Final answer:
While freedom of speech is a foundational element of liberal democracies, it is not absolute, with restrictions on hate speech and other harmful communications. The concept of tolerance includes diverse ideas, yet boundaries exist where speech poses danger or violence. Countries strive to balance individual rights with societal protection.
Step-by-step explanation:
Freedom of speech in liberal democracies usually protects speech, even when it goes against liberal values; however, there are legal limitations on hate speech and other forms of harmful communication. The tension between freedom of speech and the protection against harmful speech has challenged liberal democracies. The concept of tolerance necessitates that a wide array of ideas, including those against liberal values, be allowed to circulate freely, adhering to the principles of pluralism and open discourse. Despite this, there are certain clear limits. Speech that incites violence, issues threats, or falls under the category of "fighting words" is not protected.
Historical examples like the United States during times of conflict, when restrictions were placed on speech deemed disloyal, show the complexity of applying these principles in practice. The paradox of tolerance acknowledges that unlimited freedom can lead to the suppression of freedom itself when intolerant views are permitted to flourish unchecked. Nations like Germany and the United States grapple with defining and regulating hate speech while striving to uphold free speech rights. U.S. law, for instance, permits broad free expression but disallows threats, intimidation, and incitements to immediate lawless action. This dynamic equilibrium is the bedrock of democratic societies, where individual rights are balanced against the overall safety and order of society.