You don't. But you also don't have to listen to them.That's freedom.
You're trying to say "people I agree with".
One could set up a dress code or any other arbitrary policy as a proxy to refuse entry to any group, without explicitly doing so.
I suspect you're not happy with that either, and that's my point.
Not in the US you can't. If a policy, even when applied equally, unduly affects a protected class, it's unconsitutional.
For example, if a restaurant enacts a "no headwear" policy it's still unconstitutional because by and large this is primarily going to affect the muslim population (and a segment of the jewish population), but will have very little effect on anyone else.
If the policy was instead "no headwear with words on it" the policy would NOT be unconstitutional because it does NOT unduly affect a specific group of people.
There are other exceptions, of course, generally around security. You can imagine a bank not allowing the full covering of ones face for security reasons even if that does appear to target people who wear burka's day to day.
---
so long story short is that it's not super simple, but in the US you absolutely cannot try and get around it by proxy and there is established law on how to identify this.
I don't care about the US, and I don't think the laws there should be an example for the rest of the world.
I don't know about you all, but personally I'm interested in participating in civil society most of the time. I don't want to have to get into a violent debate with swearing with fucking nazis, the same I don't want to breath toxic fumes or drive a car to work. I vote for bus stops, I vote for carbon taxes, and I similarly want to leverage our societal mechanisms to not have to act as an individual agent in the ideological war against fascism every single day.
I've learned that obnoxious nazis have an advantage by violating the peace treaty terms of civil society and tolerance, because by definition they don't hold themselves by such rules. Meanwhile those of us that are just trying to live our lives still have these rules and values and are hesitant to abandon them to deal with the nazi for many reasons, not the least of which being we don't want to sink to their level. Not to mention, it's exhausting. For whatever reason the nazis get their rocks off to it, and thus it's less exhausting and more exhilarating. Fine. But the whole point of society is to rubber-band away things like that to create a community of people who at some basic level maintain a level of civility.
When nazis show up, they violate the civility, they violate the peace treaty, and the solution shouldn't be "let them keep walking in and doing it and re-doing the fuck-off debate every time," but rather, close and lock the doors to them, because they've already told us who they are and what they're about.
An oversimplified example: your carpet shop has a rule: no shoes on in the shop. You come in with shoes, you get thrown out. A guy shows up with a shirt on that says "My value is to track as much mud on as many carpets as I can in my life." Do you let him in the door?
Is he wearing shoes?
The problem isn't that there's a line at which it becomes ok to remove yourself from, or them, forcibly.
The problem is that line has to be very very extreme, which is why you're using the Nazi example, but it's being applied to very non-extreme things, which is why so many people disagree with you.
> The problem is that line has to be very very extreme, which is why you're using the Nazi example, but it's being applied to very non-extreme things,
It's being applied to the intolerant, as intended. There are intolerable philosophies being openly discussed on mass media (tucker Carlson restating great replacement theory, matt walsh calling for police to kick down the doors of drag performers). Openly white nationalist and fascist people are showing up in towns to harass and intimidate people. In this environment, when the system is failing to not tolerate these intolerant beliefs, or in the case of white nationalism especially, actively enforcing the intolerant "right" to promote their viewpoint, the peace treaty of tolerance has been broken, and those of us you'd describe of "tolerant" stop applying the rules of civil society to the people breaking them in front of all of our faces.
And at WORST the outcomes for these intolerants is they have to change venues for a university talk, or, get a Twitter ban, for which capitalist society handsomely rewards them with talk show appearances and podcast shows.
It has a name and using that name allows for more succinct communication. It's also a way for those who are unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance to realize it's a thing so they can look further into it if they so choose.
---
For the rest, it's just a lot of rationalization for why you think you should be able to prevent people from saying things. And you try to hang it on the paradox of tolerance as a justification.
But it's not really, the lesson from the paradox of tolerance isn't that the tolerant must become absolutely intolerant to protect themselves, it's that they cannot be absolutely tolerant.
The line where intolerance needs to kick in for protection shouldn't be "someone said a thing", but should instead be "someone did a thing". Those like yourself who try to use the paradox of tolerance to rationalize your views are treating tolerance/intolerance as a binary rather than a spectrum.
And finally,
I'm a minority myself and have been called racial epithets. I remember the KKK coming into a nearby town and holding a rally back in the 90's. People were pissed off, but even then I defended their right to have the rally. My recommendation to everyone was just don't go. Imagine if they held a KKK rally and no one showed up, how hilarious would that be?
I would be no more ok with minorities attacking KKK members than I would be with KKK members attacking minorities. There's an equilibrium and fairness there that doesn't exist with words. If it's not ok for KKK members to tell a black person they're inferior, is it not ok for a black person to tell a KKK member they're inferior?
This obviously won't convince you as you're not thinking rationally, but that doesn't make the above any less true.
That’s getting darned close to precognitive law enforcement…
The problem with deciding that ‘nazis’ don’t deserve free speech is that you won’t always get to decide who is a ‘nazi’ or what ‘nazi’ speech looks like.
Note that the parties that are arguing hardest for free speech are exactly the ones that are the subject of discussion. You might wonder if they have a stake in the outcome of that debate. Personally, I'm not at all concerned that 'the state' will meaningfully abridge my speech (in part because there is no history of them doing that without a very good reason and in part because NL never had absolute free speech to begin with though we do have the concept of 'freedom of opinion'). But I am concerned with the speed with which wannabe Nazi groups and actual Nazi groups are able to convert people en masse to their cause, including voting them into public office where they are already doing damage. If you haven't noticed that then you're forgiven but realize that in many countries this is not just a theoretical debate but harsh reality.
Stalin-ism should not be a case study so you can do it right the next time, it should be a warning that you can't, even with the best of intentions.
I hope we can take some lesson from Neville Chamberlain; that some ideologies are not worth arguing or negotiating over.
And British, Canadian and many other countries besides.
you mean like dumping tea into the ocean to protest taxes and standing up a militia to rebel in order to establish a new government?
we definitely wouldn't want that to happen!
A 10 second detour through Wikipedia to have a look at what Nazism is would have saved you typing that out.