Here’s a question I’ve been pondering for a while - the relationship between extremist political views (racists sprang immediately to mind, white supremacists, ultranationalists, neo-Nazis and the like but also extreme religious groups) who always cling to freedom of speech as a shield when told to shut up and piss off. Which is fair enough since that’s pretty much what it’s for - giving idiots enough rope to hang themselves with. Popular views don’t need protecting; it’s the unpopular ones that do.
Here’s the paradox - you know, I know, the world and his dog knows that if any of these extremist groups actually got into power and had dominion over a nation freedom of speech would be among the first things quashed. Just imagine Fred Phelps as President or the British National Party having a majority in Parliament.
I’ve yet to hear any defence of this obvious hypocrisy - what do they say in answer to it?