[SpaciousBox]

Good topic of discussion, though possibly drifting a little off course.

Surely, as Liberals, we support tolerance in the same way we support the law? or the rights of individuals and communities? We will allow pretty much anything, as long as it does not directly or (more problematically for arguing) indirectly, adversely effect others. Naturally, this could be interpreted to either right or left wings of the political spectrum - but that is where we get the liberal spectrum from, we don't all agree, just like any other ideology. Some may argue that much of what individuals do can adversely effect others - often making them lefter. Whilst many argue that individual liberty is more important - right wing. Personally, I think we are best suited to the centre ground, where we're balancing both groups out equally - but isn't that what being a Liberal is all about anyway?

It seems very clear to me that law is broken to enforce law, and thus tolerance must be broken to enforce tolerance. Naturally, most of us would never use the word "enforce", but that is exactly what we're doing when we face people with intolerant and often hostile values. Defending the weak requires the strong to be strong, I don't shy away from that what so ever. So in direct answer to the original question; we don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. Our value as liberals is tolerance, if that value comes under threat why shouldn't we defend it? Generally speaking I will always attempt to apply the harm principle, using my liberal values to only "crack down" when it is necessary (another value most other ideologies do not share).

So where does that leave us for a Liberal society?

It's much better to combat speech we disagree with and bigotry WITH speech and leading by example than with force, because if we use force, it sends a negative message about our beliefs and is basically shooting ourselves in the foot

This. We want a society of "higher" values, and fairness to all. However, nothing in those beliefs prevents us from acting if the occasion requires it, especially when that society is under threat. We're no where near it - the modern world is still far too hypocritical and immoral - but our present western society is at least on the right tracks. I would imagine it is our job to speed this along.

On a side note; Libertarians are not liberals, don't confuse this. They may have been liberals historically, but truth be told we are still a recently developing perspective. Hence why we will very often have different opinions and methods. It certainly hasn't helped our cause that many former liberals came from the "hippy" age, giving us a more "fluffy" out look. However, that age was a strong reaction to the times, and liberalism is indeed reactive. I have no doubt we would be more/less liberal depending on what we were against - but then again, this is the case for many political groups.

[Rainbow Crow]

I believe the answer to complex questions like this lies in a strong "bill of rights" and a healthy separation of powers. If a bill of rights is properly formulated, giving extremely illiberal views their 15 minutes of fame brings little harm, because it becomes very difficult for extremists to implement their policies in a way that can survive legal challenge.

For example, Alabama's recent immigration law is being chopped into tiny pieces by the courts. The recent NDAA, not so much, but hopefully terrorism will be diminished as a threat and then more people will come to their senses in that area.

[EastCoastAmerican]

"Abortion is murder."
"People of religion X are all..."
"People of [ethnicity speaker doesn't like] are all..."
"Homosexuality is immoral."

As liberals, we should of course not attempt to suppress or censor this speech, or people who genuinely believe in all other kinds of nonsense (creationism, climate change denialists, etc). However, what is the argument for allowing these views political clout? Does liberalism require that even the most illiberal of movements be given a voice in the political process?

Freedom of speech and democracy. The American people are well within their rights to elect short-sighted and bigoted politicians if they like what he says, deplorable as it is. The openness of hate speech, bigoted ignorance, and intentional falsehoods in the US may shock many outside our nation, but such attitudes and beliefs will not go away if we forcefully silence them. If anything, it will add fuel to the fire.

If anything, this can be a good thing at times: without freedom of speech, hate groups would go underground and paint themselves as tolerant and loving. Any unfortunate souls who join their organization may be in too deep or too afraid to easily leave the group.

[SpaciousBox]

Well said EastCoastAmerican. Our own British Fascists - The British National Party - had a sudden surge in publicity when they were invited to talk on our main political discussion programme Question Time. Bringing them out into the open, showed them up as the uneducated bigots they were, and allowed opposing politicians from all sides to show the public exactly how. Personally, I think the show became a little too much BNP focused for that episode, which no doubt gave them more media attention than had been intended, but it's far more effective to defeat an extremist group through logic and academia than it is to forcefully crush them.

As much as we respect their right to exist, I don't belive however this means we should not combat them. When it comes to your example of southern America, I often find myself torn between the freedom of their democracy, and the rights of those minority groups they seek to harm. Where exactly would you draw the line between protecting gay rights, and that of hate groups? I struggle most with this particular one.

[EastCoastAmerican]

I realize that my previous post was rather American-centric.

I do not know much about British liberals, other than people telling me that they're most like American Libertarians (people who want less government intervention in everything).

In regards to gay rights, I believe that homosexual couples should have the freedom to receive all the privileges and benefits of heterosexual married couples. Since marriage in the US doesn't require the approval of a church, churches can be free to marry whomever they like. If a church won't approve a gay couple's marriage, the couple can still get a license from the state.

In regards to drawing the line between gay rights and anti-gay hate groups, I believe that reporting the facts about human sexuality is already doing plenty of damage. I think that hate crime legislation should be expanded to include attacks on other people based upon sexual orientation. This legislation has already passed in several US states. Harassment of LGBT students in schools should be viewed as bullying. Having your peers spew bile-filled rhetoric at you does have a visible and disastrous effect on childrens' and adolescents' health: it is not a crime against free speech or religious expression, despite what evangelical Christians say.

It's different in a public forum. An anti-gay group can spew all the vile rhetoric and misinformation they want, be it on the Internet or television or a magazine (barring some exceptions like the incitement to riot). There was a big controversy about this with the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting at the funerals of US soldiers. The Church stood on public property and outside the limits and complied with the laws, but many Americans wanted to take away their rights to free speech due to their disgusting views. But if we did take away their rights, it could create a slippery slope. If we make an exception this one time, what consequences will it have on other forms of offensive speech? What if we continue to make exception after exception until entire topics and viewpoints are banned?

Freedom of speech is different in schools in the US. Here's a good overview of it. Keep in mind that public schools, which receive taxpayer money, are beholden to different rules than private schools. Private schools, especially those of the evangelical Christian variety, are free to allow and encourage anti-LGBT prejudice. Many of them don't allow LGBT people to attend, and they're within their rights to do so.

But there's a shifting public sentiment away from anti-LGBT groups. More and more Americans, especially those of the younger generation, are viewing the "all gays are evil!" propaganda as ridiculous garbage. Twenty to thirty years from now, the Republicans are going to drop this platform as their older constituents die off and are replaced with younger Americans.

[EastCoastAmerican]

In regards to drawing the line between gay rights and anti-gay hate groups, I believe that reporting the facts about human sexuality is already doing plenty of damage.

I meant to clarify the previous post, but I can't edit it. I meant to say "reporting the facts about human sexuality is already doing plenty of damage to the credibility of anti-LGBT groups."