Yes, an interesting point on who can use the word.
But, I think it's the INTENT of the use of the word which is the difference, which point I attempt to make at the bottom of page 1.
J.
I agree with that only to the extent that maybe...just maybe...that's the way it should be. In practice, and I may (surprise) be agreeing with GT on this, intent probably goes out the window. If a party feels he or she is injured by the words, and can show it, then it doesn't matter what the intent was; that intent doesn't make any difference if, for just one example, we are talking about a civil suit.
Anyone who has gone though the "courses" on sexual harassment in the workplace knows that the official word is, (quoting from an FAA seminar I found, which seems exactly the same as I remember going through here) ...."It is important to understand that intent is not relevant in determining whether or not a behavior is sexual harassment. All that matters is the impact of the behavior on the work environment."(italics in the text; not mine).
IMHO MR's language creates an issure as emotionally charged as sexual harassment. And I say maybe because I can see how a person can hurt someone with words without intending to, but still carrying the responsibility....i.e. not thinking at all about what we are saying; that is, not thinking before you speak, is what I want to say going to hurt anyone? and/or just not caring whether or not it will.
Richards sounds at first like he is actually doing an "act" and taking the part of a racial bigot to respond to those men. Bad taste, but not unusual for comedy. It seems obvious he spun off into a personal response to what was being said, displaying then incredibly bad taste - "ugly" for want of a better word. It was wrong IMO. Is it illegal? In and of itself, no.
I think of a driving speed - if the law states a street has a limit of 25 mph, and I drive 50 on it, I broke the law because that law regulates the speed, not the conditions on the road or whether it seemed safe at the time.
What he did in his act would be the same if there was a law against what he did but I don't know of any. As far as damages go though, there could be damages proven. Just like the speeding law, even if I drive the speed limit, if I hit someone with my car I "break" another law.
Richards may have been within his rights of speech, but I think if he caused other damage while using them he would be liable for them.
As an entertainer in control of the stage, it was up to him to direct his comments and be responsible for them. No one else was in control of what he said or did. He got what he earned - scorn, rejection and disgust. And he showed he doesn't understand freedom of speech when he references "the words, we still have those words" and sounds like he's trying to channel Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, as if to say that calling a person a *n* is the same as saying "*f* that!" In context, he wasn't talking about saying them, he was saying them to another person in the way they would be at their most offensive. To me it perfecltly illustrates, yah, you can say anything you want to, if it's for shock value don't be surprised if people are shocked. You may have to explain yourself while running.
He was free to say what he wanted for whatever reasons and now he's getting the results of that. I don't know whether a suit is legal or not but I think the idea that the men would respond in that way isn't out of the question or unreasonable. Richards is a well known public figure, a "TV star". He apologized on TV to "the world", but apparently not to the men. He could have easily set up arrangements to have gotten with them and dealt with it directly. What he did do is stupid and makes him look like he cares about his image to the world more than on what he did.
- Come to think of it, the *n* word isn't maybe even the correct focus. He "Joked" that if it was 50 years ago those guys would be strung upside down with a fork up their a-s. Presumably for being disrespectful to a "white" comedian. Shoot, he's lucky those guys are as civil as they are, a suit would be preferable to other options they had available.
Yeah, George, I'm of the same mind - Seinfeld had it's funny moments but it was a creepy show a lot of the time. Seinfeld's aim of a show with "no learning" was well served.
why can they call whites honkies but whites are refrained from using the n word even when they use it themselves just wondering some of the nicest people i have met in my live are black and some of the worst were white
Intent? Ofcourse as a matter of taste intent matters. However, intent is irrelevant with respect to Sudo's lament at the beginning of this thread regarding civil damages as a result of Michael Richards uttering the N word in his stand up routine being recovered by the complainants. What matters is absent of a clear and present danger to public safety, speech is protected by the First Amendment.
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.
Nope. The First Amendment says nothing about protected speech being limited to political discourse. This is what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances is in addition to rather than limiting the foregoing guarantees solely to political discourse. Please note the "and" that precedes the "redress of grievances" clause.
Nope. The First Amendment says nothing about protected speech being limited to political discourse. This is what it says:
Who said anything about political speech? It says:
CONGRESS shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech...
Congress is the government, the one that makes the laws. Congress is the one prohibited from interfering with speech. It says nothing about speech outside of this. Last I checked, Richard's little speech did not involve him breaking some law prohibiting the use of the N word that Congress illegally passed into law, being charged with a criminal offense.
This is a civil case between people outside of the government. There is no such thing as free speech outside of the government trying to abridge it.
What matters is absent of a clear and present danger to public safety,
Although public danger is a one instance of your words being used against you, it is not the only and shouldn't be. My example of slandering Sudo's dentistry is another. There is no public safety issue with the loss of a dentistry (outside of rotting teeth) but I don't want to live anywhere where someone can legally spread lies about me in order to ruin me financially.
I have no clue on your petitioning the government point. Are you suggesting Richards start gathering signatures to petition congress to make mental anguish injury suits illegal?
You said that outside of government action there is no free speech. That is simply not true. You may speak out on a virtual plethora of topics, say some outrageous things like .... must taste good because 200 billion flies can't all be wrong and still be within your rights. If you are a movie critic and you just trash a picture, its your opinion. Should the producer, director, actors and studio be able to take you to court? I think not. You could even say Sudo didn't give you enough novacaine or silly gas and hurt you during a procedure. Should he be able to recover damages from you? NO! Why? Because it's your opinion and everyone has a right to their opinion and the freedom to express it. It's guaranteed but I will allow that some are trying to chip away at fundamental liberties.
There are two exceptions that the courts have held that are limits on free speech. I have already mentioned clear and present danger (yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre) and although I didn't mention it immediately above I believe I did mention it on an earlier post on this thread-slander which is lying for the purpose of destroying someone's reputation. I will allow that intent does matter only in this narrow context of slander. Otherwise, as far as freedom of speech guarantees, it is irrelevant as it is in the Michael Richards case.
I'll check with my legal expert - but from what I remember the freedom of speech applies to our freedom to openly criticize the US government without fear of being locked away (remember that this was the case before there was a Declaration of Independence and Constitution)
An EXEMPTION to freedom of speech would be yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Because it would be cause a dangerous situation, and THAT would violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for many.
Now, as a comedian who has been around the block a few times. Mr Richards should have had some self-control. The "N" word is a trigger for a lot of bad press.
OTOH - sometimes bad press is better than no press at all.
Not condoning him at all! But you gotta admit - now we arent' ignoring Michael Richards, are we?
OK - said my two cents.. I never really venture down here - so maybe I better go back to the kitchen and make some chamomile tea. I hear it calms the nerves.
I'll check with my legal expert - but from what I remember the freedom of speech applies to our freedom to openly criticize the US government without fear of being locked away (remember that this was the case before there was a Declaration of Independence and Constitution)
It does apply to the freedom to openly criticize the government but it is not limited to that. If it did only apply to the government, then Jack Abramoff could sue the New York Times for uncovering his bribery.
Oh for God's sake. People get called names all the time. IT is my understanding that you can call anyone anything unless it falls under slander. For instance I can call someone a stupid idiot.
BUT if I say he is a theif -- then that can go to court under federal law as it is damaging.
People are called "fat" there is a song out called whit and nerdy to which I AM OFFENDED. I am offended by clubs which do not let me in because I am white. There is a BLACK atty's group which meets and they are given "Food" for their meetings by state funds. Now, we have many black atty's and judges so it is not necessary.
I do not think calling people names is nice, but unless it is damaging to one's reputation -- stay out of the courts.
Blacks call each other that word in interviews, in conversation and in song. I am insulted by hearing it and it is unfair to have a double standard where "whitey" gets penalized legally for it.
IT IS NOT RIGHT. IT IS HURTFUL. But people call each other names all the time, but worthy of a lawsuit?
Has anyone heard Mencia? His live acts are unbleieveable and he uses the N word.
To take it to court? What is next? We better pray it gets thrown out.
BTW did you know giving xomeone the finger in Georgia is illegal? I was always doing it when cut off while driving. My atty friend told me I could go to jail as it is an obscene gesture
It does apply to the freedom to openly criticize the government but it is not limited to that. If it did only apply to the government, then Jack Abramoff could sue the New York Times for uncovering his bribery.
I'm not sure you're correct here. If the bribery is real (just for he argument here) then there is no slander involved and The New York Times is covered. If it proves to be false (again - just for the sake of this argument) Then the New York Times will be guilty of liable and open to a lawsuit. This is a different issue.
Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech were originally intended to keep the people safe to criticize the government without fear of retribution.
Ultimately, we as individuals need to take personal resposibility for who we are and what we say in public. Michael Richards might get sued - but it doesn't mean he will lose in court. In any case - he was wrong and he's gonna pay a price - particularly in the court of public opinion.
It's broader than just political speech. Here's a nice little synopsis on Wikipedia.. click HERE and scoot on down to libel and slander. Remember the Movie Absence Of Malice? About the court ruling that showed a publisher had to show actual malice? What about court rulings on obscene speech? What about the "exception" to free speech being yelling fire in a crowded theatre? What does that have to do with criticising the govt.?? The whole point being that other kinds of speech is protected though the first amendment.
And back to what first angered me.. what kind of namby pamby society have we become if we even entertain the notion of monetary damages for calling people names? Sure it can be hurtful but isn't that what we've had to teach our children from day one at school? Sticks and stones may... And why did we have to teach them this?
They were put through mental anguish and by golly Michael Richards should have to pay big bucks.
Ahhhhhh - glad I read the very first post. This is whole other can of worms.
Mental anguish is a different issue than Richards' freedom of speech. This is a personal matter and will likely be tried in civil court - not federal court - if at all. AND it's only coming up because Michael Richard's is a public figure.
By the way - if we were to extend this out to the "real world" then things would be really dicey wouldn't it. I mean think about it.....
"Well he called me a name. He hurt my feelings in public."
Doesn't this sound like schoolyard fodder? It happens everyday - the difference is the depth of the pockets and the court of public opinion.
I let my daughter read Just Do Stories by Rudyard Kipling. The "N" word is in that book. I told her that it is a word that was once accepted but was always meant to hurt. She doesn't use it.
I'm assuming that Michael Richards is as smart as a 7 year old. He lost his cool and he will pay - but not necessarily in court. I actually think this is a frivolous law suit.
BTW - This just in from the attorney of the house....Since "A retired Judge" is being called on this matter it indicates that there is no law suit yet. This is what is referred to as "mediation."
Oh - and the lawyer wants her time in front of the camera....
I'm not sure you're correct here. If the bribery is real (just for he argument here) then there is no slander involved and The New York Times is covered. If it proves to be false (again - just for the sake of this argument) Then the New York Times will be guilty of liable and open to a lawsuit. This is a different issue.
Dooj,
I offered the Abramoff example because it is not only generally known he did engage in bribery, he is going to jail because of it and several members of Congress are either going to jail, have resigned in disgrace or have been recently ousted in the election earlier this month. Your post expounds on the point I made about protected speech except in the cases of slander and clear and present danger to public safety.
Regarding slander the Supreme Court has held I believe in Westmoreland v. CBS that in order to prove slander the party bringing suit must not only prove falsehood but prove malice also.
You said that outside of government action there is no free speech. That is simply not true.
There is no other mention of freedom of speech in the constitution. The only mention is congress being prohibited from enacting laws that abridge it. What that means is that you can not be arrested and tried for what you say ever, outside of the noted exceptions to public safety.
That is why the government will do nothing against Richards. Because he has broken no laws, because no laws against such speech exist and never will.
But just because the government will do nothing, does not mean another citizen can and will. You do not have the right to injure someone else with your speech. Anyone injured by someone else, in any way, can take them to court under civil law and sue for damages.
Richards can claim his 1st amendment rights a thousand times in court and it will do him no good. He is not being prosecuted by the government. He is being sued for injuring another person by the person he injured. Freedom of speech is irrelevant here and does not exist.
If he were being tried by the government, he very well then could claim his 1st amendment rights and would win every time. There would be government action then.
Freedom of the press used in some of your analogies is another can of worms. Suffice to say, the press can be held accountable in civil court for libel and slander. About the only time I have ever known someone from the press going to jail for something they wrote is when they fail to divulge their sources when a criminal investigation requires it. Even that is a debated topic of whether it falls under freedom of press because it involves government action.
But the press is sued all the time by people outside the government for slander and libel. Using their "freedom of the press" defense does not work for them there either because there is no government action. They must be able to back up what they write with facts or be prepared to compensate the party they injured.
As for opinion, it is a valid defense in most states, but not guaranteed.
In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest.
(if everyone else is going to use Wikipedia..... <_< )
Without government action, there is no constitutional freedom of speech defense you can claim, because it doesn't exist. Outside of government action, you are subject to civil law which has no "1st amendment".
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.
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.
I'm confused then, GT. If a governmental body cannot abridge free speech, then what right does a landowner have to do so? By virtue of being a landowner?
It's easier to see using the "no law respecting an establishment of religion." A public school, which is a government agency funded by tax dollars, cannot promote any religion. A private school can. A southern federal court cannot display a copy of the 10 commandments, any private business or home or church can.
Without government action, there can be no violation of 1st amendment rights because the prohibitions in the 1st amendment are on the government.
There's no question that Richards should apologize in person to these two guys, but they don't deserve an Indian head penny in compensation for their "injuries."
I find it interesting that in this group of 20 people, Kyle Doss and Frank McBride are the only two who felt "threatened" by Richards' tirade. Were they the only African-Americans in the group or just the only ones willing to play the victim card for the national media in hopes of getting a nice little settlement check, after Gloria Allred takes her 1/3 cut, of course.
Doss says "To have him do what he did to me ... I can't even explain it. I was humiliated, even scared at one point." Scared? Please!! Did he honestly think a 57-year old man was a threat to him and his group? Did he think Richards might pull out an Uzi and spray the room? He couldn't do what myself and 99% of rational people would do, get up and walk out?
Gloria Allred, who once sued the Boy Scouts for not admitting girls, says, "Our clients were vulnerable. He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive." Oh my gosh!! I had no idea that The Laugh Factory locked these guys in and wouldn't let them leave until Michael Richard was through with his rant. That is just not right!!
Is it just the "n word" that gets everybody's panties in a wad? Andrew Dice Clay could call women in his audience "dumb c*nts" and nobody went running for a lawyer. They walked out and eventually his career went into the toilet, but I don't think anybody felt "threatened." Sam Kinison used to go on and on about the ragheads and the gooks and the f*gs. Don Rickles always talked about the "colored guy in the back of the room" in his act . I guess the "n word" is just over the edge, when said by certain people, of course.
Without government action, there is no constitutional freedom of speech defense you can claim, because it doesn't exist. Outside of government action, you are subject to civil law which has no "1st amendment".
You have defeated your on argument. In civil cases the only authority that can reward damages or assess punitive action is the courts. The courts are a part of the government last time I checked my high school civics textbook. Remember the three branches of government from high school civics? Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
It seems that circuitous logical path that one takes to argue that the courts are not bound by the Bill of Rights in civil cases is similar to those who argue that it is illegal for the government to levy taxes on income when there is a constitutional amendment that empowers it to do so. I know...
I am removing my dog from this fight too. Call your next case.
That Richards should apologize to the 2 guys, yes.
That he should pay them, no!
Or better yet, make this an episode for The People's Court. And the judgement should be that Richards pays for their night out at the comedy club: entry fee, drinks, and so on, ... but their 'attorney' gets NOTHING. :blink:
Bet your bottom dollar *she's* the one who will be 'offended' now.
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
Lifted Up
I agree with that only to the extent that maybe...just maybe...that's the way it should be. In practice, and I may (surprise) be agreeing with GT on this, intent probably goes out the window. If a party feels he or she is injured by the words, and can show it, then it doesn't matter what the intent was; that intent doesn't make any difference if, for just one example, we are talking about a civil suit.
Anyone who has gone though the "courses" on sexual harassment in the workplace knows that the official word is, (quoting from an FAA seminar I found, which seems exactly the same as I remember going through here) ...."It is important to understand that intent is not relevant in determining whether or not a behavior is sexual harassment. All that matters is the impact of the behavior on the work environment."(italics in the text; not mine).
IMHO MR's language creates an issure as emotionally charged as sexual harassment. And I say maybe because I can see how a person can hurt someone with words without intending to, but still carrying the responsibility....i.e. not thinking at all about what we are saying; that is, not thinking before you speak, is what I want to say going to hurt anyone? and/or just not caring whether or not it will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Richards sounds at first like he is actually doing an "act" and taking the part of a racial bigot to respond to those men. Bad taste, but not unusual for comedy. It seems obvious he spun off into a personal response to what was being said, displaying then incredibly bad taste - "ugly" for want of a better word. It was wrong IMO. Is it illegal? In and of itself, no.
I think of a driving speed - if the law states a street has a limit of 25 mph, and I drive 50 on it, I broke the law because that law regulates the speed, not the conditions on the road or whether it seemed safe at the time.
What he did in his act would be the same if there was a law against what he did but I don't know of any. As far as damages go though, there could be damages proven. Just like the speeding law, even if I drive the speed limit, if I hit someone with my car I "break" another law.
Richards may have been within his rights of speech, but I think if he caused other damage while using them he would be liable for them.
As an entertainer in control of the stage, it was up to him to direct his comments and be responsible for them. No one else was in control of what he said or did. He got what he earned - scorn, rejection and disgust. And he showed he doesn't understand freedom of speech when he references "the words, we still have those words" and sounds like he's trying to channel Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, as if to say that calling a person a *n* is the same as saying "*f* that!" In context, he wasn't talking about saying them, he was saying them to another person in the way they would be at their most offensive. To me it perfecltly illustrates, yah, you can say anything you want to, if it's for shock value don't be surprised if people are shocked. You may have to explain yourself while running.
He was free to say what he wanted for whatever reasons and now he's getting the results of that. I don't know whether a suit is legal or not but I think the idea that the men would respond in that way isn't out of the question or unreasonable. Richards is a well known public figure, a "TV star". He apologized on TV to "the world", but apparently not to the men. He could have easily set up arrangements to have gotten with them and dealt with it directly. What he did do is stupid and makes him look like he cares about his image to the world more than on what he did.
- Come to think of it, the *n* word isn't maybe even the correct focus. He "Joked" that if it was 50 years ago those guys would be strung upside down with a fork up their a-s. Presumably for being disrespectful to a "white" comedian. Shoot, he's lucky those guys are as civil as they are, a suit would be preferable to other options they had available.
Yeah, George, I'm of the same mind - Seinfeld had it's funny moments but it was a creepy show a lot of the time. Seinfeld's aim of a show with "no learning" was well served.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
oh oh a can of worms about to be open
why can they call whites honkies but whites are refrained from using the n word even when they use it themselves just wondering some of the nicest people i have met in my live are black and some of the worst were white
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Intent? Ofcourse as a matter of taste intent matters. However, intent is irrelevant with respect to Sudo's lament at the beginning of this thread regarding civil damages as a result of Michael Richards uttering the N word in his stand up routine being recovered by the complainants. What matters is absent of a clear and present danger to public safety, speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Nope. The First Amendment says nothing about protected speech being limited to political discourse. This is what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances is in addition to rather than limiting the foregoing guarantees solely to political discourse. Please note the "and" that precedes the "redress of grievances" clause.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
CONGRESS shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech...
Congress is the government, the one that makes the laws. Congress is the one prohibited from interfering with speech. It says nothing about speech outside of this. Last I checked, Richard's little speech did not involve him breaking some law prohibiting the use of the N word that Congress illegally passed into law, being charged with a criminal offense.
This is a civil case between people outside of the government. There is no such thing as free speech outside of the government trying to abridge it.
Although public danger is a one instance of your words being used against you, it is not the only and shouldn't be. My example of slandering Sudo's dentistry is another. There is no public safety issue with the loss of a dentistry (outside of rotting teeth) but I don't want to live anywhere where someone can legally spread lies about me in order to ruin me financially.
I have no clue on your petitioning the government point. Are you suggesting Richards start gathering signatures to petition congress to make mental anguish injury suits illegal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Greasytech,
You said that outside of government action there is no free speech. That is simply not true. You may speak out on a virtual plethora of topics, say some outrageous things like .... must taste good because 200 billion flies can't all be wrong and still be within your rights. If you are a movie critic and you just trash a picture, its your opinion. Should the producer, director, actors and studio be able to take you to court? I think not. You could even say Sudo didn't give you enough novacaine or silly gas and hurt you during a procedure. Should he be able to recover damages from you? NO! Why? Because it's your opinion and everyone has a right to their opinion and the freedom to express it. It's guaranteed but I will allow that some are trying to chip away at fundamental liberties.
There are two exceptions that the courts have held that are limits on free speech. I have already mentioned clear and present danger (yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre) and although I didn't mention it immediately above I believe I did mention it on an earlier post on this thread-slander which is lying for the purpose of destroying someone's reputation. I will allow that intent does matter only in this narrow context of slander. Otherwise, as far as freedom of speech guarantees, it is irrelevant as it is in the Michael Richards case.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'll check with my legal expert - but from what I remember the freedom of speech applies to our freedom to openly criticize the US government without fear of being locked away (remember that this was the case before there was a Declaration of Independence and Constitution)
An EXEMPTION to freedom of speech would be yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Because it would be cause a dangerous situation, and THAT would violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for many.
Now, as a comedian who has been around the block a few times. Mr Richards should have had some self-control. The "N" word is a trigger for a lot of bad press.
OTOH - sometimes bad press is better than no press at all.
Not condoning him at all! But you gotta admit - now we arent' ignoring Michael Richards, are we?
OK - said my two cents.. I never really venture down here - so maybe I better go back to the kitchen and make some chamomile tea. I hear it calms the nerves.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
It does apply to the freedom to openly criticize the government but it is not limited to that. If it did only apply to the government, then Jack Abramoff could sue the New York Times for uncovering his bribery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Back to the first post
Oh for God's sake. People get called names all the time. IT is my understanding that you can call anyone anything unless it falls under slander. For instance I can call someone a stupid idiot.
BUT if I say he is a theif -- then that can go to court under federal law as it is damaging.
People are called "fat" there is a song out called whit and nerdy to which I AM OFFENDED. I am offended by clubs which do not let me in because I am white. There is a BLACK atty's group which meets and they are given "Food" for their meetings by state funds. Now, we have many black atty's and judges so it is not necessary.
I do not think calling people names is nice, but unless it is damaging to one's reputation -- stay out of the courts.
Blacks call each other that word in interviews, in conversation and in song. I am insulted by hearing it and it is unfair to have a double standard where "whitey" gets penalized legally for it.
IT IS NOT RIGHT. IT IS HURTFUL. But people call each other names all the time, but worthy of a lawsuit?
Has anyone heard Mencia? His live acts are unbleieveable and he uses the N word.
To take it to court? What is next? We better pray it gets thrown out.
BTW did you know giving xomeone the finger in Georgia is illegal? I was always doing it when cut off while driving. My atty friend told me I could go to jail as it is an obscene gesture
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm not sure you're correct here. If the bribery is real (just for he argument here) then there is no slander involved and The New York Times is covered. If it proves to be false (again - just for the sake of this argument) Then the New York Times will be guilty of liable and open to a lawsuit. This is a different issue.
Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech were originally intended to keep the people safe to criticize the government without fear of retribution.
Ultimately, we as individuals need to take personal resposibility for who we are and what we say in public. Michael Richards might get sued - but it doesn't mean he will lose in court. In any case - he was wrong and he's gonna pay a price - particularly in the court of public opinion.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
LG and Doojable,
It's broader than just political speech. Here's a nice little synopsis on Wikipedia.. click HERE and scoot on down to libel and slander. Remember the Movie Absence Of Malice? About the court ruling that showed a publisher had to show actual malice? What about court rulings on obscene speech? What about the "exception" to free speech being yelling fire in a crowded theatre? What does that have to do with criticising the govt.?? The whole point being that other kinds of speech is protected though the first amendment.
And back to what first angered me.. what kind of namby pamby society have we become if we even entertain the notion of monetary damages for calling people names? Sure it can be hurtful but isn't that what we've had to teach our children from day one at school? Sticks and stones may... And why did we have to teach them this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ahhhhhh - glad I read the very first post. This is whole other can of worms.
Mental anguish is a different issue than Richards' freedom of speech. This is a personal matter and will likely be tried in civil court - not federal court - if at all. AND it's only coming up because Michael Richard's is a public figure.
By the way - if we were to extend this out to the "real world" then things would be really dicey wouldn't it. I mean think about it.....
"Well he called me a name. He hurt my feelings in public."
Doesn't this sound like schoolyard fodder? It happens everyday - the difference is the depth of the pockets and the court of public opinion.
I let my daughter read Just Do Stories by Rudyard Kipling. The "N" word is in that book. I told her that it is a word that was once accepted but was always meant to hurt. She doesn't use it.
I'm assuming that Michael Richards is as smart as a 7 year old. He lost his cool and he will pay - but not necessarily in court. I actually think this is a frivolous law suit.
BTW - This just in from the attorney of the house....Since "A retired Judge" is being called on this matter it indicates that there is no law suit yet. This is what is referred to as "mediation."
Oh - and the lawyer wants her time in front of the camera....
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
BTW - I don' t like Wikipedia but here is another article on the matter
Freedom of Speech
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Dooj,
I offered the Abramoff example because it is not only generally known he did engage in bribery, he is going to jail because of it and several members of Congress are either going to jail, have resigned in disgrace or have been recently ousted in the election earlier this month. Your post expounds on the point I made about protected speech except in the cases of slander and clear and present danger to public safety.
Regarding slander the Supreme Court has held I believe in Westmoreland v. CBS that in order to prove slander the party bringing suit must not only prove falsehood but prove malice also.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
If by "it," you mean "freedom of speech" in the first amendment, yes it is, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
LG,
Re:"If by "it," you mean "freedom of speech" in the first amendment, yes it is, but that has nothing to do with what I said."
You are , of course, correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
That is why the government will do nothing against Richards. Because he has broken no laws, because no laws against such speech exist and never will.
But just because the government will do nothing, does not mean another citizen can and will. You do not have the right to injure someone else with your speech. Anyone injured by someone else, in any way, can take them to court under civil law and sue for damages.
Richards can claim his 1st amendment rights a thousand times in court and it will do him no good. He is not being prosecuted by the government. He is being sued for injuring another person by the person he injured. Freedom of speech is irrelevant here and does not exist.
If he were being tried by the government, he very well then could claim his 1st amendment rights and would win every time. There would be government action then.
Freedom of the press used in some of your analogies is another can of worms. Suffice to say, the press can be held accountable in civil court for libel and slander. About the only time I have ever known someone from the press going to jail for something they wrote is when they fail to divulge their sources when a criminal investigation requires it. Even that is a debated topic of whether it falls under freedom of press because it involves government action.
But the press is sued all the time by people outside the government for slander and libel. Using their "freedom of the press" defense does not work for them there either because there is no government action. They must be able to back up what they write with facts or be prepared to compensate the party they injured.
As for opinion, it is a valid defense in most states, but not guaranteed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_l...ited_States_law
(if everyone else is going to use Wikipedia..... <_< )
Without government action, there is no constitutional freedom of speech defense you can claim, because it doesn't exist. Outside of government action, you are subject to civil law which has no "1st amendment".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I'm confused then, GT. If a governmental body cannot abridge free speech, then what right does a landowner have to do so? By virtue of being a landowner?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
By virtue of not being a government agency.
It's easier to see using the "no law respecting an establishment of religion." A public school, which is a government agency funded by tax dollars, cannot promote any religion. A private school can. A southern federal court cannot display a copy of the 10 commandments, any private business or home or church can.
Without government action, there can be no violation of 1st amendment rights because the prohibitions in the 1st amendment are on the government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
There's no question that Richards should apologize in person to these two guys, but they don't deserve an Indian head penny in compensation for their "injuries."
I find it interesting that in this group of 20 people, Kyle Doss and Frank McBride are the only two who felt "threatened" by Richards' tirade. Were they the only African-Americans in the group or just the only ones willing to play the victim card for the national media in hopes of getting a nice little settlement check, after Gloria Allred takes her 1/3 cut, of course.
Doss says "To have him do what he did to me ... I can't even explain it. I was humiliated, even scared at one point." Scared? Please!! Did he honestly think a 57-year old man was a threat to him and his group? Did he think Richards might pull out an Uzi and spray the room? He couldn't do what myself and 99% of rational people would do, get up and walk out?
Gloria Allred, who once sued the Boy Scouts for not admitting girls, says, "Our clients were vulnerable. He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive." Oh my gosh!! I had no idea that The Laugh Factory locked these guys in and wouldn't let them leave until Michael Richard was through with his rant. That is just not right!!
Is it just the "n word" that gets everybody's panties in a wad? Andrew Dice Clay could call women in his audience "dumb c*nts" and nobody went running for a lawyer. They walked out and eventually his career went into the toilet, but I don't think anybody felt "threatened." Sam Kinison used to go on and on about the ragheads and the gooks and the f*gs. Don Rickles always talked about the "colored guy in the back of the room" in his act . I guess the "n word" is just over the edge, when said by certain people, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
The Targets of Kramer's (Michael Richards) Tirade Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATWTKhmNWBU
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Pulling my dog out of this fight..........
BTW - when asked directly what legal remidy they had, the attorney just said what "She believed should happen."
She's not taking it to court. She's taking it to a retired judge.
I'm done....carry on without me.
Mwah!
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
You have defeated your on argument. In civil cases the only authority that can reward damages or assess punitive action is the courts. The courts are a part of the government last time I checked my high school civics textbook. Remember the three branches of government from high school civics? Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
It seems that circuitous logical path that one takes to argue that the courts are not bound by the Bill of Rights in civil cases is similar to those who argue that it is illegal for the government to levy taxes on income when there is a constitutional amendment that empowers it to do so. I know...
I am removing my dog from this fight too. Call your next case.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That Richards should apologize to the 2 guys, yes.
That he should pay them, no!
Or better yet, make this an episode for The People's Court. And the judgement should be that Richards pays for their night out at the comedy club: entry fee, drinks, and so on,
... but their 'attorney' gets NOTHING. :blink:
Bet your bottom dollar *she's* the one who will be 'offended' now.
Edited by GarthP2000Link 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.