Herve's Bar & Grill

Disclaimer: I am not American, so I don't try to comment on your laws or customs.

But from a general point of view, Freedom of speech is to be allowed to say what we want to say. It does not mean that we are not responsible for the effect of what we say. Similarly, the Right to carry a gun does not allow me to do whatever I want with said gun.

In addition, we live in states that are governed by laws. Which prevents the government (and police forces) from acting in an arbitrary manner.

Let's enjoy it !
 
chevy said:
It does not mean that we are not responsible for the effect of what we say.
Click to expand...
The link previously provided discusses that very issue in a few sections. Regarding "responsible," you need to define what that means: Criminally responsible? Civilly responsible? Socially responsible?

chevy said:
Similarly, the Right to carry a gun does not allow me to do whatever I want with said gun.
Click to expand...

That is a false analogy. Words are not bullets. By nature, the use of a gun requires adherence to state and federal laws, if you live in USA!USA!USA! If you live in one of Our Colonies, like Canada, England, or even Detroit, you fall under their laws. Whether such laws are "good," "just," "right," and all of that is a different discussion.

This does not apply to speech. There is no law, neither state nor federal, that governs my current typing on this forum. I require no license. Whether or not I can have a handgun on the desk next to this computer, whether or not it can be loaded, whether or not I can even possess said firearm follows state and federal laws.

From a criminal standpoint, I refer to this:

Trope Three: "Not all speech is protected"

Example: "Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment." Ann Coulter, Townhall, August 2, 2001.

Example: “Not all speech is protected if there is hate speech and it is intended to ridicule another religion,” he said. “I don’t believe it is a free speech matter.” Archbishop Paul Coakley, quoted on FoxNews.com, August 8, 2014.

The media routinely prefaces free speech discussions with the bland and inarguable statement "not all speech is protected." That's true. In fact it's not in serious dispute. The problem is that the media routinely invokes this trope to imply that the proposed First Amendment exception it is about to discuss is plausible or constitutional because other exceptions already exist. Not so. Though First Amendment analysis can be complicated at the margins, the core exceptions to First Amendment protection are well-known and well-established. The Supreme Court — in the course of rejecting a proposed new exception — articulated them recently:
"From 1791 to the present," however, the First Amendment has "permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas," and has never "include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations." Id., at 382-383. These "historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar," Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)–including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)–are "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).
Click to expand...
The observation "not all speech is protected" adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.

To see what I mean, consider the utility of equivalent rhetoric. You've been bitten by an unfamiliar snake, and you'd like to know if you need treatment.

You: Doctor, was the snake that bit me poisonous?
Doctor: Actually snakes are usually venomous. Though some are both venomous and poisonous.
You: Great. What about this snake here? I caught it in a bag for you to look at.
Doctor: There are both harmless and venomous snakes in North America.
You: Yes, thank you. Which is this?
Doctor: That snake has rings!
You: Yes. Yes it does.
Doctor: Some venomous snakes have rings.
You: Is there anyone else on duty I could see?
Click to expand...

How to Spot and Critique Censorship Tropes in the Media's Coverage of Free Speech Controversies

Whether or not individual laws are "good" or practices are "good" – see the United States' Colony the United Kingdom forays into limiting free speech in the last decade or so – is a different discussion.

– J.D.

[Edited for the codes . . . the codes. . . . – Ed.]
 
Last edited:
Regarding "responsible," you need to define what that means: Criminally responsible? Civilly responsible? Socially responsible?
Click to expand...

All of the above. You are responsible for your actions and words. And I agree with Chevy, you are underestimating what you can do with words.
We have rules here on the forum and if you misuse your words, you can be placed in a time out corner.
 
Cheryl said:
All of the above.
Click to expand...
Then let us take them separately.
Cheryl said:
You are responsible for your actions and words.
Click to expand...
With regards to criminal consequences of speech, I refer you to the list in the link I provided to chevy. There proves a rather narrow set despite the caterwauling of the perpetually offended. Therefore, if the speech is not criminal, and it pretty much is not given the narrow limits, there are no criminal consequences.

With regards to civil consequences of speech, I refer you to the limits of slander and libel. In USA!USA!USA!, those are more strictly defined for those who are public figures who, oddly enough, could actually suffer material damages to constitute a torte. Many claim the civil, few ever establish it.

With regards to social consequences of speech, it rather depends on the society.
Cheryl said:
And I agree with Chevy, you are underestimating what you can do with words.
We have rules here on the forum and if you misuse your words, you can be placed in a time out corner.
Click to expand...
Ipse dixit but incorrect. It is also a false analogy as well as a non sequitur. "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln. . . ."

So words, like bullets, consistently cause in physical trauma?

What caliber of words? Should they be hollow?

What if someone wears rubber? Will not the words bounce off, unlike a .44 magnum round?

In other bullets, nonsense!

I refer, again, to the narrow confines of criminal speech. Words are not bullets. They never were bullets. They never are bullets. They never will be bullets. They are not even BBs which will, of course, put out your eye.

As for the non sequitur, this is a private forum. You are free to injure others – to use your own fallacious analogy – by making up whatever rules you wish save any that are actually illegal, such as promoting country western music, rules that you can apply as inconsistently as you wish, as hypocritically as you wish, rules you can make up post hoc, et cetera ad naseam.

All of that remains irrelevant to the point raised.

Nevertheless, since I find veiled threats as tediously unseemly as most playground antics that do not involve fire, I have, and will have, nothing further to write on this matter.

– J.D.
 
Sometimes these boards at other sites seem to have vendetta against me! I was in a Mac trouble shooting thread at another site and said helping a poster with upgrade dilemma! Then I said he need to save his expensive software keys for the upgraded versions on that shareware to get upgraded prices on newer software versions! The volunteer modified banned me for 25 days! He said I was off tropic giving that poster advice! What kind of thin skinned moderator stems to have it out for me and that to me is the last straw on board to NEVER post there ever again!!!
 
Satcomer: I know the feeling ! I was on a forum covering a different topic than here and had my post modified because I gave more information than the OP was asking for. I never went back.
 
Also I have said it before, there is day when developers will have to recompile their software to be at least Universal versions by this time are facing oblivion to new Macs in M1+ world of Macs! When Apple finally releases the new M1+ Mac Pro we will see a software reduction in Mac World again! I also believe that day is approaching this year!
 
Last edited:
I need a drink!

and I don’t drink. But what good is a bar if you can’t have one too many and pick a fight.

So from yesterdays hearing we understand 2 things.
1 Trump is not lying about the election being stolen - he totally believes it was.
2 Trump is a fucking delusional madman totally unable to judge right from wrong or truth from fiction.

oh - and a third. He HAS to be excised from the body politic.

And I’m not fussed about being angry or smashing dishes (see how far into the weeds we’ve wandered) this guy, POTUS was actually straining at the leash to join a mob determined to undermine the single most important fundamental principle of our democracy/republic/nation/government, the peaceful transfer of power. He was willing to assassinate his own Vice President Saying that the guys with guns weren’t there to hurt him. - no they were there to hang Mike Pence and shoot Nancy Pelosi.

His minion took the 5th when asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power. (I’m drinking here - don’t give me any shit about his reservations about cooperating. He doesn’t but can’t say so. That is tantamount to Treason in search of an overt act.)

I have lived in many countries were this ground breaking principle is non-existent. It is scary to see just how close we came to loosing it all. Yet in the store and at the water cooler, ”yeah - but Biden is worse.” “Inflation is his fault” “Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were President” “5 dollar gas” I can’t believe it! How can anyone defend this fascist wannabe? And that’s a rhetorical question, there is NO defense.
 
Nope, no defense but 'I didn't know her but she must be doing this for revenge' My question is just what was he going to do once he got to the capitol with his side kick (whose son lost in the NY primary)?
 
No - I brought them here to hurt others. -
We need quotation marks like air quotes - not what he said but what he meant.
 
At least you didn’t have a Governor like mine that like to sexual tough young cute girls! Before that he was acting like a mafia don and even got his brother try to fix his issue causing him to loose his job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top