Gloria Allred challenges Kramer to face-to-face apology

[Subdivisions]

If Kramer doesn't agree to a face-to-face, Allred plans law suit on behalf of tirade victims.

Ok...I can't stand that woman. Is it just me?

[AlCzervik]

1. wow i'm surprised it took her this long to inject herself in to this.

[goclark]

2. It is certainly not me

She is doing her job.

[bliss_eternal]

14. People seem to be missing it...

Sure Allred may seem opportunistic to some, in terms of "how" she goes about representing people. A few of the people she's chose to represent have later been revealed to be less than scrupulous. BUT...

...what Michael Richards did is the equivalent of a hate crime. I admire her for recognizing that and her willingness to attempt to hold him responsible for it. If for no other reason than to "send the message" that what he did is not ok.

This sort of thing seems too "acceptable" to too many when we have administrations such as the one we have now. I appreciate someone being willing to stand up and say, "bullshit on you, sir!"

Sure, he "said" he's sorry on Letterman. But it seems to me, he's "sorry" he was caught. Sorry that he is now being (appropriately) labeled a racist. Sorry for the obvious repurcussions this will have on his career. That isn't the same as feeling actual remorse for his behaviour and those he wronged.

Allred may be villified by some, but I believe her heart is in the right place in most cases. She see's something disgusting and heinous and uses what's at her disposal (her legal position and career) to try to help people. A lot more than many people do.

But yes, I guess that means she's inherently evil. :sarcasm:

:hi:goclark!

[goclark]

26. Bliss ~ thank you for always putting the light on a response

Happy Thanksgiving My Friend

[bliss_eternal]

29. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well!

:party::toast::hi:

[Divernan]

76. It's her 40% fee, not her heart, that determines what cases to take on.

Michael Richards made huge bucks out of the Seinfeld show. And Gloria smells both free publicity and a big chunk of change. Am I wrong - what cases has she taken on where some no-name, dirt poor racist mouthed off and verbally attacked any minority? It happens all too often, but if one of the parties to a case is not going to attract a lot of press and/or there's only justice without deep pockets to be had - you will not find Gloria anywhere in the vicinity. All of you who have friends or relatives who have been wronged, as far as the civil law recognizes, and want to sue someone who has no big $$$, but your friend or relative wants to sue for the principle of the thing, or for their own peace of mind, or to get closure on an ugly situation - have them email Gloria and see if she offers some pro bono representation.

Celebrity lawyers like Gloria got that way by only taking on the most lucrative, sensational cases they can get their grubby little hands on. High profile should be her middle name.
From Wikipedia:
She has also represented cases against the Boy Scouts of America for not allowing girls, something she referred to as gender apartheid, a case against K-Mart for having both a boys and a girls toy section, as well as representing actress Hunter Tylo when producer Aaron Spelling fired her because of her pregnancy.

She accused California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of being a Nazi sympathizer, stating there were "six million reasons not to vote" for him, and also referred to U.S. President George W. Bush as the President-select. SHE ALSO ONCE REFERRED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AS AN "UNCLE TOM"(emphasis added).

Salon.com called her the "Queen of Overexposure." San Francisco Chronicle reporter Peter Hartlaub calls her the person for the media "to turn to", even if she has nothing worthwhile to contribute. Hartlaub cites a visit Allred made to The Today Show, when she apparently showed up for no other reason than to say she wouldn't discuss matters pertaining to one of her clients. In amazement, Matt Lauer replied, saying "I don't mean to be rude here, but I just want to make sure I understand this...Then the reason that -- that both of you are appearing here this morning is simply ...nothing more?"

Craig Smith, a legal commentator, said in reference to her that "lawyers shouldn't try their cases in the media and Allred has tried far more cases in the media than she has ever tried in any courtroom." Smith also spoke of an episode in which Allred chastised a limo driver because he didn't know who she was.<2> She is also known for her criticism of pop singer Michael Jackson.<3>

She has also represented the family of slain transgender teen Gwen Araujo in the Bay Area, as well as the girlfriend of Scott Dyleski, 17, who has been charged with killing the wife of prominent Bay Area attorney and legal analyst Daniel Horowitz.

[madmusic]

84. Wrong: the legal definition of hate crime:

In a separate opinion, the concurring justices argued that the majority opinion weakened previous First Amendment jurisprudence. Specifically, the majority opinion protected fighting words, a form of speech that provokes hostile encounters and is not protected by the First Amendment. By holding that "lawmakers may not regulate some fighting words more strictly than others because of their content," the majority had forced legislatures to criminalize all fighting words to legally prohibit the most dangerous fighting words.

According to the concurring justices, the statute was merely overbroad—that is, it legitimately regulated unprotected speech, but it also impermissibly prohibited speech that can cause only hurt feelings or resentment. With more careful wording, the concurring justices argued, hate-crime laws could pass constitutional muster. However, under the Court's majority opinion, this did not seem possible.

In 1993 the Supreme Court revisited hate-crime legislation and unanimously adopted a coherent approach. In State v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S. Ct. 2194, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1993), Todd Mitchell, a young black man from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was convicted of aggravated battery and received an increased sentence under the Wisconsin hate-crime statute. The incident at issue began with Mitchell asking some friends, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" Shortly thereafter Mitchell spotted Gregory Reddick, a fourteen-year-old white male, walking on the other side of the street. Mitchell then said to the group, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." The group attacked Reddick. Reddick suffered extensive injuries, including brain damage, and was comatose for four days.

Mitchell appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that the hate-crime statute violated the First Amendment. The state of Wisconsin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The High Court ruled that the Wisconsin statute was constitutional because it was directed at conduct, not expression. The Court distinguished the R.A.V. case by explaining that the St. Paul ordinance was impermissibly aimed at expression. The primary purpose of the St. Paul ordinance was to punish specifically the placement of certain symbols on property. This violated the rule against content-based speech legislation. The Wisconsin law, by contrast, merely allowed increased sentences based on motivation, always a legitimate consideration in determining a criminal sentence.

more: http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-crime

[bliss_eternal]

119. Thank you so much...

for finding legal protections for those that spread hatred against others, on a progressive board, yet. :) What a proud day for DU and for you for sharing this.

[madmusic]

130. Is that sarcasm?

Of course! We can't have an intelligent conversation based on the facts and must resort to sarcasm, the last refuge of the fallacious. The legal definition of a "hate crime," which is a word you used, matters, because YOU USED IT.

Do you HATE Richards when you call him a hate crime criminal? What is the difference between his hate and yours? Oh, he's wrong and you're self-righteously right.

Even progressive boards, I hope, can be logical instead of mob ruled, though I have serious doubts.

[bliss_eternal]

133. The only mob here is one fueled by defending racism.

and attempting to wrap it up in a neat little package called "freedom of speech". Racist apologists take many forms apparently, even on a progressive board.

[FredScuttle]

234. Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

n/t

[itsrobert]

3. She also wants a RETIRED Judge to

make a judgement and compensate her clients.

[Minnesota_Lib]

93. Gloria loves nothing more than the smell of free publicity and fresh greens in the morning.

...or is that greenbacks?

[zreosumgame]

4. I always have the reaction that anyone who hires her is

probably worth a close look for guilt

[FredScuttle]

5. Just when I thought no one in this sordid episode could make me sicker than Richards...

here comes Gloria!

[tularetom]

6. It ain't just you

In the dictionary next to "slimy opportunist" you'll find her picture. I thought it would be impossible to feel any sympathy for Kramer after his asshole act but Allred almost makesme feel sorry for the stupid mofo.

[Subdivisions]

9. Whew! I guess I can take off my flame suit. I'm sorry, but she

just gets on my nerves. I don't like her kind of opportunism.

[bliss_eternal]

27. No flames here, but questions...

You're entitled to like or dislike anyone, we all have different tastes, views, perspectives, ideas, etc.

However, correct me if I am wrong, considering that in other threads on this issue, you seem to not think what Richards did was not all that bad, and shouldn't necessarily be deemed as racist--maybe you just don't think he needs to be held accountable...by anyone.

Maybe creating a thread about Gloria Allred knowing she's not viewed in a favorable light, is your way of saying,"...see--everyone is blowing this out of proportion." Or something to that effect. Perhaps...?

[RagingInMiami]

162. I don't think he committed a hate crime

And I don't think he should be sued.

He is entitled to his own opinion no matter how ignorant it is. Yes, he was way out of line for saying those things, but he will pay the price by watching his career take an even more downward spiral than it already has.

Whether he is a racist or not (I believe he is), there really is no law against racism. If there was, then the neo-nazis would not be allowed to march through black neighborhoods.

Besides, sometimes it's better to allow the haters to out themselves so we all know where we stand.

[karlrschneider]

171. It baffles me how some (few) DUers fail to grasp the Bill of Rights.

jeez...

[bliss_eternal]

199. What baffles me is how some use it to beat up others.

:)

[mondo joe]

172. As defined in California Penal Code section 422.55,

hate crime means “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”

This certainly does not appear to fit the bill --- there's no criminal act!

[bliss_eternal]

173. So good to see you, Raging!

:hi::hug:

I agree with most of your post. I disagree that a racial slur is an opinion, however. I just see it as an attack, an insult, etc. The man didn't offer anything I would construe as an opinion. The N word is not an opinion--it is a slur. Saying something about "your people" hanging upside down with forks up their asses...again, not an opinion but an pointed effort to paint racist imagery.

But I don't have a problem at all with agreeing to disagree, particularly not with you Raging. :D

Again, it's great to see you! I hope you have a great holiday! :hi:

[RagingInMiami]

209. It was a horrible thing to say

God only knows what other feelings he has simmering within him. And yes, the N-word is a slur, but then so are many other words, including "macaca", "redneck", "spic", "cracker" and "wetback".

But these slurs are also opinions; dehumanizing opinions that people may have of other cultures. Opinions, nonetheless.

And no law is able to force anybody to change one's opinion on other cultures or races. That needs to come from within.

It's good to see you as well.
:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

213. So true. And thank you--I didn't consider that...

It's certainly a perspective I will give some thought to...It's good to consider other ways to look at things. Hoping all is well with you! :hug::hi:

[Subdivisions]

186. You cite one thread in which I stated the following:

"As one poster suggested, perhaps he is not truly a racist but rather grabbed the first verbal weapon that came to mind under the circumstances. Perhaps dealing with his own demons while having to listen to someone yelling "you're not funny" simply pushed him over the edge. The person happened to be black so the most hurtful retort would be what ended up happening. Would he have responded differently if there were a white person there. Who knows?"

That was early on and before he made his apologies. I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. The character of Kramer is one of all-time favorite fictional characters just as the character of Hawkeye Pierce is a favorite. I watched Seinfeld faithfully and was drawn to it like young women were drawn to Friends, the entire 11 years it ran. I know it may sound weird, but it sorta breaks my heart to see this happen and I kinda feel sorry for the guy. But you will note that in that same thread, I also mention that what MR did was "was dispicable and, as the audience member said, "uncalled for"".

Should he be criminally punished in some way? That's for the prosecutor to decide. Should he suffer civil penalties? I don't know. I didn't hear what led up to this tirade so I don't know what was being said to him. Even if the black guys were calling him "cracker", in my book it's still not enough for such a vicious tirade.

Coming full circle with this particular post though, my OP actually had NOTHING to do with Michael Richards. It was about an opportunist ambulance chaser name Gloria Allred. Let me ask you this. Is it more likely that this apology challenge and threatened civil action was the idea of the two "victims" (we still don't know the whole story about them) or is it more likely that this was all Allred's idea? Would two black victims who felt racial hate call on Gloria Allred of all people? Did they even consider suing or did she track them down herself and shop it to them? I think she saw this as another opportunity to inject herself into a high profile controversy just as she's done so many times before.

[bliss_eternal]

205. Hi Texas Explorer...

I appreciate your clarification. :hi: Thanks for answering so honestly and not taking my questions or comments personally.

I know a lot see Allred as an ambulance chaser. Considering some of the cases she's taken on, I can see how some would, not that I necessarily agree--but I understand.

My assertion that this was a racist act, doesn't mean I believe the hecklers are entitled to renumerative compensation. I don't know that they are, or aren't. :shrug:

If Allred is doing this to set a precedent or draw attention to the greater issue of racial discrimination I'm all for that.

Thanks again for sharing. I appreciate it. :) Have a great holiday!

[Guaranteed]

7. Yup, she's the worst. Saw her come up on CNN and changed

the channel.

BTW, his name is Michael Richards, not Kramer.

[Pool Hall Ace]

8. I don't approve at all of Michael Richards' behavior

(Kramer was the name of his character on Seinfeld), but I don't see why she needs to stick her snoot in.

[mzmolly]

10. Unpopular as my opinion is - I like Gloria and I agree with her frankly.

His rant was not acceptable and he should take responsibility with the victims? What a horrible experience that must have been for those people. To have come through so much in this country and then - that?

I hope he gets the help he says he needs.

Peace all, sorry to rock the boat.

[ComerPerro]

12. If the threat of a lawsuit is looming, I think a face to face would be good

and maybe that's all she is going for

[itsrobert]

17. No she wants a face to face

and a retired judge to decide if her clients should be compensated.

[msongs]

13. hecklers can dish it out, but they can't take it in return nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yeah.

Those uppity negroes.

:eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

22. So hecklers, according to you--should be able to take

being called the "n" word and regaled with lynching imagery? Is that what you are saying?

Wow.

[ComerPerro]

38. no, but lets not forget that the aren't victims here.

You gotta be a real asshole to show up as a heckler anyway, remember.

Fuck Richards, he screwed up.

But seriously, fuck the hecklers. I don't see why people here need to carry the water for disruptive assholes.

[bliss_eternal]

39. Sorry, but I don't agree...

...there is absolutely NOTHING those guys could have done to deserve such words or treatment. NOTHING. While you may believe your post is not saying this--your attitude toward the hecklers is insensitive. The moment that someone calls someone else a racial slur, they become a victim. Period.

Those "disruptive assholes" have rights. The right to not be diminished from a stage by an alleged entertainer. Your post is not cool.

I'm also "surprised" that you would choose to speak on behalf of the insensitive post I responded to. :( Thanks for sharing. :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

55. and the freeper who heckled Streisand, he is a victim too, right?

[bliss_eternal]

68. Did he call her racial slurs?

:shrug:
Is there a point to your questions?

These questions don't support your arguments without "tangible" cases. Stuff you are making up because you think it exemplifies your point, simply don't. They just make you look like you are defending the un-defendable...badly.

[ComerPerro]

70. No, but she used some very offensive language toward him.

[bliss_eternal]

79. Then it isn't the same thing--obviously.

Sorry. :( Perhaps you'd like to start a thread discussing that incident if you have links, etc.

[ComerPerro]

80. I don't need links. It was all over this place a few weeks ago

she essentially told the guy to fuck off and get out, and just about everyone agreed that people who come to heckle are assholes.

[bliss_eternal]

83. Sorry ComerPerro--not the same thing.

If she retaliated with slurs against the hecklers identity we'd be on the same page. However, that was not the case. You are choosing to not see how this guy's ethnicity in this situation comes into play and makes the situation different.

Maybe you just aren't ready to see that. It's ok. Maybe in time you will be faced with a situation and you'll see things differently. :shrug: I wouldn't wish that on you, but perhaps it will. Maybe it won't.

[ComerPerro]

85. I said repeatedly, both parties are assholes

you provoke someone, don't be surpised if they blow up in your face.

[bliss_eternal]

88. Correct, but "be surprised" if they blow up with racial slurs.

That is the aspect you seem to be dismissing.

[ComerPerro]

91. suprised, maybe, but you aren't a victim

[bliss_eternal]

97. Words with intent to hurt...

That is victimizing another human being.

[ComerPerro]

144. Streisand telling the guy to go shut the fuck up (or whatever) was with intent to hurt

[bliss_eternal]

148. Apparently you don't see the difference between that

and calling someone a racial slur. I'm sorry to hear that. It's really not the same thing. You may of course, believe that it is--but no matter how much you say it is--doesn't make it true.

[mondo joe]

150. They may both be offensive, but that is all.

Unless they accompany an actual crime, it doesn't look like much of a case.

[ComerPerro]

151. ok, fine. Enough of this. Watch the fucking video.

Tell me what you think about these words:

"That was uncalled for, you fucking cracker ass motherfucker!"

"fucking white boy"



What the fuck was that?

all were spouted by your "victims"

[bliss_eternal]

157. Sounds like "reactions" to his racial slurs to me.

But the reactions of those that were insulted first are not the issue here. You are deferring from the issue at hand, again.

[ComerPerro]

158. no. That is bullshit, according to your own words, you hypocrite.

racial slurs are never ok, remember? And if Michael Richards attacks these people, they have no right to respond with racial or ethnic slurs, remember?

Besides, maybe their slurs towards him are just a reflection of their own inner racism.

After all, if they weren't racist, they wouldn't even say those words, even in anger, because it is disgusting, remember? And anger is no excuse for using racial slurs, ever.

[bliss_eternal]

163. I don't see where in my post I said their reaction was ok.

Would you mind pointing that out to me? I believe that I said that was their reaction. I didn't label what they said one way or the other.

This is not a game. Why do you seem to be trying to bait me into saying something, or "winning." This is a discussion. We disagree. It happens. I'm fine with agreeing that we disagree and moving on. You however seem to think otherwise. :shrug:

[ComerPerro]

165. try checking the text of your entire post,

starting with the subject line, where you said it was just a reaction to his racism (thereby implying that its not as severe or wrong). Then the body of your message, where you say their words are not relevant.

[bliss_eternal]

169. Wow...ok.

If you say so. Clearly you are upset about this. That was not the intent of what I said. You seem to need to read something insidious and hypocritical into my words. Ok. Whatever. Your choice. Clearly, you just don't see the issue the same way I do.

[goclark]

Bliss you are so wise

and so kind.

Happy Thanksgiving to a real Drum Major for Justice ~ bliss!

[bliss_eternal]

198. Goclark...

:blush: You are too kind.

:loveya: thank you, friend. :hi:

[mzmolly]

46. Hecklers go to comedy shows, at times they are part of the "act."

It's part of the job of a stand-up comedian to deal with "hecklers." As for carrying water, I'd rather carry water for a heckler than a racist. Not sure if you saw the rant, but it was really horrendous.

[ComerPerro]

52. I saw it, and there is no excuse for what Richards did, as I said. however,

a heckler asks to be singled out

[bliss_eternal]

61. Yes, of course...call me the n word, tell me I belong

back on the plantation! That's exactly what a heckler asks when he heckles someone. :sarcasm:

You seem to be missing the point. There are other things Richards could have said. "shut up you idiot!" "Security!" Other things come to MY mind.

This would not even be on the NEWS if not for the fact that he reached for the race card, the lowest card one can ever play. But apparently, they deserved that by your logic. Way to argue for progressive ideals. :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

63. I heard you abuse women and are a serial rapist. Is that true?

And even if its not, I heard you support rapists and people who batter women and children.

And, I also heard you torture animals.

But I am not here to judge.

[bliss_eternal]

65. If I was on stage beating the shit out of a woman...yeah...

wouldn't be a stretch. :eyes:

Actions speak louder than words. The first insults he reached for were racial. That doesn't say anything to you apparently, but it says a lot to me. I can't make you feel what I do about this, and you can't make me see this in your narrow perspective either.

Your post was ridiculous and you are reaching. It is ok that you don't believe this guy is a bigot. Just don't expect people (like me) to jump on that train with you.

Don't expect to post insensitive things about people that have been discriminated against and victimized and not be called on it. That is protected under DU rules. Defending racism and bigotry however is not.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

81. I didn't call you a racist.

I said you are aligning yourself with one, and I do know how much of a stretch that is. I'm aware of you, I know where you post on DU. But it certainly isn't beyond people of color to be racist apologists. You would not be the first. No more than it is a stretch for women to be sexist apologists. It's unfortunate and sad, but it happens.

I've seen people of color tell racist jokes in mixed company (in front of caucasians). That is absurd, but sadly they just didn't know any better.:shrug:

Being a person of color or having ethnic lineage does not make you immune of not being aware enough to see certain situations the way they really are. I'm trying to provide you with information so perhaps you can reevaluate this situation. The choice is yours. :)

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

95. How you take what I said, and what I actually stated

are two different things. Perhaps you see it as such for a reason. If you've been called on such issues here in the past, maybe some self-examination is in order. If you are interested in doing so. If not, ok.

Don't pull the race card as a defense against being a racist apologist. It simply doesn't make you immune.

[ComerPerro]

143. see, how is it that my posts are deleted when I didn't say anything worse than you

[bliss_eternal]

149. Perhaps you should take that up with a moderator...

I don't have the power to delete your posts.

[ComerPerro]

152. I'll just have to carefully construct my attacks, then I can say whatever the hell I want

[bliss_eternal]

155. Attacking is against the rules. Calling people on contradictions

to the ideals the community supports however are not.

[ComerPerro]

156. attacking is clearly not against the rules if you do it properly, apparently

[bliss_eternal]

159. I'm sorry that you feel I've attacked you.

I called you on comments that I believed to be a contradiction to progressive ideals--as I see them. Your progressive ideals aren't the same as mine, that's ok.

I've said to you previously you are entitled to your perspectives. Not at all sure how that would be construed as an attack, but ok, if you say so.

[mzmolly]

225. Ironic that this person is claiming he was "attacked" and all the while

he is defending the actual racist attack of others, under the guise of free speech? I dunno, I find that a bit humorous personally.

[mondo joe]

236. Please cite the "defending the actual racist attacks of others" you allege.

Thank you.

[mzmolly]

237. Please read the thread

Thank you.

[mondo joe]

239. You alleged defense of racist attacks. YOU cite it.

Your allegation.

[mzmolly]

245. The question is absurd.

I will cite the thread as I have already done.

[mondo joe]

250. The alllegation is absurd. You can't cite even ONE defense of racist

attacks.

You have libeled another DUer. Congratulations.

[mzmolly]

258. Calling racism OK because of "free speech" is an example, and there are MANY.

Me, Libeled another DU-er? Dude, I'm just practicing "free speech." Why is it that bigots are the only ones entitled to your so called 'free speech?' Guess what, I'm calling a bigot a bigot based upon evidence. Richards lashed out at a persons skin color - I spoke to the words/actions of an individual, BIG difference.

[mondo joe]

260. Where did a poster call racism OK?

You keep making these allegations but refuse to support them.

Which poster called racism OK? Please cite the post.

[mzmolly]

268. To defend racist comments by saying "well, he was heckled" and/or by saying

he has a right to "free speech" IS a justification of what happened. Who the hell doesn't know that we have a right to free speech in this country? We also have a RESPONSIBILITY to use that right wisely.

[mondo joe]

270. Now you're changing your allegation. Who here said racist attacks are "ok"?

Answer: no one. Your lying.

In addition, we have no responsibility to use free speech wisely - there is no such condition on the use of free speech, and no such requirement.

[mzmolly]

274. This entire thread consists of people bitching about Allred and the fact

that she's defending horrible hecklers who deserve a good verbal "lynching." I trust that DU-ers can make up their own minds about who's "lying" here. You choose to parse words, I choose to cut to the damn chase. I know up from down "black" from "white" and I know the defense of racism under the guise of "free speech" when I see it.

[mondo joe]

275. To the contrary - it's about a number of things. And if someone had actually

done what you claimed - saying racist attacks are ok - you could cite the posts in which it happened.

But you can't. Because it NEVER happened.

[goclark]

212. I have been rubbing my eyes

all night here at DU.

I'm going to sleep because I am on the wrong Board.

:crazy:

PEACE to you bliss

[mzmolly]

214. This tirade was more than singling out.

We would not defend Richards had he burned a cross on the lawn of a family, and I can't for the life of me figure out how any progressive could defend what he said/did, earlier this week. Were that Rush Limbaugh we'd call for his job at the very least. As for Richards, we don't know his politics, but we do know, in spite of his assertions to the contrary, that he's a racist.

[bliss_eternal]

217. Yes they would, mzmolly...

they would defend his right to burn a cross on a family's lawn. They'd just beat us all about the head with the bill of rights until we "got" it.

:hi: Thanks for your words, molly. I appreciate your efforts. Can't temper wisdom with hard head or hearts unfortunately. :hug:

[mzmolly]

41. This is not about heckling, it's about racially motivated abuse.

He didn't just "heckle" them back, he was pissed and he was using hate filled racist language/imagery.

[bliss_eternal]

43. Thank you, mzmolly.

:hi: I appreciate your words.

[mzmolly]

47. Thank YOU

bliss-e. :hi:

[ComerPerro]

64. So what? Fuck them. One asshole uses racial slurs toward another asshole. I care, why?

[bliss_eternal]

131. I thought this was a board to discuss progressive ideals...

maybe that would be why we should care. Racist attacks go against progressive ideals.

[mondo joe]

142. Free speech is also a progressive ideal. So is a just legal system.

Just FYI.

[ComerPerro]

160. agree

[bliss_eternal]

166. Using it as a defense against racist behaviour is wrong

to me. My opinion. You disagree. Ok. Just fyi. :)

[mondo joe]

168. It's not a defense. It's not about racism.

You believe free speech covers offensive speech, or you don't.

You believe lawsuits cover damages, or you don't.

[bliss_eternal]

170. Nothing to see here...

move along.

[mzmolly]

231. Hate speech is NOT progressive.

Period.

[mondo joe]

241. But free speech is progressive. Why take the side of the NeoCons who want to

ban all expression they find offensive?

How do you feel about the ACLU?

[mzmolly]

248. How do you feel about George Allen's "macaca moment?"

How do you feel about cross burning or protesting the funerals of soldiers who perished in Iraq with "God hates fags" posters? Is that free speech?

[mondo joe]

255. In order: I think Allen's Macaca moment showed what a pig he is, and

the electorate acted on it.

Cross burning is despicable.

Protesting funerals is appalling.

The first and third are protected free speech, the 2nd is not because it has been found to imply a threat og physical harm. Threats are not protected by the first amendment - insults are.

[mzmolly]

263. So why not call Richards actions "despicable" instead of defending what

he said under the "free speech" banner? Why even mention "free speech" unless the intent is to defend Richards hate speech? Free speech again, is about questioning the actions of an individual, hate speech is about criticizing a persons very humanity.

[mondo joe]

266. They are despicable. They are also protected free speech. Why even mention

free speech? For the simple (and I'd think obvious) reason that Bliss was arguing that he was guilty of a crime, and free speech was invoked to point out that he was not.

And regardless of your post, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment as well - though hate crimes are not.

[mzmolly]

272. We have a right not only to free speech but to the justice system

in this country. We'll let the courts determine if a hate crime was committed or not provided this situation makes it that far. It's my guess that Gloria Allred has a better grip on that than you or I? And for those who are not aware, "verbal assault" can constitute a crime depending upon the circumstances.

[mondo joe]

277. Indeed. But there's not even a CHARGE of a hate crime.

Hate CRIMES are part of the criminal justice system -- there is no arrest, no charge. No dice.

(Hint: Gloria Allred is not a DA.)

[mzmolly]

254. There is a difference between offensive speech and racism/sexism.

One can critique a person for their actions under the guise of free speech, but it is NOT OK attack a persons race/gender without being called out for being a "BIGOT."

[mondo joe]

262. No, it's not okay to be a sexist or racist - but it is protected free speech.

The First Amendment does not protect only speech that is "okay".

[mzmolly]

269. So he has the right to be a racist pig, why do you feel the need to point out the

obvious? Who the hell said he doesn't have the "right" be an asshole?

What "progressives" here are saying is that that his speech is racist, hurtful, bigoted, and as such, he should pay a price.

[mondo joe]

271. Why point it out? Because a poster here argued, rather poorly, that it was criminal

of him to do so, and she was corrected.

That's who said he didn't have a RIGHT to be an asshole.

And, again, she was corrected.

Michael Richards will certainly pay a price for his actions. But it won't be criminally - and it won't be in court at all.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

210. You use the term asshole loosely, and as if it's the end all?

If you don't care that human beings were subjected to a racist rampage, that's your problem. And I do mean "problem."

[breakaleg]

280. No. A good comic can deal effectively with hecklers without losing it.nt

[Cha]

16. I thought to myself..

a couple of days ago that if Kramer really wanted to apologize he should do so to the people he insulted. Maybe buy them dinner and apologize.

I'm not sure about Gloria but a face to face gives it more sincerity.

[Human Torch]

21. That Letterman "apology" only made matters worse...

...unless he smelled a lawsuit coming and wanted to get a head start on his insanity plea. Richards is one seriously messed up guy...even beyond his on-stage comments. He's what the medical profession refers to as a "disturbed individual."

:patriot:

[mzmolly]

49. I honestly felt as you do. He's got some serious psychiatric issues.

But, he is a functional "disturbed individual" which of course means he hasn't much of an "excuse?"

[Human Torch]

53. I don't think he has any excuse...

...as one of the people from the crowd reminded him, he had "Seinfeld," and that's it. One failed sitcom, no movies, and stand-up, which he clearly has no gift for.

There are many untalented, unfunny, un-whatever folks in the entertainment industry who manage to "get by" simply because they endear themselves to their audiences...they "seem nice," so people listen to their badly-performed songs, chuckle mildly at their unfunny shows, suspend disbelief as they horrendously "act" their way through another "supporting character" role.

Just like Bush QUICKLY squandered his "political capital," Richards squandered his "Kramer capital." He's had his 15 minutes of notoriety and now rejoins the ranks of "former stars," with one sad distinction...we now know how "not nice" the man behind the character really is.

If he's that "on the edge" and unstable, he needs professional help...not a gig at a comedy club.

:patriot:

[bliss_eternal]

20. Hi mzmolly...I agree with you!

See my post above in the thread...#14.

Don't be sorry, you have nothing to apologize for. If people like us don't stand up for the rights of those that aren't generally seen as important in our world, who will? ;) Change doesn't happen by going with the status quo.

:hi:

best,
bliss

[LostinVA]

35. I like her and agree with her

Even if she likes the limelight, she at least usually represents the victims in cases, like Johnny Cochrane.

[bliss_eternal]

219. Hi Lost in VA!

:hi: :hug:

Nice to see some other voices on this thread. I sure do appreciate the support.

I sure love getting my ass kicked and beat about the head with the Bill of Rights, how about you? :eyes:

:rofl:

[Union Thug]

11. Nothing like making a bad situation even worse. Now that's smooooth... Sheesh n/t

[Blue in Bama]

18. Fuck Gloria Allred

no further comment...

[originalpckelly]

19. Question: What's worse than finding out someone whose comedy you like is racist?

Answer: Gloria Allred.

[hlthe2b]

23. No, you are not alone.... eom

[Seeking Serenity]

24. I need a link before I can adequately respond to this

And, just for the record, I am a member of a group she purports to represent, but, truth be told, I'm not sure I want her on my team anymore.

Any RW identity groups be willing to trade for a couple of draft picks and an advocate to be named later?

[niyad]

25. the fact that gloria is an absolutely tireless advocate for women, for

gays,for the discriminated-against, for child rape victims, this all bothers you? the fact that TIME named her one of the best lawyers in the country? that her peers feel the same way? this all bothers you? the fact that most of HER work is done pro-bono? this bothers you? that is just sad.

did johnnie cochran bother you?

[bliss_eternal]

28. This poster has stated clearly in other threads on Richards

that he doesn't think what he did was "all that bad." He was flamed for it. I believe this is just a continuation.

[DURHAM D]

42. I'm with you - I just hate it when all of the

un-examined sexism shows up here at the DU. Don't know if the posters are really Dems or some form of a Dem I don't encounter in my personal life.

[bliss_eternal]

56. It seems a hate free for all...

which is not cool. Mind alerting on this, too? I already have. It seems it's bringing out more of the worst, and on top of it the op isn't even participating in his own thread. I know what that says to me... :eyes:

[Superman Returns]

30. this is ridiculous

the guy will lose work and eventually a career over this. i guess thats ok, his words were indeed disgusting. but were the 5 minute rantings of a mad man so great to give the "victims" monetary compensation? I think of real victims, like in the Congo, or Uganda, or Iraq and laugh.

[ecstatic]

31. CNN guy asked the 'tirade victims' if they were seeking REPARATIONS from Richards

:wtf:

Poor choice of words buddy. I think CNN has some cleaning up to do, as well.

[bliss_eternal]

34. Hey Truth Hurts...

This is not innocent. Clearly some think that what Richards did is not "that bad." :eyes:

[ecstatic]

45. The man apologized!! Why are you afro-americans still giving him a hard time?!

Especially that terrible Al Sharpton, who got a personal phone call from Richards expressing his deepest apologies. :sarcasm:

That seems to be the meme today, at least on CNN. :rofl:

:hi:

[mondo joe]

145. Nothing to do with being "not that bad" but meeting the standard of having

caused some sort of monetary damage.

Offense does not meet that standard.

[AnnInLa]

32. risking all kinds of flame here, but have some honest

questions. (I don't even know if I like Allred or not.)

When Mel Gibson went off on his rant, can Jews sue him for damages or for a personal apology, face-to-face? If not, is it because Michael's rant was larger than Mel's? Does the size of the rant matter?

Doesn't suing for damages imply that the victims were monetarily hurt in some way? Don't they have to show that they suffered monitarily?

Was Mel Gibson's public apology accepted, or was it thought that he was just sorry he got caught?

What Gibson and Richards did was hateful, but do they owe others money because they did it?

I honestly don't know....am kinda wrestling with it. Am not as sure as some of you are.

In the old days, I remember Lenny Bruce going on all kinds of hateful rants, but he never got sued. I remember George Carlin going off on different groups of people, very hateful.

If you can collect money from these comedians, who are human, then I want bundles from Howard Stern.

[bliss_eternal]

54. You are assuming she has a case...

the announcement does not dictate that she would even have a case in court. Why would you assume she does? Kind of putting the cart before the horse a bit.

Frankly, I find your comparisons disturbing and you seem to lack compassion of those that have been racially and sexually discriminated against.

What Howard Stern does on the radio everyday is protected under free speech. Unfortunately. :shrug: Being in a public forum and directly calling someone a racial slur...not the same thing. One is a blatant direct attack. The other is not.

[AnnInLa]

71. I didn't originate the word "reparation"

that came out of the interview, and when one of the victims was asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, and said they would have to "see." Why even hire a high priced attorney if $ is not involved. If Allred is representing them without compensation, and if all they want is a face-to-face apology, then the ball is in Richard's court. If they want more, then money comes into it.

"Frankly, I find your comparisons disturbing and you seem to lack compassion of those that have been racially and sexually discriminated against."

Your above statement is an assumption, and you can be disturbed all you want, but you don't know if I have ever been racially discriminated against, or sexually discriminated against.....like all women, I have, in ways you probably could never guess. Quit assuming, and address facts...like our Constitution that protects speech we don't agree with.

[bliss_eternal]

92. I'm sorry if you are offended...

But clearly you are the one posting questioning this.

As a woman that's been discriminated against, I don't have a problem with what Allred is doing. She knows the legal system. Perhaps she is doing this to set a precedent and send a message. I don't see anything wrong with that.

You seem to be the one that does have a problem with this. I'm not at all sure what it is, and asked you questions to try to ascertain what they are. I didn't really understand why you were throwing the gay community into the discussion. It did not seem relevant to this discussion or situation.

[Divernan]

78. First thing Gloria will do is advise her clients to start psych. counseling

for their emotional distress. She is exactly the kind of ambulance chasing lawyer who sends a passenger in a minor fender bender to a chiropractor 3 times a week for the two years until their pathetic case finally comes to trial. Wait, that's unfair to Gloria. She's far too successful to chase ambulances. She chases headlines and wealthy defendants.

[LostinVA]

33. Kramer is character, Michael Richards did it

And, although Allred can be a bit of a fame whore, she's just making a living. That's what lawyers do.

[EdwardM]

36. Lawsuit? I thought that we still had a first amendment in this country?

I guess I'm wrong. I guess you are no longer allowed to offend anyone.

[Union Thug]

44. That was my thought, too. Yes, it was offensive. But, hey, people

can express their opinions in this country, regardless of how stupid and misinformed they might be.

[bliss_eternal]

50. Richards didn't express an opinion...

he made a racial slur. It really isn't the same thing. :)

[mondo joe]

138. But a racial slur is not criminal. And unless the hecklers have a case that

they suffered monetary damages... what's their case?

[bliss_eternal]

141. Self delete...

[bliss_eternal]

51. Are you the member of a group people call names...?

if I may ask?

Are you a woman, are you gay,lesbian, transgendered, black, hispanic, Irish, Italian, Jewish? I would guess no given that you express such blatant lack of concern for the fact that a person can attack another person on the basis of race.

Free speech is protected in this country. Racial attacks are not. Yes, the KKK can exist--under the tenets of free speech, but if they kill someone on the basis of their race--that is not just a crime, but a hate crime. Am I reading correctly, that people on a progressive board are advocating racial slurs? How sad and disappointing.

If you are not a member of such a group, and have never encountered someone calling you a name in a feeble attempt to make you feel inferior, how about leaving what's "offensive" up to those that experience it by the virtue of the skin they live in on a day to day basis?

[Guaranteed]

100. Did Richards kill somebody, now? I could have sworn

he was just speaking.

[bliss_eternal]

102. Making light of the comments doesn't change them.

But nice of you to argue for the way he was "speaking."

[Guaranteed]

104. Nobody is "making light" of what he said. But there is a patently obvious, huge

difference between speaking and acting, with the former being deliberately and broadly protected by the very first amendment to our Constitution. It's the whole basis of freedom.

[bliss_eternal]

107. I see. You are here to argue FOR the rights of those

that use racist based insults against others. Good for you.

[EdwardM]

106. I support Michael Richards right to say what ever the hell he wants.

I am not supporting what he said. I just believe he had the right to say it and should not be sued over it.

[bliss_eternal]

116. Congratulations.

How does it feel to align yourself with a racist while posting in a progressive community?

[EdwardM]

37. Dupe

[AnnInLa]

40. can gays get reparations from comedians

who have been hateful to them for years? Some of those gays may even have been audience members.

This is out-of-control.

BTW, I'd also like to sue the KKK, but their speech is protected under our Constitution.

[bliss_eternal]

48. I'm sorry, but did Richards make slurs against gays, too...?

Otherwise your post doesn't make a great deal of sense. Unless you somehow believe the rights of gays and blacks should be lumped together--no matter the infringement against either group...?

Are you saying that someone making a slur against a black man is equivalent to discriminating against the entire gay community? Or are you aware that the man that was treated so nastily by Richards was gay? Care to enlighten us?

:wtf:

[AnnInLa]

66. I'm saying, that like it or not, hateful speech

directed against anyone, gay, black, women....is protected under our Constitution...uless said victims can demonstrate that they suffered more than just embarrassment and aggravation. I have heard Chris Rock, in concert, single out some whites and just embarrass them to death. Other than boycott his appearances and make complaints, his speech is protected.

Am not excusing Richard's tirade....but for you guys to look into his heart, kinda like bush looks into people's hearts, and KNOW that he didn't make a heartfelt apology is bull.

[bliss_eternal]

74. No, it is not.

Calling someone names, from a stage--is not a protected act. That is an attack.

Hate groups are protected. Their meetings and existence are protected. But attacking someone in a club is not.

The fact that progressives don't see the difference is pretty fuckin' sad. Excuse my "free speech" but I couldn't find another way to express my disgust with all of this bigotry defense. It's sickening. :puke:

[AnnInLa]

98. What kinda "attack" are you talking about?

"Calling someone names, from a stage--is not a protected act. That is an attack."

If this were true, I can name you at least 10 big name comedians that would be in jail right now.

"Hate groups are protected. Their meetings and existence are protected. But attacking someone in a club is not."

So, can you cite the law that says hate speech in a CLUB is "attacking" someone, and is NOT protected? You don't have to be terribly specific, with number and title, just give us the LAW.

"The fact that progressives don't see the difference is pretty fuckin' sad."

Progressives DO see the difference, but like one poster said, Racism and discrimination gets swept under the rug every day, but you people are going off on this like it's the end of the earth? Progressives are realists. Richards did a bad thing. People's feelings were hurt. Richards apologized. They may have a face-to-face. Good for them.

Progressives abhor hate speech, but respect our Constitution.

[bliss_eternal]

101. You people...?

I thought we were all progressives here.

As a progressive I am not ashamed of aligning myself with the injustices of society. Perhaps you are, and believe this to be an "over reaction." Call it what you like. It doesn't change what happened or what it is.

If you don't care to see this issue for what it is, that is your choice. You are entitled to do so. Just don't get angry when people, like me call you on it.

How sad that you don't see it as horrible that a man that utilized poor judgment by heckling a man performing, was punished by hideous racial slurs. Apparently his being "put in his place" with lynching imagery is appropriate to you. Enough said--your intent is clear. Thanks for sharing.

Argue for the limitations of the world, and they are yours to keep.

[mondo joe]

135. Well, it is and it isn't.

No one has the right to work in a club, or on a TV show, so they can suffer ill effects of what they say.

But it's not a criminal act.

[Kingshakabobo]

67. While I doubt this case would ever make it to a court.....

...........I think, as disgusting as the insults were, free speech outweighs the audience member's right not to be insulted........but then again, an attorney might be ale to make some sort of contract law claim saying there was a breech of contract???? ....... a right NOT to pay an admission fee to get called disgusting names.......but then again, the expectation of NOT being abused might be lower in a comedy club.

By the way, I'm gay. Maybe I can sue Eddie Murphy for all that faggot talk in his concert videos??? or Fred Phelps?? or the KKK???

[bliss_eternal]

72. If Eddie Murphy called you the f word directly--yes...

you'd have a case. If he summoned images of Matthew Shephard's murder...hell yes he'd be out of line and I'd help you sue his sorry ass. Him using the slur in his act unfortunately is not the same thing. I don't get how or why you wouldn't see the difference.

Oh and for the record, I "get" that Murphy is intolerant and homophobic and I think he is dispicable for all the hateful things he said about gays in his act in the 80's. I also believe he is a liar and he picked up the transgendered youth because he was interested in her, not to give her a ride. So on top of it all, he's a self hating hypocrite. Just fyi--my thoughts on Murphy.

[Divernan]

103. Watch out! You're practicing law without a license!

I'm a lawyer, and I don't think you are - at least the way you think and the way you communicate is not the way lawyers are taught to think and communicate. So when you say, "you'd have a case", or "I'd help you sue his sorry ass", you're verging into practicing-law-without-a-license territory, and more than that you are making law the way you would like it to be and representing it as the case to the DU readers.
NO, an audience member would not have a case against Eddie Murphy for being called a fag. If you disagree, cite me a statute or case law. See my definition of hate crime up thread.

[bliss_eternal]

109. Your credentials don't mean anything to me, considering

who and what you are arguing for. Good for you, you've found legal ways to defend racist pieces of shit. I see how proud you are of that, in every post of yours on this thread.

[Divernan]

117. No, I'm just trying to encourage an unemotional, calm look at this sad situation.

This was not a hate crime, according to legal definitions.

I don't defend racist pieces of shit. I actually on occasion stop racists. However, I managed to do it without the presence of reporters or TV cameras, or any fees. In fact, I didn't have to file suit or wait years for justice - I just confronted the racists in front of others, told them I was an officer of the court (which all licensed lawyers are) and embarassed the hell out of them.

I've also done years of pro bono work for poor and elderly and families of mentally retarded/autistic kids. So calm down with the drama queen posts, and accept the fact that you don't know the law, and you can't create it out of whole cloth here on DU.

You're so quick to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you 100 percent. Why is that? I mean most of the posters who disagree with YOU, have also stated that they condemn what Richards said and did.

[bliss_eternal]

123. I have little tolerance for those that align themselves

with the intolerant. I'm not going to apologize about that.

Everyone has an issue or issues that they will not bend on--this is mine. No one has to agree with me. Everyone here is entitled to disagree, as am I. Given this is a progressive board, I think I'm within my rights to call people on arguing in defense of bigotry.

[rtassi]

181. My favorite so far is...

I have little tolerance for those who align themselves with the intolerant"

[Divernan]

207. LOL! Good catch!

nt

[bliss_eternal]

223. Silly widdle woman, scaring all the big men with her mean

bad words. Waaaaaaah.

Pweeeeasse make that blisss gooooo awaaaaay.

[FredScuttle]

200. So what say you about the ACLU's defense of the Skokie Nazis?

huh?

[Divernan]

216. Freedom for speech we hate

This was a landmark law case for American society. Here's a review of a book that won an award as an outstanding effort to foster public understanding of the law. I agree with the author's conclusion that freedom of speech must be forcefully defended, even when the beneficiaries of that defense are far from admirable people.

When the Nazis Came to Skokie
Freedom for Speech We Hate
Philippa Strum


In the Chicago suburb of Skokie, one out of every six Jewish citizens in the late 1970s was a survivor--or was directly related to a survivor--of the Holocaust. These victims of terror had resettled in America expecting to lead peaceful lives free from persecution. But their safe haven was shattered when a neo-Nazi group announced its intention to parade there in 1977. Philippa Strum's dramatic retelling of the events in Skokie (and in the courts) shows why the case ignited such enormous controversy and challenged our understanding of and commitment to First Amendment values.

The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, managed to win a court injunction against the marchers. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union took the case and successfully defended the Nazis' right to free speech.

Skokie had all the elements of a difficult case: a clash of absolutes, prior restraint of speech, and heated public sentiment. In recreating it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists: Frank Collin, National Socialist Party of America leader and the son of a Jewish Holocaust survivor; Skokie community leader Sol Goldstein, a Holocaust survivor who planned a counterdemonstration against the Nazis; Skokie mayor Albert Smith, who wanted only to protect his townspeople; and ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

Forcefully argued, Strum's book shows that freedom of speech must be defended even when the beneficiaries of that defense are far from admirable individuals. It raises both constitutional and moral issues critical to our understanding of free speech and carries important lessons for current controversies over hate speech on college campuses, inviting readers to think more carefully about what the First Amendment really means.
Other reviewers comments:

"A meticulous and graceful narrative of one of the most gripping free speech conflicts of modern times."--Rodney A. Smolla, author of Free Speech in an Open Society

"Strum succeeds brilliantly in telling the two stories of Skokie-the constitutional struggle over free speech and the human agony and conflict that permeated it. In clear, rigorous, and vivid prose, she recreates the legal and political culture when the case arose in the 1970s and then shows how more recent intellectual theories bear on what happened. A simply wonderful book."--Norman Dorsen, Stokes Professor, NYU, and president, ACLU, 1976–1991

"Strum paints a remarkably complete picture of the entire Skokie controversy and helps put the debate over the First Amendment protection for 'hate speech' into meaningful perspective."--David Goldberger, Ohio State University College of Law professor and former ACLU attorney for Frank Collin and the National Socialist Party of America

"A book that students will read eagerly and that teachers will find a pleasure to use."--Melvin I. Urofsky, author of Affirmative Action on Trial: Sex Discrimination in Johnson v. Santa Clara

[FredScuttle]

227. Stated much more succinctly and elegantly than I could aspire to

thank you. Free speech belongs to all, even the most vile among us.

[karlrschneider]

127. I know you are a decent person but you are WAY off base on this.

You want to reserve the First Amendment for only those on "your side", whatever the hell that is.
Shame on you.

[bliss_eternal]

139. In your opinion.

Which I'm entitled to. You of course, may disagree. But last I checked, my parents don't post on this board. Keep you shame to yourself.

I will never be ashamed to stand up against racism. Clearly you aren't on that side. Your choice.

[karlrschneider]

147. I defer to the reply by General Tony McAuliffe to the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge

in 1944.

"Nuts."

[Divernan]

99. The legal principal is assumption of the risk.

A classic case in law school was the guy who got hit in the mouth with a hockey puck while sitting in an arena watching a pro hockey game. The court ruled that people who go to a professional athletic event assume the risk of being injured by a hockey puck, baseball, etc.. It is common knowledge that merely going to a comedian's show, especially if you're sitting close to the stage means you may be made the target of ridicule. That damn Dame Edna made 4,000 people laugh at me! Then there was the improv theatre where I was coerced into coming on stage for a spoof on the Dating Game - and again, people were laughing at me. And I felt ridiculous and embarrassed. And they wouldn't have picked me if I wasn't FEMALE. Sexist pigs! (sarcasm)

[bliss_eternal]

105. Apparently you think being made fun of is equal to a racial slur...

Sitting near the stage and heckling Mr. Richards entitled him to call them the "n" word and draw on lynching imagery. Hmmm. ok.

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

[Divernan]

113. No, I was explaining assuming risk of physical or psychological injury.

(Note: a lawyer wouldn't say "I'm sorry but I don't agree". A lawyer woud say "I don't agree."
Because the phrase "I'm sorry" implies regret, which in turn implies you don't have a strong belief in your position.)

[bliss_eternal]

115. I'm not a lawyer, obviously.

Let us all know when you open your cyber law office for bigot's and the crimes they commit against humanity. You'll make quite the name for yourself among the progressive community apparently.

[Divernan]

122. You're just diggin yourself in deeper with the hate language.

Don't get mad at me because I pointed out the law AS IT EXISTS in this country to you.
I believe in the Rule of Law, and I believe in the Democratic party, and I'm active on behalf of Dem candidates.

[bliss_eternal]

134. So alert on my post, if my language is so "hateful."

As a lawyer, I'm sure you know what your rights are on this board.

[FredScuttle]

202. You talk a big game about "defending racism"

you must think the ACLU is a godawful enterprise, just like Limbaugh. Why don't you quit while you're behind?

[bliss_eternal]

273. I'm Sooooooo lame. You're soooooo funny, FredScuttle.

Hahahahahaahaha! Putting me down with humour. Quit while you're behind...:rofl: ...you're so clever! Hahahahahaha! Oh, oh, oh, my side...You're SO witty, too! Hahahahahaha! Thank you for pointing out how incredibly goofy I am! :D

:rofl:

[RetroLounge]

218. Obviously...

First thing you've said so far that made sense.

:eyes:

RL

[kiahzero]

57. What possible cause of action do they have? (n/t)

[no_hypocrisy]

58. Sounds like a trap.

You invite the prospective defendant to your law office. You demand responsibility and accountability. Maybe the PD feels terrible, wants to unburden himself, and apologizes profusely.

You now have an admission and a confession, suitable for use as evidence in a subsequent court hearing.

[ComerPerro]

60. unless, of course, you bring a lawyer with you to make sure that doesn't happen

[Divernan]

108. You're right. He's admitted guilt, now all court has to do is determine $$$damages

nt

[karlrschneider]

132. Which, if it ever ends up in court will be one dollar.

Betcha.

[Raine]

59. I can't stand her either

she's a publicity hound, as long as she gets airtime she takes a case.x(

[Stu DeBeouf]

62. Allred can KMA...

What a pile of shit. Real racism gets swept under the rug, because asshole "Kramer" goes ballistic on a couple of asshole hecklers...Sheesh. Fuck Richards, and Fuck the dickwad hecklers...we're REALLY hurting out here, jaggoff's!!!! Wake the fuck up!!!!

[AnnInLa]

77. The Post of the Day......

Pure Truthiness

[rockymountaindem]

73. Did Richards commit a crime?

I can't figure out why he would be charged or sued.

[bliss_eternal]

75. Maybe...

If Allred, an attorney says so, perhaps it could be construed as a hate crime.

[rockymountaindem]

82. I didn't know you could commit a hate crime by words alone n.t.

[bliss_eternal]

86. I don't know that one can...

perhaps it's possible. Maybe not. :shrug:

[AnnInLa]

90. Jeez, half of America would be in jail now

[bliss_eternal]

96. What's wrong with that...?

You address my posts and state you are a discriminated against person, as a woman. However, you seem to be defending those entities that discriminate.

I don't have a problem with holding people that think calling on "white power" or "male power" accountable for trying to hurt or subject others to a lesser status than them.

[Kingshakabobo]

110. "What's wrong with that...?"

The first amendment to the constitution! You keep questioning other people's progressiveness. You can't understand why people can't see it YOUR way. Frankly, I can't understand why YOU, as a progressive, can't grasp the idea of free speech - especially unpopular speech.....


Take a stroll over the freeperrepublic and count how many "jail-house lawyers" are calling for OUR speech.....regarding the administration, the president, the war etc.......to be outlawed......maybe THAT will help you wrap your mind around the concept. There are plenty of nit wits over there saying WE should be arrested because we "cause harm" , "undermine the troops" , "embolden the terrorists" etc. In their pointy little brains, WE do much more harm with OUR speech than cause embarrassment and discomfort to some comedy club goers/hecklers.

Like I said, MAYBE that ambulance chaser MIGHT have a contract law dispute but it would be a HUGE stretch. Heck, the African American employees of the club, if any, might even have a cause of action for hostile work environment - but it would be against the club.....again, a stretch.

[bliss_eternal]

114. Sorry...I choose not to see "free speech" the way you do.

Racist apologists like you have found a legal way to protect a bigot like Richards. How interesting. Good for you. Forgive me for not wanting to align myself with the acts of bigotry.

Wave your freedom flag and jump on the bigotry train. Choo choo!

[Kingshakabobo]

120. Sorry, but I have NO USE for authoritarian personalities such as your self.

[AnnInLa]

146. she called you a bigot....I think you should sue

at least. snicker

[FredScuttle]

204. Does the ACLU protect bigots?

n/t

[Divernan]

94. This attorney (Divernan) agrees it takes more than words.

Here's a definition:

Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
www.otterbein.edu/resources/security/crime_stats/UCRdefinitions.asp

First of all, there was no bodily injury.
Secondly, in this case, the "victims" were not selected because of their perceived race. They were selected because they were hecklers, and Richards latched on to their color as providing him with the most effective weapon at his disposal to verbally respond.

That said, Richards' response was vile and inexcusable - I think his career will be pretty much decimated by this incident.

[bliss_eternal]

111. Wow--an attorney that practices law on an internet msg. board.

Carries lots of weight with me. :)

[Divernan]

118. Hey sweetie, I'm retired. I just do a little pro bono practice in my hometown.

I keep up with Continuing Legal Ed. and keep my license so I can go to court (for free!) for my clients. Volunteer on the zoning board - stuff like that. This past summer I studied human rights law.

[bliss_eternal]

126. Sweetie is condescending.

Thank you for the information. Sounds like you stay active in your field. Good for you. :)

[Divernan]

129. I call everybody sweetie - didn't mean it in a condescending way

but to defuse the situation. I call my all my adult kids, my friends, the postman, my boyfriend, my cats, anyone not in a work/formal setting, sweetie. I have not slipped and called a judge sweetie - that would get my head handed to me.

[bliss_eternal]

137. Just thought I'd let you know how I feel about it,

and prefer not to be referred to as sweetie. But I sincerely appreciate your sharing you didn't mean it in a condescending way. :)

[hiaasenrocks]

177. Don't give in. Lawsuit! Lawsuit!

:)

[AnnInLa]

121. Wow......a poster who attacks

the bona-fides of another DUer....that poster doesn't carry alot of weight with me. (Waving)

[Divernan]

124. Thanks! It's the wide range of occupations which makes DU so great.

It's easy for me to find time to post. I'm hooked on DU. I REALLY appreciate all the health care professionals, engineers, scientists, computer folk, librarians, teachers, political staff, etc., who are NOT retired and who find time to post.

[bliss_eternal]

154. Most don't utilize their "professional expertise" to denounce

the ideals of others. At least the professionals I've become acquainted with. :)

[mondo joe]

174. Divernan didn't denounce anyone's ideals - just explained the law.

Pro bono!

[bliss_eternal]

178. Yes--I can see that.

Thanks so much for volunteering to be his "translator" and state what he already did. Clearly I didn't understand. :sarcasm:

:wtf:

[mondo joe]

182. Clearly, you did not.

Otherwise you would not have falsely alleged that Divernan denounced someone's ideals.

You're welcome.

[bliss_eternal]

184. Ooooh. you told me.

I'm put in my place now. I won't be bothering any of you again. How dare I? What ever was I thinking.

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

185. It's rather hard to know what you were "ever thinking".

You seem to have confused defense of free speech - which includes speech that offends - with a defense of racism.

You further have suggested this was a hate crime, without understanding the definition of a hate crime.

So don't ask me what you were thinking - it's a mystery to me.

[bliss_eternal]

188. Oh that bliss is sooooo thoughtless

and why would she EVER dare to issue opinions on...(horrors) a message board. Oooooh Nooooo. This just can't BE!

Dear me, dear me...The shame and horror of it all! Big bad bliss came along and told everyone what she thought...how DARE she?! What a meanie...! She must be shamed, flogged and put back in her place. How DARE SHE?!

Waaaaaah...bliss had a thought, and mondo joe doesn't know what she was thinking....waaaaaaaah! mondo joe put bliss in her place and saved the day!!!!

Don't trip on your cape there, joe.
:rofl:

[mondo joe]

189. Opinions are fairly worthless when contradicted by actual fact.

But if you don't have facts, I guess opinion will have to do.

[bliss_eternal]

201. Ooooooh nooooooo....

I'm mmmmmeeeeelting. Mmmmmmelting. :spray:

[mondo joe]

203. More substanceless posts?

Tch.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

[bliss_eternal]

211. Quick Everyone--wrap yourselves in my magic cape...

Whooooooosh! I'll repeat what you've already said to that horrible Bliss...I'll make sure she's kept in her place! All of YOUR words will mean SO MUCH MORE when I REPEAT THEM, and reiterate them,

over and over and over and over and over and over again.....over and over and over and over and over and over againover and over and over and over and over and over againover and over and over and over and over and over againover and over and over and over and over and over again

The Spell will hypnotize her and She. Will. Be. Destroyed. Mwuhahahaha!

Soon that horrible, hideous bliss will see what a mistake she's made trying to argue against racism on MY WATCH....Up, up and AWAAAAAY!

:spray::rofl::spray::rofl:

[mondo joe]

215. Ah, if only you had argued against racism.

Instead you chose to argue against free speech and against what a hate crime is.

[bliss_eternal]

222. Foolish bliss...you silly mortal you...how dare you?!!

No need to think...WE SHALL THINK FOR YOU! We will tell you what you think, how to argue, what to argue against!
Quickly minions, hide under my cape--I think I've scared that horrible bliss!

She's wavering...growing weaker. My Plan is almost complete!
I SHALL BE DOMINANT!!!

Mwuhahahahaha Mwahaha Mwahahaha!

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

224. Still no argument, I see.

That explains why people like you (irrational) always lose.

[bliss_eternal]

228. (Trembling w/fear) Oooooh pleeeeasse mondo joooooe....

Don't expose me for the frail, tiny, meek irrational woman I am......nooooooooooooo. Whatever will I doooooooo?
What was I thinking....Oh wait. I forgot...I lack the ability to think. Pleeeease mondooooo jooooooe. Tell me how
to think. Pleeeeeaassse.

Surely you don't expect me to achieve such a feat without your mighty ability to dictate my every thought.
Heeeeelp Meeeeeeeee! pleeeeeease.....

:spray:

[mondo joe]

232. Oh don't worry - you exposed youself as irrational on your own.

Being a woman has nothing to do with it. Please don't try to defame other women by tarring them with your own poor arguments.

[bliss_eternal]

240. Protector of the innocent...righter of the rights,...able to leap

all internet boards with a single bound....it's mondo jooooooooe Saving DU from that horrible bliss. She's not even good enough to be a woman....oooooh noooooo what is she to dooooo. What will she beeeeeee. How will she go on?

:cry::cry::cry::cry:

(hissssss boooooo, bliss. Hate her. Hate her. Yuck. bleh. Pooooey!Bleh) (Insert villain music here).

:spray::rofl:

[mondo joe]

243. You're making almost as bad a case as the hecklers.

They're not getting anywhere either.

[bliss_eternal]

246. (weeping copiously)

:cry: You big strong man, you've put me in my place...what more do you want of me. I've admitted my feeble mind is no match for yours. You've. destroyed. meeeeeeeeeee.

:cry:

:rofl:

[AnnInLa]

251. Damn, it that what a "meltdown" looks like???

Got Prozac?

[mondo joe]

257. That's what it looks like when a person who had no real argument doesn't

even have a shabby one left anymore.

[bliss_eternal]

256. Thou art so superiour...surely thou has shown mercy on me...

(bliss...Falling at your feet). Of course. You are right in every way. You are smarter, and righter and betterer, and wittier and all that I could never be. Thank you for pointing out how feeble and small I am. Thank you, a thousand times thank you.

What made me think I could ever match wits with the likes of one as obviously superior to me in every possible way?

:rofl:

[Seeking Serenity]

242. Fine, Bliss. You are entitled to your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, Bliss, that the use of racist epithets should not be protected by the First Amendment. You are entitled to favor a narrow, even selective, application of the First Amendment.

I, like many others here, profoundly disagree with you. Without supporting Richards for one second for what he said, we believe that the principle of the First Amendment is of greater value than tearing a hole in it just to punish this little man. If the First Amendment is going to be there intact to protect me, it has to be there intact to protect him.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me, or anyone else here, less progressive than thou.

[Divernan]

192. I don't denounce your ideals - I'm stating the law.

Just like an engineer or scientist or nurse or whatever other person with a professional degree contributes to the DU discussion if someone posts an incorrect factual statement concerning their area of education/expertise. Or just like lawyers and other professionals often respond to questions posted to them under headings like: Help! Any DU lawyers out there?

I think the bottom line here is that 99% of the people on this thread do agree that Richards' rant was racist, offensive, and uncalled for. 99% do not approve of a comedian saying those things on the stage, no matter how much he was heckled. There is a conflict between freedom of speech, as constitutionally guaranteed, and the more recent legislative concept of "hate crimes". The courts have resolved that conflict by ruling that words alone do not meet the definition of hate crime.

That being the state of the law, what can be done in regard to this incident? What SHOULD be done in regard to it? To me that would be an interesting discussion. What I would not suggest is that Gloria Allred stoke the fires to generate lots of publicity and a big fee in a civil case. Our civil and criminal courts are drowning in a backlog of cases which delays justice and monetary awards to people who have suffered tremendous, sometimes life-threatening injuries, thefts of pensions, fraud, medical malpractise, etc. Tying up months of a court's time with discovery, motions to dismiss, etc., leading up to a trial uses up the taxpayers' moneys and the court's time - both of which are already in short supply. She might try to frighten Richards into volunteering a settlement, just to get away from the pubicity, but if not, I think a court would throw the case out.

I think Michael Richards is at best an extremely unhappy man with a tremendous amount of sublimated anger and a hair trigger temper. At worst, he's got some major mental/emotional problems - particularly given the rambling, incoherent "apology" he made on the Letterman show. I am amazed that he is so isolated, that he didn't even have an agent or other damage control person to script his apology before a national audience. I think he will be adequately punished by a loss of his career, which was not going anywhere anyway.

I think he could use a thorough physical exam, including a brain scan - seriously, because this behavior is so out of character for him, it reminds me of the personality change you see in someone who turns out to have a brain tumor. I have personally seen that happen to two men. Absent finding of physical cause, he could use some intensive psychological therapy. In googling him on Wikipedia, I found that when he was in the drafted into the Army during the Vietnam war, and stationed in Germany as one of the co-directors of the V Corps Training Road Show. He produced and directed shows dealing with race relations and drug abuse; "This was a successful, educational operation, boosting the morale of our men and incorporating the arts into the service." He then spent two years in the Army developing educational skits and a couple more years "finding himself" at a commune in the Santa Clara Mountains; he drove a bus and developed a stand-up comedy act in 1979.

I did not know until it was recently posted here, that the black targets of Richards responded with their own racist statements. I'm not surprised. People fight. Thank god it was just words and nobody physically attacked one another.

[bliss_eternal]

230. Yaaaaaaaaayyyy!

Divernan is going to save us all from ourselves and our unlawful ideals.....Weeeeeeee!

:rofl:

[Kingshakabobo]

125. Not to mention her ...................

..... stunning disregard for the first amendment, whining and name calling.

[bliss_eternal]

128. Questions and calling people on ideals in conflict

with those stated as progressive ideals is not the same as an attack.

Given that you are the one that was called on it, and you clearly don't agree--I can see how you might want to call it an attack though. :hi: returns wave.

[FredScuttle]

208. Yeah, and calling people "racist apologists" for pointing out the law to you

is progressive, how?

[bliss_eternal]

226. Here I come to save the DAY!

The progressive police are stomping out EVIL EVERYWHERE!!!

:rofl:

[FredScuttle]

229. I'm serious

are you? I could very easily turn this around and say "Why are you defending a fascist attack on our First Amendment rights?". But, hey....I'm not that dramatic.

[mondo joe]

233. Too bad. It's a good question. Why IS Bliss_Eternal defending a fascist attack

on First Amendment rights?

[bliss_eternal]

235. Quick! Get her! She's dangerous...almost had an original thought!

Dangerous bliss....get her. Reign her in! Whooooooosh! KABOOOOOM!

Unh...I feel weak. Someone.help.me. Someone blew me up for having a thought...help me mr. scuttle...help meeeeeeee....
Uuuuuuuuuuunh!


:rofl:

[mondo joe]

238. LOL! "Original".

"Thought".

ROFL!

That was an utterance, not a thought. Thought would imply reason.

[bliss_eternal]

249. Have mercy with me mondo joe....I lack your wisdom and wit....

Teach me to be as witty and as wise as you. Have pity on meeeeeeee.....:cry:I've admitted I'm not as strong or as good as you. What do you want of meeeeee......

[mondo joe]

264. You lack an argument.

If you have one, by all means post it.

Otherwise feel free to continue as you are.

[bliss_eternal]

267. Oh of course, you are of course righty, right right...

You have been all along. Yaaaaaay! Thank YOU mondo joe, for pointing that out to me! I'm so happy now that you've told me that, I feel sooooo bad. It hurts to try to think all by myself. Thank you.....yaaaaaaaay!

[FredScuttle]

244. Pathetic

You throw around the "racist apologist" accusation like a monkey flinging its shit, yet you refuse to defend yourself when called on it.

If you had an "original thought" on this thread, it died of loneliness.

[bliss_eternal]

247. (crying and trembling)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh! What dooooooo youuuu want of meeeeeeeeee?

:spray:

[FredScuttle]

253. Why don't you cut the cutesy bullshit and defend yourself?

You threw out some pretty serious charges against posters here (like me) who aren't defending racism, but are defending a citizen's right to free speech. What's the matter? Don't feel so bold now that you've been called on your bullshit?

[bliss_eternal]

259. How could I ever defend myself from the superior likes of you....

I'm just so stupid. and I just can't think. why did I dare to challenge you all. oh. no..... :cry:

:rofl:

[FredScuttle]

261. Let me ask you this

What color do you think my skin is?

[bliss_eternal]

265. Weeeeeeeee---I have permission to think, yaaaaaay!

I have permission to think, i have permission to think....lalalalalala...I have permission to think.

:rofl:

[FredScuttle]

278. You are, quite simply, an embarrassment

I have no interest continuing with an infantile brat. Good night and good luck.

[bliss_eternal]

279. Oh NO! I made my new friend all made at me and stuff...

(nervous giggle) I just didn't know what to do with all of your attention....I was SO flattered. I mean to have someone of such obvious superior intellect, respond to not just one of my posts....but SO MANY! (SWOON) :blush: I'm so sorry, Mr. Scuttle. I just really didn't know what to do... or um, how to um,.... respond um,... I mean, you quoting all that um, legal stuff about the bill of whatever and stuff...And then putting me on the spot, asking me to think and all...Golly gee, Mr. Scuttle.

Now I've mad you mad at me. Golly,gosh gee whillicker I feel so sad now.

:cry::cry::cry:

[karlrschneider]

136. Did you double dose on nasty pills this morning?

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

140. Hate crimes are criminal acts in which victims are selected because they belong to

a class (these classes vary from state to state).

What crime did Richards commit?

[tritsofme]

89. I'm a bit confused as well.

Richards seems to have outed himself as an asshole racist, and now the whole world knows.

Hateful and disgusting speech is protected in this country, and it works to everyone's advantage. Now someone like Richards has had the spotlight shined on him and he has effectively marginalized himself.

[npincus]

112. I suppose I should be suing Mel Gibson

he HURT my feelings.

[Ksec]

161. Allred is a clown

I doubt anyone takes her seriously anymore.
Her big fat mouth never shuts up.

[951-Riverside]

164. So are you n/t

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[951-Riverside]

193. Glad you can see yourself in the mirror n/t

:+

[hiaasenrocks]

175. She's awful. Just as shrill as Hillary.

And her lawsuit idea is ridiculous. It will fail, and justly so.

[Seeking Serenity]

183. I hope that if she does sign the complaint

that Richards' lawyer files a Rule 11 sanction motion against her.

Just another "look at me, look at me, yoo hoo, pay attention to me" publicity hound.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stu DeBeouf]

179. Excellent....

n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

190. Let's make it a class action suit!

I DEMAND satisfaction!

[ComerPerro]

191. A-fucking-men to that

[ecstatic]

276. "Did the tirade incite violence or a crime? No"

And you know this... HOW???? How do you know that no hate groups were riled up enough after hearing KKKramer's rallying cry to go kill some n^%^@$??

[SoCalDem]

180. We could only hope they would challenge each other to a duel

and both have very good aim..

Zell could be their second.

but with our luck, they would choose weapons..and both would choose mouths..

[Starbucks Anarchist]

187. LINK HERE PER MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15852020/

BTW, I'm not sure what the hell Allred can sue Richards for -- he didn't incite anybody to violence, and he didn't physically act on his (incredibly stupid and offensive) words.

[mondo joe]

194. Richards has selected an attorney to represent him now.

[nini]

196. Oh no ..

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

197. "You don't have to help anybody. That's what this country's all about!"

:rofl:

[FredScuttle]

206. This is the most public yet of my many humiliations!

[Stu DeBeouf]

220. HAHAHAHAHA!

:thumbsup: :yourock:

[nini]

195. I think a face to face apology is in order

Didn't Richards say he wanted that too in the Letterman apology?


Do it, get it behind all of them and heal. Then Richards can get the help he obviously needs.


IMHO a lawsuit is meritless. If we all sued when we got pissed at someone or insulted we'd all be living on the courthouse steps.

[ncabot22]

221. No, it isn't just you

I don't really care for her either. Ever since I saw the Simpsons episode (the parody of "Behind the Music"), I can't take her seriously anymore.

[smalll]

252. Gloria Allred and OJ in the same week??

I like it. Reminds one of one's youth, back in the early '90s - the Soviet Union had fallen, we were kicking off the decade of Clinton Prosperity, and to be honest, OJ WAS the biggest news in the world.

Good times, good times!

[Fenris]

281. Locking.

This is a flamewar.

Fenris

GD Moderator