Excessively loud noise in residential areas is banned because it releases hormones that make you feel bad. Although there's less room for such a ban to go wrong, obviously.
I agree that the label "violence" is manipulative. Using the label "harm" instead would be more accurate.
I know it isn't. I'm saying there's precedent for things being banned merely because of a stress response. And the kinds of noise that get banned aren't just ones that damage your hearing.
And I just said it is not only sounds that damage hearing that are banned. If I am stomping on my floor for six hours straight and propagating noise pollution to my downstairs neighbor, I am getting a police visit. No hearing damage perpetrated.
>Excessively loud noise in residential areas is banned because it releases hormones that make you feel bad. Although there's less room for such a ban to go wrong, obviously.
"Excessively" loud noise in residential areas is banned for a bunch of reasons, none of which have anything to do with hormones:
1. It's annoying and disruptive to the residents of the area. No hormones required;
2. It's often selectively applied to harass members of less-favored groups, to make them uncomfortable living in that area with the hope that they'll move out.
1. "annoying and disruptive" is just cortisol, adrenaline and so on. It's the health damaging physiological stress response that's the reason for the ban.
>1. "annoying and disruptive" is just cortisol, adrenaline and so on. It's the health damaging physiological stress response that's the reason for the ban.
You're retconning[0] here.
Many (most?) noise regulations were implemented before anyone other than endocrinologists and a few neuroscientists (and many before even that) knew that cortisol even existed.
I assume that those regulations are in place because of the stress response that victims feel. Isn't it besides the point whether or not they knew about how that stress response was generated in the body?
So somehow learning more about how stress is generated changes whether or not stressors should be banned? How does that make sense? If anything, we now know more about how damaging chronic stress is, so our justification to ban stressors should be even higher than it was in the past.
The only good argument is that speech shouldn't be banned even if it leads to a large stress response, because of the slippery slope risk and so on.
Taking the position that either (i) speech can't generate a large stress response that's physically harmful to the individual, or that (ii) our knowledge of how stress is generated somehow changes whether or not stressors should be banned -- these are both not good arguments.
I agree that the label "violence" is manipulative. Using the label "harm" instead would be more accurate.