Do the men Michael Richards insulted deserve monetary recompense?

[11 Bravo]

I say no, but I'm a First Amendment absolutist. Racism isn't illegal, just ignorant,; and if verbally exposing one's ignorance becomes grounds for litigation, then we are headed down a road I don't believe anyone cares to travel.

[MrSlayer]

1. No.

Absolutely not. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. No (nm)

[Mz Pip]

3. I agree

But we live in a litigious society. People sue for all kinds of things. It's their right. Doesn't mean they will win.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Carni]

4. No

If every person offended at a comedy club sued (esp women...we for years have endured being the butt of over the top rants) we'd all be compensated.

What Richards did was totally wrong but monetary compensation? I don't think so.

[YDogg]

5. no

[Monkeyman]

6. Nope

[silverojo]

7. No, but a personal apology wouldn't hurt.

Michael Richards, instead of going on Letterman first to save (what passes for) his career, should have issued a public apology to the people in that club, esp. those he addressed with those racist remarks. Unless/until he does so, his "apology" is just a futile attempt to keep his career from going into the toilet, where it so richly deserves to be (even before this incident, he was never funny--just leeched off the fame of others).

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. No, of course not

Racism, however, can be actionable. For example, burning a cross on somebody's lawn is actionable, I should think - not only as a matter of property, but for deliberately inflicting emotional distress. But it is actionable because there is the threat of physical harm involved that causes the distress. Racism in the public sphere, unless it is long-term and connected with some other forms of harassment (consistent wrongs on a student in a school, for example), is not actionable.

[unblock]

9. not so simple

on balance, i'd say no (nothing beyond a refund of the ticket price, anyway) but it's hardly clear cut because they PAID to see him perform.

it's one thing when someone hurls racial epithets on the street. THAT's unequivocably free speech (however despicable).

commercial speech is not quite the same thing.

still, i'd say no, because the reality is that comedy is often filled with offensive language and stereotyping. one of the reasons, in fact, for comedy seems to be to provide a socially acceptable outlet for that sort of thing.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Then How about those women insulted in Rap songs

When you start singling out each individual who insulted this and insulted that, all those lyrics in the Rap Songs would be fuel for suint.

[11 Bravo]

12. Ummm. I think you're agreeing with me, but it's hard to tell.

[hsher]

15. Then it would spill over to rock, and...

Maggie could sue Rod Stewart for defamation, because he defames her looks and age; he in turn could sue her for child molestation; the unnamed blonde in "This Wheel's On Fire" could sue Bob Dylan for defamation, witchcraft threats and abandonment; the bank employees and police officers in Steely Dan's "Don't Take Me Alive" could sue Don and Walt for using their personas without written permission; the unnamed black guy in "Haitian Divorce" could CERTAINLY sue Steely Dan for disturbing racial insults made towards him ("The Charlie with the greasy hair"; "who's this kinky so-and-so?"); the white woman in the same song could sue Steely Dan for describing her as a whore for engaging in an interracial relationship; the unnamed wife in "Everything You Did" could sue Donald Fagen not only for opening their lives to public scrutiny without her consent, she could also sue him for threatening her life and personal safety several times in the song; the Eagles could sue Steely Dan, and almost did, for the negative slur implied against them in the same song; the unnamed Latina in "Riki Don't Lose My Number", let's not even start to go there; black women could sue the Stones for characterizing us as desirable, easy sluts in "Brown Sugar"; John Lennon's Estate and Yoko Ono could sue Paul McCartney for endless slurs made against John -- whoops: she's already done that -- Paul could sue John for "How Do You Sleep?", Ringo could sue them both, George could countersue The Marvelettes, dogs and cats could live together in sin, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-toh, butter, parkay, let's call the whole thing off. :7

Edited to add: Btw, I'm a Steely Dan fan. Can y'tell? :D

[11 Bravo]

18. Hell, Neil Young could sue the surviving members of Lynyrd Skynyrd!

[mattclearing]

92. Are there any left?

I might have to renounce my vow of nonviolence.

[booksenkatz]

21. Big fan of SD here, too

I was enjoying your list of songs and reasons for lawsuits, LOL! Keep 'em coming!:headbang:

[hsher]

23. More rock lawsuits here... :)

Joe Jackson vs. Unnamed Ugly Guy - "Is She Really Going Out With Him?" - character defamation
Rick Springfield vs. Jesse's Girl - "Jesse's Girl" - invasion of privacy, stalking
Tony Ciccone vs. Madonna Ciccone-Ritchie - "Papa Don't Preach" - character defamation
Elton John vs. Levon's Family - "Levon" - invasion of privacy, character defamation
The Beatles vs. Brian Epstein - "Baby You're A Rich Man" - anti-Semitism, libel
Dan Fogelberg vs. His Ex-Girlfriend - "Another Auld Lang Syne" - invasion of privacy
Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel vs. The Estate of Richard Cory - "Richard Cory" - invasion of privacy, character defamation, libel
Joe Zawinul and Weather Report vs. The Estate of Charlie Parker - "Birdland" - use of trademark without licensing and/or permission
Shirlean Williams vs. The Doobie Brothers - "Long Train Runnin'" - copyright infringement (the opening 4 bars are a direct plagiarism from her prior song "Ease It To Me")
Antonio Jobim vs. The Girl From Ipanema - "The Girl From Ipanema" - invasion of privacy, stalking
Ebn-Ozn vs. Lola - "AEIOU (Sometimes Y)" - invasion of privacy, libel (description of Lola smoking marijuana in the song)
The Kinks vs. Their Lola - "Lola" - invasion of privacy, character defamation
Daryl Hall & John Oates vs. Unnamed Wealthy Woman - "Rich Girl" - invasion of privacy, libel
The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band vs. The Estate of Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson - "Mr. Bojangles" - this is A BIG ONE: character defamation and actual libel: song characterized him as an alcoholic; in reality, Robinson refused to touch alcohol
Paul Simon vs. Peggy Harper - "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover" - emotional distress and suffering; song is a paean to finding a way to abandon her after six years of marriage
Paul Simon vs. The Eastman Kodak Film Company - "Kodachrome" - use of trademark without licensing or permission: Kodak never sued him for misuse of trademark but stipulated he must include their trademark information on the label of this 1973 song; this would never happen today; instead, he would be hit with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit
Paul Simon vs. The Estate of Rene Magritte - "Rene and Georgette Magritte (And Their Dog) After The War" - use of trademark without licensing or permission, invasion of privacy, possible libel in "Christopher Street" lyric
Paul Simon vs. The Estate of Frank Lloyd Wright - "So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright" - same
Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel vs. The Estate of Eleanor Roosevelt - "(Here's To You) Mrs. Robinson" - use of trademark without licensing or permission; the original song was titled and written for, to and about "Mrs. (Eleanor) Roosevelt"; director Mike Nichols ordered Simon to change it for the 1969 film "The Graduate"
Sly and The Family Stone vs. Black People and White People Everywhere - "Don't Call Me N----, Whitey" - racial defamation, if the stupid Richards case stands
Steely Dan vs. Republican Conservatives - "Barrytown" - character defamation, smear of an entire group of people - although deserved ;)
Steely Dan vs. Peg - "Peg" - subtle characterization of title plaintiff as unintelligent
Steely Dan vs. Buzz - "Through With Buzz" - invasion of privacy, several instances of libel, insinuation of plaintiff as homosexual
Steely Dan vs. Charlie Freak - "Charlie Freak" - invasion of privacy, libel, characterization of title plaintiff as homeless person, unintelligent
Steely Dan vs. Unnamed Plaintiff - "With A Gun" - invasion of privacy, several definite libel torts, smear against plantiff accusing him of robbery and murder

HERE IS A WHOLE CATEGORY - STEELY DAN VS. HOOKERS

Steely Dan vs. Unnamed Hooker - "Brooklyn Owes The Charmer" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as prostitute
Steely Dan vs. Named Hooker - "Rose of The Quarter" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as prostitute
Steely Dan vs. Unnamed Adulteress - "Dirty Work" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as prostitute and as cheating on husband
Steely Dan vs. Unnamed Hooker - "Your Gold Teeth" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as prostitute
Steely Dan vs. Unnamed Hooker - "Razor Boy" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as prostitute who also uses cocaine
Donald Fagen vs. Named Hooker - "The Night Belongs To Mona" - defamation, invasion of privacy, characterization of song subject plaintiff as manic depressive and a prostitute

Boy, this could go on and on! :7

[booksenkatz]

29. LMAO

You bin peekin' at my iPod, man?? I'm a serious child of the 70s here, this is brilliant!
:rofl: :toast:

[hsher]

30. Thanks! I cheated by reading what's on my own mp3 player

[SeattleGirl]

37. Love your post, hsher!

And yeah, I can tell you're a Steely Dan fan!

[cwydro]

56. Cracking up here

pay me no mind:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bigluckyfeet]

40. The Black guy

called Richards a cracker ass,he is no better.

[oasis]

122. Rap songs? Was any woman named in particular? If so, she may have a case.

Maybe you have an example. :shrug:

[hsher]

11. No

[Trajan]

13. No ....

But Richards deserves the pariah status he has bought with his rage ...

That was fucking NUTS .... I loved Kramer, but he royally fucked up my view of him ...

I had no idea he harbored such racist ugliness ...

[Generic Brad]

14. If they do, I'm suing my siblings

Over the years they have called me every name in the book, including variations of the words Michael Richards used.

[scarletwoman]

16. No. (nt)

[Bluzmann57]

17. No I don't think so

If they deserve it, where does it end? As loathsome as it may be, millions of people have been racially insulted in the world, and they can't all be paid. Richards apologized, genuine or not, and is working with Sharpton and J. Jackson on some type of outreach program. Quite frankly, working with Sharpton may be the final dagger in Richards' career. Just my opinion.

[msongs]

19. you go to a public comedy club you could get stupid crap . too bad nt

[LisaL]

27. It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable to be a racist and a bigot

against a group, but only if you yourself belong to that group.
Isn't that weird?

[brettdale]

20. Not One cent

If they get any money from Michael Richards, then the other partons at the bar, should sue them, because they started heckling the comics and ruined a good night out.

Its one thing to want a "SORRY" and they should get that, its another thing to say "Can I have some money"

[Rockholm]

22. Nada. Yada yada yada. Nada nada nada.

[Mr_Spock]

24. No.

I'm not forgiving Richards racism, but it's not going to be solved in civil court.

[Guaranteed]

25. As Tony Snow would say, that's a non-starter.

It's not even close to a cause of action, and it shouldn't be.

[LisaL]

26. Nope.

An apology since Richards wants to apologize, but money? I don't think so.

[Union Thug]

28. No.

[Pilotguy]

31. No

[SaveOurDemocracy]

32. No

!

[Dastard Stepchild]

33. Do they want a refund for a crap comedy show?

Because I have to say, there have been times where I would have loved to receive a refund for a really bad show put on by a performer. Never pursued it, but I'm not particularly litigious.
However, I am guessing that this is not the argument being made here.

[FredScuttle]

34. Absolutely not

a refund from the club, maybe, which I think they got. Beyond that, nada.

[jazzjunkysue]

59. That's it. If they left in the middle, a refund. Period. If they stayed till the end,

nada.

If it costs Richards his career, so be it.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I think it could be argued they deserve a refund for the ticket price of the show.

Same with the rest of the audience. When someone lays a smelly, offensive turd like that onstage, a decent business ought to give 'em their money back.

[davidinalameda]

39. it's buyer beware in cases like this

humor is subjective

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I s'pose. But what I saw in that video wasn't "humor". It was an embarassing breakdown

of a performer on stage. Like if a musician showed up drunk and puked on the stage in the middle of the first song, then stormed off.

A decent, fair-minded business owner might give the patrons their money back.

[LisaL]

43. Somehow I don't think they are talking about the price of the

tickets.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Maybe not, but that's what I'm talking about.

Here's the wording of the OP: "Do the men Michael Richards insulted deserve monetary recompense?"

That's the question I answered.

Also note the use of the word "deserve", which is not the same thing as "are legally entitled to".

[11 Bravo]

123. We must have been at the same Joe Cocker concert!

[MercutioATC]

36. No

[SeattleGirl]

38. No way.

I agree with a lot of others in this thread: if these guys get money for being insulted (and Richards' tirade was absolutely despicable), where will it end?

But he should apologize to them, face to face.

[opihimoimoi]

42. BIG BUCK$$, The victims should get Big Bucks...at the very least,,,a Lexus or Mercedes

:facetious button:

[Solomon]

44. No. Because "a black man has no rights that a white man is bound

to respect". Roger B. Taney, Supreme Court Justice.

[kiahzero]

49. Still waiting for a single citation

Just one citation that would support the argument that what happened at that club was slander.

[mondo joe]

69. Damn, I do pity your clients.

There is no right to not be insulted in comedy clubs.

[JNelson6563]

45. Tickets refunded but that's it

You cannot sue people for their ignorance.

Julie

[Bucky]

47. The honest way to make money off this is to write a book.

Agents get a MUCH smaller cut than lawyers do.

[LisaL]

48. Yea, but who is going to buy it and read it?

I doubt people would want to read life stories of those subjected to Richard's tirade.

[Bucky]

55. Hell, who'd think Ann Coulter would sell? Try this: "A Moment's Race: My Evening with Kramer"

Back of the book blurb (with image of flag in background): "My story is a deeply American story. One night in Brooklyn I got to face once again what millions of Americans face every day. Only this time was just a little different: a little more direct than usual and this time caught on tape.
But my story doesn't start there in a comedy club, that one cool November evening when my friend and I went out for a few laughs and a few drinks. For me, it started growing up in .... yada yada yada

Yes, that shit would sell, properly hyped. How do you think all those people can squeeze a whole book out of their brother or neighbor or ex-boyfriends being accused of murder by Fox and CNN talking heads? You get an agent, you get a ghost writer, and you work the talk show circuit. That's America.

[LisaL]

58. If they can pull this off, more power to them.

I just don't see how being subjected to a tirade for a few minutes can be turned into a book. But again, if they can do it, more power to them.

[Bluebear]

50. "50 years ago we would have hung you upside down with a fork up your fucking ass!"

I am wondering if this crossed from racism to possibly inciting violence against them?

[mondo joe]

70. Do you think anyone would really consider this a credible threat?

In a comedy club in LA?

[Bluebear]

72. If you were a member of a minority, maybe you would

I can't speak to how anybody reacts. For instance, if someone is paranoid or prone to anxiety, I could see very easily that they would feel threatened.

[mondo joe]

73. I am a member of a minority.

And I think the usual standard is what a reasonable person would conclude - not a paranoid or anxiety-prone person would.

[Bluebear]

74. Absolutely not. "You take your victim as you get him" is a tenet of law.

If you pushed someone over who had incredible osteo and they broke both their hips, you would be responsible. You cannot say "the majority of people have normal bone mass, so I cannot be held responsible for this."

You take your victim as you get him, not what a "usual standard" is.

[mondo joe]

78. Not so much.

There is an entire "reasonableness defense".

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml

[Bluebear]

82. Whatever, mj. I am not going to argue torts with you.

Nor am I so quick to jump to Richards defense as some people are.

[mondo joe]

87. No defense of Richards. The question is whether he is liable or not.

And, IMO, he is not.

That doesn't mean he can't be boycotted, protested, ruined and so on.

And that is no no way a defense of what he said.

But just FYI, there is more on "reasonableness" at
http://cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects/nuremberg-files/legal.html -

The predominant definition states that if a threat as interpreted by a “reasonable person,” causes fear for the safety and/or the life of an individual or their family, it is unprotected by the First Amendment.5 In deliberation over the evidence against the ACLA, the judge instructed the jury to use their notion of a “reasonable person” to determine the legality of the threat.

[LisaL]

88. I don't see what Richards said as a threat at all.

He was talking about the past. He wasn't proposing anyone stuck the fork in anyone in the present time. That doesn't sound like a threat to me.

[Bluebear]

91. Are you black? Can you account for a visceral reaction in someone...

where it would not be a threat to you?

[Sapphocrat]

100. What it sounded like...

...was wishful thinking for the "good old days."

Just because it can't be done (legally) now doesn't mean there aren't those who don't wish it could.

[Minnesota_Lib]

51. Unless someone wants to take up a collection for them, nope.

[butterfly77]

52. No. because...

there are more where he came from...

[Justpat]

53. No. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

54. Yes n/t

[jannyk]

57. No! eom

[Vidar]

60. No.

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. No

[AZBlue]

62. Of course not.

Talk about a silly lawsuit! Anyone who tries should be required to pay all associated court costs - the public shouldn't have to pay for that BS.

At the most, if they want their money back from the comedy club I could probably see that (if there was a cover and any drinks or food they bought).

[Sapphire Blue]

63. "After all, it’s just a word, right?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2797271

[Kelly Rupert]

64. No n/t

[focusfan]

65. i'm not racist but i think everyone has overracted

he has apologized get over it

[johnnie]

67. One thing about compassionate progressives..

They love to have opportunities to hate other people.

[Bluebear]

86. What the hell does that mean?

[johnnie]

89. It's not too difficult to figure out

I don't talk in codes.

[Bluebear]

90. So you don't care for compassionate progressives? nt

[Bluebear]

79. "i'm not racist" - - -Yes. You are, if you have to preface your statement.

You get over it. I will not stand by while people reminisce onstage about the golden days of lynching African-Americans.

[wuushew]

66. the relativism of pain and suffering is incompatible with justice

At least with medical malpractice or wrongful termination, objectively determined amounts of money are arrived it to represent value lost as a result of a wrong.

Money can be spent on many goods and services in an infinite combinations of ways subject to the marginal utility of the plaintiff and other incalculable variables that no jury can take into account. Money is a thing and cannot as such directly buy happiness.

[mondo joe]

68. Not at all. NT

[aikoaiko]

71. He should refund their tickets/entry fee and comp them 2 drinks each.

but I can't see them getting anything in addition.

[BoneDaddy]

75. puh lease

with the exception of a return $ for the ticket, no one gets anything....

Christ...the guy is an asshole...boycott him, complain against him...but no one is a victim here...

So tired of the American "victim" culture.

[Bluebear]

76. 'So tired of the American "victim" culture.'

Do tell?

[BoneDaddy]

116. Nobody

is ever responsible for themselves and their actions anymore from the richest of the rich and most powerful to the poorest of the poor. Everything can be blamed on everything else and everyone feels that the world owes them and that if anything happens that may cause them discomfort or emotional pain is deserving of some sort of compensory damage.

Life is hard, life is not fair. I am not saying that we do not combat racism in every arena we can find, but I am saying that the people offended by Richards deserve to be paid beyond the cost of their ticket is ridiculous. Richards is paying the price of his stupidity and ignorance and I hope his career goes the way of the dodo, but often times we go way far in the other direction.

[L A Woman]

124. Totally agree

Michael Richards merely pointed out to the world (as if anyone cares) that he is an adolescent who couldn't handle the pressure of what he was doing and reacted with a racially-charged rant directed at two hecklers, who weren't exactly sweet and innocent themselves. The fact that Americans are now debating this as if it means something bigger is just embarrassing. Did we not know there were racists in the world? And since when do we pay hecklers for getting what they essentially asked for? Shouldn't we debate whether or not Michael Richards deserves compensation for being told "white guys aren't funny?" Please...

Whine, whine, bitch, moan, waaaa waaaa waaaaaa.

I have been spit on and called queer and dyke more times that I care to recall. It never occured to me to demand compensation. My compensation is the level of compassion I have acquired as a result of those incidents.

[BoneDaddy]

130. Well said

While most of the world is struggling for survival in one form or another, be it the people of Iraq, the bare subsistence of everyday life in Darfur or the abject corruption and poverty in the world, we are trying to figure out monetary compensation for people who got their feelings hurt or mental cruelty. Mental cruelty is living in a militia camp as a slave in Sierra Leone, not getting into a racial name calling contest with an obsolete comic.

[Redstone]

77. Of course not. Anyone who thinks they do need to have his or her head examined.

Redstone

[SunDrop23]

80. No. (nfm)

[misternormal]

81. No... n/t

[Subdivisions]

83. No. Let's not forget that these guys disrupted someone who

was doing his job and if they had been respectful rather than assholes, he would most likely still have a job. If you ask me, they participated in his demise and for that they deserve nothing.

And why does he have to apologize multiple times and they haven't been required to apologize for disrupting his work?

[Bluebear]

84. "50 years ago we would have hung you upside down with a fork up your fucking ass"

Boo hoo, they "interrupted his work".

[Subdivisions]

94. I've been watching your posts on this subject from the beginning

of this episode and you seem to portray it as if you yourself are a victim of his tirade. So, do you accept Richards' apology, or not? How many times does the man have to apologize before it will be accepted by the African-American community?

Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that Richards was verbally assaulted BEFORE his tirade? Do you think that because Richards used the word and described lynching automatically dismisses those who incited his tirade, no matter how OFFENSIVE it was?

What do you want the man to do? What do you want done to him? You want him lynched? What is it going to take for you to accept amends?

[Bluebear]

97. I am not African American, to begin with.

I didn't have to be there to feel kinship with those who were hurt by his words. And the people who "incited him" merely said he wasn't funny. I'll keep watching your posts too, though.

[Subdivisions]

104. Admittedly, I wasn't sure if you were black or not. Regardless,

the general tenor to the entirety of your posts on this subject seem to illustrate an offense on your person, as your "kinship with those who were hurt by his words" would explain.

The reason I noticed your posts on this subject is because they seemed at time especially venomous if anyone came anywhere close to defending Michael Richards. I believe you even got me at one point.

I assure you that I feel Richards was wrong and I have even come to decide that he is more likely a racist than not. At least a racist by nature if not by practice. Why have I changed my tune? Well, the exact point where I realized Richards was disconnected from healthy racial thinking was when he appeared on Letterman and used the phrase "Afro-American" not once, but twice. Am I correct in assuming that that is not the politically correct term with which to refer to African-Americans? Isn't the term "African-American", like, so yesterday? Is the term "Afro-American" now the name by which Black people would like to be referred? Maybe it's colloquil, but I haven't heard "Afro-American" since the Afro was in in the late 60s, early 70s. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I assure you that watching my posts will not reveal me as a racist. I am white and have an African-American son-in-law. My step-daughter couldn't be in better hands as far as I'm concerned. I am fascinated by other races and cultures, some even more rich in content and history than my own descension from Lithuanian ancestry. My heart bleeds for the refugees of Darfur and the female victims of circumcision in Africa. I agonized over the death of 200,000 people of varying race and cultural background to the tsunami of 2004.

But I don't give a fuck if those hecklers were purple and from Mars, they disrupted the man's performance. That would be like having them step into my home office and give me the business about my work. They bought tickets to watch a performance, not be one.

[Bluebear]

105. You talk about interrupting his "performance"...

like he was conducting Holst's The Planets and they stood up during "Venus" throwing eggs at the harpist. Sheesh.

As far as me being 'venemous', sorry, I would tend to do that if anyone came close to defending this.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Yeah, that's right, Bluebear wants him lynched,

because BB's the one with the tolerance problem, right?

And what do you mean you've been "watching"?

That sounds a bit obsessive.

[Bluebear]

99. .....

[Subdivisions]

107. Yeah, watching. So? Is that not how you follow a message board

discussion? Now I'm watching your posts. So?

[beam me up scottie]

113. Oh, I'm flattered, really, but it still gives me the creeps.

:shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

101. Who died and left you the task of cross-examination?

And what do you mean by "watching"?

And before you start on me, I'm white myself, so find something else to pick on besides your mistaken impression that just because a person is outraged by this incident, that person has to be black.

Did it ever occur to you that some of us get pissed off when we see a wrong committed -- against anyone?

[Bluebear]

103. 'some of us get pissed off when we see a wrong committed-against ANYONE'

Thank you, my sister. And THAT is what defines a populist/liberal/progrssive to me. :toast:

[Subdivisions]

106. I never said anywhere on this board that I wasn't outraged by

Michael Richards' racist tirade. I was furious. You might remember in a post earlier on this subject that I was a fan of Michael Richards and that I watched Seinfeld and Kramer faithfully and have since in syndication. I was very hurt by his remarks. My image of Kramer (yes, I know he's a fictional character) was shattered. I can never watch the show again without having this incedent spoil it.

[Subdivisions]

108. "...what do you mean by "watching"?'

See post #109.

[NMMNG]

102. So you've been stalking him on behalf of Richards?

Richards is a professional comedian and as such should be used to hecklers. I don't give a flying rip what those guys said to him, he was over the line. He could merely have ignored them (at best) or told them to STFU (at worst) and let the club bouncers throw them out.

And just because somebody advocates on behalf of an individual or group that has been mistreated does not mean they're claiming they themselves have been done an injustice. There is such a thing as human compassion and empathy. Those of us who've spent our lives being sh*t upon by others just seem to have more of it than others.

[Sapphire Blue]

120. So this "incited his tirade" ? Saying someone else thinks he's not funny is a "verbal assault"?

Audience member describes Richards' racist attack: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2791569

[cool user name]

85. Nope ...

[oasis]

93. Yes. Denny's Inc. had to pay for insulting blacks. It's an injury. You cause

an injury, you are subject to make amends.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

115. then every woman deserves compensation too

uh huh

[oasis]

118. I don't recall that Richards said anything derogatory about women.

But, in any case, the courts will decide who "deserves compensation".

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. No, they had to pay for DISCRIMINATING AGAINST blacks

[nedbal]

96. I say no

[foreigncorrespondent]

109. Does the dickhead...

...have the right to stand up and insult people for money? NO!

Comedy isn't about insulting people, it is about making people laugh. Seems a lot on DU have forgotten that little fact.

[Subdivisions]

110. Name one comic that doesn't insult someone...

Of course, mosts comics don't cross the line Richards crossed, though I've seen them get mighty close.

[foreigncorrespondent]

111. I'll give ya more than one!

Robin Williams, Whoopi, Ellen, Bill Cosby, Joan Rivers. Care for me to continue?

[Subdivisions]

112. No need to continue. You met the challenge as I cannot say for

sure if those you cite have indeed never insulted anyone so I'll take your word for it.

[beam me up scottie]

114. The difference is it wasn't part of his act.

He lost his temper and used lynching references to belittle black hecklers.

I would have walked out too.

I wouldn't pay to hear racists, I get to hear them all day at work for free.


Granted, he does have the right to say what he did on stage, but that doesn't make it any less repulsive.

[Bluebear]

131. 'I get to hear them all day at work for free'

Let alone, here at some times.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Scary, isn't it?

If they hate any of us, they hate all of us.

Bigots LOVE to drive a wedge in between minorities, play them against each other.

I see that at work too.

[devilgrrl]

117. No but they should be allowed to punch his lights out

eom

[MessiahRp]

119. No

They heckled him first and started it. Richards was WAY over the line but if they had kept their mouths shut it never would have gotten that far to begin with.

Rp

[noonwitch]

121. No, just an apology

Gloria Allred is an ambulance chaser.

[grizmaster]

125. no

and if it did entitle them to money, wouldn't Richards be equally entitled to money from them for heckling him?

[johnfunk]

126. No -- the targets of Richards' tirade should be satisfied that...

... Richards will never again be "mazzah" of his domain.

[Freddie Stubbs]

127. No, but

they should pro ably be given free tickets to the comedy club to see a less offensive comedian.

[WI_DEM]

129. Yes, they should get their money back from that club, if they haven't already

other than that, No.