(ed) Compensation for Offensive Speech?

[casebro]

Richards didn't start the argument, he was just doing his job. Even if they didn't like his act, the hecklers had no business interupting him, and therefore must carry the blame for starting the argument. I'm saying they threw the first punch, don't blame Richards for hitting back. I say the hecklers owe Richards the apology. And, he can prove his loses too, I'll bet.

Don't the cops arrest streakers for disturbing games?

 

[drkitten]

In the example above, the negotiator would be sued for breach of contract and/or malpractice.

He could also simply be sued for damage, as a general tort.

You're right that "free speech" doesn't enter into it, but in a differen way than you might mean.

If I do something, and you are hurt as a result, you can sue me. That's a general principle of civil law. There doesn't need to be a specific name for the thing I've done, precisely because the legislature cannot be expected to enumerate in advance all the possible ways that someone could be damaged.

But in particular -- If I do something, and you are hurt as a result, you can sue me. It doesn't matter if what I did was "speak." If I injure you through speaking, that's just as much an injury as if I accidentally pour weedkiller on your prize-winning begonias.

 

[firecoins]

You should read your own link. It gives no context whatever for the original remarks. It states that after they were made, "Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him." The conspiracy was not the context for the initial remarks. If you do have that context, let me know. Until then, it seems like asoles and rapists to me.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that there was an accusation of conspiracy, of course, which was itself further offense. I'd still rather be called a conspirator against a political candidate than a warmonger.


I really don't care who either of them are. Both were offensive, one moreso.

The ahole vs rapist ananlogy is false. No one finds ahole offensive, at least I don't in the slightest. Accusing someone of rape requires an investigation. Is the LAPD opening up case to see if Jews were behind every war in history?

You missed the whole point of why I brought up Jackson to begin with to debate who was more offensive Gibson or Jackson. Gibson is not involved in the Michael Richards story. I wish I hadn't brought him up. He has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The point is. Jackson won't accept Richards apology. Thinks Richards remarks are a Freudian slip into what Richard really thinks. Am I as a Jew suppossed to think Jackson is not anti semetic? That Jackson didn't have some sort of Freudian slip? Or that his apology was any more sincere than Richards? Gibson is not going around trying to correct other people's insults or accusations or other anti semetic or racist remarks. Jackson is. Jackson is being hypocritical.

 

[Tailgater]

I agree with the fact that Gibsons remarks were harsher than Jacksons, but the fact that he holds a political position of civil rights and anti-discrimination makes any racist comment worse and hypocritical. Gibson already had a reputation for being anti-british and jewish through the controversies in his movies, but he doesn't have a career built on fighting his views.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The ahole vs rapist ananlogy is false.

No it isn't. Hymie is an insult; aole is an insult. Calling someone a rapist is an accusation; saying a rce of people are responsible for all the wars in history is an accusation. This is really quite simple.

No one finds ahole offensive, at least I don't in the slightest. Accusing someone of rape requires an investigation. Is the LAPD opening up case to see if Jews were behind every war in history?

You're a rapist.

Let me know how the required investigation turns out.

You missed the whole point of why I brought up Jackson to begin with to debate who was more offensive Gibson or Jackson. Gibson is not involved in the Michael Richards story. I wish I hadn't brought him up. He has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The point is. Jackson won't accept Richards apology. Thinks Richards remarks are a Freudian slip into what Richard really thinks. Am I as a Jew suppossed to think Jackson is not anti semetic? That Jackson didn't have some sort of Freudian slip? Or that his apology was any more sincere than Richards? Gibson is not going around trying to correct other people's insults or accusations or other anti semetic or racist remarks. Jackson is. Jackson is being hypocritical.

If Gibson has nothing to do with it, why bring him up again in the following paragraph?

Richards's remarks were racist. Jackson's remarks were anti-Semitic. I find them equally offensive. Racial slurs are insults, and offensive ones. Good, we've got that cleared up. That Jackson is also being hypocritical has nothing to do with how offensive his remarks were.

Gibson's remarks were not mere insults, but an allegation of responsibility for an awful lot of death and tragedy. That you cannot see why this might be considered worse than being called a name boggles my mind.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree with the fact that Gibsons remarks were harsher than Jacksons, but the fact that he holds a political position of civil rights and anti-discrimination makes any racist comment worse...

I'll agree, dpeending on what worse means here. I don't think it makes the comments more offensive, but certainly more worrisome.

 

[firecoins]

No it isn't. Hymie is an insult; aole is an insult. Calling someone a rapist is an accusation; saying a rce of people are responsible for all the wars in history is an accusation. This is really quite simple.


You're a rapist.

Let me know how the required investigation turns out.


If Gibson has nothing to do with it, why bring him up again in the following paragraph?

Richards's remarks were racist. Jackson's remarks were anti-Semitic. I find them equally offensive. Racial slurs are insults, and offensive ones. Good, we've got that cleared up. That Jackson is also being hypocritical has nothing to do with how offensive his remarks were.

Gibson's remarks were not mere insults, but an allegation of responsibility for an awful lot of death and tragedy. That you cannot see why this might be considered worse than being called a name boggles my mind.

It is hard form me to believe someone making anti semetic insults does not believe in those very same accusations. Where do those insults come from? Jackson was not doing stand up, making a piece of art or some how inebriated. He was in a private conversation with a reporter. How does Jews in New York come up between a black Pres. canidate and black reporter?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is hard form me to believe someone making anti semetic insults does not believe in those very same accusations.

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?

This just keeps getting stranger.

Where do those insults come from? Jackson was not doing stand up, making a piece of art or some how inebriated. He was in a private conversation with a reporter. How does Jews in New York come up between a black Pres. canidate and black reporter?

I don't know the context; you don't either. As such, the reasonable conclusion would be that Jackson is to some degree anti-semitic and also stupid enough to believe that a reporter wouldn't, well, report.

 

[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?

This just keeps getting stranger.


I don't know the context; you don't either. As such, the reasonable conclusion would be that Jackson is to some degree anti-semitic and also stupid enough to believe that a reporter wouldn't, well, report.

The context as reported at that time was Jackson was blaming Jews for not supporting his election. Having not been at the conversation, I can't comment beyong the reporting. Jackson was being accusatory. Jackson may not deny the holocaust or believe Jews start all wars but there is more than enough to believe a strong dislike for Jews.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The context as reported at that time was Jackson was blaming Jews for not supporting his election. Having not been at the conversation, I can't comment beyong the reporting. Jackson was being accusatory.

Well, was he right? Jews represent a substantial percentage the population in NYC, around 12% currently, and I imagine the numbers in the 80s were similar. I do not know how tightly they function as a voting bloc, but it is easily imaginable that failing to appeal to Jewish voters in New York could cost you an election.

That does not excuse the slur, of course, but the accusation does not seem on its face unreasonable.

Jackson may not deny the holocaust or believe Jews start all wars but there is more than enough to believe a strong dislike for Jews.

Believing Jews started all wars was the accusation in question when you said, "It is hard form me to believe someone making anti semetic insults does not believe in those very same accusations." I have never argued that Jackson does not possess a strong dislike of Jews.

 

[firecoins]

Well, was he right? Jews represent a substantial percentage the population in NYC, around 12% currently, and I imagine the numbers in the 80s were similar. I do not know how tightly they function as a voting bloc, but it is easily imaginable that failing to appeal to Jewish voters in New York could cost you an election.

That does not excuse the slur, of course, but the accusation does not seem on its face unreasonable.

There are lots of blacks in New York also. Would it be okay for Mayor Mike Bloomberg or Sen. Joe Lieberman to call it N-word town if the Black community didn't support him? Its true, there alots of blacks in NY. I can't argue with the reasoning.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

There are lots of blacks in New York also. Would it be okay for Mayor Mike Bloomberg or Sen. Joe Lieberman to call it N-word town if the Black community didn't support him? Its true, there alots of blacks in NY. I can't argue with the reasoning.

I already answered this; perhaps you missed it.

That does not excuse the slur

In your hypothetical, Lieberman pointing out that he had little support among African-American voters, and that it hurt him in an election, would not be racist. I live in a city that is about 45% black (only slightly less than the white population). This kind of demographic evaluation is used all the time in election coverage. It is the use of nier that is offensive.

My point is that the offensiveness of Jackson's comments was not what he alleged the Jews did. It was the ethnic slur. Whereas Mel Gibson's statement ("The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world") contains no such slur, and is offensive because of what he accuses the Jews of.

 

[Katana]

He could also simply be sued for damage, as a general tort.

You're right that "free speech" doesn't enter into it, but in a differen way than you might mean.

If I do something, and you are hurt as a result, you can sue me. That's a general principle of civil law. There doesn't need to be a specific name for the thing I've done, precisely because the legislature cannot be expected to enumerate in advance all the possible ways that someone could be damaged.

But in particular -- If I do something, and you are hurt as a result, you can sue me. It doesn't matter if what I did was "speak." If I injure you through speaking, that's just as much an injury as if I accidentally pour weedkiller on your prize-winning begonias.

But is it enough to say that you hurt my feelings? Because I can't see how these young men on the receiving end of Richards' tirade had anything else hurt.

 

[KingMerv00]

But is it enough to say that you hurt my feelings? Because I can't see how these young men on the receiving end of Richards' tirade had anything else hurt.

To have a tort, there must be damages. Hurt feelings alone can be damages but only in extreme cases. For example, murdering someone and then sending a video tape of the act to the victim's parents. The parents could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Being cussed out doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

 

[drkitten]

But is it enough to say that you hurt my feelings?

How much are your feelings worth? In dollars?

And can you convince a jury of that?

In general, "pain and suffering" or "emotional abuse" can be compensated for -- for example, if your priest abused you as an altar boy, you may not have suffered financial loss, or physical damage, but the "emotional abuse" is real and you can get money for it.

On the other hand, I would have a much easier time convincing a jury that a priest raping an altar boy is "abuse" than a drunken comedian ranting at a bunch of drunken hecklers is.

But on the other hand (as Reb Tevye puts it), I also think I would have no problem demonstrating that they were "damaged" at least to the tune of the money spent at the club in the expectation that they would hear a comedy routine, not a KKK rally speech; maybe a $20 cover and a ten-spot for drinks, works out to about $360 for a party of twelve.

Did you read the blog from the OP?

Doss and McBride's best legal theory is probably intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) — extreme and outrageous conduct intended to harm another, which causes emotional injury.

GIven that IIED is apparently recognized by name as a tort in that jurisdiction, I don't think there's any question that Richards committed it -- and is therefore legally on the hook for whatever damages a jury wants to award.

And in that case, he's also legally on the hook for whatever punitive damages they feel like awarding, too. Were I on the jury, I would be inclined to find for the plaintiff -- $350 in damages, appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees, and then (especially since Richards was saying up on stage that he can get away with saying anything because he's rich -- "and when I wake up tomorrow, I'll still be rich and you'll still be n*****s"), add about $350 billion in punitive damages, to make sure that he's not only a jerk, but a liar.....

 

[KingMerv00]

GIven that IIED is apparently recognized by name as a tort in that jurisdiction, I don't think there's any question that Richards committed it -- and is therefore legally on the hook for whatever damages a jury wants to award.

And in that case, he's also legally on the hook for whatever punitive damages they feel like awarding, too. Were I on the jury, I would be inclined to find for the plaintiff -- $350 in damages, appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees, and then (especially since Richards was saying up on stage that he can get away with saying anything because he's rich -- "and when I wake up tomorrow, I'll still be rich and you'll still be n*****s"), add about $350 billion in punitive damages, to make sure that he's not only a jerk, but a liar.....

See my comment above. Being insulted probably isn't enough to get for IIED. Don't forget Richards was supposedly heckled. Perhaps an IIED countersuit? (Kidding.)

The $350 you mention above is more reasonable though. If the "victim" didn't start the fight I'd say he'd be entitled to the cost of the ticket.

 

[drkitten]

See my comment above.

I saw it. We may simply disagree....

Being insulted probably isn't enough to get for IIED.

I know we disagree here. That's not a call for you to make, but a call for the jury (if the case ever gets that far). All I need to do is to find twelve people who agree that he was way out of line ( I think the legal phrase is "beyond any reasonable bounds of human decency. " -- given the demonstrable reaction of the other patrons on the tape, and given an appropriate selection of what people are saying about this event from the blogosphere, I would have no problem producing evidence to meet that standard.)

And then we see what the jury awards.

The $350 you mention above is more reasonable though. If the "victim" didn't start the fight I'd say he'd be entitled to the cost of the ticket.

Remember that punitive damages aren't about what the victim is entitled to, but about making sure that the offender is suitably punished. They're about deterrence, to make sure you don't offend again. Fire lanes are there for a reason -- just because you're rich enough to blow off the $100 fine for parking there doesn't make it acceptable for you to do so. I have no problem giving the victim a whoopee jackpot to which he's not entitled just to make sure that Richards learns to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Katana]

I saw it. We may simply disagree....



I know we disagree here. That's not a call for you to make, but a call for the jury (if the case ever gets that far). All I need to do is to find twelve people who agree that he was way out of line ( I think the legal phrase is "beyond any reasonable bounds of human decency. " -- given the demonstrable reaction of the other patrons on the tape, and given an appropriate selection of what people are saying about this event from the blogosphere, I would have no problem producing evidence to meet that standard.)

And then we see what the jury awards.



Remember that punitive damages aren't about what the victim is entitled to, but about making sure that the offender is suitably punished. They're about deterrence, to make sure you don't offend again. Fire lanes are there for a reason -- just because you're rich enough to blow off the $100 fine for parking there doesn't make it acceptable for you to do so. I have no problem giving the victim a whoopee jackpot to which he's not entitled just to make sure that Richards learns to keep his mouth shut.

If you park in a fire lane, you get a ticket, you're out $100. Where are the punitive damages? So if Richards is out the cost of the cover charges, drinks, and attorneys' fees that may be reasonable, but punitive damages? Come on. I did read the blog, which is why I asked what I did. Crying about hurt feelings and expecting monetary award (at least in this instance) seems absurd to me.

 

[KingMerv00]

I know we disagree here. That's not a call for you to make, but a call for the jury (if the case ever gets that far). All I need to do is to find twelve people who agree that he was way out of line ( I think the legal phrase is "beyond any reasonable bounds of human decency. " --

"Beyond any reasonable bounds of human decency" as interpreted by case law means really, really, REALLY, terrible. Way worse than road rage.

given the demonstrable reaction of the other patrons on the tape, and given an appropriate selection of what people are saying about this event from the blogosphere, I would have no problem producing evidence to meet that standard.)

And then we see what the jury awards.

You have your opinions and that is fine but I am telling you how the system would (and should IMO) handle the case. Any judge worth his gavel would dismiss the case outright or grant summary judgement for Richards. He would (and should IMO) conclude that no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff.

Even if it got in front of a jury, it would almost certainly not find Richards liable for IIED. Even if it DID, it would be struck down on appeal.

The court was not created to punish jerks just for being jerks.

Remember that punitive damages aren't about what the victim is entitled to, but about making sure that the offender is suitably punished. They're about deterrence, to make sure you don't offend again. Fire lanes are there for a reason -- just because you're rich enough to blow off the $100 fine for parking there doesn't make it acceptable for you to do so. I have no problem giving the victim a whoopee jackpot to which he's not entitled just to make sure that Richards learns to keep his mouth shut.

Even punitive damages may not violate the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Forcing a man into poverty over mere words would qualify. A whoopee jackpot is not forthcoming.

 

[KingMerv00]

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

The $100 IS the punitive damages.

So if Richards is out the cost of the cover charges, drinks, and attorneys' fees that may be reasonable, but punitive damages? Come on. I did read the blog, which is why I asked what I did. Crying about hurt feelings and expecting monetary award (at least in this instance) seems absurd to me.

It is.