To what lengths should we use our right to free speech such that, in doing so, it would not impede the rights of others? In a world of differing points of view, we often find ourselves engaging in discourse about our values and the application of these in society.
Some conflict can be beneficial as it could lead to a synthesis of points between two opposing parties that would make everyone better off. That is what we call the process of negotiation and compromise.
But when two sides cannot agree and when one uses force to impose their convictions, then we must ask ourselves whether we should still tolerate their actions. This was the same conundrum that Austrian philosopher Karl Popper highlighted in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies".
(Image credit: Wikimedia Commons)
His thesis was that in order to preserve democratic freedoms, it may be necessary to use force to quell intolerance. It's an interesting paradox. Even though people have the right to free speech, using that right to impede on others' rights and well-being will undermine its very foundation.
Conflict is necessary to continue looking for ways to improve the quality of life for society as a whole. But when conflict becomes violent and intolerance resorts to force in order to have what it wants, then the only way to preserve the democratic society is not to tolerate intolerance which might necessitate force.
On a different note, we also need to consider that democracy is an ideal and it has the possibility of taking on different meanings for different people and societies. But that, for now, is beside the point.