Okay . . .?

But she doesn't have a right to free speech in a capitalist society or most societies other than the one TS is hoping one day will arrive. If she tells the boss to go fuck himself, he can fire her. That seems a lot like censorship. In a capitalist society those with power can censor and that's where we are now.

Yes of course, censorship exists. If the boss believed in free speech, on the other hand, she might not be fired.

A stimulus led to my not sleeping. This should also be considered in the context of the post before the one about loss of sleep, where I asked why verbal expression is to be protected at all costs various kinds of artistic, in this case musical protection need not be. People can soundproof their houses and all that.

Yes of course, censorship exists. If the boss believed in free speech, on the other hand, she might not be fired. — NOS4A2

Sure, but it seems like when free speech comes up and the strong advocates advocate for it they think in terms of legislation. Let's not have any legislation limiting free speech. I rarely hear much attack on the private sector for its inhibition of free speech - of course this is a vast thread and there are many threads out there and I may miss them, but it seems like the private limitation is not really noticed. And it is endemic.

Sure, but it seems like when free speech comes up and the strong advocates advocate for it they think in terms of legislation. Let's not have any legislation limiting free speech. I rarely hear much attack on the private sector for its inhibition of free speech - of course this is a vast thread and there are many threads out there and I may miss them, but it seems like the private limitation is not really noticed. And it is endemic.

Absolutely agree. The idea that free speech only applies to governments is a massive misunderstanding.

The problem is the conflicting interests such as private property. For instance I defend Facebook’s right to ban anyone they want—it’s their property, their business and so on. That doesn’t mean that they should censor people.

A stimulus led to my not sleeping. This should also be considered in the context of the post before the one about loss of sleep, where I asked why verbal expression is to be protected at all costs various kinds of artistic, in this case musical protection need not be. People can soundproof their houses and all that. — Coben

You worrying is not some outside, persistent physical stimulus, is it?

So they get to censor people. But we know you judge them for it.
So we have a society where some people get to censor but not others.

Nope. go on. It's the way my organism reacts to single stimulus of a certain kind.

Should I change my personality to suit my neighbor`?

Why can't the person who is sensitive to noise change his attitude or buy some soundproofing. I need to change, why can't he`?

Some people can sleep through loud music. Some people need it to sleep.

So would you make legislation based on any arbitrary thing bothering some individual?

Your free speech is essentially my duty not to censor you, and defend you when you’re censored. But yes, I don’t think individuals often see take that position. If everyone did, we’d finally have free speech.

Let's not shift to what my solution might be, let's stay here and see why some stimuli are protected and others not, that is your position. Perhaps my solution would be a poor one but that wouldn't mean yours doesn't have problems.

Right now censorship is protected by legislation. Despite some whisteblowing laws that often don't protect people, companies can punish people for speaking freely. Their power to do that is protect implicitly in ideas about private property.

Let's not shift to what my solution might be, let's stay here and see why some stimuli are protected and others not, that is your position. Perhaps my solution would be a poor one but that wouldn't mean yours doesn't have problems. — Coben

I obviously wouldn't make legislation based on any arbitrary thing bothering any arbitrary individual. That's what you seem to be arguing for.

I already explained the situation I'd legislate. Persistent sensory stimuli either of a certain intensity and/or at certain times of day. The examples you're bringing up have nothing to do with that.

It's fine if you'd do something different, but that doesn't make your examples have anything to do with what I already outlined.

I fear we cannot legislate free speech. The best we can do is argue in its favor and, over time, hope that others adopt it as an important principle.

One thing that makes me optimistic is that the free speech advocates throughout history were honorable and good, while the censors have all been relegated to the proverbial dustbin. Free speech is always on the right side of history.

I obviously wouldn't make legislation based on any arbitrary thing bothering any arbitrary individual. That's what you seem to be arguing for. — Terrapin Station

No, I am arguing that threats of violence are such an effective stimuli that they need only be delivered once to have endocrine reactions in large numbers of humans since they are social mammals with active limbic systems. Not all, but many. I gave a specific example, but there would be a category of threats.

In your system verbal expression must be protected in all cases.
Other types of expression can be shut down.

I am not sure why.

Further me slapping a man who says he is going to rape my child would seem to also be considered an expression that can be legally punished and stopped. (see in the other thread where I suggest that physical violence can be fine in relation to some speech acts)

It's a one shot stimulus. Not an ongoing one. The other man might even get a good night's sleep, since the slap, unlike the threat, does not entail concerns that most humans will ruminate over since it is about the future, whereas the slap is over and did not turn into a beating. More would likely have come then and not the next day.

I'd prefer a slap in the face to many consversations, some even polite and without threats. Boredom can be more painful for me, since I have a large neocortex like some other social mammals. I am not sure why physical violence is súch a no no, if I interpreted your posts int he other thread correctly it seemed like it had to be off limits.

Must I change to fit into your society but not the light sleepers who won't buy ear plugs?

I see free speech going down as corporations consolidate power. This doesn't seem to concern free speech advocates nearly as much as any potential hate speech laws. We are all so used to this censorship and most of us have taken steps to automatize self-consorship in relation to people with control over our money. And heck we were trained to do this via schooling. and often parenting. Very few schools respect free speech and even respectful free speech and very few parents do either.

That echoes Orwell’s concerns:

This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/

Surprisingly, many governments have committed to free speech, whereas the vast majority of the public have yet to do so. Education will be key, but if the rampant campus censorship is any indication, that proves to be a difficult task.

No, I am arguing that threats of violence are such an effective stimuli that they need only be delivered once to have endocrine reactions in large numbers of humans since they are social mammals with active limbic systems . . . — Coben

But what does that have to do with the fact that I'd legislate persistent sensory stimuli of a certain intensity etc.?

Are you just telling me what you'd do in counterdistinction?

In your system verbal expression must be protected in all cases.
Other types of expression can be shut down.

I am not sure why.

It doesn't have anything to do with expression. It has to do with sensory stimuli. As I noted, this would work for speech too--if someone is speaking persistently through a sufficiently loud PA system, for example. It's not anything about the speech per se, certainly nothing about the semantic content of anything. It's purely about the sensory stimuli.

But what does that have to do with the fact that I'd legislate persistent sensory stimuli of a certain intensity etc.? — Terrapin Station

Sensory and verbal stimuli and physical contact stimuli have different effects on different people. The receivers personalities and measures taken affect what they experience. I wouldn't protect one category of stimuli and not others. Or better put, I would include verbal stimuli. I prefer to have a society where intentionally created unpleasant experience can be responded to with moderate violence. You cause unpleasance, you experience unpleasance. And we look at individual cases and decide as a group. Whether tribe or jury process or DAs. No jury would convict me for slapping someone who said they were going to rape my child. It wouldn't get to the DAs desk.

Because we're not billiard balls or panes of glass.

And the neighbor in your socialist utopia who didn't like loud music at night, he or she could just move to a quiter area of the city, as the person with the foul mouthed using sexual langauage as aggression can be dealt with by changing jobs.

But here also, create unpleasance, even if not everyone would experience it that way, you get some unpleasance. Here I think fines related to income or wealth would be good.

It doesn't have anything to do with expression.

It does for the guitar player. We got people in these scenarios.

A boss sexually harasses my wife. She can move.
A neighbor plays guitar loud at night. You can move.
A neighbor issues a threat to rape my child. I can move.

I don't see why different stimuli need to be treated differently. But ok, then the neighbors disturbed by loud noise can move or take measures to reduce their reduce the noise reaching them or their attitudes and emotional reactions to the unpleasance..

Me, I notice that humans respond to a wide range of stimuli with pain. This can be compicated. Measuring decibels by comparison is simpler. Well, there we are, complicated creatures sensitive the a wide range of stimuli. I'd like a society that reflects our wide range of senstivities. We're not salamanders, though I would protect salamanders also from noise if possible. I would not put anyone in prison or even slap them for telling the salamaders they are going to rape them. Because unlike us that stimulus does not lead to pain.

I'm still missing the concern about corporate and private censorship and what measures will be taken to eliminate the legislative support for this.

Which legislative support?

That people can censor in private regions. If you have enough money you can fence in (literally or metaphorically) a portion of reality and shut down free speech in that area and often related to that area. And if it involves employees who come to that area, you can also punish them for what they do outside of that area. Punishments can be internal: loss of promotions, loss of job, assignment of unpleasant tasks, or even external: lawsuits, intentionally damaging the employees reputation in the field, court injunctions, punitive pr campaigns. You can also influence media to not publish or report certain things. Sometimes you barely even have to make a threat. You can lobby to reduce focus on certain issues - even if they are not completely censored. The types of internal censorship can censor non-business related conversation, lack of enough enthusiam, political opinions, whisteblowing, jusftified criticism whatever. Money censors and it has legislative support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship
https://electricliterature.com/corporate-censorship-is-a-serious-and-mostly-invisible-threat-to-publishing/
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/19/can-free-speech-and-internet-filters-co-exist/corporate-censorsip-is-untouched-by-the-first-amendment
https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate-censorship/
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/while-everyone-frets-about-state-censorship-corporate-censorship-tightens-the-noose-c357e3bdd95d

In the past there was a commons, areas of life and land commonly held by the people. We have been privitizing the commons, Reagan and Thatcher made some jumps there, so what can be owned has extended. This means corporate censorship has extended. They are right now keeping news stories out of circulation. But also within organizations, people are being punishment for being honest or having opinions. No one who works for McDonalds has freedom of speech. But probably they can say what they like at parties, because no one cares. But in other corporations or higher up in McDs, you can get punished for whatever you say, anywhere.

It can cause you to not be able to sleep. That's not very controversial. — Terrapin Station

I see @Coben is already banging his head against this particular brick wall of yours, but if you read properly (as you're so keen in emphasising to everyone else) you'll see I said "loud or high pitched repetitive noises particularly at a time when most people prefer quiet", not necessarily at night time.

The modal ordinance does not specify that the disturbing noise needs to be at night when people are sleeping. If you want to hide behind the 'usualness' and 'uncontroversial' nature of noise ordinances, you're going to have to provide some evidence that they align with your view.

Notwithstanding that, what evidence have you got that people don't simply choose to get so frustrated at repetitive noises that they can't sleep? As Coben has already indicated, there is ample relationship between anxiety from verbal bullying and loss of sleep, but you'd say they chose to react that way but needn't. Why the different approach to annoying noises?

As Coben has already indicated, there is ample relationship between anxiety from verbal bullying and loss of sleep, but you'd say they chose to react that way but needn't. Why the different approach to annoying noises? — Isaac

I think the issue is partly coming down to a damning of the limbic system or emotions. IOW if it is possible to change the way you relate to emotions and this is a factor in the disturbing stimuli, then you with the emotional reaction should have no legal recourse. It is your problem.

But the weird thing for me is he rules out physical violence. But we have limbic reactions to physical pain.

You may have read how I tried above to show that physical pain and emotional pain (fear caused by threats) both in the end have to do with the limbic system. It's unpleasant, we don't like it. And most of us would easily choose one slap in the face over all sorts of verbal threats or harrassment. We can compare these things because they come down to unpleasant for us experiences.

But I think the approach to TS has to shift from trying to convince him to not being convinced. More of a there's nothing wrong with legislating X or responding to verbals stimuli with Y. I don't see how he can say more than he doesn't like that. He can then try to convince me that slapping is inherently bad. But I think that is trickier than us trying to change his mind since all he has to do and I think it ihas been much of his defense is to repeat his criteria and his preference.

Of course this approach is not dealing with the main kind of hate speech discussed earlier in the thread: speech that may or may not lead to violence.

You may have read how I tried above to show that physical pain and emotional pain (fear caused by threats) both in the end have to do with the limbic system. It's unpleasant, we don't like it. — Coben

Yes, I had read that. It's a good line of thought. Essentially we've removed any categorisation of the various human interactions. Even if I break your arm, that's only a problem if you like having a functioning arm and dislike being in pain. Well if I like breaking arms and therefore dislike having to refrain from doing so, it's just your likes against mine.

I'm just not seeing why the idea that we can resist our emotional responses to speech is any different to the idea that we can resist our emotional response to anything else.

I thought it was about the advantages of free speech (a cost-benefit analysis) but apparently it's not, so now I'm lost.

Well, I think we'd need to get into Terrapin's morality, which I think he once said to me was neither consequentialist nor deontological, and he has used the word preferences. But noticed early on that people were getting extremely upset at him, and when I decided to really go at his position, I started to also, but then I realized that it is as if one need convince him. Somehow the discussion ends up being in the format of 'can you not see?'. Of course most discussions end up this way, but if his morality is actually more like preferences (and he is open about that) then he will prefer to treat sensory stimuli differently than verbal stimuli. Or better put, he not only can, but will fall back to that, because that is what he wants society to be like. If we put the onus on ourselves to convince him, we are putting the onus on ourselves to convince someone that a preference is wrong.

I am not sure if this is what is happening, but it seems like it. So I am trying to shift my responses to. I prefer X, what's wrong with that?

Well, he may say, that's nebulous.

But I prefer to have measures in place to take into account emotional pain caused by speech, rather than expecting I should act less like a social mammal who can also understand language. Put the onus on the other side. Perhaps that will sit fine with him. I don't know.

And we are nuanced creatures who often interact and have to deal with nebulous criteria. We do have tools for that.

This kind of onus jockeying is incredibly hard to track - this can be seen in the Khaled, you, me T Clark thingie, I decided I couldn't keep track of anymore.

I did want add, relevant to your post here, that we might have different laws than salamanders who likely are sensitive to sensory stimuli but not to words. But I fear pursuing that gets into the 'what is a cause?' morass, despite my thinking that the laws protecting salamanders and creatures who understand language will have categorical differences. And necessary ones.

Some people really like loud repetitive noises late at night, so what is it that makes playing the drums for sixteen hours a day something that its reasonable to legislate against? — Isaac

Well, I'm a free musical instrument playing absolutist, so I don't believe that there should be any laws restricting the freedom to play drums really loudly all night, every night, when your neighbours are trying to sleep.

I am not sure if this is what is happening, but it seems like it. So I am trying to shift my responses to. I prefer X, what's wrong with that? — Coben

I can understand the desire to shift approach, but it becomes, for me, an uncomfortably one-sided conversation that way. If we are in a realm of joint meaning sufficient for the other person to answer the question "what's wrong with that?", presumably by some criteria of 'wrong' (either theirs or a shared one), then we should be in the position to do the same.

I think the problem here is that someone arguing fromTSs position (and I'm not saying he's doing this, I'm making a general point about the relativist libertarian position) can simply say "that's just the way I feel" to literally anything. The inherent problem with that is that one does not ever clearly know which of one's feelings are fundamental (genetic or so deeply imbedded as to immovable) and which of one's feelings are rationally derived from others. There's only any point in discussing one's feelings on any matter if one is open to the latter possibility. Other people cannot replace genetic or deeply imbedded feelings with argument. They can point out flaws in rationally derived feelings. Answering "that's just how I feel" to everything denies the second possibility and so makes discussion pointless.

Well, I'm a free musical instrument playing absolutist, so I don't believe that there should be any laws restricting the freedom to play drums really loudly all night, every night, when your neighbours are trying to sleep. — S

Ha. I suggest you move in next door to Terrapin. You play the drums constantly and he can shout racist and homophobic obscenities at you. We'll see who cracks first.