>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however.

That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective.

Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away.

Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

"Is the Second Amendment the Second Most Important?" - "The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

In what way does this respond to my comment? I asserted that America's amendment does not exist in other legislations and that democracy has been far older than america. None of which are relevant in your comment.

The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

Being intolerant of ideas makes you intolerant even if you classify those ideas as good or bad.

Being intolerant isn't always a bad thing either.

Everything is not black or white. Move the pieces around and the minority become the majority in different contexts.

I don't have time to socratically convince you of it, so i'll just spell it out: you can't tolerate intolerance of groups, persons or behaviors (that don't infringe on other people's liberty) in a _democracy_ because it will undermine the legitimacy and thus participation of said group or person within the democracy itself.

I realize that "intolerance of intolerance" is paradoxical in nature, but common sense and a little charity in interpretation goes a long way.

And who defines who is intolerant in this democracy of yours.

Consensus, or consensus of representatives.

Intolerants can't have consensus?

They have before. The results have been noted. Germany was one place where intolerant groups rose to prominence through eventual consensus.

It just happens that on these little internet message boards, the consensus shifts in another favour, and the same seems to be [mainly] true in North American societies, amongst others.

If there is no principle behind the desire to oppress, it is just an application of violence.

You won't get consensus out of me for that.