I can be intolerant of murder while also protecting a murderers right not to be murdered.
That doesn't mean we should allow murderers to be murdered. But nor should we protect the speech of someone who is using it to harass, intimidate and victimize people.
It isn't the popular speech that needs protecting.
To quote Karl Popper:
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 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.
It seems to me that KiwiFarms is exactly the type of "movement preaching intolerance" and they themselves have "placed itself outside the law" (cite: Moon's response to the NZ request to take down the Christchurch shooter's live stream).
So why should a tolerant society accept this intolerance?
As Popper points out: [this does] "not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies". But clearly KiwiFarms has gone beyond rational argument - they claim the right to harass people in the name of free speech.
If a person breaks other person right to live & takes away their life they by law of justice loose own right to living. If somebody steals my property he looses right to keep his property as it becomes means to balance the harm.
If a doctor gives a lethal diagnosis despite not being 100% sure of lethal outcome instead of informing of possibility in objective and balanced way unnecessarily inducing lethal stress in his patient and the patient dies soon after then I can expect him to pay back for his harmful action with equal lethal stress, as just compensation. If it causes death to child that had some chance of being born healthy but caused miscarriage it also can be assessed as consciously causing harm. Or if a doctor do not inform about drugs treating "a plague" that exist just are censored or can't be bought legally in this particular state also is intentionally doing harm. Such doctor should not stay doctor for one second longer.
Doing differently would be a double standard and suicidal acceptance to more injustice adding incentive to this unpunished injustice. And so being a sucker asking to be suckered more. That's the reason why suckers of Christendom got crushed by barbarians and western civilization shrunk by half. Until they regained self-survival instinct. This kind of retoric is used by hostile minorities to atomise hosting majority system & take advantage of it's instability (divide and conquer) Special privileges for these hostile minorities promoting them to top of society is the next step to disarm & highjack law, disturb sense of proportions in such state/nation what naturally seeds common distrust & hostility in majority or unites it in common sense of injustice in own country against the privileged.
When you have justice & clear minimal laws you have order without need for any artificial concepts to keep social relations stable & people behaving morally.
The only problem is when the ruling elite is not part of the ruled majority. Then any good law in theory becomes own caricature in practice.
But you can easily notice it when law becomes complex, volumous & you need a special caste of priests of the law to translate it to commoners...
And if you create a cultural division and you can't have one law fitting all then it's time to accept irriversible division & divorce into two or more stable units with clear moral identity & clean system or prepare for inevitable cultural rot & collapse or war.
BTW Are you believing in self-defence from "death" by wearing a facediaper & isolating healthy people with natural immunity without new popular genetic blood modification too? And do you see abortion as it is as a murder of a human being? Just curious. I often see many hypocrites with double standards in our civilization nowadays. More eager to save a murderer than give a child with 10% chance to get born healthy a chance or to sacrifice kids health & normal conditions of their early development for sake of old sick half-dead zombies..
