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

But the boss does believe in free speech, and yet he would still fire her. That is because he doesn't believe in absolute free speech, which is not the same as free speech. All across the world, free speech is understood in non-absolute terms, and it has numerous supporters, myself included. You are the exception here. I am a supporter of free speech, whereas you are a supporter of taking free speech to absurd and objectionable lengths.

I prefer to have a society where intentionally created unpleasant experience can be responded to with moderate violence. — Coben

Okay, whereas I wouldn't hinge anything merely on whether someone is "having an unpleasant experience" because arbitrary people can have an unpleasant experience, of any degree, on any arbitrary stimulus. For example, someone could completely flip out because someone is wearing a plaid shirt, whether the plaid shirt-wearer knows the person will flip out or not. That shouldn't be a problem with the plaid shirt-wearer, even when they know the person will flip out. The person flipping out needs to get help.

In my society people have a responsibility to not be too sensitive, to not overreact, to not be offended, to not too easily worry, to not flip out, etc.* I'm not going to base laws on people being neurotic, not being able to handle simple things, etc.--because we can find people who'll flip out over any arbitrary thing, and then nothing is legal because of that and we've got a big mess where people only have to claim to be bothered by something in order to be able to control others over any and every little thing they don't like. That's completely the opposite direction of what I'm shooting for.

This is also why I don't base any ethical stances or laws merely on "harm" or "suffering" or anything like that, and it's why I have minimum requirements even for nonconsensual violence. No one is being arrested, fined, etc. for intentionally poking you in the arm or something like that. It has to be something with macro-observable effects days later--that's a requirement for a minimum intensity, otherwise the "victim" needs to just chill out and not overreact.

*(Or at least if you want to be like that, don't expect that it's going to result in us controlling others to make it less likely that you react in those ways.)

n

Okay, whereas I wouldn't hinge anything merely on whether someone is "having an unpleasant experience" because arbitrary people can have an unpleasant experience — Terrapin Station

Right, so I would want people to work on dealing with the specific cases, just as we do in contract law and even with physical violence. What kind of contact was it? Was it intentional? How were the bodies moving? What signals were given? Often the impacts can't be measured in physical violence and the context is extremely important and the communication. It can lead to very complicated court procedures, though over trivial stuff (unless it was, say, a police officer or a rich person on the receiving end) it gets dropped. Contracts, which you accepted before, can often have incredibly complicated interpretive differences involved, even if the contract were made with anal precision. Like whose name should get on a screenplay, jeez, that can be complicated. Or how an employee carried out tasks or didn't and to what degree and in what circumstances and in relation to what actions and inactions of coworkers and bosses. Again, jeez, anyone's position might seem arbritrary, but humans can develop methods to try to work this out. Obviously far from perfectly.

But me I don't want the verbal threatener, for example, to have free reign. So, I am will to also have complicated and nuanced processes to determine if it was serious.

For example, someone could completely flip out because someone is wearing a plaid shirt, whether the plaid shirt-wearer knows the person will flip out or not. That shouldn't be a problem with the plaid shirt-wearer. The person flipping out needs to get help. — Terrapin Station

If only there were ways for adults to make decisions about this kind of thing. I am not sure how they manage around physical violence and contracts since they could not around verbal threats.

In my society people have a responsibility to not be too sensitive, — Terrapin Station

And look at that, you are capable of deciding what is 'too sensitive'. You could take part in the process. You seem to have a way to measure sensitivity. That's great. That means there is some equivalent to decibels.

I'm not going to base laws on people being neurotic, not being able to handle simple things, etc.--because we can find people who'll flip out over any arbitrary thing, and then nothing is legal because of that and we've got a big mess where people only have to claim to be bothered by something in order to be able to control others over any and every little thing they don't like. — Terrapin Station

Sure, and I wouldn't want any physical contact to be considered assault (or is it battery) and it seems there are ways to determine the difference, though obviously there is a subjective element there. Likewise with contracts. I wouldn't want to get arrested for assault if I brushed past someone on the subway either.

That's completely the opposite direction of what I'm shooting for. — Terrapin Station

Well, I wouldn't like that either. I am also shooting for a way to deter, for example, threats that most humans would find disturbing enough to cause them problems. I would prefer that that is not treated the same as other kinds of free speech use. And, yes, it might be very tricky to work out individual cases. So be it.

I would also want to be able to use physical violence in some situations where harrassment has gone on for a long time or the threat is so horrible. I'd prefer a society where we realize that as social mammals some kinds of non-physical contact acts, after a time, can and generally will cause emotional suffering in people who are not oversensitive nor neurotic. I think paparazzi often move into the area, as do stalkers, protection racket thugs and even some aggressive salespeople (though it is generally members way out on the end of the bell curve with the last, in my estimation that is).

This is also why I don't base any ethical stances or laws merely on "harm" or "suffering" or anything like that, and it's why I have minimum requirements even for nonconsensual violence. No one is being arrested, fined, etc. for intentionally poking you in the arm or something like that. It has to be something with macro-observable effects days later--that's a requirement for a minimum intensity, otherwise the "victim" needs to just chill out and not overreact. — Terrapin Station

t tMy slap might or might not pass that test, thought I have to say it seems rather arbritrary. I could probably use a little shiatsu like pressure that leaves no damage or scars and gives someone agony for 15 minutes. That should be a crime unless there was some serious justification for that. Like every time you tried to let them up they went for the gun they had recently pointed at you.

As said. I see us as different from other animals, those of us who understand language. I also see us as not mere tabula rasa (whatever the plural is), but as have strong tendencies at least in relation to certain things, like threats of physical violence. We are social mammals which has given us many advantages, but also means that even words can do damage and this is used by people. I seem to be hitting a slippery slope where if any speech is stopped it means that people wearing plaid shirts will be arrested. I think we manage to differentiate between differerences in degree and kind in many parts of the law that are not related to speech and could manage there.

I also think that sensory stimuli are radically affected by personality and attitude and any law based on decibel level, duration and so on, with be culturally arbritrary. My Latino neighbors seemed to thrive with noise levels that would have put me in the hospital after a year.

I don't want to pretend that I am essentially the same as a species that has no language.

I also can't wait for a utopia where I can just quit and find a new job

Just as I wouldn't expect my neighbors to move whenever I move in with my drumset.

There could be all sorts of problems with this, just as there are in other parts of the law - lucky lawyers dealing with contract law cases. But there it is. Not everything human be broken down into numbers neatly so we can just send a person out with a measuring device. We are more complicated than that.

So I would prefer legal recourse for, amongst other things, threats.

In my society people have a responsibility to not be too sensitive, to not overreact, to not be offended, to not too easily worry, to not flip out, etc — Terrapin Station

So where, in this society, does someone fit who is too sensitive to minor speech restrictions, who overreacts to a really minor infringement on their liberty, who is worried that if the government bans hate speech they'll ban all political opposition, someone who flips out at being told they can't say certain words anymore in public. Where does such a person fit?

Or is the difference between an acceptable reaction and an over-reaction determined objectively somewhere I'm unaware of?

And look at that, you are capable of deciding what is 'too sensitive'. You could take part in the process. You seem to have a way to measure sensitivity. That's great. That means there is some equivalent to decibels. — Coben

I don't know why your posts are getting so long.

Basically, I'd never decide this stuff on subjective reactions. No matter how much you flip out about someone wearing a plaid shirt, we're not banning plaid shirts.

So where, in this society, does someone fit who is too sensitive to minor speech restrictions, who overreacts to a really minor infringement on their liberty, who is worried that if the government bans hate speech they'll ban all political opposition, someone who flips out at being told they can't say certain words anymore in public. Where does such a person fit? — Isaac

In the niche where we don't ban people for endorsing minor speech restrictions, etc.

Its just like you can say whatever you like about gassing Jews or whatever. You just can't actually gas Jews (nonconsensually).

se

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. — S

I'm a Heraclitian flux you cannot make a contract since it will not be me after signing it absolutist. I want to end all contract law. How can I bind a future self that is not me to obligations? And with companies it gets really ridiculous, Ship of Theseus and all that.

I want the court to demonstrate that I am the same self.

And this certainly would hold true for mortgages...what is it 7 years before all the matter is replaced in the body.

Dang, I am not sending in my next payment. It's been 8 years.

I would also like to bring up the idea of people being overly sensitive to a loss of freedom. That seems arbritrary and emotional to me. Neurotic even. How can we measure the results of the loss of freedom like a decibel meter one measures sound?

Basically, I'd never decide this stuff on subjective reactions. — Terrapin Station

We're still waiting for the objective measures though. What's objective about the disturbance people feel from the types of noise prohibited by the noise ordinances that's not also there in the leve of disturbance people feel in response to hate speech laws?

Also, it would help if you stopped straw-manning the opposing position. No one is suggesting we should legislate against speech which just any individual claims is offensive. What constitutes hate speech is a carefully considered parameter based on decades of understanding about human behaviour and psychology.

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

I didn't see S saying this, but okay, he can be that (playing along that he'd be serious). Obviously different people would institute different laws if they were king. We're not all going to have the same preferences. That should be pretty obvious to anyone by the time they're in kindergarten at least.

We're still waiting for the objective measures though. What's objective about the disturbance people feel from the types of noise prohibited by the noise ordinances — Isaac

Not being able to stay asleep isn't subjective, for example. It's clearly, objectively observable.

As I've said already umpteen times already, the legislation wouldn't be based on subjective "disturbance." I explicitly pointed that out already, which is why I get annoyed that you can't read or you're not reading.

Dang, I am not sending in my next payment. It's been 8 years. — Coben

Brilliant. I'm joining your cult. That'll also get me out of that murder wot I done.

Long seems like a subjective evaluation to me. They are certainly much longer than yours, but I think adequate to the task. And in that length I explained how we deal with not getting plaid shirts criminalized, using skills similar to how we prevent extremes in laws you do accept like those against physical violence and contract breaches, where all sorts of subjective evaluations come in. Just as they do with sensory stimuli and what is 'too much.'

Not that my law about this would even be based on not being able to sleep, however. It's would be defined purely in terms of objective properties--sounds, lights, etc. at certain times of days, at certain intensities.

Not being able to stay asleep isn't subjective, for example. It's clearly, objectively observable. — Terrapin Station

But different decibels and durations and upbrinings and cultural backgrounds and expectations will lead to not being able to stay asleep with noise. It will be an arbritrary set of criteria and we can't have arbritrary. Of course my long post went into this.

Long seems like a subjective evaluation to me. — Coben

What? Long?

It will be an arbritrary set of criteria and we can't have arbritrary. — Coben

You can't avoid arbitrary for this stuff. There are no facts re normatives.

As I've said already umpteen times already, the legislation wouldn't be based on subjective "disturbance." I explicitly pointed that out already, which is why I get annoyed that you can't read or you're not reading. — Terrapin Station

My responses to your 'noise legislation' posts have never once referred to what you would do, so my reading ability has nothing to do with it.

My posts (if you actually read them properly!) are objecting to you claiming such an approach is normal and uncontroversial and citing municipal ordinances in evidence. Municipal ordinances definitely do not require a physical reaction such as loss of sleep. They cover noises during the day which a reasonable person would find annoying. An entirely mental reaction. It's fine if you don't agree, but you can't then use them as evidence that your position is uncontroversial.

My posts (if you actually read them properly!) are objecting to you claiming such an approach is normal and uncontroversial and citing municipal ordinances in evidence. — Isaac

That's fine, but you're wrong. I've been on both sides of police being called about this sort of stuff lots of times. (And in many different locales.)

Sure as a pejorative. If it was merely an observation out of context and not critical. Sure, they are, as I said, longer than your posts. I don't think they are long for what they were trying to do.

Sure as a pejorative. If it was merely an observation out of context and not critical. — Coben

Oh--I had no idea of the context for a moment. Your posts being long. Yeah, that's definitely a subjective assessment. I'm not proposing legislation about it, thankfully.

Ok, it had seemed earlier like abritrary functioned as a critique in itself in your responses to me.

Ok, it had seemed earlier like abritrary functioned as a critique in itself in your responses to me. — Coben

The reason I said something about arbitrariness earlier was because people were forwarding arbitrary stuff as if it was a fact, as if it could be correct/true, etc. (Usually S does this, with an implication either/or that something is correct for him thinking it, or it's correct for it being common.)

That's fine, but you're wrong. I've been on both sides of police being called about this sort of stuff lots of times. — Terrapin Station

Is this the TS special treatment again? If I'm wrong, show me the evidence. I was subjected to your ridicule for not wanting to link evidence to support my position. Cite me the noise ordinance for your (or any) municipality where they specifically say that the noise must have some objective physical consequence in order to be controlled.

lol not what I was getting at. But touche in the context you experienced, which was not the one I intended.

Is this the TS special treatment again? If I'm wrong, show me the evidence. — Isaac

I'm fine with you being wrong. Obviously being on both sides of this many times is not something I can show you.

Re codes, I can search, but this, for example, gives decibel allowances:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_code_guide.pdf

The way police implement laws practically is often not the same as the way that laws are written, by the way.

OK, so why is ok to have an arbritrary law about sound levels? but not one around threats? (covered in my long post)

OK, so why is ok to have an arbritrary law about sound levels? but not one around threats? (covered in my long post) — Coben

Again, all laws are arbitrary (that is, the basis for the laws). I just said this. There's no way to avoid that.

And again, something else I just said is that the reason I said something about arbitrariness earlier was that people were presenting arbitrary things as if they were factual, correct, etc.

That's fine.

I just didn't want to get into writing long posts back and forth where an increasing amount of different issues have to be addressed each round. I don't like posting like that.

Re codes, I can search, but this, for example, gives decibel allowances: — Terrapin Station

So where, in that code, is it limiting what it will restrict to those which have a physical effect. I'm seeing a lot of restrictions on noises during the day time (so sleep isn't an issue) and restrictions on noises which are still well below the volume which damages the human ear. So where is the objective physical harm that comes from a dog barking for a period of ten minutes or more during the day?