Michael Richards

[Deleted]

I am not quite sure how I feel about suing... I am all about protecting our rights to free speech--even if it's hateful and vile, but I was wondering if the argument could be made that since he was in some ways serving as an employee of The Laugh Factory, they and he could be sued for harassment? I'm not sure if it would hold up in light of the "heckling", but if this was Cracker Barrel, would the situation be any different? I think this would be the argument made, right or wrong.

It could set a pretty damaging precedent if followed through...

[Deleted]

I have no background in law (does watching lots of L&O count?) but I can sort of see where a lawsuit could apply. A comedy club patron (I do have lots of experience as that) can expect to hear offensive jokes, off-colour language, and profanity. One can sometimes expect to see an 'insult comic'. Richards' tirade didn't qualify as any of this. Had he used racial slurs as part of his jokes (like Kinison, Rock, or - ugh- Andrew Dice Clay), no lawsuit would stand. Had he insulted the black patrons like Rickles, the insult being the joke, no lawsuit would stand.

However, he didn't simply use bad words or insult the patrons. By alluding to lynching, he implied a threat, a threat that is as real to black people today as the name James Bird. By not delivering the racial slurs in the context of a joke, he could only expect that the audience would take them seriously. By delivering his threats and slurs at the top of his lungs, he intended to terrify the audience. I watched the tape once and I was shaking afterwards. I could only imagine how unnerved someone seated a few feet from him must have been.

So, is the club liable? Probably. They could have cut his mic and didn't. They could have removed him from the stage and didn't. If they generate income from his act they should rightly be liable for damages from the same. They can't turn around and say "we have nothing to do with the man" if they're providing him with a venue and advertising his appearance. Now, if the club is sued and then wants to turn around and sue Richards for losses, that's their right.

Just my marginally informed opinion.

[marleigh]

So, is the club liable? Probably. They could have cut his mic and didn't. They could have removed him from the stage and didn't. If they generate income from his act they should rightly be liable for damages from the same. They can't turn around and say "we have nothing to do with the man" if they're providing him with a venue and advertising his appearance. Now, if the club is sued and then wants to turn around and sue Richards for losses, that's their right.

The crazy thing is that the club had him back on the next night, as if it were no big deal. They should be boycotted for that, imo.

[lpatrice]

They can sue but they won't win. Truth is no physical harm was caused. And any crafty lawyer (and judge) will point out the obvious, that the word n***** is common place in movies, tv, and music. And therefore, it is highly unlikely the plantiffs had never heard the word and were caused "extreme distress".

[Neurochick]

lpatrice said:

They can sue but they won't win. Truth is no physical harm was caused. And any crafty lawyer (and judge) will point out the obvious, that the word n***** is common place in movies, tv, and music. And therefore, it is highly unlikely the plantiffs had never heard the word and were caused "extreme distress".

True, but there is a difference between hearing n***** in a rap song, or in a movie on on TV (what TV shows now use it unless it's in a historical context), and someone calling you that word to your face.

I'd like to watch a fight between MR and Jamie Foxx, the racist versus the annoying famewhore: maybe HBO could cover it and have it on pay per view.

[Deleted]

For the sake of argument, let's just suppose that Richards ISN'T actually a racist, and that he just said that because he was pissed. Is that any BETTER? To say something like that, because you want to be as hurtful, as cruel as possible?

What's worse-being a racist, or being an emotional and mental sadist? Neither, really. So it's not like it's any better even if he's NOT a racist. So quite frankly, I don't care even if he isn't-he's an asshole either way.


Now, that being said, I do find it disturbing that one of the victims of his tirade is saying "free speech needs to have limits." As much as I hate racism, I hate calls for restraints on free speech even more. Sorry, but what Richards did was perfectly legal. The club was in their rights to fire him for it-they're a private business. But a public court of law has no right to make judgement on this.

Allred is a money-grubbing publicity whore and I despise her.

[Deleted]

Allred is a money-grubbing publicity whore and I despise her.

Cosign.

Best believe if there is some sort of controversy to attach herself to, she is so there. She's like a publicity barnacle.

[Neurochick]

For the sake of argument, let's just suppose that Richards ISN'T actually a racist, and that he just said that because he was pissed. Is that any BETTER? To say something like that, because you want to be as hurtful, as cruel as possible?

What's worse-being a racist, or being an emotional and mental sadist? Neither, really. So it's not like it's any better even if he's NOT a racist. So quite frankly, I don't care even if he isn't-he's an asshole either way.

If he said it once I'd say, not a racist but he went on and on and on. If you don't have it in you, you don't say it. He is an asshole but you don't use that word over and over again if you're not a racist.

Free speech already has limits. I can't instigate someone to kill another person, I can't say the _____ people should be killed, so go kill them, that's what I mean by limits.

[Deleted]

neurochick said:

For the sake of argument, let's just suppose that Richards ISN'T actually a racist, and that he just said that because he was pissed. Is that any BETTER? To say something like that, because you want to be as hurtful, as cruel as possible?

What's worse-being a racist, or being an emotional and mental sadist? Neither, really. So it's not like it's any better even if he's NOT a racist. So quite frankly, I don't care even if he isn't-he's an asshole either way.

If he said it once I'd say, not a racist but he went on and on and on. If you don't have it in you, you don't say it. He is an asshole but you don't use that word over and over again if you're not a racist.

Right, and for what it's worth, I DO believe he is a racist. I'm just saying that his claim, "But I'm not a racist" doesn't matter-it still makes him just as big of an asshole.

As for free speech, of course you can't threaten someone, or spread false allegations, and what not. But none of what Richards said falls under those rules, so I can't see him being sued.

If anything, I'd say it's better to let jerks like him spew their hate, so we know who they are and can avoid them.

[Beyle]

I can't stand Gloria Allred. She such a shameless famewhore/ ambulence chaser.

I completely understand how those guys felt outraged by MR's comments, but I lost a lot of respect for them once they aligned themselves with Gloria Allred. I can't stand her.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that Mel Gibson didn't suffer career suicide as a result of his anti-Semitic tirade.