the commissioner of their game of Calvinball...the game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. There is only one rule: it can't be played the same way twice.
Great piece! Agree whole-heartedly. Free speech, with open debate in a marketplace of ideas, is essential. But here's a related conundrum: the question of tolerance for subcultures that themselves are intolerant. To what extent should open societies tolerate (and welcome) immigrant groups that are intolerant, say, of LGBTQ people or atheists or women's freedoms? Is it enough to hope that exposure to the broader society, over time, will result in more tolerance overall?
Do they break the law? If no, then we have no reason not to tolerate them. If yes, then we don't need censorship. We have other laws that already address the problem.
Superb and very timely essay. You mentioned that you'll be writing more on this and related topics for publication here. Good! Eager to read. Thank you,
Great article and very thought provoking. An erudite dissertation for sure.
Being a practical type, some of us ask, when told there is a “need for censorship,” what do those in the ruling classes fear so much that they wish to censor and imprison the miscreants?” Is it antisocial behaviour so defined in Law in Britain which issues “Anti-social Behavioural Orders," even to dogs that bite humans? Or is it thoughts or actions those that the ruling classes say – in their ideological opinion - is “bad” for the continuance of – or a threat to -the current success of liberalism since the age of enlightenment? Or do the ruling classes just want to censor speech simply because such utterances are against their ideology?
Censorship is always present and demonstrated in the acts of silence or omission as our present -day, daily press demonstrates, which depending on the NEWS outlet, leaves the reader with a very different take on the “facts” and what actually happened in any NEWS story.
As was said with respect to the political situation which occurred in German in the 1930’s “…but as is always the case when those in power get to decide on what is allowed and what is verboten, the nature of societal taboos shifted with the political winds. As Nazis and other far-right nationalists gained more power, it was increasingly left-wing political speech that was officially outlawed—or unofficially stopped by the use of violence.” Yashir posed the question “… how do a society guard against such happenings,” or words to that effect.
We would all agree that there is zero place for the violently intolerant and they and their actions, defined and laws written and imposed, and must be outlawed especially if violence and intimidation are the tools to silence critical speech- which is what happened in Germany of the 1930’s. It is critical that these Laws are fairly and “blindly” enforced by “one tier” policing and a sympathetic judiciary. Which seems to have failed in the UK and is cited by some sources as a base cause for the violent unrest.
The ugly head of ideology, plain left or right politics, is a “viewpoint.” “Either they don't favor or disfavor content on the basis of viewpoint, in which case they can keep their current protections against legal responsibility for what they publish. Or they can continue censoring and favoring based on viewpoint, in which case they should be subject to the same rulers as traditional media” which is crucial to all this question of censorship.
The readers comment “only when we can correct the asymmetry of the rule of law, - and its (sic “blind”) application -can we retain liberty, safety, and economic security,” rings very true in these turbulent political times.
“We need to tolerate offensive views—but not violent actions.”
When I read this excellent article and the insightful comments, it gave me some hope. Unfortunately, those who read articles like this and are able to make cogent comments are usually not the ones with power. They don’t have a “a seat at the table” or have “the gift of the anointed”. We have to live with the consequences of our actions and those of others. We have to tolerate the intolerable in this day and time. Only when we can correct the asymmetry of the rule of law, can we retain liberty, safety and economic security.
truly excellent essay. thanks for writing it! i especially appreciate the idea of reading poppers footnote in context of the entire arc of his life. an honorable approach indeed—if only this could become the norm for how we parse each others most questionable words and ideas.
Of all the big issues Facing the USA and the West in the November election, and there are many, the one that preoccupies me most is the attitude of American people towards the state of Israel and the Arab world that is trying to choke it to death. Does the USA intend to continue protecting Israel and maintaining the world order or will it, like the UK, cower in the face of Muslim anger and entitlement and simultaneously abandon its diplomatic effort in the Middle East and pander to Islamist militants (including some naive US born students) and their anti-Semitic demands on American soil.
This is the issue on which Democrats and Harris are most vulnerable. At this moment in time Trump is the ONLY western leader who has the courage to resist Islam. All the others are sleepwalking towards obliteration. The mind virus has captured them.
Infinite credit to Douglas Murray for his prescience on this subject.
Thank you, and especially for the excellent footnotes.