The paradox of tolerance admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress models prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad buffer zone that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?a)Islandias government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandias government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Verbal Exam > Verbal Questions > The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admoni...

Join the Discussion on the App

While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.

According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.

Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative.

From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed.

Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following

Q. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖

a)
Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system.
b)
Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups.
c)
Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed.
d)
Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups
e)
Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable government

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Reading Comprehension- 4

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of...

Mapping the Passage
¶1 introduces the ―"paradox of intolerance."
¶2 gives examples of countries that have taken the paradox into consideration by banning extreme speech, and argues that the United States tolerates even extremist speech.
¶3 introduces a justification for the defense of extremist speech: the classical model.
¶s4 and 5 introduce another justification: the fortress model.

Take a moment to review the paradox and its implications before attacking the choices. The paradox essentially states that free speech should be limited at its extremes when the extremes could contribute to eliminating free speech. Looking for an answer choice that weakens the implications of the paradox turns up (D): The paradox states that extreme speech weakens stable government, a point weakened by a scenario in which extreme speech and stable government coexist.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of...

Explanation:

Scenario:
- Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups

Explanation:
- This scenario weakens the argument of the paradox of tolerance because it demonstrates that a stable democratic government can exist without outlawing extremist political groups.
- It indicates that tolerance of extremist groups does not necessarily lead to intolerance or the downfall of democracy.
- The scenario suggests that other factors, such as a strong democratic system, effective governance, and societal cohesion, may play a more significant role in maintaining a stable democracy.

Analysis:
- This scenario challenges the notion that tolerance of the intolerant always leads to intolerance.
- It implies that there are alternative ways to uphold democratic principles and stability without necessarily resorting to outlawing extremist groups.
- It highlights the complexity of the relationship between tolerance, intolerance, and the functioning of a democratic society.

Conclusion:
- In this scenario, the existence of a stable democratic government in Islandia despite the presence of extremist political groups weakens the argument that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably leads to intolerance.

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

The paradox of tolerance admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress models prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad buffer zone that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. All of the following actions have been put forth by one or another group in this country as being of value in our society. Which actions would violate a principle of the classical model of free speech?

View answer

The paradox of tolerance admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress models prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad buffer zone that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ.The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a view held by those who believe in the fortress model of free speech EXCEPT

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following findings would serve to most WEAKEN the authors claim in the passage about obedience to authority?

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT false?

View answer

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ.The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?

View answer

The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2024 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The ―paradox of tolerance‖ admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions and laws of Western European democracies that adhere to the principle of freedom of speech all heed the warning of this conundrum and do not afford legal protection to extremist speech. While in Western European democracies, the speech of nondemocratic extremists has been successfully outlawed, in the United States the first amendment right to freedom of speech has been interpreted to encompass radical oration. The traditional justifications of this American stance originate in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity. They are based on the belief that speech itself is valuable, and thus ascribe positive value to a very broad range of speech.According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in the process of democratic self-government. From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech, comprised of all the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Proponents of this view insist that even extremist views cannot be concealed from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue before them.Protection of free speech serves the collective self-interests of a selfgoverning society made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens who take their civic duties seriously. The fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. At its deepest level, the fortress model values freedom of speech as a necessary precondition to the discovery and preservation of truth, but even at this level the function of speech remains primarily negative. From this perspective, the government and a majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In spite of the high probability that their beliefs will eventually prove to be false, it is argued, people nonetheless tend to feel certain about them and, consequently, feel justified in requiring others to conform. Thus, the fortress model‘s prescription for combating the tendency to censor nonconforming views is to overprotect speech by providing a broad ―buffer zone‖ that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the followingQ. Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most weaken the argument contained in the paradox of tolerance which ―admonishes us that tolerance of the intolerant leads to intolerance?‖a)Islandia‘s government has decided to outlaw extremist political groups in order to protect its democratic political system. b)Islandia has a non-democratic government, despite its suppression of extremist political groups. c)Islandia‘s government became democratic only after extremist political groups were outlawed. d)Islandia has had a stable democratic government for decades, even though it has never outlawed extremist political groups e)Islandia has tried and failed repeatedly to have a stable governmentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.

Explore Courses for Verbal exam