I don’t know what that threshold is, but it is still an important principle to keep in mind when deciding which kinds of speech are better or worse candidates for policing.
I think without more work on figuring out where this threshold is, no amount of proposals as to what is or is not over the threshold will seem beyond possibly being cases of “I just don’t like this type of speech”. Considering whether people believe a particular type of speech is beyond the harmfulness threshold to warrant censorship seems worthwhile as evidence about what may be harmful, but I don’t think your presentation of what types of speech you consider harmful is that, 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.
I’ll also say that as a US citizen I’m culturally biased to immediately oppose any suggestion that we might censor speech, and only cautiously accept it if there is a really strong and compelling argument in favor of censorship for some particular type of speech. For example, of your entire list only “calls to violence” passes what I would consider the test of speech so harmful it should be restricted. I realize the US free speech norm is not globally shared, but it does make it hard for me to take your arguments seriously when you include, 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.
I’m not saying I can’t be convinced some kinds of speech are harmful and that we should do more to restrict them, but I don’t find your case compelling, especially around why you think some certain kinds of speech are harmful.
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.
I think without more work on figuring out where this threshold is, no amount of proposals as to what is or is not over the threshold will seem beyond possibly being cases of “I just don’t like this type of speech”. Considering whether people believe a particular type of speech is beyond the harmfulness threshold to warrant censorship seems worthwhile as evidence about what may be harmful, but I don’t think your presentation of what types of speech you consider harmful is that, 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.
I’ll also say that as a US citizen I’m culturally biased to immediately oppose any suggestion that we might censor speech, and only cautiously accept it if there is a really strong and compelling argument in favor of censorship for some particular type of speech. For example, of your entire list only “calls to violence” passes what I would consider the test of speech so harmful it should be restricted. I realize the US free speech norm is not globally shared, but it does make it hard for me to take your arguments seriously when you include, 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.
I’m not saying I can’t be convinced some kinds of speech are harmful and that we should do more to restrict them, but I don’t find your case compelling, especially around why you think some certain kinds of speech are harmful.
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.