Michael Richards

[Deleted]

auroranorth said:

mailily said:

Meanwhile...in response to the report that Richards launched a tirade against Jewish audience members earlier this year, his new publicist, PR powerhouse Howard Rubenstein, confirmed that he did make anti-semitic remarks, but claimed they were part of his act. He then says that Richards is Jewish. Which is what I thought all along! For lack of a better term, he always looked very "ethnic" to me, so I was really surprised when this whole thing came out. Not that he couldn't be self-hating, but still...very odd.

So, which is it? Is he or isn't he??

Rubinstein on Richard's anti-Semitic rant

Actually, he's Catholic.

Someone should tell his publicist, then. That's sort of a big screw-up - or lie.

[Neurochick]

One can boycott the networks that show Seinfeld in syndication or send letters to the network saying they should not renew a contract for more episodes. With this situation new questions arise,can white people sue over the fact that a minority comedian calls them whitie? or cracker? or any other racial epithets? I am sure that if we could sue anyone or everyone that has disrespected us and hurled insults at us, we would all be millionaires.

You have a point about boycotting the networks which show Seinfeld in syndication, that's more effective.

I don't think it was the insult itself that was wrong really, even the young men said they thought Richards was going to give a punch line and then move on, but on the video the guy just kept going on and on and on and that's what I found offensive, had he just made a funny comment, that's okay but Richards basically went on a racist tirade and sounded like a crazy man standing on the corner.

[Oxynia]

But the reality is that free speech isn't free; everyone is accountable for their actions. Even on this board, if people start abusing each other, the thread it locked, so that's a consequence.

That's because we have firmly established rules ("laws" if you wish) that specify what can and cannot happen here, and the consequences for violating those rules. I don't believe there was a specific law that MR broke. Just finding his behaviour reprehensible is not enough to insist that he needs to "suffer" in any way.

The court of public opinion is completely different from a court of law. We can wring our hands all we want and call for a pound of flesh from MR but we have no legal right to it.

[JDub]

If Richards was truely sincere about apologizing, he would have gone on the Today show Wednesday and said he was sorry, case closed.

Yeah, I was wondering why he would go on Letterman via sattelite to apologize. It would have certainly made more sense to go on an actual news related show like GMA or Today instead of a light hearted late night variety show. The audience on Letterman didn't appear to hear about it yet and of course assumed it was a joke, and when Jerry told them to stop laughing, more people laughed still thinking it was a joke.

[pachengala]

however if someone had to pay up, that's a little hard to forget. I really don't see what the issue is.

I agree that he should taste some very severe social consequences, but my issue with him "paying up" is that he hasn't done anything wrong, legally, so there's nothing to enforce a financial punishment. The pocketbook hit would have to come from other avenues (i.e. boycotting any comedy club that would have him or boycotting the syndication of his show, etc.).

I personally don't think Richards is a true "racist", btw (a person who believes that another race is inferior)

If he did say, "Here come some dumb blacks and Mexicans," when the group of people entered the club, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that he feels they are inferior. I don't have any issue with leveling the racist charge at him.

[marleigh]

oxynia said:

But the reality is that free speech isn't free; everyone is accountable for their actions. Even on this board, if people start abusing each other, the thread it locked, so that's a consequence.

That's because we have firmly established rules ("laws" if you wish) that specify what can and cannot happen here, and the consequences for violating those rules. I don't believe there was a specific law that MR broke. Just finding his behaviour reprehensible is not enough to insist that he needs to "suffer" in any way.

The court of public opinion is completely different from a court of law. We can wring our hands all we want and call for a pound of flesh from MR but we have no legal right to it.

He will suffer consequences though. Hasn't The Laugh Factory banned him? I don't think anyone else will be booking him in the future either. He also has to worry about Jaime Foxx kicking his ass. I think he's absolutely ruined in Hollywood now. What's sad is that someone like Mel Gibson can do the same thing and suffer almost no damage. But he's a power player and Richards isn't.

[Oxynia]

He will suffer consequences though. Hasn't The Laugh Factory banned him? I don't think anyone else will be booking him in the future either.

Oh I totally agree that there will be consequences...the kind imposed by an alienated audience who chooses to have nothing more to do with him and venues who refuse to hire him. I was referring to the calls that he be made to pay some kind of financial restitution to the people he was speaking to...that would assume he violated some kind of law and he hasn't. I completely expect him to be hit financially in any future income.

[ahenobarbus]

Yeah, I was wondering why he would go on Letterman via sattelite to apologize.

I read somewhere the Seinfeld put him up to it, since Jerry was already scheduled as a guest.

[Deleted]

I must be behind the news curve--I hadn't heard that he'd said any racist stuff when the group walked in.

I did hear that they admitted coming in late, in the middle of the act, about 15 people(and yes, I know that happens all the time in clubs)--and that they said they were pretty disruptive and obnoxious, heckling and baiting Richards(again--a common enough thing any seasoned comic can handle). That wasn't on the cel video.
I base my take on this from the bare facts--I've been to clubs, seen comics, and seen hecklers handled in myriad inventive(often hilarious) ways. It's totally unprofessinal to lose your cool, though--it means it's all over, baby...and to go as far as racial insults?
And specifically what Richards said? That's not part of an act, that's just rage; pure, nutso, crazy disturbing rage. And I still believe if it had been me, a white woman, who enraged this fruitcake and nasty piece of goods, he'd have said VERY disturbing things to me as occured to him. The C-word, probably, for sure...I know "race is different" and all of that--but in this instance? Personally, I don't think what we know as racism played a part. It was an "insult these guys any way you can for the NERVE of disrupting my [lousy] act!", not "I hate black guys and anyone else of color"...but that's just my take.
It's still repulsive, and it has toasted him.

[FiggyPudding]

binky said:

I wish there were a video of Gibson's tirade. The true nature of Richards' outburst isn't evident until you view the tape; I think he'd have gotten off a lot easier had it not been recorded. Gibson should have experienced the same disgust.

I agree; seeing and hearing it makes a difference. Just like being on the receiving end of it is different than reading about it happening to others.

I'm also sick of seeing malicious losers using mental or chemical disturbance as an out. Of course there's a continuum and he could probably use some therapy, but I think more often than not, these people are just mean spirited assholes. It isn't some 'condition' that's controlling their actions, it's their character.