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? — Isaac

What did I say I'd base mine on--time of day and intensities, right? And I wrote that at least five or six times now.

Just to clarify here, you'd made a comment about what things would be like (re this subthread about sensory stimuli) under my policies, and I said that it wouldn't be any different than it is now (in the U.S.)--and that's the case. As things are now, this simply goes by a combination of time of day and intensity of the sensory stimuli, at least re how it's enforced.

No matter how much you flip out about someone wearing a plaid shirt, we're not banning plaid shirts. — Terrapin Station

I'm glad that someone else here sees how someone wearing a plaid shirt is just like someone publicly calling for the extermination of Jews.

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. — Terrapin Station

Fortunately absolute monarchy has all but disappeared, and these kind of views are far too unpopular to gain the required support in democracies.

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.) — Terrapin Station

More like I point out something obvious, like that people often get basic and widely known things right, like the shape of the earth, or what the word "chair" means in English, and you respond with unreasonable denials or you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I'm fallaciously appealing to the masses.

I'm glad that someone else here sees how someone wearing a plaid shirt is just like someone publicly calling for the extermination of Jews. — S

Well, and I'm glad your reading abilities are such that you saw that I was saying that they're just the same.

Well, and I'm glad your reading abilities are such that you saw that I was saying that they're just the same. — Terrapin Station

It was an out of place and inappropriate example, given the topic of hate speech. I'm glad that your ability to read between the lines is on top form today.

As things are now, this simply goes by a combination of time of day and intensity of the sensory stimuli, at least re how it's enforced. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and the intensity of the sensory stimuli is not sufficient to cause physical harm. It is sufficient only to severely annoy, disturb, or otherwise mentally affect people such as a dog barking for more than 10 minutes, construction noise, loud appliances, all of which are mentioned. As is also the case with the 42 decibel limit for air conditioning systems which is way below the 85db of noise at which physical hearing damage is possible. So you can have whatever crazy ideas you want for your fantasy world, but you can't make a factual argument that they are similar to ideas in the real world and expect it to go unargued.

The noise legislation is based on a reasonable assessment of the sorts of noises which are likely to cause emotional disturbance, just like hate speech laws are.

Well, social media companies have received great pressure from governments to self-curate or suffer stiff penalties and regulation. They were once fairly free speech orientated until recently.

The UK just released some Orwellian “online harms” white paper, sold to the public as regulatory measures intended to keep citizens safe online. France has an online hate speech law that requires social media sites to remove “hate speech” or risk stiff fines. Of course, curation of social media is only possible with algorithms.

Yes, and the intensity of the sensory stimuli is not sufficient to cause physical harm. — Isaac

Which has what to do with what, exactly? Are you being thrown off by the fact that I said "For example, loud sounds can cause hearing damage"?

It was an out of place and inappropriate example, given the topic of hate speech. — S

I wasn't at all talking about hate speech there. Coben asked me about something else.

Which has what to do with what, exactly? Are you being thrown off by the fact that I said "For example, loud sounds can cause hearing damage"? — Terrapin Station

No. The line of argument I'm following is that if you would accept laws preventing the emotional harm caused by loud noises that aren't related to the semantic content (ie non-physical harm) then why won't you accept laws preventing emotional harm from noises when the harm is related to the semantic content?

Non-semantic harm from noise is not more objective - it still depends on the individual subjectively not liking the noise.

Non-semantic harm from noise is not more well evidenced - there's just the same self-reported harms from dogs barking as there is from hateful language.

Non-semantic harm from noise is not more easy to specify - we still have to provide a long list of what noises under what circumstances are to be banned, just as we would with a list of words or expressions.

So I cannot see why you would accept that we need to protect people from the entirely subjective emotional (mental) harm causes by the non-semantic content of sounds, but not the semantic content.

Hence my presumption that you must have been talking about the physical harm from the non-semantic content of noises. It was the only position that was consistent.

The line of argument I'm following is that if you would accept laws preventing the emotional harm — Isaac

? I'm not basing any laws on "emotional harm." I never said anything even remotely resembling that.

In fact, I said just the opposite.

? I'm not basing any laws on "emotional harm." — Terrapin Station

So, if not physical harm, and not mental harm, then on the basis of what exactly would you have legislation against certain disturbing noises as you specified?

I said this already. For example, loud enough, persistent noises at night can prevent sleep.

Why do I have to have a discussion that's just trying to get you to read?

I said this already. For example, loud enough, persistent noises at night can prevent sleep. — Terrapin Station

No. You additionally said that your ideas here were uncontroversial and like the noise ordinances that already exist. I pointed out that the noise ordinances that already exist cover much more than physical harm such as lack of sleep, and you replied that this was not the full extent of your ideas here either.

Either your ideas here are uncontroversial and like existing ordinances - in which case they definitely include mental harm, or your ideas are controversial and nowhere adopted.

You additionally said that your ideas here were uncontroversial and like the noise ordinances that already exist. — Isaac

I said it would WORK just as this WORKS now. And it would.

If you call the police now, and it's noon, and you say, "Hey there's this loud construction sound that's annoying me," they'll check it out, but unless it's something so loud and persistent that it could cause hearing damage, they'll say, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about this."

If you call the police now, and it's noon, and you say, "Hey there's this loud construction sound that's annoying me," they'll check it out, but unless it's something so loud and persistent that it could cause hearing damage, they'll say, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about this." — Terrapin Station

No they won't. It's written abundantly clearly in the ordinances. Air conditioning noise above 42db is not allowed - day or night. And that is not enough to cause hearing damage.

No they won't. I — Isaac

Yeah, they will. Again, many times I've been on both sides of this. In many different locales.

I've had the police called on me and cohorts due to noise many times, and I've had people I'm with call the police about others' noise (and smells at times) many times.

Not that it's maybe not different in whatever country you're in, but have you had the police called on you about noise/have you had people you're with call the police with noise complaints against others?

Again, you're coming across like someone who has lived in basement his whole life, with no real-world experience, no social interaction, etc.

Yeah, they will. Again, many times I've been on both sides of this. In many different locales. — Terrapin Station

Oh, I see. So the ECtHR thinking that hate speech should be legislated against is not sufficient evidence that there might be a link to some harm, but your entirely subjective single person account is supposed to be sufficient evidence that limiting legislation against noises to actual harm is normal?

It's one rule for you and a different one for the rest of us.

Oh, I see. So the ECtHR thinking that hate speech should be legislated against is not sufficient evidence that there might be a link to some harm, but your entirely subjective single person account is supposed to be sufficient evidence that limiting legislation against noises to actual harm is normal? — Isaac

Hence why I asked if you have had the police called on you re noise complaints/if you've called the police on others.

I'm a musician, and I've been a musician for over 50 years. I know lots of people who have had the police called on them about noise complaints.

have you had the police called on you about noise/have you had people you're with call the police with noise complaints against others? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I have. I co-manage a farm, we had a small festival on it, the neighbours complained about the noise and we were told we had to turn off the music by 11pm next day. The neighbours were not required to produce expert reports detailing the strong physical link between our music and their mental wellbeing,because the police, the council and the courts (should they have got involved) are all humans and don't need documentary evidence of the sorts of things that cause distress to other humans.

es, I have. I co-manage a farm, we had a small festival on it, the neighbours complained about the noise and we were told we had to turn off the music by 11pm next day. — Isaac

Right,by 11 p.m.

Why weren't you told that you had to turn it off in the afternoon or earlier in the evening?

Right,by 11 p.m.

Why weren't you told that you had to turn it off in the afternoon? — Terrapin Station

Balance of harms. As I've been saying throughout. They didn't like the music in he day either, but the harm is not great enough to completely remove our liberty to have a festival.

If I'd have shouted abusive language at them instead, the situation would have been no different, only there's no liberty worth protecting in shouting abuse

Balance of harms. As I've been saying throughout. They didn't like the music in he day either, but the harm is not great enough — Isaac

Is that what the code says?

[

I don't see what that's got to do with the argument, but I will have to wait until tomorrow to find out as I have to go out now

No, the moral justification for the code is not written in the code, — Isaac

Sure. So the reason for it, from the perspective of the code and the enforcement by police, wouldn't be anything like a "balance of harms." In your country, is the code written so that the police were exactly following it when they only said that you had to turn off the music by 11 pm?

I wasn't at all talking about hate speech there. — Terrapin Station

I know, you were talking about plaid shirts... in a discussion that's supposed to be about hate speech.