Doesn’t change anything. From one perspective no crime was committed because nobody was being intolerant, but from another perspective someone was.
You can apply it to many statements, like “There should be no state in the Middle East for Jews”
That could be intolerant or maybe not.
There’s a huge difference. When there’s a body it’s obvious someone died. When someone gets offended, no crime was committed. But almost the same thing that is only offensive to people could cross the line into harassment.
A society can choose to say that certain types of speech are intolerable, but do we get better results by jailing those people? Or do we make it more acceptable over time to jail people who are simply protesting against the government? Do we then apply violence to the protesters who don’t agree to be peacefully arrested?
This isn’t a theoretical consideration. See Tiananmen square, arrests of protesters in Russia, Iran, etc. The propaganda mouthpieces of these countries love to point out when similar things happen in the West
How do you objectively decide that? Because Palestinian protestors would violate this:
To you, speaking out against Israel is fine, but to some people it might be antisemitic. Whether or not it is against the rights of someone is actually personal opinion, not for the government to decide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
Not just death threats, but jokes too
There are still people who think the government should be in the business of fining and jailing people for things they say
Right wing assholes don’t want free speech, but I do.
That includes extremist views, since the government should not in any way be in business of determining what those are
There were candidates for every political orientation
I remember killed yesterday when leftists made fun of “freeze preach”
Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
How is it a clear criteria? You haven’t defined what you mean by intolerance