As far as I can tell recruiting a murderer involves a great deal more than just speech, and involves active participation. At any rate, I’d have to see a specific case.

That’s the problem with hate speech: What is it, and who decides what is and isn’t hate speech? It just becomes the latest form of heresy. The UK, for example, once included “insulting words” in their hate speech provisions. This lead to all sorts of strange cases, such as the guy who was arrested because he called a police horse “gay”. Luckily that clause was removed almost 30 years later (thanks in part to Mr Bean actually). But the problem remains.

You don't post as if you're interested in my views per se. — Terrapin Station

That's because I'm not interested in your views per se, why on earth would I be interested in the views of a random Internet poster, it doesn't make any sense to me out of the 7 billion people in the world, why would I pick you to ask? Are you interested in my views per se? I certainly don't get that impression.

I'm interested in your views to the extent to which they represent insurmountable flaws in mine. I don't want to have flawed views (where 'flawed' here means something like logically leading to a conclusion I don't like, or away from one I do) so I have an interest in checking.

I'm not, however, going to give up my preferred views immediately on being presented with a contrary position, so I want the opportunity to test any opposing position, to see how well its opposition holds up.

I act on the assumption that everyone else benefits from this process too (my views acting here as the opposition to theirs) and therefore this is a mutually beneficial process.

I'm also interested in how people go about supporting their views, but that's a personal interest I don't expect any reciprocation from.

What I'm definitely not interested in is simply what other people's views are.

you want to argue where it's clear that either you didn't really (closely) read, or didn't understand what I wrote, or you simply would rather be dishonest as a tactic. — Terrapin Station

Do you not see the assumptions in this? You're talking about interpretation of what another person has written. Often only a few dozen words. How come all our misunderstandings are our failure to read carefully, but for you "it's clear" what our posts 'really' mean, and not just you succumbing to a similar comprehension error?

I'm going to leave the Terrapin stuff now because it's so out of bounds it's not really helpful to waste energy on it. Re hate speech, I agree it's potentially problematic, mostly for practical reasons, such as how laws are written and interpreted, and I hope we'll get into the specifics of all that in the context of some kind of wider cost-benefit analysis. I'll get involved in more detail when I have time.

The UK has become a full-blown Nancy state in regard to it’s hate speech laws. A man was recently investigated for retweeting a limerick about trans people. I’d recite the limerick here because it is hilarious, but apparently that might “incite hatred” in UK citizens so I should probably refrain.

But that’s another point, these laws infantilize people and treat them like children. The Jewish people have lived through the holocaust, but according the the UK they Are sure to be oppressed by a joke including a pug giving Hitler salutes.

You don't know how you know that the world isn't flat? — S

Sure I do. Surprisingly it has nothing to do with popular opinion or your brain. So how do we know that people are often right, then? That's what I had asked you.

That’s the line of thinking for blasphemy laws for instance, that evil words beget evil deeds and laws against it must be enforced in order to protect the greater public good. It turns out it wasn’t so sensible.
— NOS4A2

Yes. Banning blasphemy turns out not to be conducive to a healthy society. Banning homosexuality turned out not to be necessary either, so should we now repeal the law against all sexual activity including rape and child molestation? — Isaac

Owned. :lol:

That's because I'm not interested in your views per se, why on earth would I be interested in the views of a random Internet poster, — Isaac

Maybe you wouldn't be, but it would seem odd to me to post on a board like this in that case. That's what you're going to get here. The views of a relatively small collection of random folks on the internet.

I'm interested in other people in the world in general. I like people. I think it's interesting to learn about their views, especially when they're interested in the same things that I am.

I'm interested in your views to the extent to which they represent insurmountable flaws in mine. I don't want to have flawed views — Isaac

For things like "should hate speech be banned," it's not even as if there's a correct answer in the first place.

Sure I do. Surprisingly it has nothing to do with popular opinion or your brain. So how do we know that people are often right, then? That's what I had asked you. — Terrapin Station

It definitely does have something to do with your brain. And I'm not sure you should be saying "we", if you mean to include yourself in that. I'm fine speaking for myself or people in general, but it's possible that you're an exception, in that you seem to be convinced of some things which are quite obviously totally wrong.

And now you appear to expect me to believe that you hadn't noticed that people are often right about basic and obvious things, or that this is some big mystery to you. :brow:

For things like "should hate speech be banned," it's not even as if there's a correct answer in the first place. — Terrapin Station

But there is for me. That's the point. It's about making sure I've got a view I'm happy with. I'm not happy with inconsistencies. I'm not happy with empirical type views which are overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence. I'm not happy with more assumptions than I need have to make all the decisions I have to make. I simply presume others are here for the same reason and so try to reciprocate the favour.

An Internet forum full of random, but hopefully intelligent people (this isn't Reddit afterall) is a good place to check those things. I used to have the luxury of a few colleagues interested in the same things, which is even better, but have since moved to a different part of the country and you can't keep this up so easily on the phone.

For actual views, fully formed and delivered in a one way 'lecture with questions' format, I'd prefer a published book.

Yes. Banning blasphemy turns out not to be conducive to a healthy society. Banning homosexuality turned out not to be necessary either, so should we now repeal the law against all sexual activity including rape and child molestation? No, because guess what... It turns out the world is actually a little bit complicated.

Surprisingly it transpires that in a system involving the interacting desires and abilities of 7 billion heterogeneous individuals one blanket rule doesn't quite predict the best results.

Actually they banned homosexuality for the same reasons they ban hate speech: indecency, a sort of moral panic, and not as a crime against another person.

So, back to the actual discussion...

You said

Your neighbor practices his electric guitar until five in the AM and your bed actually vibrates - and not in a fun way. No way to call in the law? or can one? How do you see something like this getting resolved? — Coben


I'd have "sensory ordinances" similar to what we have now re sounds, smells, flashing lights, etc. — Terrapin Station

In the exchange that followed I pointed out that that sensory ordinances like the ones we have now include noises which are merely "disturbing" and wondered why, if you would have laws like that, you would not include the "disturbance" people feel when subjected to hate speech.

You replied that that's not what you wrote.

So if I could trouble you to set aside a little of your valuable time to indulge a lowly serf such as myself I'd be forever in your debt if you could possibly explain what you mean. Pretty please.

Actually they banned homosexuality for the same reasons they ban hate speech: indecency, a sort of moral panic, and not as a crime against another person. — NOS4A2

What?

Not even following that one I'm afraid. I'd love to disagree but I haven't the faintest idea what point you're making.

It just doesn’t follow that to oppose the underlying premise of hate speech laws, blasphemy and gross indecency, is to oppose laws against rape and child molestation.

I remember now where we got to last time I engaged with you. Not worth it I'm afraid.

I remember now where we got to last time I engaged with you. Not worth it I'm afraid.

Well, you responded to me so I was replying in kind. I guess it’s not worth it as soon as you get a little push back.

But that is a criterion that can be adapted to many purposes. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party could claim that the Hong Kong protestors are encouraging ‘hatred against the Motherland’. And in China, you can be jailed indefinitely on that basis. — Wayfarer

But China's a different kettle of fish.

I pointed out that that sensory ordinances like the ones we have now include noises which are merely "disturbing" — Isaac

The ordinances we have in the U.S. don't enable simply saying that something is disturbing you (in either common sense of that term), so that the police will do something about it. It has to be a lot more specific than that. Either it has to be at a particular time of day--during the time when most people are sleeping, or otherwise there would have to be something unusual about it--basically something that could pose a physical threat to you.

In other words, you can't just say, "Hey I don't like this sound"/"Hey I don't like this smell" and have the police do something about it.

Either it has to be at a particular time of day--during the time when most people are sleeping, or otherwise there would have to be something unusual about it that could pose a physical threat to you. — Terrapin Station

But that's just not true as far as I can tell. I'd really need to see some evidence if you want me to believe that. I've read the EPA model ordinance on which municipal ordinances are supposed to be based according to the 1972 noise act, and it does not limit disturbances to sleep depravation or physical harm. Yes, you can't just tell the police that some noise is annoying you personally and expect to have it stopped, but neither do you have to demonstrate physical harm to have your case considered. The municipalities make a considered decision about the sorts of noises that are likely to cause them disturbance.

You still can't claim that it is 'usual' to only legislate against actual physical harm. Most normal laws include the concept of mental harm.

Yes, you can't just tell the police that some noise is annoying you personally and expect to have it stopped, — Isaac

I just wrote the same thing. The mere fact that you don't like a sound isn't sufficient.

I just wrote the same thing. The mere fact that you don't like a sound isn't sufficient. — Terrapin Station

Yes, as with hate speech laws. The mere fact of some individual finding something offensive is not sufficient.

The point is that you are advocating that hate speech laws to go back even further - to say that actual physical harm must be proven in order to constitute an offence, whilst at the same time endorsing noise ordinances which do not go back that far. Noise ordinances do not allow just anyone to claim offense (just like hate speech laws don't) but they do take a reasonable view of the sorts of noises the majority of people are likely to find disturbing - loud or high pitched repetitive noises particularly at a time when most people prefer quiet (just like speech laws take a reasonable view of the sorts of speech most people are likely to find disturbing). So I'm confused as to why you'd advocate the former, but not the latter.

The point is that you are advocating that hate speech laws to go back even further - to say that actual physical harm must be proven in order to constitute an offence, whilst at the same time endorsing noise ordinances which do not go back that far. Noise ordinances do not allow just anyone to claim offense (just like hate speech laws don't) but they do take a reasonable view of the sorts of noises the majority of people are likely to find disturbing - loud or high pitched repetitive noises particularly at a time when most people prefer quiet (just like speech laws take a reasonable view of the sorts of speech most people are likely to find disturbing). So I'm confused as to why you'd advocate the former, but not the latter. — Isaac

If the speech is loud and persistent enough at night that you can't sleep, I have no problem with enforcing that it stop. Whatever the content of the speech.

If the speech is loud and persistent enough at night that you can't sleep, I have no problem with enforcing that it stop. — Terrapin Station

Why? It's causing no physical damage. 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? I can only think of the fact that any reasonable person would consider it disturbing, an entirely mental consequence of an entirely external sound. I just can't see why that's not the case for hateful speech.

Why? It's causing no physical damage — Isaac

Cue the line: Everything is physical.

Why? It's causing no physical damage. 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? I can only think of the fact that any reasonable person would consider it disturbing, an entirely mental consequence of an entirely external sound. I just can't see why that's not the case for hateful speech. — Isaac

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

But note that I'd not have a capitalist system in the first place. I'd have a socialist system, which also wouldn't be based on money in any traditional sense. In my system, if someone is uncomfortable with someone they're working with, it's no problem to simply work somewhere else instead, with people who you like better. — Terrapin Station

So, what does my wife do in the meantime? Would it be wrong for her to censor or punish him, given that she lives in a capitalist country?

I'd have "sensory ordinances" similar to what we have now re sounds, smells, flashing lights, etc. — Terrapin Station

Why should non-verbal expression be limited, but verbal expression be allowed if one can see increases in negative symptoms in the experiencers of both? Higher cortisol levels, lost sleep, whatever. If the symptoms are very similar why is one protected absolutely but the other has a limit? And why can't we expect people to buy soundproofing, and other measures to take care of their own sensitivity.

I ask this last because it seems to me the idea with absolute freedom of speech and cause has as the implication that I choose to have problems when exposed to speech harrassment. Given that I am a social mammal with all that entails, what if I don't want to change my personality to where I don't get annoyed, if that is possible? Why shouldn't the disturbed by sound person be expected to make changes to not be bothered, rather than suppressing the expressiveness of the artist?

A big guy moves in across the hall. He tells me he is going to grab my kid one day and rape him.

I won't sleep well.

Worrying is different than a stimulus like sound keeping you awake.

I'm still not sleeping.

So, what does my wife do in the meantime? Would it be wrong for her to censor or punish him, given that she lives in a capitalist country?

His right to free speech does not entail he has a right to an audience. But one thing is certain, she should leave immediately.