Intolerance: Where do we draw the line?

There has been a lot to write about since Donald Trump became President again. More and more, certain aspects of fascism seem to rise and it is unclear where we should draw the line as a democratic instituion of what is allowed. Even in other countries, such as Belgium where I live, much fascist rethoric is being normalized. Here, controversy surrounds a demonstration by the far-right student organization. Among other things, they reportedly waved posters that read, “Foreign Rapists Out!” Yet again, this brings the debate on freedom of speech and its limits to the forefront. It seems that we could ask the question of what kind of speech is tolerable and if some speech should be limited in some way or form. I want to present three key arguments within this discussion.

An Absolute Right?

The far right demonstrations bring to mind the infamous 1977 march in Skokie, a suburb in Illinois, USA. The march, organized by a Neo-Nazi group, was deliberately planned in Skokie because of its large population of Jewish Holocaust survivors. The residents took the matter to court, and the march was ultimately banned. The judge ruled that it could incite violence against the Jewish community. Still, the organizers insisted they were exercising their right to free speech.

Free speech is often seen as an absolute right, especially in line with the American perspective. People should be able to say anything, as long as no physical harm is done. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me. But what if words do incite violence? Can we still pretend words cause no harm?

The Holy Grail of liberalism and its limits has always been the “Harm Principle,” articulated by John Stuart Mill, a founding figure of classical liberalism. In On Liberty, Mill offers a passionate defense of free speech. His essay is still considered a foundational text in this debate. Yet even Mill draws a line: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” In other words: your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. You do not have the right to cause harm. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is rightly forbidden.

Some argue that freedom of speech is a special kind of right, one that should trump all others, such as equality, fraternity, or safety. But that idea doesn’t sit well. Why would freedom of speech be more important than those other principles? These rights were designed to complement and reinforce one another. One cannot exist without the other. For example, without formal equality, there can be no true freedom of speech. It is therefore unclear why freedom of speech should be an absolute right that isn’t limited by the other rights.

The Tolerance Paradox

A second argument is construed through the tolerance paradox. The “tolerance paradox” was introduced by philosopher Karl Popper. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, he writes: “If we are unlimitedly tolerant, even of 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.” The concept is simple: if we give intolerance free rein, it will eventually dominate. The same question arises with democracy—what if people use democratic means to abolish democracy?

Liberal thinkers have long wrestled with this. One approach is to accept the paradox and assume that intolerant ideas will never gain a majority. And if they do? Well, then it’s the citizens’ fault—they’ll just have to live with the consequences. Another approach is to actively oppose intolerance, though critics might claim this makes society itself intolerant. They might argue the state is no longer value-neutral.

But let’s not kid ourselves: no society is ever truly value-neutral. A liberal democracy must defend its own foundations if it is to survive. The tolerance paradox shows that sometimes, it’s necessary to be intolerant of intolerance, so that society as a whole can remain tolerant. This prevents a “tyranny of the majority.” If, for example, 80% of the population voted to criminalize homosexuality, it would be profoundly undemocratic to honor that vote. Fundamental democratic values must not be undermined.

The paradox also highlights another danger: society may gradually become desensitized to intolerant discourse. Certain messages get “normalized,” and criticism of them is seen as undemocratic—even though those messages themselves are undemocratic. This creates the illusion that far-right groups are the true defenders of free speech. But only, of course, if you’re not an immigrant, not part of the LGBTQIA+ community, or not opposed to their ideology. Let’s not pretend they’re champions of freedom. The actions of far-right governments around the world already prove otherwise. We must be intolerant of intolerance.

The Slippery Slope

Lastly, shouldn’t we be cautious here? Won’t restrictions on speech lead us straight into an Orwellian dystopia, like 1984 or Brave New World, where a small elite dictates what we’re allowed to say or think? The “slippery slope” argument is a common and understandable concern. History certainly provides examples where freedom of speech was crushed—with disastrous consequences.

But consider two key points:

First, totalitarian regimes rarely begin by limiting free speech. More often, the opposite is true: authoritarian parties rise to power by abusing free speech to spread anti-democratic values. They use free speech to legitimize themselves, and once in power, they quickly suppress dissent. Take the United States. Conservative voices have long flown the flag of free speech. But barely three months into power, they’ve banned words in classrooms, erased identities, and silenced criticism. So no, setting limits on speech does not automatically lead to tyranny.

Second, healthy democracies have always placed limits on free speech. The slippery slope argument ignores that we can draw boundaries rationally. In many countries, Holocaust denial is illegal—not to silence opinion, but because it’s both factually false and deeply hurtful to victims and their descendants. Such bans protect the very values liberal democracies stand for: not just freedom, but also dignity and equality. It’s within liberal democracy that we can rationally define boundaries. So the core issue isn’t whether there should be limits, but where those limits lie. And that’s a discussion we’re perfectly capable of having—we’ve done it many times before. The slope may not be as slippery as it seems.

The Formal Rules of Debate

The debate around free speech often revolves around whether limits should be imposed. But maybe that’s not the central issue. We already do draw rational boundaries. The deeper issue may be our growing distrust in the institutions that are supposed to make those reasoned judgments.

Migration is a political topic worth debating. The real question is whether the NSV! demonstrators’ statements contribute to that debate—or merely stoke hatred against specific groups. What do slogans like “Foreign Rapists Out” actually add to the conversation? They aren’t calls for reflection or nuance. They spark anger and fear toward a group of people.

The point is not whether migration can be discussed. Of course it can, and should. The question is: how do we conduct that discussion? A meaningful debate follows formal rules. We don’t attack others personally. We show respect. But those formal rules are fading. The loudest, most radical voices dominate the conversation, while nuance disappears. Slogans like “Foreign Rapists Out” don’t contribute to the debate—they poison it.

If we want meaningful dialogue, we need to rethink how we talk to one another. Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to respect others. And if there’s one thing we can learn from the American example, it’s what happens when we stop thinking about that balance.