(ed) Compensation for Offensive Speech?

[Katana]

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

Yuck. Dr. Phil's voice is like dragging fingernails across a chalkboard to me.

 

[firecoins]

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?

As a Jew, I don't the difference between either. Both are offensive. Rev Jackson is a religious and civil rights leader who speaks out against hate speech against blacks while having committed an act of hate speech agains Jews versus Mel Gibson a religious Catholic and a Hollywood nut job.

 

[Kopji]

Yuck. Dr. Phil's voice is like dragging fingernails across a chalkboard to me.

Yeah I was just kidding. I should watch more TV. Futurama had a 'Titanic' episode on tonight, maybe that's a start.

Mel and the Jackson twins have a pretty long and practiced history of very sober anti Semitism. Doesn't make Richards right but I sure can't see them being anyone we could go to for moral guidance.

Watching the Richards video, the guy just lost his mind. The difference between being creative and insane is... well... heck I dunno. A matter of following certain limits?

And if nobody could ever use the 'N' word, well they're be no good rap music. The issue is probably that white people lost the right to use the 'N' word a long time ago.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

As a Jew, I don't the difference between either. Both are offensive. Rev Jackson is a religious and civil rights leader who speaks out against hate speech against blacks while having committed an act of hate speech agains Jews versus Mel Gibson a religious Catholic and a Hollywood nut job.

It must be a strange world you inhabit where insults and accusations are equivalent

 

[firecoins]

It must be a strange world you inhabit where insults and accusations are equivalent

you mean the difference between Gibson accusing the Jews of killing Christ or that Jews start wars and Jackson calling New York Hyme town while going around trying to eliminate the n word?

Should either less offensive to me? I see both as highly offensive. One being an accusation and being an insult is not an excuse.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

alright...explain the difference.

Would you rather I called you an asole or a rapist?

 

[firecoins]

Would you rather I called you an asole or a rapist?

Its a false analogy. Hymie town was not like callin me an a-hole. In fact looked up the context of the hymie remark and Jackson said Hymie town in context of accusing the Jews of conspiring against him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

Jackson was running for President and being a civil rights leader, against hate speech as he is claiming to be now. Gibson is a filmmaker/actor. While they are different neither is any more forgivable.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Its a false analogy. Hymie town was not like callin me an a-hole. In fact looked up the context of the hymie remark and Jackson said Hymie town in context of accusing the Jews of conspiring against him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

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.

Jackson was running for President and being a civil rights leader, against hate speech as he is claiming to be now. Gibson is a filmmaker/actor. While they are different neither is any more forgivable.

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

 

[Unabogie]

Is "offensice" like "realistice"?

Oh, come on. The edit feature works for everything BUT the title, and I added my apologies the second I hit "post" and noted my typo.

Way to kick a guy when he's down.

 

[SezMe]

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?

Didn't notice you were down; ignore the grammar nazis, they're just having fun at your expense.

Re the quote, for me the backlash is against Jackson and Sharpton because they are just huge egos looking for a camera and a mike. And they spout off crap as noted already that makes them blatent hypocrites. Sharpton's the worse of the two; he has never apologized for the Brawley affair and stuck his foot in the same bucket of sh** with that Duke incident.

Whenever I see these two thugs mouthing off about some incident, I find myself irrationally rooting for the other guy.

 

[steverino]

you mean the difference between Gibson accusing the Jews of killing Christ or that Jews start wars and Jackson calling New York Hyme town while going around trying to eliminate the n word?

Should either less offensive to me? I see both as highly offensive. One being an accusation and being an insult is not an excuse.

What he says. Again, if Mel Gibson wants to run for political office, then his anti-semitic words should be given more weight. If Jackson wants to quit being a civil rights mouthpiece and instead direct movies that are racially offensive then he's just another Spike Lee. Less weight.

I also feel that when you pay to see a live performance, you deserve something. OK. What does something mean. If I pay to see Barbra Streisand, and she appears and reads a poem and does not sing, Dang right I sue.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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!

Where in "Europe" is this? (Also where do you mean by "Europe"?)

 

[Katana]

Oh, come on. The edit feature works for everything BUT the title, and I added my apologies the second I hit "post" and noted my typo.

Way to kick a guy when he's down.

Didn't notice you were down; ignore the grammar nazis, they're just having fun at your expense.

Re the quote, for me the backlash is against Jackson and Sharpton because they are just huge egos looking for a camera and a mike. And they spout off crap as noted already that makes them blatent hypocrites. Sharpton's the worse of the two; he has never apologized for the Brawley affair and stuck his foot in the same bucket of sh** with that Duke incident.

Whenever I see these two thugs mouthing off about some incident, I find myself irrationally rooting for the other guy.

Oh, come on! I was kidding, too!

The "Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?" thread is a classic. I just couldn't resist.

However, Unabogie, I apologize for associating your thread with the likes of it.

What I don't understand is this, and I don't mean to derail. I'm trying to understand. The woman who wrote the piece that the OP links to says:

They may have a claim for discrimination in public accommodations, but 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. In my view, if they persuade a jury the facts are as they describe them, they'd stand a good chance of meeting these elements and persuading a jury to award them some damages.

IIED requires a high threshold showing of behavior that is beyond any reasonable bounds of human decency. We are all expected to tolerate a certain amount of offensive conduct in our daily lives (and those of us who live in New York City certainly experience more than our fair share). But Richards' racist rant is well beyond the moderate-level obnoxious buzz of life in 21st-century America.

So why wouldn't the Phelps group be subject to this? If Richards' behavior fits this bill (debatable), isn't their conduct beyond the reasonable bounds of
human decency? I would actually say that it's worse.

It was a mistake to apologize over the Letterman Show and to black civic leaders but then avoid the young men who were on the receiving end of the tirade. If they do sue, it might have looked better for him in the end if he had talked to them face-to-face. Perhaps Richards' lawyer advised him against doing so, but it makes his apologies seem less sincere and designed more to affect public opinion.



Oh, wait. Never mind.

 

[fuelair]

Is "offensice" like "realistice"?

Why yes, yes it is - except in offensice, the ce is pronounced "vih" and in realistice, the ce is pronounced "k". It's just one of those weird rules of English spelling / pronunciation you have to get used to!!

 

[KingMerv00]

Where in "Europe" is this? (Also where do you mean by "Europe"?)

I'm not suggesting that Europe is monolithic but doesn't France have a law that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust?

 

[steverino]

I'm not suggesting that Europe is monolithic but doesn't France have a law that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust?

Darat knows thi one, but I think it is Germany. Certainly not all of Europe. I think Holocaust denial in France is encouraged. (Sorry, Just being bad.)

 

[Darat]

I'm not suggesting that Europe is monolithic but doesn't France have a law that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust?

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.

Darat knows thi one, but I think it is Germany. Certainly not all of Europe. I think Holocaust denial in France is encouraged. (Sorry, Just being bad.)

"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?

 

[drkitten]

I can't add much to what you have said. Free speech easily trumps any offense.

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.

 

[Rasmus]

Darat knows thi one, but I think it is Germany. Certainly not all of Europe. I think Holocaust denial in France is encouraged. (Sorry, Just being bad.)

Aye, that'd be us.

I don't know the precise details, though - so I can't comment on what exactly would be illegal and under which circumstances.

We also have laws against the public display of certain symbols, which recently caused people being sued for wearing patches like this:

I don't know what the outcome was other than that at least one politican responded by reporting herself to the police for wearing one...

 

[KingMerv00]

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 the example above, the negotiator would be sued for breach of contract and/or malpractice. I don't see it as a first amendment issue.