Was Watching Seinfeld Last Night
and my enjoyment was significantly diminished by the fact that every time "Kramer" appeared, it reminded me of Michael Richards' disgusting racist rant last week. After a while, I just turned it off.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Sounds like Richards has bigger problems inside his head than even he thinks. That's his problem. As for us, the shock is because his character was so lovable in the series that we have come to identify the actor with the character. That's not a good thing, since actors usually take care to separate themselves from the parts that they play. It is OUR problem if we think that actors are really something like the parts that they play.
Therefore, enjoy the character of Kramer -- Richards is a top notch actor, and his played the part beautifully. If it strikes you so, be offended by Richards rants, because that is him, not an act.
The difference that I see between someone like Mel Gibson and Richards is that Gibson has a history of making controversl remarks as Mel Gibson, so we know what he really thinks of gays and jews.
His actions as a person, not an actor, have shown him to be a bigot and a jerk, and in that respect is like Richards. But again, one can differentiate, because at least Richards didn't make a movie that slanders jews.
I mean, what are the odds those two would even be in a comedy club together, much less that they would be the targets of racial taunts while in the audience?
He thought it would be funny to say a bunch of "bad" words and it wasn't. It seldom is. Quite different than the paranoid ramblings of Mel Gibson.
i've heard everybody from wacked out leftists to Bill Oreilly make comments like this...
this is america. hate speech IS free speech.
there are plenty of countries that outlaw hate speech - canada, the UK, Germany, France, etc. (and of course what is and isn't hate is always filtered through an entirely political and politically correct lens).
i am not surprised they retained lawyers. if they are actually thinking about suing richards, they should remember what steve martin said "comedy is not pretty".
if you go to a comedy club, you should be more than prepared to be offended, and if you heckle a comedian, you should expect to be insulted.
NOT in the manner richards did it of course. imo, he was totally out of line and it was a disgusting rant.
i found the earlier comment about gibson's film 'slandering jews' as too absurd to mention. oops, just did
Interesting points about (some) Boston African-American patrons. I don't frequent many events (in Phoenix) with a large black audience. If it were a fact that there is some truth to this phenomenon, how could one express one's dissatisfaction with it without being labeled racist?
Lawyer: "He called you a nigger and said you should be hung from a tree with a fork up your ass... let's get this before an L.A. jury with some black people on it and I'll get you millions in damages!"
Client: "Oh it's been so horrible, ever since that ignorant unfunny honkey called me a nigger, I can't sleep, I have constant panic attacks, and have had horrible nightmares of being a slave, which all have caused me to do poorly at work such that I got fired the other day, and now I have lots of lost wages, which I have no intention of mitigating because he called me a nigger!"
Lawyer: "Yes, he is liable for your lost wages, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. And under California's new hate-tort law, we can get triple damages!"
Client: "Sorry, what did you just say? Let me turn my Ipod off, I'm listening to rap music which says 'nigger' 75 times per song. How much Seinfeld money will you get me from that evil honkey?"
Ignoramus.
Any blacks in the Masons? Just curious.
I suspect Jerry Seinfeld is quite concerned about people having this response to his show (with the corresponding loss of ratings, syndication revenues and DVD sales). While I have no reason to believe his Letterman appearance wasn't also a sincere attempt to help a friend, the backlash factor is also something he's bound to be worried about, and is working to minimize.
apologized to Al Sharpton of all people. The
latter helped incite the Crown Heights riot (the only
pogrom in US history) which led directly to the
death of Yankel Rosenbaum. Sharpton later
led crowds chanting against Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, denouncing the owners as "diamond merchants".
One of Sharpton's apparent followers then burned down
the store resulting in the deaths of several
employees. Richard's speech was disgusting, but in no way
could lead to the same loss of life as Sharpton's.
Sharpton has also never apologized for his slanders
in the Tawana Brawley hoax.
Anyway, before Rev. Sharpton can atone for his atrocious behavior in the Freddy's Fashion Mart incident or the Crown Heigts incident, he has to atone for his behavior in the Tawana Brawley incident.
Anyway, I guess it's all subjective. (I, for example, become physically ill watching Julia Roberts or Barbara Streisand in any role -- even when the performance is brilliant.) I have not yet found myself in disagreement with Bernstein, so I assume he is sincere and not alone. Poor Richards. A better comedian would've found a way to turn the tables without going native. Some performers should never go off-script.
AppSocRes and Strom Thurmond place blame with the blacks in the audience, and why not? After all, if those uppity negroes knew their place, Kramer wouldn't have had to put them back in it by reminding them of lynching and their former slave status. Perhaps Prof. Delgado's view on the potential harm these words convey is more than "not unreasonable."
"
As for Richards' words, there is indeed a true distinction between blacks who use the word nigger, and non-blacks who attempt to use it. When blacks use it, it is akin to a fat person calling a fat person fat. One can look back and laugh, knowing that the black person who just called you "that name" likely did not have relatives alive 40, 60, or 200 years ago that were keeping your people out of schools, denying you decent insurance, or lynching your great great grandparents.
That said, I've often felt a certain sorrow at the public behavior of some blacks, knowing full well that sectors of the population will draw certain broad conclusions from that behavior, thus creating situtions where blacks are not automatically welcomed into social situations.
Frankly, when it comes to race, everyone needs to do a little work to produce true harmony. I understand Richards' anger, but I don't condone what may be in his heart.
I loved Seinfeld for many years, but after having already seen every episode multiple times the show lost interest for me several years ago, so this incident isn't going to affect me in that regard.
For those in Boston with chatty blacks on cell phones, why don't you just grow a pair and tell them to be quiet or take their phone call out to the lobby. Are you really going to entertainment in neighborhoods so bad and so violent that you are afraid to tell the chatty black person to be quiet on their cell phone during the show?
Says the "Dog"
As far as the odious "Reverends" Jackson and Sharpton are concerned, well, 'Hymietown' and 'Tawanna'. Glass houses, stones.
whether it is 'fair" or not is irrelevant. it's unreasonable for one reason - period. because we have a FIRST AMENDMENT.
it most definitely is unreasonable. the first amendment does not make an exception for "icky words", "words that make you feel bad" etc.
there is also a massive difference between walking up to somebody, standing in front of them and hurling racial epithets in their face vs. doing it from a detached distance (like the richards case). in the former case, a lot of "fighting words" doctrines might at least arguably apply, not to mention the old temporary insanity type rage thing if the guy punched the epithet hurler in the nose.
*if* one respects the consitution, then one does call such torts unreasonable, one does ridicule them, etc.
because the 1st amendment matters.
I read that as well. I'm sorry, but if it's not OK for someone of one race to toss out such an epithet, it shouldn't be OK for someone of another race to do so either.
So how long should people who weren't even alive at that time have to pay for the sins of their long-dead relatives? This is why I'd like to see society move beyond race; in a perfect world, it would be no more important than eye color. And for those who would invoke the past, my reply would be: Just because our ancestors were idiots, it doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate that idiocy.
The only part I've ever seen Richards play well is Kramer. His own short-lived show was hideously bad. And he's apparently not very good at stand-up, else this incident would not have happened.
BTW, the "cracker" remark didn't come from the audience until about the 15th "nigger" comment.
Yes, the First amendment does matter. However, acting as if it does not have exceptions is indeed unreasonable.
Obscenity.
Fighting Words.
Disorderly Conduct / Contempt convictions based upon speech to law enforcement officers or judges.
If I am standing across the street from a cop, and see him doing something I don't like, or just choose not to like cops, and say, "F&!@ you, pig!", the police officer is not required to sit there and take it. The person of color subjected to hate speech is. Whether we have good or bad reasons for these exceptions and good or bad reasons for not including others is another question; I'm simply pointing out that one cannot cloak oneself in blind allegiance to the First Amendment when it has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Again, I recognize this position is not popular among those committed to authors of "You Can't Say That!" and the leading proponent of "censorship envy theory", but to say that the First Amendment "matters" without recognizing that it matters more for some than others is more unreasonable than Prof. Delgado's tort theory.
Yes, the First amendment does matter. However, acting as if it does not have exceptions is indeed unreasonable.
Obscenity.
Fighting Words.
Disorderly Conduct / Contempt convictions based upon speech to law enforcement officers or judges.
If I am standing across the street from a cop, and see him doing something I don't like, or just choose not to like cops, and say, "F&!@ you, pig!", the police officer is not required to sit there and take it. The person of color subjected to hate speech is. Whether we have good or bad reasons for these exceptions and good or bad reasons for not including others is another question; I'm simply pointing out that one cannot cloak oneself in blind allegiance to the First Amendment when it has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Again, I recognize this position is not popular among those committed to authors of "You Can't Say That!" and the leading proponent of "censorship envy theory", but to say that the First Amendment "matters" without recognizing that it matters more for some than others is more unreasonable than Prof. Delgado's tort theory.
As far as hate speech if we could all just agree that we have no right to never be offended then this red herring of a media issue will have some good come out of it.
\
Good Lord-is this true? I had heard the hecklers called him a cracker, but assumed it was in response to Richards-if they said it first, and Richards responded to it, this changes the whole moral calculus of the situation.
\Perhaps David can let us know: does East Coast White Liberal Guilt really claim that white people who make racist comments are in the wrong, even when they are responding to racist comments directed at them? In essence, it is not acceptable for whites to defend themselves verbally? If so, guilty east coast white liberals really are trapped in the '70's.
\
Sk
Hess v. Indiana (petitioner yelled "we'll take the fucking sreets later and the Supreme Court held that speech was protected)
Cohen v. California (wearing a jacket bearing "fuck the draft" is protected speech)
Lewis v. City of New Orleans (referring to police officer as "mother fucker" while protesting arrest is protected speech)
Now, of course, not all state courts are willing to follow these holdings and various surveys of prosecutions for disorderly conduct involving offensive or obscene language showed mixed and conflicting decisions. So, I wouldn't recommend yelling "fuck you" at the next cop you see, but if you did, there is a good argument your speech would be protected.
FWIW, heckling at a stand-up comedy show is very common and not at all limited to black members of the audience.
Oh, wait. I do know how anyone could be so moraly obtuse. White liberal guilt is the act of making oneself morally superior to others by demanding that they feel as guilty as you do (and enjoying the fact that they don't, in fact, feel as guilty). In fact, this moral obtuseness, once common, is slowly fading and now only exists in small strips along the coasts and in pockets of university campuses scattered throughout the hinterland. But it's still here. And it shall pass.
Sk
And a note to Andy: Nobody's denying that some races had it harder than others when they came here (although, come to think of it, some of my ancestors were Irish, and they didn't exactly have an easy time of it over here either), but how long should one group of people be forced to atone for the sins of their forefathers? If we keep dwelling in the past, we can't really build towards a better future...
absolutely.
i have had several people do this. i have never arrested anybody for it (alone) nor could i.
quite frequently, people who will go as far as to say 'f*ck you' to a cop will also, once they see that got no effect, go farther - into the realm of illegality and work themselves up an arrest.
but i have had people say "f*ck you" or the equivalent numerous times, and I usually reply "have a nice day".
because i'm all about having a nice day
"that's not free speech, that's HATE SPEECH"
so what? hate speech is perfectly free in our united states, and we are about the last bastion of free speech in the world. bully for us.
of course, when angela davis came to campus and said "the rich should be killed off", that was not "hate speech" because she was just speaking truth to power. :l
whatEver.
hate speech is just a stupid label. it says nothing of value, really. and it is often used to squelch speech that is not hate speech at all, and regardless is an important part of the debate.
many people arguing against racial preferences have been constantly accused of hate speech.
"No speech should be actionable in either criminal or civil court, unless it is slanderous, liable or poses a “clear and present danger.” What is hate speech? Is it the pro-lifer calling those who are pro-choice of abortion a “baby killer?” What about the person who is pro-choice of abortion and calls pro-lifers “women haters” or “anti-woman?” What about the person who “hates” all Democrats or Republicans? What about anti-religious speech? Hate speech laws reduces the First Amendment to a tyranny of the politically correct and are unconstitutional!"
several comedians have commented on this. i recall, off the top of my head, both chris rock and eddie murphy having bits about how blacks are more likely to talk back to the screen at a movie than whites.
it's hardly a revolutionary idea. and like all stereotypes that are true (some stereotypes are true, some aren't) it only speaks to aggregate probabilities, not to individuals.
utter and complete rubbish. i have been a police officer for 20 yrs (approx.) and i have had this happen on several occasions, and YES I did have to "take it".
in fact, i was on the front lines during the WTO riots, next to a black police officer and heard numerous white leftists refer to this black police officer as a 'f*cking N**ger cop assh*le" about 20 times to his face, and we all had to take it.
that IS free speech, and I am sworn to protect it.
it's called the constitution and we still have free speech.
" The person of color subjected to hate speech is. Whether we have good or bad reasons for these exceptions and good or bad reasons for not including others is another question; I'm simply pointing out that one cannot cloak oneself in blind allegiance to the First Amendment when it has more holes than Swiss cheese. "
a comedian yelling racial epithets at a black audience (or white audience ) member is definitely hate speech
and it is clearly protected by the first amendment.
it's that simple.
it disgusts me that people constantly want to dilute the first amendment for the purposes of "harmony" etc.
Now we're supposed to be shocked that one of them goes too far?
To me, this is the quintessential place and time where someone gets a pass for racial slurs. It's an act, under circumstances where we have signaled our willingness to be offended.
I saw Richards perform at a different comedy club about a month ago. I thought he was hilarious (and I've never been a fan of Seinfeld).
Nick
--Gomer Pyle. I actually don't like this statement. I'm just trying to, like, strike a note for the first amendment, you know. Seriously, I'm a cracker, too. Does it bother me? No. Why should it? It's just a dumb reference to a dry pastry product. I mean, we don't use those other racial epithets (did I spell that right?) as substitutes for other ordinary forms of speech, right? But I say "cracker" this and "cracker" that all the time, and I don't care and I don't care if other people say it to me. They say, "can I have a cracker?" I say, "with olives or cheez wiz?" You know, no big deal. Or, to get really frisky, I can say, like, "do you want an Irish cracker to go along with that cheese wiz?" Get it: Irish cracker. Sorry. Stupid. Lame. But it still busts me up. Irish cracker. God. That's funny. Sorry.
Whit, you the man. Nice remarks.
If you want some perspective, waste a bit of time watching Comedy Central, maybe you'll catch Chris Rock parodying his race like no white man could ever get away with and be funny while he's at it.
If you're really lucky, you'll catch his piece wherein he instructs black men how not to get their "asses kicked by the Po-Leez."
Sorry, but Whit's comment reminded me of this extraordinarily un-PC bit.
Hey, we all just gotta learn how to laugh and get along, no??
Whit (or is that White?): "it disgusts me that people constantly want to dilute the first amendment for the purposes of "harmony" etc."
I agree. It's not about harmony. It's about the fact that I am a cracker stuck in an anti-cracker pc world. And here, I don't mean "personal computer." I mean "politically conscious or correct" or whatever. I am talking about having to proclaim my crackerness to a world indifferent to it. Hear me roar! I am Cracker! No--I am *MR.* Cracker to you pal! I'm going to, like, what's it called?--like, repossess my crackerness. So, it's gonna be like, "Yo, my cracker!" Or: "What up cracker?" Or my other Irish Americans can say, "You my cracker! You MY cracker!" Or in praise: "He is one bad ass cracker!"
Yo, Crackers of the world--unite! Together are a giant box of Ritz or Saltines, individually, we're just a bunch of crumbs.
As for DJR: "Ain't nothin but a G thing baby" What's a "G thing"? Is it like, indignant, "Gee, you called me a cracker. Tell me something I don't know, you dumb ignorant anti-cracker racist." Or is it speculative: "Gee, I wonder what it would be like if I wasn't a cracker." Or invidious: "Wow, I wish I was one smart cracker like Eugene Volokh."
Or, intolerant: "Gee, why don't all these damn PC police get the hell off my cracker ass?" Or, metaphysical: "If no one hears a Jeff Foxworthy joke, does that cracker exist?"
Anyway, just some thoughts. I'm SOOOO pleased that I'm getting some responses here! This is cool. I'm a cracker but apparently I'm cracking up some ideas out there. Sorry. That was too damn stupid, wasn't it? Even for me. Shit. Sorry. No more stupid puns.