The paradox of tolerance
David Green, 14 January 2015
In deciding how we should respond to the murders in Paris it’s worth reflecting on what Sir Karl Popper said about the ‘paradox of tolerance’ in The Open Society and Its Enemies:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, 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. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1, chapter 7, note 4, p. 265, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966 (Fifth edition).
The bottom line on free expression is that you either have it or a range of permitted opinion. Once it is admitted that free expression is not absolute then anything may in principle be banned. Without free expression democracy cannot exist because by definition any policy cannot be forbidden. .
Absolute free expression requires an acceptance by all to whom the privilege is granted that they will play by the rules of free expression and accept that it is something which extends to everyone who agrees to play by such rules. That means one class of person, the only class of person , should be denied free expression, namely, the class of those who would deny it to others. That is not a denial of their right to free expression because they have absented themselves from the class of those who will tolerate free expression.
Only those who have no confidence in their cause wish to censor. Milton had it aright four centuries ago:
‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].
Milton’s words perhaps contain more significance than he realised, for a society only becomes wholeheartedly tyrannical when censorship allows no effective opposition. To take a most dramatic instance, if the Nazis had been forced by frequently expressed contrary public opinion to explain their policy of genocide to the German people, it is highly improbable that the whole grisly business would have been mooted, for we know that even without any serious public opposition the Nazis went to considerable lengths, in the midst of a most tremendous war, to persuade the mass of Germans that Jews were simply being resettled or, at worst, used as forced labour.
Read more at https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/free-expression-or-permitted-opinion-that-is-the-choice/