From what I understand, there may not be much money to get!
However, I guess in this "suit happy" time, it's worth a shot - - eh?
Seriously, the man has wrecked anything he might have had left of a career.He's been banned from that club, and others may follow suit. When he apologized via satellite on David Letterman people in Letterman's audience shamelessly laughed at him. So - that's punishment enough in my judgment. Only 2 are going to sue - what about everybody else in the audience?
I heard that he had become depressed previously of his own failed TV show - this could be a result of that. If he just "lost it" (which it appears to me is what happened) he can plead a mentally altered state and probably win so I see no point in bring even more attention to the issue. It was ugly enough, let it die - we have enough nastiness in the news every day.
And all this time I thought it was legal to call people names. Not nice, perhaps, but legal. What's next? Throw folks in jail that call other people jerks?
<center>sudo</center>
Sudo
Even though we have freedom of speech it is illegal to "Incite" the classic example of this is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
If a fight had erupted in the venue and someone got injured or killed even Jack McCoy would have prosecuted Richards for Depraved Indifference.
I have watched HBO Comedy specials where black people use the "N" word every other word. It is perfectly acceptable and denigrates no one or at least that is the impression. We on the other hand have no right to use the word. Even literature like Huck Finn is being banned because it contains the word.
Gloria A is a opportunistic media absorbed attorney and should be discounted as such but the underlying point here is that if you are white and a public figure or entertainer there are certain areas which are taboo. Rightly so because decorum dictates it. I don't recall any Concentration Camp Comedy.
I recall a routine that Chris Rock does about being afraid to enter an elevator with six white high school kids. Obviously a reference to Columbine but that is considered funny not offensive. Well I am offended and so what who cares.
Same here, Richards go off (and not without provocation as I read the story) and all of sudden everyone is offended and money must be paid. Half the post of GS offend me but it is my choice to log in isn't it.
What was the phrase "Grotesque Fascination"
Does anyone remember Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Don Rickles etc.
Surprise! I agree with you on this one. Although I find the use of any ethnic slur offensive and disgusting, I do not agree that bigots giving voice to their putrid contents of their minds should be a legally actionable matter. Michael Richards, using the N word in a comedy act does not meet the tests of presenting a clear and present danger or slander as the Supreme Court has ruled. I don't know the context in which he used the word in his act but if he did use it in a demeaning manner, he should be subject to the court of public opinion and not to a court of law. We need to be very careful that we differentiate between hate speech and hate action. Besides, bigots uttering hateful epithets pronounce their own sentences.
Should we redact the usuage of the N word in Huckleberry Finn or change the title of The Nigger of Narcissus by Joseph Conrad?
Richards acted like a complete stark raving lunatic and then apologizes? That doesn't make sense. I think the only reason he apologized is because of the publicity it got and now he has to eat CROW!!!!
It's really a classic case of supply and demand. Audiences in general have demanded for stand-ups to push the envelope and the stand-ups have responded by giving the customers what they want . I am speaking in general terms because my exposure to the cited incident has been second hand via the media. In no way do I excuse Richards for his actions but I think audiences that have fostered this type of language and behaviour must be willing to share in some of the guilt in knowing this is the type of product they have been endorsing .
ps-----Cathy Griffith ain't funny either, she's just mean hearted.(IMO)
If the N word is a bad word for white people to say it should also be a bad word for black people to say, yet Richard Pryor has the word in an album title, Snoop Dog begins a recording by saying "this is for all you Ns who think that Gangsta rap is dead, F y'all". That's blatant discrimination.
I guess what I don't get is, why use the word at all? When I get angry at black people there are names for their behavior which are not slurs. Names like racist, bigot, hypocrit. Racial equality for some of them is not achieved without revenge. I'm not responsible for what some slave owner did 150 years ago any more than most of them are responsible for what a black pimp or drug dealer does today. All that's going to do is assure that another generation of white people will want payback of their own.
Michael Richards has been doing comedy for awhile. He's dealt with hecklers before. Why did he let these particular hecklers get inside his head? Perhaps he like many white people today has issues with race politics. That doesn't make him a racist.
From what I understand, there may not be much money to get!
Don't be so sure krys... the seventh season of "Seinfeld" is about to be released (that's why Jerry was on Letterman and wanted to have Richards "apology" aired)... none of the cast members of "Seinfeld" have to work another day in their lives if they don't want to...
Like others have said, I didn't know and don't think it should be 'actionable' but who knows these days... folks will try anything...
And I think he's a bigot and doesn't say those things if they don't "live" somewhere inside of him...
Talk about ironic! I never watched Seinfeld much; caught a few episodes here and there, but last night I saw part of an episode on Nick at Nite and Kramer was accusing Seinfeld of being prejudiced against dentists; called him a anti dentite. Later Seinfeld told a 'dentist joke'. Weird.
You and Oenophile are the only ones who have really addressed what really bothered me in the first place.. not whether he should or should not have used the 'N' word or how blacks use the word or whatever but.. whether or not in a country with free speech he has the right to use offensive speech without being held liable for damages from said speech. You wrote:
Re:"Even though we have freedom of speech it is illegal to "Incite" the classic example of this is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
If a fight had erupted in the venue and someone got injured or killed even Jack McCoy would have prosecuted Richards for Depraved Indifference."
Is this not totally different? Is this really in the same league of falsely warning of impending peril with the motive of causing mayhem? When in fact there was no peril? Are you saying that we as Americans must judge the sensitivity of our listeners before we use speech or be held liable for monetary damages?
Can I not get up in front of a crowded house full of Republicans and call George Bush a murderer and terrorist for fear they will riot and someone get hurt?
Just want to add something. As I see it, we all HAVE freedom of speech and it's not dependant on a constitution or country. Free speech is one of the inalienable rights referred to in the declaration of independance. The problem is that sometimes there are consequences for using free speech. Jesus is the classic example of that. I'm guessing the reason they put it in the constitution is to remind us that there were/are countries in which if you said the wrong thing at the wrong time you could be put to death.
I know you mean well and I'm not wanting to nit pick here but this is an important issue with me. You wrote:
Re:"Free speech is one of the inalienable rights referred to in the declaration of independance."
Not really, John. Unless you are reading "free speech" into life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact it wasn't even explicitly written into our constitution but was the very first amendment as you said. It not only troubles me that a lawsuit is even being mentioned for calling someone names but it troubles me that it DOESN'T trouble all Americans. :(
This isn't a first amendment ("free speech") issue, folks. I agree that a lawsuit over this seems baseless, but the first amendment has nothing to do with holding someone accountable in civil court for damages his speech causes another person.
whether or not in a country with free speech he has the <B><I>right</I></B> to use offensive speech without being held liable for damages from said speech.
Sudo as LG wrote "the first amendment has nothing to do with holding someone accountable in civil court for damages his speech causes another person."
Criminal vs Civil
This is the classic example of this argument.
I'm no lawyer but I believe that a Civil case to have merit has to show that there were actual damages to an individual. I.E. Ron Goldman, his family sued in Civil court and won the damage done was Ron's life was taken.
Here no damage was done unless being uncomfortable or embarrassed is damage. So your point is well taken.
If I were to call the President a Murderer because of policy my words would have no effect on the policy. If I were to call my child an dumb$ss over and over it would be verbal and emotional abuse. If it was proved that my words caused that child to become so dysfunctional that he or she caused harm to someone else he or she might not be convicted of the crime but I could certainly be held liable in civil court, and on and on Ad Nauseam.
Now I have brought in the issue of Tort Law and Freedom of Speech. This is an excellent discussion. One we have to face in this country.
You have raised another issue, "Is it discrimination if blacks can use a word that whites cannot". Basically extending their freedom of speech beyond the scope of whites". This is a good one. Let me ask this, can a black be a racist or a bigot? I contend that the answer is yes, does this forum discriminate, it will block the N word whether typed by black or white. It is up to the people both black and white to hold someone to equal standards not the Gov. I will not buy or participate in entertainment that promotes the N word from black or white. To allow blacks to indiscriminately use the word will whites cannot even utter the word without fear of civil liability or committing a hate crime is a travesty of freedom.
In reading about this, I have a couple of thoughts:
- - Richards was "heckled" for not being very funny, which is what supposedly began this thing that cycled out of control; my thought - - if you're a stand up comedian and you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
- - Richards didn't just "say" the "N" word - - he responded to the heckling with verbal attacks on his audience. Unlike other stand ups (Chris Rock being one of the most notorious) who "say" the "N" word - - they're not "calling" people in their audience "n*ggers", "cr*ckers", or "wetbacks". They are using the "shock effect" of regular use of those words to provide their own brand of commentary on race, class and social life in our country. Richards was "calling" them "n*ggers" and made some comment inferring that they should be lynched. That's crossing the line and particularly coming from a Caucasian comedian who's comedic routine is NOT known to be about race (like Rock's is).
- - Rock - - for however offensive he might be to some people with his acidic tongue - - is considered a "brilliant" comic because he knows who his audience is and plays to it. So he can take on a room full of (mostly) young, very urban African-Americans who eat up his commentary on the reality, the hypocrisy, the stupidity, the need for change in race relations in America - - and makes strong points with his commentary of life in Black society in America - - cuz that's who he is. But where he's "brilliant" is his crossover appeal to the mainstream public. His 3 Emmys and multiple nominations for his HBO specials and writing for other programs attest to his appeal. But his edge didn't cut it for the Oscar audience.
George Lopez has a similar "schtick" with Latinos (though arguably, not as edgey as Rock's). And if you didn't grow up 2nd or 3rd generation Latino (I did), the nuances of some of his humor might escape you - - or may even be a little offensive - - but the Latinos in the audience (and again - -he enjoys great crossover to the mainstream public) eat it up. There's a reason this stuff plays well in LA, NYC and other large urban populations and probably not as well in smaller cities and rural America.
So, who has the "right" to use the "N" word, or say "cr*cker" or "ho", etc. in their routines? I say "intent" has a lot to do with the acceptance by an audience. Personally, I'd much rather hear a Chris Rock routine than a Don Rickles routine any day. But that's just me.
I heard a conservative radio personality call Rock a racist and bigot. My personal opinion? I doubt it. Does he harbor some prejudice? Probably pretty difficult to grow up in the U.S. (particularly as a minority) without some. But I think the INTENT of some of his routines is to bring racism to the forefront and by use of humor, examine it.
I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I tend to think the First Amendment Free Speech has more to do with the ability of WE THE PEOPLE to say whatever we like about the leaders we elect and the policies and legislation they enact. It's appropriate since it's OUR lives that are directly affected and OUR money that pays for it.
When somebody cusses up a blue streak like many commedians do or calls somebody a name such as this Michael Richards guy evidently did, then that falls under the category of common decency or courtesy. This sort of thing needs to be UNregulated with no threats of tort violation.
That sort of thing needs to be self regulated by WE THE PEOPLE in the marketplace of ideas and free discourse.
If you go into a crowded biker bar full of partying bikers and loudly declare ".... BIKERS SUCK!!!", you will most likely be regulated by the bikers there and they probably won't gather together, hire a lawyer and initiate a lawsuit against you to do this regulation.
I don't have a problem with somebody calling someone a name like Richards did or saying anything else of a racial nature or anything simply because, as one of the other posters said, "It lives inside him" (I'm not going to take the time to look it up and quote it), and it's FAR better to know what lives inside him that way than to silence him and let it fester inside until it comes out in some other way that might be much more destructive than a mere epithet. It always helps to know exactly where you stand and where someone else stands.
If you don't like what he says/thinks, then don't buy his stuff and contribute to paying his bills...but just take it in stride and move on with your life...let it float or sink in the free marketplace of ideas.
As many know, I don't always agree with what's said by many of the more "progressive" amongst us and I like to take pokes at them, but if it ever came down to it, I'd be among the very first to take up a rifle and DEFEND their right to say what they say...but then I'm always looking for an excuse to get my rifle and shoot something.
The right of free speech does not apply to this case. Free speech is only applicable when there is government action involved. Outside of this, there is no right of free speech.
A good example of this is are the trials involving Rodney King and OJ Simpson. In Rodney King's trial, where the police officers were accused of brutality against him, they were found not guilty, sparking the L.A. riots. They were latter brought to trial in federal court for violating his 1st amendment rights and found guilty. They could do this because the police officers were a government agency at the time. When OJ Simpson was found not guilty, no such trial was possible because OJ was not working for the government when he killed those two people. Therefor he could not be tried for violating Nicole and Ron Brown's 1st amendment rights.
Say you rent a house and you want to hang a sign outside it that says, "Vote for Bush!". The landlord doesn't want it there and removes it, forbidding you to put it back up or risk being kicked out. You claim your 1st amendment rights are being violated and you take him to court. You lose. Case gets thrown out before it even gets started. No government action, no violation of free speech.
There is no such thing as free speech outside of the realm in which the government is involved. The purpose of the 1st amendment is to prevent the government from suppressing speech. It has nothing to do with speech outside of that.
For example, say I set up a web site and claim that Sudo's dentistry is a fraud. He overcharges, does shoddy work, has bad breath, and tells really bad jokes while working on your mouth. When you type Sudo's business name into Google, my site is the 1st on the list. People flee Sudo's dentistry and he is about to go out of business.
At this, Sudo sues me. Sudo shows how he has been injured by my speech (via my web site). I claim my 1st amendment rights in defense. I lose. Unless Sudo's dentistry is a government agency, no such right exists. My only defense is the truth, i.e. that everything said is in fact true.
In all civil cases as such, all the plaintiff has to do is prove he/she has been injured by the speech of the defendant. The defendant must then prove all things that were said are in fact true. Otherwise the plaintiff wins (in Great Britain, even the truth defense is not valid. Once a plaintiff proves they have been injured by the plaintiff's speech, case is over and monetary damages awarded).
What keeps the court from being flooded with these types of cases is the truth defense (and lack of monetary resources of the defendant). Before you take someone to court in a case like this, you need to be sure every thing is false. Otherwise, you will have a court stating that your dirty laundry is in fact dirty.
What makes this case so appealing to lawyers is the monetary resources of Richards and his lack of truth defense (can you imagine him trying to prove what he said is actually true?). About his only defense would be is that he was provoked and the speech was only intended to defend himself. I don't know what type of damages a court would award in this case, especially since the plaintiffs are unnamed in the video and not even seen. Their careers or businesses could not have been damaged by being unknowns in the video. The only damage is mental anguish.
But what a court would award is irrelevant. The publicity of such a trial would do far greater damage to Richards, making the court's monetary award insignificant. He has to settle out of court with a non-disclosure agreement in tact. The settlement amount will far exceed anything a court would award.
From what you said the defense that Richards would need to use is (if in fact the allegations are solely about the N word) do the plaintiffs own material, watched, listened to or have ever been at a performance of another entertainer who used the N word toward the audience and did not sue. That would change the course of the trial and bring it back to reality which is can blacks say the N word without impunity and not whites.
Not that I would want to use the word ever just that I could without fear.
Legal ramifications notwithstanding, after seeing the video of Richard's outburst, I have to reiterate what someone else concluded: the guy is bat$#it crazy. Nobody in their right mind - no matter how much of a racist or bigot he may be - would destroy their career over a few hecklers. The boy needs a rubber room for awhile.
And, that being said, I have to add that, although I enjoyed much of the Seinfeld show, the dark humor often gave me the creeps. And sometimes it went beyond "dark" and got just icky...
That would be an interesting trial although we'll probably never see it unless the amount sought in the settlement is outrageous, bankrupting Richards and he feels his career is now shot to hell.
Or, he feels strongly enough that he should be able to use that word and decides to do the full trial to make his point, irregardless of consequences.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
8
16
9
Popular Days
Nov 25
32
Nov 24
19
Nov 28
15
Nov 26
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 9 posts
ex10 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 16 posts
doojable 9 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2006
32 posts
Nov 24 2006
19 posts
Nov 28 2006
15 posts
Nov 26 2006
12 posts
pawtucket
Gloria Allred is great at getting "out of court" settlements. How much is Richards willing to pay to make this go away?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
From what I understand, there may not be much money to get!
However, I guess in this "suit happy" time, it's worth a shot - - eh?
Seriously, the man has wrecked anything he might have had left of a career.He's been banned from that club, and others may follow suit. When he apologized via satellite on David Letterman people in Letterman's audience shamelessly laughed at him. So - that's punishment enough in my judgment. Only 2 are going to sue - what about everybody else in the audience?
I heard that he had become depressed previously of his own failed TV show - this could be a result of that. If he just "lost it" (which it appears to me is what happened) he can plead a mentally altered state and probably win so I see no point in bring even more attention to the issue. It was ugly enough, let it die - we have enough nastiness in the news every day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
griffp
Sudo
Even though we have freedom of speech it is illegal to "Incite" the classic example of this is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
If a fight had erupted in the venue and someone got injured or killed even Jack McCoy would have prosecuted Richards for Depraved Indifference.
I have watched HBO Comedy specials where black people use the "N" word every other word. It is perfectly acceptable and denigrates no one or at least that is the impression. We on the other hand have no right to use the word. Even literature like Huck Finn is being banned because it contains the word.
Gloria A is a opportunistic media absorbed attorney and should be discounted as such but the underlying point here is that if you are white and a public figure or entertainer there are certain areas which are taboo. Rightly so because decorum dictates it. I don't recall any Concentration Camp Comedy.
I recall a routine that Chris Rock does about being afraid to enter an elevator with six white high school kids. Obviously a reference to Columbine but that is considered funny not offensive. Well I am offended and so what who cares.
Same here, Richards go off (and not without provocation as I read the story) and all of sudden everyone is offended and money must be paid. Half the post of GS offend me but it is my choice to log in isn't it.
What was the phrase "Grotesque Fascination"
Does anyone remember Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Don Rickles etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Sudo,
Surprise! I agree with you on this one. Although I find the use of any ethnic slur offensive and disgusting, I do not agree that bigots giving voice to their putrid contents of their minds should be a legally actionable matter. Michael Richards, using the N word in a comedy act does not meet the tests of presenting a clear and present danger or slander as the Supreme Court has ruled. I don't know the context in which he used the word in his act but if he did use it in a demeaning manner, he should be subject to the court of public opinion and not to a court of law. We need to be very careful that we differentiate between hate speech and hate action. Besides, bigots uttering hateful epithets pronounce their own sentences.
Should we redact the usuage of the N word in Huckleberry Finn or change the title of The Nigger of Narcissus by Joseph Conrad?
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Richards acted like a complete stark raving lunatic and then apologizes? That doesn't make sense. I think the only reason he apologized is because of the publicity it got and now he has to eat CROW!!!!
People like him truly are a$$hole biggots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's really a classic case of supply and demand. Audiences in general have demanded for stand-ups to push the envelope and the stand-ups have responded by giving the customers what they want . I am speaking in general terms because my exposure to the cited incident has been second hand via the media. In no way do I excuse Richards for his actions but I think audiences that have fostered this type of language and behaviour must be willing to share in some of the guilt in knowing this is the type of product they have been endorsing .
ps-----Cathy Griffith ain't funny either, she's just mean hearted.(IMO)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Where was Gloria et al when the looney lefties at Columbia University were calling the black representative of the "Minutemen" a nigger?
Just illustrates the looney left hypocrisy.
By the way, who is Michael Richards?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Thanks, Oakspear.
That really doesn't ring a bell, either, but thanks, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
If the N word is a bad word for white people to say it should also be a bad word for black people to say, yet Richard Pryor has the word in an album title, Snoop Dog begins a recording by saying "this is for all you Ns who think that Gangsta rap is dead, F y'all". That's blatant discrimination.
I guess what I don't get is, why use the word at all? When I get angry at black people there are names for their behavior which are not slurs. Names like racist, bigot, hypocrit. Racial equality for some of them is not achieved without revenge. I'm not responsible for what some slave owner did 150 years ago any more than most of them are responsible for what a black pimp or drug dealer does today. All that's going to do is assure that another generation of white people will want payback of their own.
Michael Richards has been doing comedy for awhile. He's dealt with hecklers before. Why did he let these particular hecklers get inside his head? Perhaps he like many white people today has issues with race politics. That doesn't make him a racist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Don't be so sure krys... the seventh season of "Seinfeld" is about to be released (that's why Jerry was on Letterman and wanted to have Richards "apology" aired)... none of the cast members of "Seinfeld" have to work another day in their lives if they don't want to...
Like others have said, I didn't know and don't think it should be 'actionable' but who knows these days... folks will try anything...
And I think he's a bigot and doesn't say those things if they don't "live" somewhere inside of him...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Talk about ironic! I never watched Seinfeld much; caught a few episodes here and there, but last night I saw part of an episode on Nick at Nite and Kramer was accusing Seinfeld of being prejudiced against dentists; called him a anti dentite. Later Seinfeld told a 'dentist joke'. Weird.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Griffp,
You and Oenophile are the only ones who have really addressed what really bothered me in the first place.. not whether he should or should not have used the 'N' word or how blacks use the word or whatever but.. whether or not in a country with free speech he has the right to use offensive speech without being held liable for damages from said speech. You wrote:
Re:"Even though we have freedom of speech it is illegal to "Incite" the classic example of this is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
If a fight had erupted in the venue and someone got injured or killed even Jack McCoy would have prosecuted Richards for Depraved Indifference."
Is this not totally different? Is this really in the same league of falsely warning of impending peril with the motive of causing mayhem? When in fact there was no peril? Are you saying that we as Americans must judge the sensitivity of our listeners before we use speech or be held liable for monetary damages?
Can I not get up in front of a crowded house full of Republicans and call George Bush a murderer and terrorist for fear they will riot and someone get hurt?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Just want to add something. As I see it, we all HAVE freedom of speech and it's not dependant on a constitution or country. Free speech is one of the inalienable rights referred to in the declaration of independance. The problem is that sometimes there are consequences for using free speech. Jesus is the classic example of that. I'm guessing the reason they put it in the constitution is to remind us that there were/are countries in which if you said the wrong thing at the wrong time you could be put to death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Johniam,
I know you mean well and I'm not wanting to nit pick here but this is an important issue with me. You wrote:
Re:"Free speech is one of the inalienable rights referred to in the declaration of independance."
Not really, John. Unless you are reading "free speech" into life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact it wasn't even explicitly written into our constitution but was the very first amendment as you said. It not only troubles me that a lawsuit is even being mentioned for calling someone names but it troubles me that it DOESN'T trouble all Americans. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Tom your point is well taken!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
This isn't a first amendment ("free speech") issue, folks. I agree that a lawsuit over this seems baseless, but the first amendment has nothing to do with holding someone accountable in civil court for damages his speech causes another person.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
griffp
Sudo as LG wrote "the first amendment has nothing to do with holding someone accountable in civil court for damages his speech causes another person."
Criminal vs Civil
This is the classic example of this argument.
I'm no lawyer but I believe that a Civil case to have merit has to show that there were actual damages to an individual. I.E. Ron Goldman, his family sued in Civil court and won the damage done was Ron's life was taken.
Here no damage was done unless being uncomfortable or embarrassed is damage. So your point is well taken.
If I were to call the President a Murderer because of policy my words would have no effect on the policy. If I were to call my child an dumb$ss over and over it would be verbal and emotional abuse. If it was proved that my words caused that child to become so dysfunctional that he or she caused harm to someone else he or she might not be convicted of the crime but I could certainly be held liable in civil court, and on and on Ad Nauseam.
Now I have brought in the issue of Tort Law and Freedom of Speech. This is an excellent discussion. One we have to face in this country.
You have raised another issue, "Is it discrimination if blacks can use a word that whites cannot". Basically extending their freedom of speech beyond the scope of whites". This is a good one. Let me ask this, can a black be a racist or a bigot? I contend that the answer is yes, does this forum discriminate, it will block the N word whether typed by black or white. It is up to the people both black and white to hold someone to equal standards not the Gov. I will not buy or participate in entertainment that promotes the N word from black or white. To allow blacks to indiscriminately use the word will whites cannot even utter the word without fear of civil liability or committing a hate crime is a travesty of freedom.
Good discussion.
PS Today is Black Friday hmmmm
3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
In reading about this, I have a couple of thoughts:
- - Richards was "heckled" for not being very funny, which is what supposedly began this thing that cycled out of control; my thought - - if you're a stand up comedian and you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
- - Richards didn't just "say" the "N" word - - he responded to the heckling with verbal attacks on his audience. Unlike other stand ups (Chris Rock being one of the most notorious) who "say" the "N" word - - they're not "calling" people in their audience "n*ggers", "cr*ckers", or "wetbacks". They are using the "shock effect" of regular use of those words to provide their own brand of commentary on race, class and social life in our country. Richards was "calling" them "n*ggers" and made some comment inferring that they should be lynched. That's crossing the line and particularly coming from a Caucasian comedian who's comedic routine is NOT known to be about race (like Rock's is).
- - Rock - - for however offensive he might be to some people with his acidic tongue - - is considered a "brilliant" comic because he knows who his audience is and plays to it. So he can take on a room full of (mostly) young, very urban African-Americans who eat up his commentary on the reality, the hypocrisy, the stupidity, the need for change in race relations in America - - and makes strong points with his commentary of life in Black society in America - - cuz that's who he is. But where he's "brilliant" is his crossover appeal to the mainstream public. His 3 Emmys and multiple nominations for his HBO specials and writing for other programs attest to his appeal. But his edge didn't cut it for the Oscar audience.
George Lopez has a similar "schtick" with Latinos (though arguably, not as edgey as Rock's). And if you didn't grow up 2nd or 3rd generation Latino (I did), the nuances of some of his humor might escape you - - or may even be a little offensive - - but the Latinos in the audience (and again - -he enjoys great crossover to the mainstream public) eat it up. There's a reason this stuff plays well in LA, NYC and other large urban populations and probably not as well in smaller cities and rural America.
So, who has the "right" to use the "N" word, or say "cr*cker" or "ho", etc. in their routines? I say "intent" has a lot to do with the acceptance by an audience. Personally, I'd much rather hear a Chris Rock routine than a Don Rickles routine any day. But that's just me.
I heard a conservative radio personality call Rock a racist and bigot. My personal opinion? I doubt it. Does he harbor some prejudice? Probably pretty difficult to grow up in the U.S. (particularly as a minority) without some. But I think the INTENT of some of his routines is to bring racism to the forefront and by use of humor, examine it.
I don't think that was Richard's intent.
J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I tend to think the First Amendment Free Speech has more to do with the ability of WE THE PEOPLE to say whatever we like about the leaders we elect and the policies and legislation they enact. It's appropriate since it's OUR lives that are directly affected and OUR money that pays for it.
When somebody cusses up a blue streak like many commedians do or calls somebody a name such as this Michael Richards guy evidently did, then that falls under the category of common decency or courtesy. This sort of thing needs to be UNregulated with no threats of tort violation.
That sort of thing needs to be self regulated by WE THE PEOPLE in the marketplace of ideas and free discourse.
If you go into a crowded biker bar full of partying bikers and loudly declare ".... BIKERS SUCK!!!", you will most likely be regulated by the bikers there and they probably won't gather together, hire a lawyer and initiate a lawsuit against you to do this regulation.
I don't have a problem with somebody calling someone a name like Richards did or saying anything else of a racial nature or anything simply because, as one of the other posters said, "It lives inside him" (I'm not going to take the time to look it up and quote it), and it's FAR better to know what lives inside him that way than to silence him and let it fester inside until it comes out in some other way that might be much more destructive than a mere epithet. It always helps to know exactly where you stand and where someone else stands.
If you don't like what he says/thinks, then don't buy his stuff and contribute to paying his bills...but just take it in stride and move on with your life...let it float or sink in the free marketplace of ideas.
As many know, I don't always agree with what's said by many of the more "progressive" amongst us and I like to take pokes at them, but if it ever came down to it, I'd be among the very first to take up a rifle and DEFEND their right to say what they say...but then I'm always looking for an excuse to get my rifle and shoot something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
The right of free speech does not apply to this case. Free speech is only applicable when there is government action involved. Outside of this, there is no right of free speech.
A good example of this is are the trials involving Rodney King and OJ Simpson. In Rodney King's trial, where the police officers were accused of brutality against him, they were found not guilty, sparking the L.A. riots. They were latter brought to trial in federal court for violating his 1st amendment rights and found guilty. They could do this because the police officers were a government agency at the time. When OJ Simpson was found not guilty, no such trial was possible because OJ was not working for the government when he killed those two people. Therefor he could not be tried for violating Nicole and Ron Brown's 1st amendment rights.
Say you rent a house and you want to hang a sign outside it that says, "Vote for Bush!". The landlord doesn't want it there and removes it, forbidding you to put it back up or risk being kicked out. You claim your 1st amendment rights are being violated and you take him to court. You lose. Case gets thrown out before it even gets started. No government action, no violation of free speech.
There is no such thing as free speech outside of the realm in which the government is involved. The purpose of the 1st amendment is to prevent the government from suppressing speech. It has nothing to do with speech outside of that.
For example, say I set up a web site and claim that Sudo's dentistry is a fraud. He overcharges, does shoddy work, has bad breath, and tells really bad jokes while working on your mouth. When you type Sudo's business name into Google, my site is the 1st on the list. People flee Sudo's dentistry and he is about to go out of business.
At this, Sudo sues me. Sudo shows how he has been injured by my speech (via my web site). I claim my 1st amendment rights in defense. I lose. Unless Sudo's dentistry is a government agency, no such right exists. My only defense is the truth, i.e. that everything said is in fact true.
In all civil cases as such, all the plaintiff has to do is prove he/she has been injured by the speech of the defendant. The defendant must then prove all things that were said are in fact true. Otherwise the plaintiff wins (in Great Britain, even the truth defense is not valid. Once a plaintiff proves they have been injured by the plaintiff's speech, case is over and monetary damages awarded).
What keeps the court from being flooded with these types of cases is the truth defense (and lack of monetary resources of the defendant). Before you take someone to court in a case like this, you need to be sure every thing is false. Otherwise, you will have a court stating that your dirty laundry is in fact dirty.
What makes this case so appealing to lawyers is the monetary resources of Richards and his lack of truth defense (can you imagine him trying to prove what he said is actually true?). About his only defense would be is that he was provoked and the speech was only intended to defend himself. I don't know what type of damages a court would award in this case, especially since the plaintiffs are unnamed in the video and not even seen. Their careers or businesses could not have been damaged by being unknowns in the video. The only damage is mental anguish.
But what a court would award is irrelevant. The publicity of such a trial would do far greater damage to Richards, making the court's monetary award insignificant. He has to settle out of court with a non-disclosure agreement in tact. The settlement amount will far exceed anything a court would award.
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
griffp
GreasyTech
From what you said the defense that Richards would need to use is (if in fact the allegations are solely about the N word) do the plaintiffs own material, watched, listened to or have ever been at a performance of another entertainer who used the N word toward the audience and did not sue. That would change the course of the trial and bring it back to reality which is can blacks say the N word without impunity and not whites.
Not that I would want to use the word ever just that I could without fear.
Edited by griffpLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Legal ramifications notwithstanding, after seeing the video of Richard's outburst, I have to reiterate what someone else concluded: the guy is bat$#it crazy. Nobody in their right mind - no matter how much of a racist or bigot he may be - would destroy their career over a few hecklers. The boy needs a rubber room for awhile.
And, that being said, I have to add that, although I enjoyed much of the Seinfeld show, the dark humor often gave me the creeps. And sometimes it went beyond "dark" and got just icky...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Good point Griifp.
That would be an interesting trial although we'll probably never see it unless the amount sought in the settlement is outrageous, bankrupting Richards and he feels his career is now shot to hell.
Or, he feels strongly enough that he should be able to use that word and decides to do the full trial to make his point, irregardless of consequences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.