In the debate on free speech and political extremists attention has been given to the pro’s and con’s of criminalizing particular types of speech and statements. We argue this is misleading. First, it suggests that criminalization of statements or symbols is the core of what a liberal democratic society should do to protect values it deems essential, and second, it suggests that there are “hatemongers” (Waldron 2012) or “racists” (Bleich) who are trying to spread their “vitriolic” messages. Instead reactions should be seen in terms of engaging with political movements with particular messages (among which anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant ideas, and degrading statements about groups in society) and doing so in a particular style. Engaging with “extremists” demands awareness of both the normative demands of engaging in a democratic debate and about strategic aspects (how to challenge the ideas or frames of the opponent (cf. Lakoff 2004). In this paper we analyse proposals in the normative literature about certain “rules of the game” when engaging with extremists. We then argue that whether, why and how these rules can be upheld depends very much on the institutional arena in which public debates unfold. We illustrate how this model can be applied by comparing responses in France to Jean Marie Le Pen in the 1990s and to Marine Le Pen, and responses in the Netherlands to Hans Janmaat in the late 1980s and to Geert Wilders.
