Remember, it's only a no-no if the government does it.

If it's "we the people", it's totally fair and indicative of a very progressive and tolerant society. Or something.

> If it's "we the people", it's totally fair and indicative of a very progressive and tolerant society. Or something.

This is a very dishonest framing.

Oh, in socialistic countries it was also the collective of your comrades, it wasn't The Government either. Or so they said.

It's only okay when it happens to people I don't like, so whoever is considered a nazi or a communist this week (delete as appropriate). Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, paradox of tolerance etc., you know the drill.

The paradox of tolerance in and of itself is okay. We've seen already what happened if intolerance was tolerated, and way more than once.

However, the tightly guarded boundary between "tolerant" and "intolerant", as well as "context thereof" must be defined precisely and not be moved around according to one's mood, or depending on whether someone is losing an argument, or whether someone is in an outgroup or in an ingroup.

A good application of the paradox of tolerance requires integrity, which is a threatened species among human traits.

In fact the law does forbid certain forms of discrimination by "we the people." You cannot deny someone a job on the basis of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Redlining is illegal, discrimination in rentals is illegal (as the previous President discovered), etc.