The only reason this exists is because of far right extremists salty that their far right extremism isn't welcome in academic environments. But Americans are super weird about their worship of free speech to a degree that virtually no other first world nation shares. To the extent where Popper's tolerence paradox comes into play where every egregious perspective is thought to deserve a platform and respect. In actuality, giving extremist platforms deteriorates free speech in the long term, not strengthens it.
That isn't really an accurate depiction of the PoT as it is missing some important caveats.
The passage appears as a footnote to a discussion on Plato's
Republic, which also covers the paradoxes of democracy and freedom
:
“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to 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.—In this formulation,
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for
it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement”
Popper, Karl Sir. “The Open Society and Its Enemies”
Suppression of intolerance is given as a last resort, not as general good practice. Note he also adds 'as long as we can counter them with rational argument' and it seems to me a university campus is exactly the place to try this.
The passage in red is also relevant as this does seem like it could very easily be applied to those who routinely aim to deplatform anyone they dislike, often through the use of violence an intimidation.
Popper was advocating a theoretical last resort against genuine extremism that poses an existential threat to the open society. There is a "Social Justice Activist" subset among progressives that has basically deemed everyone outwith their ideology to be 'white supremacists', 'fascists' or whatever.
The PoT is dependent on reciprocity, you shouldn't be allowed to use your protected free speech to end free speech, or democratic means to end democracy, etc.
Once it starts being applied to 'anyone whose politics my group dislikes' it loses any value and simply becomes a tool for legitimising repression.
