We can't curtail maniacs because they do not post their intentions before acting in harmful ways.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and license to act inappropriately. Our society has few limits on speech other than inciting to riot or or inciting to murder which are exceptions to freedom of speech and acting against the interests of another can get you arrested.

Also, speech in public places is often by permit only - not because there is a law against speaking out but there is a law against congregating in some venues without a permit.

The murder of the Dutch correspondent was no more preventable that the gunning down of the 14 year old in the street in the inner city. All you can do is react. You can't prevent what you can't know about in advance.

There have always been uncivilized individuals within our ranks and they usually don't get caught until it is too late.

If the extremist Muslims want to call us devils, that is their right but when one comes after me with a scimitar, i will take umbragew to his actions and defend myself however I am able and will be in the right when I do.

Bravo Milt, very well put.

OK, my mistake in framing this as a free speech question. What I wanted to get at is the folly of welcoming intolerant groups into a tolerant society. This is more of a European problem (by the way it was two Dutch nationals killed by Muslim extremists in the Netherlands -- a politician and a film-maker) where a welfare state mentality -- as in northwestern Europe -- offers benefits with the intention of assimilating immigrants to those who will take advantage of those benefits without assimilating, who will in fact take further advantage by plotting murder against those who speak out against their beliefs. This is going to continue to be a problem. It is akin to allowing a faction to recruit and plot ethnic cleansing. Why tolerate intolerant people and groups?

Ahh, "the folly of welcoming intolerant groups into a tolerant society"...???

What about the folly of thinking of an intolerant society (that wants to assimilate all other cultures, religions, values, etc. into one big eurocentric existance) as "tolerant"?

Really.

A "tolerant society" would not enslave people, put people on reservations, cause the extinction of native people's culture, segregate people - even when supreme law of the society dictates "equal protection of the laws", discriminate on the basis of sex, race, AND ideology - in the society's "JUSTICE" department....

Come on.

Answer "tough questions" with tough truth - not avoidance of reality. it's easy to see one's self as "tolerant" - when one rejects self scrutiny as well as honest scrutiny of the society in which they live.

"Why tolerate intolerant people and groups?"

so that we can tolerate ourselves?

yes, intolerance should be tolerated - in private life - NOT in public life or official government activity.

European culture may survive if all european people - including european-americans - were to bare children with africans, asians, indigenous people i.e., only. But there would be no "whites" per se... So, the reason for 'discriminating' in choosing a mate - to carry on culture and color of a "white" family is clear (but not invisible as some "whites" would like to believe). And there are freedom of association rights and other rights in the Constitution for the United States of America (e.g., Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ) that allow for discrimination in private life - which advantages "white" as well as other people who have cultures and values different from "white"...

But the Amendment XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. (Note: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution was modifi ed by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.) - SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... really limits American government officials from discriminating.

unfortunately however, european-americans have a love-hate relationship with many parts of the said Constitution - loving the projection of rights comming from the document, but hating to enforce them - for fear of 'non-whites' gaining equal influence within American Government...

Conservatives have even decided to act to subversively towards the rights of Liberals (e.g., excluding them at the Justice Department, censoring them in political campaigns, censoring them in discussion forums...) - just to maintain intolerance while feigning "freedom" for all...

Should intolerance be tolerated?

it depends on the circumstances.

yes - the Klan, islamic extreemist, and judeo-christian extreemist must be tolerated as minorities outside of government - so long as they merely want to preserve thier culture in peaceful ways - except when they plan or support violence or attacks on people not like them.

No - the Klan, islamic extreemist, and judeo-christian extreemist must NOT be tolerated in government - in Congress, in the Justice Department, on the Supreme Court, in State government, in police departments, in public policy groups with government backed tax breaks...

It is already against the law to be racist and sexist and otherwise discriminatory in public life.

This is a great question. It is horribly frustrating to have to put up with intolerant people (e.g. Islamic extremists and terrorists) who use our liberties and freedom to carry out their despicable acts. I would go farther than Stephendavid and say that these extremists should be excluded from teaching in schools and universities. That is a controversial statement, but I think we as a society have an obligation to maintain some degree of honesty and accuracy in our educational systems. Espousing hatred and lies to our children and youth exceeds the bounds of freedom of speech.

I get the impression that we're asking if the non-white population (non European) is asking if they should tolerate the intolerance of white people (European-Americans), assuming that is where most, if not all, of the intolerance is coming from. Am I reading this incorrectly?