"as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you.

funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target

What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ?

> funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.

Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...

I did not argue that free speech is absolute. Merely that we should be free to try to convince each other of our premise. Even if you really, really, really don't like the other guy. Especially then.

I caution you to so casually frame RT as an example of the paradox of tolerance. The byline makes it clear that this paradox was created and applied to situations where the tolerated eventually seized authoritarian power to silence the tolerant. RT, and as you rightly describe, Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power. It's just Russia spouting Russian propaganda. Either you trust your citizens to freely exchange ideas - even those you really, really really, don't like - or you don't. I'm getting the feeling that you don't.

> Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power.

Funny that you say that knowing the role of Russian propaganda during your elections but ok