I think without more work on figuring out where this threshold is,
Well it will vary from context to context. When it comes to self-censoring, the threshold is almost nil—we almost instinctively refrain from saying things that we think are harmful. On the extreme end there are cases like harassment and legal prosecution which probably should have an extremely high threshold, like active incitement to violence. So it would be very complicated to address this.
thus much of this post to me reads like “what kinds of speech kbog thinks are harmful” and that’s not very interesting or useful to me.
If you don’t engage in any speech policing, then yes, I understand. This post only has relevance for those who would engage in some kind of speech policing. The question of whether speech policing is generally good or bad is not something I am taking a stance on here.
for example, political speech (“supporting Donald Trump”), since this is specifically one of the types of speech considered most in need of protection within US culture since it also the most tempting for political opponents to suppress on spurious grounds.
Legally, sure. In other contexts it is often the norm in America to deliberately avoid or forbid presenting information in a manner which can support certain political candidates and policies. Consider social media, partisan-leaning workplace cultures, biased media outlets, and so on.
I don’t find your case compelling, especially around why you think some certain kinds of speech are harmful.
Well some of it is backed up by elements of CSS, others are more informed by other personal judgments. These are not rigorous arguments, but I figured that this would still be a step forward since no one else seems to have done this sort of systematic comparison and judgment (certainly not one that incorporates recent EA knowledge), and even my intuitive judgments should be useful due to my above-average familiarity with US politics and political culture.
Well it will vary from context to context. When it comes to self-censoring, the threshold is almost nil—we almost instinctively refrain from saying things that we think are harmful. On the extreme end there are cases like harassment and legal prosecution which probably should have an extremely high threshold, like active incitement to violence. So it would be very complicated to address this.
If you don’t engage in any speech policing, then yes, I understand. This post only has relevance for those who would engage in some kind of speech policing. The question of whether speech policing is generally good or bad is not something I am taking a stance on here.
Legally, sure. In other contexts it is often the norm in America to deliberately avoid or forbid presenting information in a manner which can support certain political candidates and policies. Consider social media, partisan-leaning workplace cultures, biased media outlets, and so on.
Well some of it is backed up by elements of CSS, others are more informed by other personal judgments. These are not rigorous arguments, but I figured that this would still be a step forward since no one else seems to have done this sort of systematic comparison and judgment (certainly not one that incorporates recent EA knowledge), and even my intuitive judgments should be useful due to my above-average familiarity with US politics and political culture.