If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping" thought experiment, I don't see the problem.
On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at least in the U.S.
Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b) using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process.
Where does intolerance come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all.
Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR manipulation campaign already beat them once-- otherwise the democratic process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side.
So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier.
If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping" thought experiment, I don't see the problem.
On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at least in the U.S.
Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b) using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process.
Where does intolerance come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all.
Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR manipulation campaign already beat them once-- otherwise the democratic process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side.
So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier.
Edit: clarification