So, in other words: which of your core beliefs do you think has the highest likelihood of being wrong? And by wrong, I don’t necessarily mean the exact opposite - just that the truth is significantly different from what you currently believe it to be.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend - to the death - your right to say it. The same goes for anyone you would silence or eradicate.
You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself, and I don’t want to live in a fascist state.
Well, I don’t believe you.
Would you defend the right of someone to stand across the street from an elementary school with a megaphone, every day (for years) while the kids get on and off the bus, yelling in great detail how much he enjoys watching them and how he dreams about them every night? Not quite crossing the line into vulgarity that would get him arrested, but definitely causing stress and great anxiety to everyone around him, and harming the mental health of small children at the least?
If you don’t defend that speech, then you do have a line. You just draw it in a different place than I do.
Just because something is spoken does not make it speech. The spoken word can, indeed, be “violence”.
You’ve described “disturbing the peace” (“megaphone”, “yelling”). You’ve described “harassment” (Every day for years while the kids get on and off the bus). You’ve described “assault”. (causing stress and great anxiety; harming).
The actual “speech” you’ve described, you have explicitly defined as insufficient to get him arrested, so I would have to defend his right to say it.
But in the context you’ve provided for him, the totality of his actions rise to the level of “violence”, and nothing I’ve said demands tolerance for that.
In a public forum that he hosts for himself? The “disturbing the peace” charge falls away. Non-vulgar comments about what he finds enjoyable and the content of his dreams, that don’t rise to the level of harassment? The stress, anxiety, and harm you described didn’t come from his speech, but from his harassment while disturbing the peace: Since his statements are no longer harassment or disturbing the peace, the “assault” goes away as well.
Now, he’s speaking. And now that this is speech, I would invite you to join me in speaking back to him, even as I caution you not to censor him.
We certainly do draw lines in different places. You are calling for the violent eradication of certain people. We agree those people are despicable. We can even agree the world would be a better place without them. But, I’m going to stand between you and them, and tell you not to become them.
When they cross the line from speech to violence and actually try to “silence” others, we will, of course, defend those others. We don’t need the paradox to do that; we don’t need to become fascists ourselves to identify and defend the victims.
No, I am calling for the eradication of a hateful belief system. Whether it becomes violent is up to them. (It will)
I suppose you haven’t been reading the news lately. We are past that point. They are literally arresting people that speak up for the rights of others, under false pretexts.