Free Speech And The Paradox Of Tolerance
The paradox of tolerance states, “if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant”. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that 'In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.' Popper did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas but in fact a complete opposite. Only those that wish to silence discussion and debate are they who must not be tolerated. This ideology allows for the open discussion on the boundaries of free speech but also brings to question if too much freedom can destroy a country. Both Ronson and Appaih fall into different extremes in the paradox, Appiah's in his essay critiques of one government’s effort to create an environment of ‘racial harmony.’ He is suspicious of the lack of coordination in its government methods and believes them to be asserting too much power. Ronson on the other hand of the spectrum critiques the unfairness of online ‘shaming’, which is a non-governmental form of intervention that shows how the intolerant are having a field day without limitation and the effects it has on different people. In both articles, the state or the people try to fight the intolerance for a vulnerable group of people on a teetering scale. A point of balance can be achieved by the government finding a way to self regulate and to have an open discussion with social groups
Ronson's writing on the subject of online shaming shows how intolerant online groups ineffectively fight perceived sproutings of intolerance unrestricted in speech. The article includes a tweet of Justine Sacco who stated the following, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get Aids. Just kidding. I’m white!”. This tweet was meant to mock her privilege and bring awareness to bigger social problems, something even Ronson mentioned when writing about the whole ordeal. It did not take long for her entire life to slowly descend into madness. The people of the digital world took no pity on a misconstrued joke within hours she had lost everything from her career to her online supporting. It did not matter her intentions or her actual standing with the people in the group she inferred to she was discredited and tossed aside. This is one of the examples that prove the ineffectiveness of the people, power without limitation can lead to unwanted casualties even if as Rosner states the victims can be “unfashionable”. This is where the government must involve itself to allow this is to limit their own power, while the people have been successful in the past about enacting change for those oppressed and fighting the oppressors, we must still look at the harm these methods have caused and still potentially can. People can confuse activism with just directing hate at a targeted group or individual, in the case of Justine Sacco. Intolerance can not be corrected with more intolerance, two wrongs do not make a right. Justine should have been allowed to be shown the errors of her ways without having to lose everything and experience extreme hate and death threats.
Ronson mentions another “unfashionable” victim, a survivor from the Amtrak derailment who tweeted: “Thanks a lot for derailing my train. Can I please get my violin back from the 2nd car of the train?”. The responses she received were astonishing, it was filled with hatred and lack of compassion. Similar to Justine she too had been the victim of online shaming from the social justice warriors of the internet many who just jump on the bandwagon of mostly underserved hate. What if the girl who lost her violin did not realize that people died? If we allow and encourage incidents and cases like those of Justine Sacco or even Ronson a socially just person who has been met with backlash and outlandish accusations then a destructive cycle of hate and misled justice will destroy social America. No one should experience hate speech or death threats it is immoral and makes those who wish it upon others worse than the “offenders”. Government intrusion is a necessary evil in fighting for intolerance without becoming intolerant. For cases such as these, the government must take criminal action and changes in legislation that limit and erase behavior such as these. At its core violence must never be met with tolerance no matter its context.
We as a society must take into consideration the necessity of limiting speech that incites violence or promotes hatred. This concept requires an involved government that can help monitor and correct behavior that is deemed hateful or extremist. Like in Appiah’s article, we need the people to be watched but also seen by the government. Government action must allow people to feel validated and important while also being able to monitor and manage the people. This is not to say that the government has no faults, in Appiah’s article he highlights the issue of when the government tries to manage the unmanageable. “Singapore’s program of ethnic management isn’t about accommodation; it’s closer to entrenchment” Appiah comments towards the program illustrate the problem the government has when it comes to regulating it overextends and suffocates the issue yet managed no change. The Singapore government as described by the author shows how the government has tried to force equality without realizing the equity that some cases need, these actions can cause their solutions to look like assimilation and tactics of erasures. It has made futile attempts but has lacked the support of the people to enact change that takes away the pain of vulnerable groups.
Government attempts are going to fail or seem lackluster if the government is ignorant of the needs and wants of the people. An open dialogue between the people and the government is a way to make changes that make the people feel seen and heard. There was once a point in time when the Singapore Chinese majority could be relied upon to vigorously support this kind of essentialized identity, in the same way, that Malaysian Chinese and Indonesian Chinese still rally to support Chinese schools and Chinese chambers and Chinese communal representation. But that is, increasingly, no longer a dominant identity, precisely due to the success of state identity construction. Appiah’s article perhaps overstates the degree to which the state created CMIO versus having it thrust upon it. Coexistence does not exist without a problem while I do believe there to be some issues with CMIO its review must be executed with an open mind and discussion. It must put aside any historical or emotional attachment to a policy that has served Singapore well.
The idea of free speech is often advertised as one of the major benefits of being an American citizen. In theory, we should all possess the ability to speak our minds and say how we feel, no matter how it may affect those around us. This, again, in theory, sounds appealing and like the most ideal form of expression but what about the groups of people who are attacked by our “free speech”? Intolerance towards vulnerable social groups is a much larger social issue that is often dismissed and is attached to the ungoverned hate speech. Going back to the paradox of tolerance what can we allow without allowing our own self-destruction. Society does not take into account how powerful words truly are and assume we need the ability to say as we wish freely, otherwise, we are not a true free nation. This, in fact, is false. Our “free speech” is what causes people to commit suicide, heinous crimes such as murder, and can result in people feeling disconnected from social groups In what ways could we battle this issue? Government control. Government control may not scream “free nation” but, if done in the right and fair, a balance can be achieved which could solve numerous national issues, for example decreasing the aforementioned suicide rate that is due to bullying. To battle serious issues, you need to be able to consider unpopular options, putting aside how it may affect your own life when it could solve problems that are much bigger than you. Absolute freedom of speech is just hate speech and overall destructive.
