(ed) Compensation for Offensive Speech?

[Unabogie]

http://www.courttv.com/people/bloomblog/112706_ctv.html

Ok, I don't post here often, but when I do it should be obvious that I tend towards the left hand side of the spectrum. I abhor racist speech. I think Michael Richards has stained his reputation and, like Mel Gibson, deserves any boycotts of his projects because of what he did.

That said, the people in the comedy club have hired Gloria freakin' Allred to "represent" them in what they hope will result in "compensation".

Compensation for what? It's comedy. It's a medium of strong words. It frequently features "offensive" ideas and when there are hecklers, they traditionally end up being made to shut up by way of verbal barbs and having their arses handed to them by a more skilled word smith. Going to a comedy club has historically seen its audience members sprayed with watermelons, alcohol, and even the disgusting spittle of irate comedians.

In other words, it ain't for the faint of heart.

When you go to watch it, be prepared to check your delicate sensibilities at the door.

And so what if the comic goes over some arbitrary line? Should I sue every time I am offended? It's absurd. If this pair gets one red cent, then what's next? Malpractice insurance for comics?

I think I may accomplish a first here.

A thread with absolutely zero dissent from the righties or lefties here at the JREF.

ETA, sorry for the typo in the title.

 

[Quinn]

Should I sue every time I am offended?

If you live in the U.S.A., then apparently the answer is, yes. I don't know exactly how the population has come to this absurd belief that they have the inalienable right never to be offended under any circumstances, but it seems that is what an alarmingly high percentage of people think now. The optimist in me hopes that this incident will serve to bring this ridiculous state of affairs into the spotlight and, by exposing it as the farce it is, help to curb it.

Then the cynic in me leans back and howls long, deep, tear-inducing belly laughs at the notion, then grabs some popcorn and sits back to watch how this latest chapter in the continued dumbing-down of our society will unfold.

 

[Grammatron]

Didn't you hear? It's unprotected free speech, that's why they can sue!

 

[Unabogie]

Didn't you hear? It's unprotected free speech, that's why they can sue!

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.

 

[Grammatron]

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.

You're missing the point. By saying the word is "unprotected" free speech they are saying the word can never be used by anyone.

 

[Unabogie]

You're missing the point. By saying the word is "unprotected" free speech they are saying the word can never be used by anyone.

I get your point. But them saying it and the law prohibiting it by punishment or by tort are two different things.

You may disagree with them and they with you, but as long as the law stays out of it, I have no problem with it.

If the Laugh Factory wants to dock its comics for making bad jokes, then that's on them.

It's when the government gives anyone the right to sue someone for offending them that I get worried.

 

[firecoins]

Didn't you hear? It's unprotected free speech, that's why they can sue!

when I speak I wear a condom. I believe in protected speech.

 

[Kopji]

Oooommm aaahhh ohhmmm speak to me o crystal ball...
I see lawyers
I see courts
I see dollar bills stuck in g strings

These signs portend...
it's becoming clearer
clearer...

I see an out of court settlement and two slightly richer hecklers and a much richer lawyer. But no court.

 

[Grammatron]

I get your point. But them saying it and the law prohibiting it by punishment or by tort are two different things.

You may disagree with them and they with you, but as long as the law stays out of it, I have no problem with it.

If the Laugh Factory wants to dock its comics for making bad jokes, then that's on them.

It's when the government gives anyone the right to sue someone for offending them that I get worried.

Correct, but when they same press conference includes a house Representative (Rep. Maxine Waters) one has to wonder how far these people are willing to go with this "unprotected" idea.

 

[Kopji]

That 'unprotected' idea might really come back to bite Jackson or Sharpton next time they spout off on Jews. Course' maybe that's still protected under freedom of religion.

 

[Unabogie]

Correct, but when they same press conference includes a house Representative (Rep. Maxine Waters) one has to wonder how far these people are willing to go with this "unprotected" idea.

Well, let me know when Waters tries to introduce any legislation making it illegal or tortious to say that word and I'll be right there with you. Until then, it looks like you've made a huge leap.

What Allred is doing, however, is much more troubling than the advocacy of Congresswoman Waters.

 

[Unabogie]

That 'unprotected' idea might really come back to bite Jackson or Sharpton next time they spout off on Jews. Course' maybe that's still protected under freedom of religion.

I do find it interesting that there is a backlash here against Jackson and Sharpton for condemning Richards. Was there a similar backlash against Jewish groups calling for a boycott of Gibson?

 

[Kopji]

I do find it interesting that there is a backlash here against Jackson and Sharpton for condemning Richards. Was there a similar backlash against Jewish groups calling for a boycott of Gibson?

Yeah MSNBC is having fun playing the old Jackson/Sharpton Jewish insult media clips today. I think it's because Richards went and asked their forgiveness or 'help', as if they were any better people than he was. A tiny toast is raised to the nuttiness of the world.

Richards needs to apologize to the people he insulted at the theatre, Gibson needed to apologize to the police he offended and was a butthead with.

Richards clearly was humiliated and blew a gasket, Gibson was dead drunk. Both are instances of imperfect people making mistakes. Do they need to apologize to an entire race of people? Does that really make all these people feel better?

 

[firecoins]

Richards clearly was humiliated and blew a gasket, Gibson was dead drunk. Both are instances of imperfect people making mistakes. Do they need to apologize to an entire race of people? Does that really make all these people feel better?

Mel Gibson can blame the alcohol but what can Rev. Jackson claim? His apology has not been accepted for his hymetown remarks.

 

[Unabogie]

Mel Gibson can blame the alcohol but what can Rev. Jackson claim? His apology has not been accepted for his hymetown remarks.

Do you honestly think Jackson calling New York "Hymie-town" is the same as Gibson yelling that Jews start all the wars in the world and accusing the cop who was arresting him of "being a Jew"?

You don't see any difference, other than the color of the person making the claim?

And when does alcohol excuse something that obvious?

 

[Katana]

Is "offensice" like "realistice"?

 

[RandFan]

http://www.courttv.com/people/bloomblog/112706_ctv.html

Ok, I don't post here often, but when I do it should be obvious that I tend towards the left hand side of the spectrum. I abhor racist speech. I think Michael Richards has stained his reputation and, like Mel Gibson, deserves any boycotts of his projects because of what he did.

That said, the people in the comedy club have hired Gloria freakin' Allred to "represent" them in what they hope will result in "compensation".

Compensation for what? It's comedy. It's a medium of strong words. It frequently features "offensive" ideas and when there are hecklers, they traditionally end up being made to shut up by way of verbal barbs and having their arses handed to them by a more skilled word smith. Going to a comedy club has historically seen its audience members sprayed with watermelons, alcohol, and even the disgusting spittle of irate comedians.

In other words, it ain't for the faint of heart.

When you go to watch it, be prepared to check your delicate sensibilities at the door.

And so what if the comic goes over some arbitrary line? Should I sue every time I am offended? It's absurd. If this pair gets one red cent, then what's next? Malpractice insurance for comics?

I think I may accomplish a first here.

A thread with absolutely zero dissent from the righties or lefties here at the JREF.

ETA, sorry for the typo in the title.

?

No dissent from me. I can't add much to what you have said. Free speech easily trumps any offense. I to abhor what Richards said. I really find it incomprehensible.

 

[Kopji]

Maybe I don't care enough about what celebrities say.
naw.

Both "offensice" and "realistice" have the same weird quality about them that dragging fingernails across a chalkboard has.

 

[Kopji]

Richards flipped out. He should get professional help. Maybe Dr Phil is available for counseling, I'd watch that.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

http://www.courttv.com/people/bloomblog/112706_ctv.html

Ok, I don't post here often, but when I do it should be obvious that I tend towards the left hand side of the spectrum. I abhor racist speech. I think Michael Richards has stained his reputation and, like Mel Gibson, deserves any boycotts of his projects because of what he did.

That said, the people in the comedy club have hired Gloria freakin' Allred to "represent" them in what they hope will result in "compensation".

Compensation for what? It's comedy. It's a medium of strong words. It frequently features "offensive" ideas and when there are hecklers, they traditionally end up being made to shut up by way of verbal barbs and having their arses handed to them by a more skilled word smith. Going to a comedy club has historically seen its audience members sprayed with watermelons, alcohol, and even the disgusting spittle of irate comedians.

In other words, it ain't for the faint of heart.

When you go to watch it, be prepared to check your delicate sensibilities at the door.

And so what if the comic goes over some arbitrary line? Should I sue every time I am offended? It's absurd. If this pair gets one red cent, then what's next? Malpractice insurance for comics?

I think I may accomplish a first here.

A thread with absolutely zero dissent from the righties or lefties here at the JREF.

ETA, sorry for the typo in the title.

Freedom of speech is absolutely critical for a society to have any chance of retaining liberty. This is especially true for unpopular speech.

The idea that you can sue someone for saying something you do not like is absurd. If you are going to sue someone for something they said, it must have real and direct damages. (Example: A person tells a blind person there is no traffic coming and it's safe to cross the street. Or a newspaper misquotes you and destroys your reputation and causes measurable financial lloss)


You don't like the jokes? Don't go to see him. Ridicule him. Call him names back. Hell, call him a stupid, whitey cracker honkey.... there ya go

I remember hearing something about a court in canada awarding a gay guy compensation because somebody said he was "acting like a fifi"

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

Here in the US, we can be proud of one thing: Despite all the talk of rights being abridged, we haven't degenerated *that* far. Lets keep it that way!