(ed) Compensation for Offensive Speech?

[RandFan]

I think you're analyzing this wrong -- although I agree with your conclusion that a lawsuit is stupid and inappropriate.

"Free" speech has never meant "free from consequences." The question is one of genuine damages. I don't think the audience was hurt.

Here's an example that may make things clearer. I'm your negotiator, trying to negotiate a multi-zillion dollar deal for you with the NAACP. In the middle of a negotiating session, I flip out and start calling my counterparts "m-word f-word g-word l-word n-word." The NAACP decides not to deal with me any more, and you're out a hundred million or so.

You can sue me for that financial loss. "Free speech" doesn't enter into it; the First amendment is only a governmental thing, and your losses are fairly easily proven. So yes, calling someone the n-word should open me up to liability if I thereby hurt someone.

But I deny that anyone has demonstrable injury or damage from listening to a comedy routine.

In your scenario who was damaged and who can be recompensed? Not the NAACP. You are not without a point but it is very difficult to bring civil action against someone directly for any offense you incur as a result of speech unless it was libelous or slander and even then there are some exceptions (see People v. Larry Flynt).

 

[Beerina]

Don't conflate two issues. People have every right to boycott Seinfeld, or Michael Richards, or the tooth fairy, if they want to hurt someone financially for saying or doing offensive things.

What I am taking issue with is the idea that the people who got abused deserve any money for simply being offended.

It's not about that directly. Of course you can't get money for using words in a land of free speech.

But what you can do is use that speech yourself to keep trashing Kramer -- a mere 1% dent in Seinfeld syndication profits represents millions of dollars, if not tens of millions. And that's what Gloria is trying to tap into. Keep trashing him to make people skittish about watching Seinfeld reruns, until ratings go down, and even better, companies stop paying to renew syndication of it.

She wants to get Kramer directly, or via pressure from Jerry, to heave a bunch of money at her to get her to shut up.

Lawyers should die like pigs in hell.

 

[Tailgater]

If you park in a fire lane, you get a ticket, you're out $100. Where are the punitive damages?

If there is a fire, your car has the possibility of being destroyed by the fire dept.

 

[KingMerv00]

Lawyers should die like pigs in hell.

Present company excluded?

 

[Darat]

It's not about that directly. Of course you can't get money for using words in a land of free speech.

But what you can do is use that speech yourself to keep trashing Kramer -- a mere 1% dent in Seinfeld syndication profits represents millions of dollars, if not tens of millions. And that's what Gloria is trying to tap into. Keep trashing him to make people skittish about watching Seinfeld reruns, until ratings go down, and even better, companies stop paying to renew syndication of it.

She wants to get Kramer directly, or via pressure from Jerry, to heave a bunch of money at her to get her to shut up.

Lawyers should die like pigs in hell.

Good old free market in action eh?

 

[drkitten]

In your scenario who was damaged and who can be recompensed? Not the NAACP.

Of course not. The NAACP has suffered no damages, and gets no money.

You are not without a point but it is very difficult to bring civil action against someone directly for any offense you incur as a result of speech unless it was libelous or slander

It's not at all difficult if you have been damaged. Libel and slander are two obvious ways in which speech can be damaging (all right, libel is technically not "speech," for those of you keeping score at home), but there are many others.

• breach of contract -- you agreed not to say something and you said somehing
• copyright violation -- I have property rights in whatever you said
• trade secrecy -- this, of course, is a combination of the above two; I have property rights in the idea you expressed, and you agreed not to reveal them
• tortuous interference -- you induced someone to do something to my disadvantage without just cause.
• breach of privacy -- you said something you aren't legally allowed to say (for example, revealed my medical history improperly)
• fraud -- you told me something that wasn't true and got money from me as a result.
• malpractice -- by speaking, you so greatly violated professional norms that I got seriously hurt
• et cetera, et cetera,...

The key as I pointed out, is damage. Show me the money. Your hurt feelings and $1 will get you coffee. On the other hand, your hurt feelings and a demonstrable financial loss of $200,000 will probabably get you at least $200,000 plus costs and fees. (AND coffee, if you want it.)

 

[KingMerv00]

It's not at all difficult if you have been damaged. Libel and slander are two obvious ways in which speech can be damaging (all right, libel is technically not "speech," for those of you keeping score at home), but there are many others.

• breach of contract -- you agreed not to say something and you said somehing
• copyright violation -- I have property rights in whatever you said
• trade secrecy -- this, of course, is a combination of the above two; I have property rights in the idea you expressed, and you agreed not to reveal them
• tortuous interference -- you induced someone to do something to my disadvantage without just cause.
• breach of privacy -- you said something you aren't legally allowed to say (for example, revealed my medical history improperly)
• fraud -- you told me something that wasn't true and got money from me as a result.
• malpractice -- by speaking, you so greatly violated professional norms that I got seriously hurt
• et cetera, et cetera,...

The key as I pointed out, is damage. Show me the money. Your hurt feelings and $1 will get you coffee. On the other hand, your hurt feelings and a demonstrable financial loss of $200,000 will probabably get you at least $200,000 plus costs and fees. (AND coffee, if you want it.)

I agree with you but it seems a little off topic. I don't think that anyone is saying that you can't cause damages with speech. They are saying that offensive speech alone generally isn't enough for a lawsuit.

 

[drkitten]

I agree with you but it seems a little off topic. I don't think that anyone is saying that you can't cause damages with speech. They are saying that offensive speech alone generally isn't enough for a lawsuit.

It's not at all off-topic.

I'm saying that offensive speech that damages someone can be grounds for a lawsuit.

If the plaintiffs can demonstrate damages -- and you admitted above that they can, at least for the costs of the ticket -- then that's grounds for a lawsuit. If the plaintiffs can even convincingly allege damages, that's grounds for a suit, even if they eventually lose. Simply saying "hey, it was just offensive speech, get over it" begs the real question.

 

[firecoins]

So because he used a racial slur, he believes every bad thing about Jews that one could believe? Or only a select list of such things? If the latter, what's on the list--Jews started all the wars, there was no Holocaust, a secret cabal of Jews run the world entire, Jews can't juggle?

.

according to Jackson, Michael Richards use of the N word is not just an off hand comment or out burst on Richards part but a sign that the whole white race in the US is racist towards blacks. Using Rev. Jackson's logic, Jackson's comments are proof that everyone black is anti semetic. They are anti semetic reguardless if they believe every specific anti semetic sentiment ever stated.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'd still rather be called a conspirator against a political candidate than a warmonger.

Join Diebold; be both.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It's not at all off-topic.

I'm saying that offensive speech that damages someone can be grounds for a lawsuit.

If the plaintiffs can demonstrate damages -- and you admitted above that they can, at least for the costs of the ticket -- then that's grounds for a lawsuit. If the plaintiffs can even convincingly allege damages, that's grounds for a suit, even if they eventually lose. Simply saying "hey, it was just offensive speech, get over it" begs the real question.

This message deeply, deeply wounded me.

Please have your attorney contact mine.


And fair warning: any post calling this suit frivolous or insulting or any attempt to denigrate my opinion of the above post will also be extremely offensive and lead to another suit.

In fact, anyone who would like to say anything unpopular (or negative about me), expect to be sued by me. You may not lose the case, but look at the time and money you'll be spending.

So before you say anything that might be even remotely controversial, you better think twice. We will allow only correct thinking and correct speech here. Step too far out of line, and we'll take everything you own.

 

[drkitten]

This message deeply, deeply wounded me.

Please have your attorney contact mine.

I'll wait until I get the paperwork.

Please be advised that my attorney suggests, first, that your suit is without merit; second, that she fully expects to be able to recover fees and costs; third, that "barratry" is a disbarment offense for your attorney; and fourth, that you and your attorney should be able to guess the number of fingers she is holding up.

 

[steverino]

DrBUzzo's comment was :
When I look to Europe, where it is literally *illegal* to tell an ethnic joke or say other things deemed offensive, it scares me.





"Holocaust denial in France is encouraged" - I think you are saying you are saying that as a joke? But even so where did you get the idea for that in the first place?

I was kidding, and trying to be ironic by using "hate-speech" to make the remark. I guess the idea, however shallow, is that France has historically had a reputaion of being anti-semitic, and its leadership seems to be the first to attack Irael policy. You live closer to France than I do, and my joke was shallow. I get it. But that was where the idea came from.

 

[KingMerv00]

This message deeply, deeply wounded me.

Please have your attorney contact mine.


And fair warning: any post calling this suit frivolous or insulting or any attempt to denigrate my opinion of the above post will also be extremely offensive and lead to another suit.

In fact, anyone who would like to say anything unpopular (or negative about me), expect to be sued by me. You may not lose the case, but look at the time and money you'll be spending.

So before you say anything that might be even remotely controversial, you better think twice. We will allow only correct thinking and correct speech here. Step too far out of line, and we'll take everything you own.

Mr. Geller please cease and desist, your attorney needs to sleep at least 3 hours a day.

 

[Katana]

The $100 IS the punitive damages.

I was thinking about it differently. I was thinking that a ticket is the cost, if you will, of potentially preventing a fire truck from parking where it needs to whereas punitive damages would be in addition to that. I looked at it from the standpoint of Richards having to pay for the group's drinks, cover charge, etc because they were out the experience that their money should have bought them (their costs). Punitive damages would be in excess of that. You're right, though. In the ticket situation, the fine itself is punitive.

Ah, my brain works in odd ways at times.

 

[Katana]

If there is a fire, your car has the possibility of being destroyed by the fire dept.

True.

If parking your car in a fire lane prevents a fire truck from accessing a building which cost lives and property, can you be sued for punitive damages?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll wait until I get the paperwork.

Please be advised that my attorney suggests, first, that your suit is without merit; second, that she fully expects to be able to recover fees and costs; third, that "barratry" is a disbarment offense for your attorney; and fourth, that you and your attorney should be able to guess the number of fingers she is holding up.

There's the response to the lawsuit in the OP.

No legally cognizable damages in the jurisdictions that I am familiar with under an IIMA theory. The key words being mental anguish.



Getting money back from the club as a failure to deliver services under the contract is something else -- but that would limited to the money they spent on the evening.

 

[drkitten]

If parking your car in a fire lane prevents a fire truck from accessing a building which cost lives and property, can you be sued for punitive damages?

You can be sued for for direct and for punitive damages, yes.

 

[drkitten]

Getting money back from the club as a failure to deliver services under the contract is something else -- but that would limited to the money they spent on the evening.

... plus costs, fees, and punitive damages as set by the jury/court.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

according to Jackson, Michael Richards use of the N word is not just an off hand comment or out burst on Richards part but a sign that the whole white race in the US is racist towards blacks. Using Rev. Jackson's logic, Jackson's comments are proof that everyone black is anti semetic. They are anti semetic reguardless if they believe every specific anti semetic sentiment ever stated.

Very good. Now try using your own logic to defend your statements.