Wait a minute!!!! I can SUE someone for calling me, um, 'that name'?

[CatWoman]

This crap is getting ridiculous now.

Just saw a report that the two men who heckled Richards, and were showered with racial epithets by him have hired Gloria Alred. And they are talking about suing.

Jesus.

Can't that woman go find an ambulance to chase?

We're not even at the first week of winter (cue McCready from The Thing).

[Guaranteed]

1. I think it would depend on the context- i.e., whether actual discrimination

was involved, or a power imbalance between the two parties.

But, in this type of situation, I don't think there would be any kind of civil rights action. Even intentional infliction of emotional distress would be stretching it. Not sure any duty on Richards' part could be proven.

[Solomon]

15. It was defamation pure and simple. They win in a hearbeat if they sue.

He defamed them in front of an audience. Because of the defamation laws, they couldn't defame him by what they said because he is famous, a public figure, but they were private citizens, so the rules are different. It's much easier to defame a private citizen. What he did by pointing them out like that and talking to and about them in front of an audience was as clear a case of defamation as a plaintiff would want to have.

[kiahzero]

24. I don't really think this constitutes as defamation

He used a racially-charged epithet... it's mean and racist, but it isn't defamatory.

[Solomon]

31. Are you nuts! It's defamatory "per se". In law that means you don't

even have to prove damage to your reputation and persona. It's presumed.

[kiahzero]

35. Cite, please.

Please provide a citation to decisions providing that using a racial epithet creates a cause of action.

[Solomon]

43. It was more than just a racial epithet. You guys are so hung up thinking

this is about civil rights but it's not. It's no different than a car accident case. You get to sue for damages. Nothing to do with civil rights.

They were pointed out in front of a live audience and humiliated.
They get damages for that, plain and simple. Not because they were called a racial epithet, but because they were defamed and humiliated.

Does a black man have a right to be in a public place and not be publicly defamed and humiliated? Does he have to get whipped to have a cause of action?

I think a lot of people are due for some introspection about why they are so hard on dissing the plaintiffs here without knowing anything about them except the color of their skin.

[kiahzero]

47. Because we don't see a cause of action.

Is there any precedent for the notion that responding to a heckler is defamatory? I'm looking for it on Westlaw, and I can't find it. If you know of some, it'd be greatly appreciated.

[Solomon]

49. Are you kidding.I'm not doing your research for you. It's a very

specialized area of law. Go ahead and knock yourself out. Perhaps you need to listen to what was said if you have some kind of doubt that it was defamatory and humiliating.

Look, he was a public figure, pointing out some private people, one of whom I understand did no heckling at all, and implied the most vile things about their character, in front of a captive audience.

I don't know what else to tell you except that you must undervalue black people so much, that they don't have the same rights against being defamed in public as other citizens do.

The fact that Richard used a racial epithet, does not cancel out the fact that he made vile and disparaging remarks about their character and reputation.

[kiahzero]

50. You're the one making the claim.

My research isn't finding support for the claim. I don't think it's unreasonable that you provide even one citation for your argument.

[Solomon]

61. It's not an argument. It's a fact. Get over it. We'll see if Richards pays

or makes the personal apology requested. It would help if he did apologize should they actually sue him. He can at least mitigate some of the damages.

Why do you think they are threatening suit? Because they know they have a cause of action for defamation.

[kiahzero]

63. Right, because no one ever files a spurious lawsuit

You're claiming there's precedent for such a suit. I'm telling you I'm not finding it on Westlaw... I've looked in the Restatements, I've looked in AMJUR, and I've looked in the CJS, and I'm not finding anything to indicate that racial epithets are sufficient to bring an action for slander.

[G Hawes]

77. I've looked at WL, too,

and I have found no precedent that supports Solomon's contention. I don't think you're out of line asking him to support his assertion, and from what I've read, I doubt that he can support his assertion.

Edit to add: maybe that's why he hasn't responded to your prior post. I.e., he knows there is no precedent for it and that he is talking through his hat. Can that be so? I'm aghast at the thought of anonymous posters on DU purporting to have expertise and knowledge that they do not have. Aghast, I tell you!

(kidding, obviously)

[Solomon]

85. That's because as I keep saying and nobody is listening, you people

keep trying to limit it to racial epithets as though that was all that he said. You're looking at the wrong issue and in the wrong place. It has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with defamation. Put it this way, had he not said any racial epithet's, he still would have committed defamation. Get it now?

And please, please, it's absolutely absurd to take the position that because he used a racial epithet, all tha he said is not defamation.

[mondo joe]

86. And as you keep getting asked: what were the damages?

How was their character or reputation damaged?

Be specific.

[Karenina]

96. FYI

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101886.html

He even insulted the WRONG GUYS!!! :eyes:

[Seeking Serenity]

39. In my state, we've abolished "defamation per se"

you have to prove you were damaged.

[Solomon]

44. So what. You have to show the videotape. In fact, that what kills me

about what a slamdunk this case is. Not only do they have the words that were spoken, but they have the context and the way they were spoken. It's all on tape for the jury to see.

Now how much they would get for damages is another story. It's the kind of case I would try and settle though.

[Seeking Serenity]

46. How were they damaged? How can you quantify it?

In my state, the law looks askance at the speculativeness of damages that can't be easily quantified.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[mondo joe]

53. How did he damage their characters or reputations?

Did he even say WHO they were?

Are comedians on stage now to be construed as making allegations of fact?

[Seeking Serenity]

59. I did listen. What did he say about their character?

He called them a reprehensible name. I didn't hear him attack their character.

[FredScuttle]

65. Uh, the "captive" audience booed, reacted audibly and left

what was the damage again?

[Richard Steele]

75. So anyone who disagrees with you is a RACIST now?

[cosmik debris]

113. The only cause of action here is for you

to sue the diploma mill that sent you a law degree.

[elocs]

2. Plus, you can have somebody booted off a plane if they make you uncomfortable. n/t

[hsher]

101. Really?

<---- Rubs her chin craftily: "HMMMM..."

[babylonsister]

3. Seems like the guys hired her, so I wouldn't be blaming her.

Having said that, yesterday I mentioned to my DH that someone's gonna try to sue. Eh voila'!

[stonecoldsober]

12. I'm sure she contacted them.

[babylonsister]

14. Why? nt

[stonecoldsober]

17. Because I don't very much that the 'victims' had her

phone number handy. It's just a gut feeling.

[babylonsister]

23. So you don't know. nt

[stonecoldsober]

103. Actually, I'm clueless, but sometimes I talk big.

BTW, I'm a big Steely Dan/Donald Fagan fan.:hi:

[tridim]

4. Fucking lawyers

:grr:

Why can't they all be like John Edwards?

[genie_weenie]

21. Like John Edwards???

You mean making 60 million dollars by ruining doctors. Great...

[CatWoman]

22. please explain

thank you.

[genie_weenie]

32. John Edwards made his fortune

through medical malpractice suits. Malpractice insurance is causing a number of doctors to quit due to the outrageous premiums. The current system is in bad shape because Lawyers (in general) treat cases as though they are lotteries. Edwards has won a number of mega-compensation cases and has siphoned off a good amount for himself. That's a problem because Lawyers don't create anything but merely transfer monies around taking some for themselves.

I've included a short Law bio:
http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.profile.html

TO be fair I have never had to use the services of a Lawyer for something as tramatic or horrible as a death or injury to a loved one but from the bio, "he obtained verdicts and settlements for his clients totaling more than $175 million over his career." Where does this money come from?

[crispini]

68. Dude, trial lawyers are lawyers protecting the people

Have you read Edwards' "Four Trials?" I have. That's some scary shit and those people most certainly deserved lawyers and damages.

[FredScuttle]

70. Helpful that you included a link to a bio that debunks your ridiculous claim

So, I take it you're in favor of letting doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers like Sta-Rite Industries poison, butcher, maim and cripple consumers without any consequences?

[radwriter0555]

72. The cases Edwards defended were infants who were permanently & horrifically

crippled through negligence during birth... he also made a landmark case against the manufacturer and installer of a pool drain that was missing one simple little piece. That public pool drain sucked the intestines out of a 5 year old girl.

Edwards proved that the manufacturer knew about the flaw and the problem, had been made fully aware of it, had seen damage and injuries from it, and failed to correct it, even on new installations.

What are your daughter's intestines worth?

What is your child's brain worth?

We need people like Edwards protecting children from unethical people and corporations.

[CatWoman]

90. I want to thank you guys for setting that poster straight

and for posting some much needed information.

[AlCzervik]

5. well she's all done with Amber Frey now so she needs something to do.

i cannot stand Allred.

[originalpckelly]

6. I could see how they'd want their money back from the club...

but I don't think there should be or is anything else they can do.

[KT2000]

7. Before this blows over

Allred probably wanted to be sure to get a spot on Larry King in case there is a dry spell between "events."

[AnnInLa]

8. Uh oh, Cat Woman, you stepped in it now! lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2785820

[CatWoman]

9. hey!! I didn't see that thread

goes to show I'm not the only one to see the ridiculousness of this crap.

:hi:

[AnnInLa]

11. no, actually, you'd better go read that thread and get involved

gettin' hot there

[bluestateguy]

10. I guess Gloria Aldred wants to be in the news again

I wonder what her cut of the settlement will be.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. You can sue for pretty much anything

Winning is what's in question.

I don't know what kind of real damages they are saying were done, but I imagine they have the right to sue.

[kiahzero]

25. You can sue for anything if you want to waste money to get a 12(b)(6) (n/t)

[Seeking Serenity]

29. Not to mention a potential Rule 11. (n/t)

[Solomon]

33. Nope. A motion to dismiss wouldn't work. It's defamation per se.

I can't believe you guys. Maybe people are thinking this is a civil rights issue. It is not. It is a private cause of action in the same manner as if someone rear ended your car and caused you an injury. Has nothing to do with civil rights. It's a private cause of action for damages.

[kiahzero]

36. No kidding.

I'm not a lawyer yet, but I am a law student. I'm well aware that we're talking about a private cause of action.

[mondo joe]

40. How did Richards harm their reputation or character?

I'm unaware that he even referenced their character.

[Seeking Serenity]

41. What are the damages? Does California recognize defamation per se?

My state doesn't anymore.

[Solomon]

52. The damages could be from $1 or10 million dollars. Up to the jury.

Even if your state abolished defamation per se, they still have a category of defamation that's much easier to prove than others. This is one of those.

[Seeking Serenity]

60. How were they damaged?

Hurt feelings isn't enough. What are their actual damages?

[MazeRat7]

16. Oh my feelings were hurt...oh call a lawyer... oh poor poor me.....

Gezzzzz.... the end or times are closer than I thought..... Talk about inappropriate behaviour...



MZr7

[Solomon]

18. You should try putting yourself in their shoes for a change. How would

you like it, as a private citizen, if you were singled out and defamed in front of an audience. I guarantee you that more than your feelings would be hurt. One of the people he singled out was not even the heckler.

You guys are confusing the idea of civil rights, with plain old common law rights to sue for damages. The guys were defamed and they are entitled to damages for that. It's a personal matter to each person involved and people should not be so quick to poo poo other people's legal right to be compensated for damages.

[mondo joe]

20. Oh the poor private hecklers. You know, when I put myself in their shoes I'm

hard pressed to see them as being all that private.

If they have a case for damages, let them give it a shot. But I don't see it.

[Solomon]

26. You don't have to believe me. I'm a lawyer who has tried defamation

cases. I have won defamation cases on appeal. There are certain rules about defamation. First of all, as I said earlier, there weren't hecklers, there was a heckler, and somehow you think that it's okay to just slander and defame a private citizen.

Are they second class citizens in your eyes? Do they not have a right to protect their honor, character, reputation and dignity? Apparently and obviously, from the things said on this thread, the episode has sullied their reputations, thus proving my point, that they were defamed. Most certainly they have the right to take pride in their character and reputation but you all seem to think you know what that is, and it's not worth anything. You've already judged these guys and you know nothing about them except for one thing...

[mondo joe]

27. As I said, if they have a case make a go of it.

I haven't judged them at all. I think they made a public spectacle of themselves by choosing to participate in Richards' act. It's hard to see how they can claim to be just private citizens targeted by him.

I don't know where you got "slander" from, nor do I see where Richards harmed their reputation or character.

[blogslut]

76. How were their reputations damaged?

Seems to me that these proposed plaintiffs are being portrayed as heros or at the worst, innocent victims of a hatemonger, in the court of public opinion. They have the sympathy of the public.

[G Hawes]

80. Oh, really?

Ever won a claim in defamation where the basis of the claim was, "someone called me a bad name after I annoyed him by heckling his on stage show?

Somehow, I doubt it.

But, if you're so sure of your assertions, please set out the elements of the cause of action, and set out specifically how you think the elements are met or can be made out in this case.

Thanks,
Grant

[Kingshakabobo]

81. How does calling someone the "N" word "sullie their reputation"..?

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on your claims to:

A) being an attorney
B) your assertion of "slander"
C) Your claim that you have tried these cases on appeal.
D) your claim that constitutional rights aren't involved(see first amendment).
E) your inability to cite ANY case law...even though you claim to have tried these cases.....on appeal no less.
F) the fact that you are throwing around the wrong terminology regarding the potential causes of action.


BULLSHIT

[Solomon]

88. Been practicing law since 1980, what's that , oh yeah 26 years.

But it doesn't matter.You can call all the bullshit you want. Why the hell does it bother you so much that a citizen has a claim against somebody else?

[kiahzero]

91. Do bald assertions generally get you very far?

I generally don't find them to be compelling, but I'm only a 1L, so what do I know?

Seriously... if you've practiced in this area, you'd surely be able to enlighten us and show some support for your argument that what was said would constitute defamation? So why don't you? Why do you infer that we're racists instead of merely supporting your own argument?

[goclark]

82. You have my full support

If the races were in reverse we wouldn't be having this same discussion.
If Eddie Murphy had been on that stage, we would be seeing interviews of Eddie from a police car.

If the two young, well spoken,intelligent young men had taken their fists and jumped Richards on the stage to defend themselves, would we be having the same discussion?

The answer to that is "NO" because they would have been put in jail.

If they had even taken to the stage and talked back to him in the same manner they would have been thrown out of the club and probably arrested for disturbing the peace.

So, they did the right thing, they consulted a lawyer for advice.

They have the RIGHT to do that just as GW has the RIGHT to consult a lawyer.
I may not agree with the views of GW but he has a RIGHT to a lawyer!

They did not take the law into their own hands!

Now, on Thanksgiving Day, on a "Progressive" Board whose members should be dedicated to JUSTICE,we feel the need to Blink to make sure we are in the right place.


Shameful.

[mondo joe]

83. "Justice" isn't compensation absent damages.

Justice is the same standard for all.

And there is no standard for compensation based on being offended.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. They weren't defamed. They were insulted

These are two different things altogether. It is not a tort to insult someone, however much their feelings may have been hurt, or however much they may have been humiliated.

[MazeRat7]

38. Oh give me a break...

Sure I would be pissed and angry at being the target but as an adult in possession of my "own" identity that is where is would end. For me to think I deserve some kind of monetary compensation for being insulted in public is just low class, cheap, and immature.

MZr7

[Solomon]

55. Sure, sure. You would never ask to be compensated for being injured.

You're too good for that. Somebody hit you in a car, you wouldn't sue right? Too good for that.

[mondo joe]

57. If you were hit by a car I'd expect you to sue for damages you could

demonstrate.

[MazeRat7]

66. Nice dodge, but there is a big difference between "insulted" and "injured"...

There was no damage done to their physical person or property (injured) only to their ego (insulted).

Sorry but I have no respect or sympathy for people who can not take "insults" for what they are and even less for those that "think" there is an opportunity, given the name recognition, to make $$$ because of it. Oh and did I mention, I have even less respect for anyone who would consent to representing them.

That is my opinion, I am entitled to have it, and it will not change.

MZr7

[Solomon]

87. There are many people intelligent enough to know the difference

between tangible and intangible. Apparently,not many of them are a part of this board. An injury can be tangible or intangible. It's still an injury just the same.

[flying_monkeys]

94. But by heckling, one of them called the attention on himself....

I think any case about being defamed in public would drop away due to that.


I would also like to know what "intangible" damages these guys supposedly sustained.... Could you clarify that part?

[mondo joe]

95. Solomon keeps claiming they were defamed but can't point to ANY WAY in which

their character has been damaged by Richards -- or any way in which he even referenced their character.

[flying_monkeys]

106. Neither can I.

That is what has me scratching my head here - - - Just HOW were their characters actually harmed?


Yes, they were insulted. Yes, they were made to feel bad. Yes, they were reminded that epithets still wound, years later - - but HOW were their own personal individual characters in any way defamed, maligned, castigated, (fill in the thesaurus word of your choice here)?


I just don't see it, and I am a brighter bear than many....


Maybe Solomon can come back and clue us all in?

[PsN2Wind]

19. "Get Over It"

"Ya say ya haven't been the same since you had your little crash, but ya might be better if they give ya some cash." Ol' Billy was right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. It's despicable, but surely not tortious

I can't see how a suit would proceed.

[Cleita]

34. Hate Gloria if you'd like, but she has actually done a lot

of good by pointing attention at things that most of us consider status quo. Yes, I am sure she is in it for the publicity, but she has changed the political landscape on a lot of women's issues and if she wants to shine a light on the inappropriateness of the "N" word from white people, let her.

[goclark]

48. Very good point

Sometimes I have to rub my eyes to know what Board I've landed on.

My understanding is that people sue everyday for whatever they want to sue about ~ they may get thrown out of court or they may not. But they have the right to complain.

Since Richards did not say it to me, I will not attempt to get into the minds of the two Men. IMO, they handled themselves well in the three interviews that I watched.

I was proud of the way that they handled the entire situation. And,I refuse to beat up on Gloria A., she is a lawyer and she has a right to speak for a client.

I believe that is what America should be all about ~

[Solomon]

62. Finally. Somebody else who gets it. I feel the same way. Sometimes

I really have to blink hard to see if I'm on the right board.

[kiahzero]

So why not cite one case to help elucidate the issue?

You said you've won such cases on appeal; presumably, they'd be reported.

[QuestionAll...]

89. this is how I see it...

not likely the lawsuit will end up with monetary gain for the plaintiffs - unlikely that is what they are really after. What I think Allred is doing is bringing this issue up to the forefront to avoid repetitions of this disgusting Kramer behavior.

I don't want to see entertainers (or any public figure) pull off more shit like this, just because they think they can... does anyone here want to see more of this?

oh, and btw...
Can You Imagine... if Michael went into an over the top offensive tirade against two jewish guys in the audience, or a gay couple, etc.? I have a feeling sentiments on this would be a tad different here if that were the case. Black people are supposed to just 'suck it up' and get over it all, aren't they?

[laundry_queen]

92. I see it the same way.

If THIS lawsuit is what it takes to get public figures to think twice before opening thier pie holes and spewing racist hate filled garbage, no matter who wins, then it will have accomplished what it should.

[mondo joe]

93. Bullshit. Comics and others have ragged on Jews and gays. Even Fred Phelps

with his GOD HATES FAGS protests is protected speech.

As it should be.

(And I am one of those "fags".)

[QuestionAll...]

97. but Michael obviously 'lost it' ...

and was not keeping to the script but went off on a personal unhinged scarey tirade - and to me revealing his ugly heart. this is quite a different matter than what I would consider comedic in any way, however distasteful some comedy may be.

If he did an unbridled rage like that against women and pointed at me and started calling me cunt! and whore!, - I'd take that a little differently than just being a general target for sexist jokes.
oh yah, not this shit again, is what I would think.

[mondo joe]

98. The First Amendment does not require a script.

His heart may well be ugly, but it is not criminal to be so.

And your suggestion that things would be different here if he targeted Jews or Gays is insulting and unfounded.

[QuestionAll...]

99. I'm sorry you find it insulting that I may have a different point of view than you do...

and yes, there is foundation to support that people react differently - depending on which group is targeted for the hateful talk.

[mondo joe]

100. I don't find different views insulting - only the snide insinuation that the

response on this board is due to racial bias, rather than sincere conviction about the First Amendment.

You suggest it would be different if the subjects were gays or Jews. But this is demonstrably false.

Fred Phelps and his vicious anti gay protests have been argued to be protected speech on this board, as have the KKK marching in Jewish neighborhoods.

There is a long track record of Progressives supporting free speech - even for opponents of gay and Jewish people.

[QuestionAll...]

102. there are biases of all sorts here... how is pointing this out being snide?

As Michael is trying to apologize for his words, how can what he did be compared to anything Phelps, and free speech, and the 5th? I think you lost me there. If M stood up and refused to take back his words, based on free speech, 5th, etc., then you may have a fair comparison, but even then not really. I think anyone sane believes Phelps is a misfit damaged creature of hate - that's his 24 hour scthick, it seems.

But I don't think so called regular people having Phelps-like fits of insanity and abusive behaviour as something to easily overlook. As far as this legal case against M goes, - most likely nothing material will be gained by it for the complainants as freedom of expression may become the winner - but the process, the dialogue, the sides that people will take to bring forth the truer condition of how rascism (and all sorts of isms) still thrives in america - I think that's what the case is really about - exposure.

[mondo joe]

108. Who said it's easy to overlook? YOU said that if the comedian had

targeted gays or Jews the response HERE would be very different.

And what I'm pointing out is that both gays AND Jews have been the target of WORSE than what Richards did, and yet Progressive gays and Jews have defended their first amendment rights.

[QuestionAll...]

118. yes, I did say that.

and repeat it for you:
and I'll stand by it. Looks to me, if a Black person is the target, somehow there seems to be more forgiveness from this community for the perpetrator. and don't ask me for numbers and polls, there's enough IMO to make me take note.

[mondo joe]

119. Seems to me like you're looking for bias,

And projecting it.

Thanks.

[Solomon]

110. Do they pick individuals out of the audience and rag on them in front of

their congregations. What do you think would hapen if they did?

I tell you. A suit against them for defamation.

[mondo joe]

112. No, they protest at funerals with signs that say they're going to hell.

So far you're a lot of talk without one single citation to back up your claims.

[Solomon]

109. Wow. Somebody else sees through the bullshit. You're right.

A black person is supposed to just suck it up.

[mondo joe]

111. Unless you can demonstrate damages, everyone is supposed to just

suck it up.

I don't suppose you are an ACLU member, huh?

[Solomon]

114. This is such a burning issue for you isn't it?

Not one single other lawyer has come on this board and disputed what I've said. So far one first year law student who doesn't know how to read cases, and a lot of people who don't understand our legal system at all.

This is just a private cause of action involving these guys and Richards over him singling out and humiliating them in public. It has nothing to do with black people being able to sue white people for calling them niggers. Okay?

So what..., you weren't aware that there are circumstances under which a person can sue for being "insulted" as you people put it. Apparently a lot of people aren't aware of it.

I refuse to dignify the question "what are the damages"? Especially after listening to that foul tirade. The question presumes that black people are not valued enough to merit protection of their dignity. After all, all he did was call a N*****r a N*****r, right?

Why do you care so much that this guy has a cause of action against Richards? Would you care so much if Richards had hit them in a car and they sued? I don't think so.

By the way, at least I see you admit to the defamation... now you are focused on the "damages". If you knew any law at all you would know that there are some cases in which the behavior is considered to be so outrageous as to not require any special proof of damages.

I've not heard anyone say that the behavior in this case is not hideous, desicable and outrageous, ... or are you now willing to try and go there and claim it was not outrageous... all just so you can try and deny these citizens their right to pursue a claim if they want to.

[mondo joe]

115. Civil liberties are indeed a burning isssue for me.

And you still can't support your allegations.

And again with your strawman: if Richards hit them with a car they could show damages.

What are the damages here?

*yawn*

[mondo joe]

69. Oh sure they have the RIGHT to complain.

And Limbaugh has the RIGHT to say what he says.

And we have the right to complain about THEM.

[salin]

37. I am with you...

as horrible as his comments were... a law suit? Serious damage? Give me a break.

The shame is that if it goes forward, Richards will suddenly look more sympathetic - in terms of "sure he was an *ss... but what really did he do to them... they just want to go after some glory and money" and suddenly the message he sent (that there is still a very live wire of racism in America that white folks can pretend isn't there - but that can quickly and violently raise its head) - gets obscured and blurred into the "overly litigous society" meme.

[mondo joe]

42. If you do decide to sue, Jackie Chiles is the man for the case.

"Lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!"

[Stu DeBeouf]

56. This new Jackie Chiles angle

needs it's own thread...really.

[mondo joe]

58. Start it!

[Generic Other]

45. Can you sue if someone calls you a freeper?

Or should you just beat the holy crap out of them?

[Generic Brad]

54. We can sue for name calling?

If I would have known that years ago, I could have been rich today.

[philosophie_en_rose]

64. Allred just wants her name in the press. The victims are pawns.

I saw them on the Today show this morning. They looked offended, but seemed to be handling the situation fairly well.

I think Allred knows that her clients have no financial costs to recover. There is no way that a lawsuit would be worth it. Her idea is for both sides to seek arbitration with a retired judge to determine how much Richards should pay.

Now I definitely support Richards paying something. A large donation to a nonprofit or community center would be a step towards making amends. I think that any expenses or losses the victims actually experience should be compensated. (Maybe reimbursements for cover charges?). However, there do not appear to be any damages here. No one is going to counseling or lost wages over this.

It is a scummy, disgusting, and foul act by a racist idiot. He should feel the consequences of this act. But Allred is an ambulance-chasing fool.

[FredScuttle]

67. Can we sue Felix "Macaca" Allen?

"Hi! I'm a self-hating Jew who loves the old days when you could call a spade a spade. Yeeee-hah!"

[breakaleg]

71. I don't think they want money because they are so damaged by what he said.

I think they want him to suffer or pay in some way for what he said. And legally he's entitled to free speech, so this is the only way. Not saying that I agree with them, just that it's where they are coming from.

[mondo joe]

74. Um, but wouldn't damages be required for him to pay?

What's the basis to him paying if there are no damages?

[alittlelark]

73. I had a recently created ex-bf use the c-word on me

It was the first time ever and since.

It was so shocking as to have made me call an Allred if I had thought about it...(finals were the next week).
It really was a major shock.



PS - I did brilliantly on my finals.

[BlooInBloo]

78. There's not enough money in the country to handle that precedent.

[TK421]

79. If you can quote McCready from The Thing, you already have my respect!

[CatWoman]

84. LOL

I love that movie!!

:hi:

[NaturalHigh]

104. The next time someone calls me a cracker or a redneck...

I'm going to sue the hell out of them. Hey, what's good for the goose...

[MODemocrat]

105. They were heckling him, what were they saying?

It's a stupid thing for Richards to retliate with racial slurs; but isn't there two sides to this story? :crazy: :crazy: :shrug:

[flying_monkeys]

107. My understanding is it was usual heckler stuff....

The usual "You are not funny" type stuff, nothing that warranted Richards bringing up race in the first place. The leap to racial stuff was all Richards.... probably because, deep down, he is rather racist and people talking thru his act somehow triggered that racism he harbors inside.


He is a bigot for bringing race into the situation - - but that doesn't mean I think he owes them monetary compensation. Being a bigot isn't against the law.... And insulting entire races doesn't fit the slander or defamation of character statutes. It fits the "You are a Has Been" statute - - but that is an economic punishment, not a civil or criminal one....


(Kinda makes me wonder, if he is that bigoted against black men, who else is on his hit-list of "barely-surpressed bigotry" targets? I wonder, if some women start to heckle him, would he show his rage against women? How about some Jews heckling him? Mexicans? WHO ELSE would he hold in contempt if they interrupted his act? And HOW has he kept this bigotry under wraps for so long - - I mean, if you do public performances, you are going to run into hecklers periodically - - so how has he kept this inner crap hidden for so long? Hmmm )

[MODemocrat]

117. I've heard Richards wasn't a good comedian outside of Seinfeld

If he can't hold his temper and take a little ridicule, he needs to get out of the "funny" business.
Why do people use racist remarks to insult someone; when he could have just said, well, the door works
both ways. You came in and you can leave the same way. Or smile and say nothing at all. I'm always so
disappointed when something like this happens, someone who has been so well thought of.

In my case, I'm and old female, but it sure would hurt my feelings if someone insulted with a remark
reminding me of something I have no control over.

Shame on him :+ :+ :+ :spank: :spank:

[LWolf]

116. I think I'm culturally clueless.

I can't hear that word without cringing; I was raised to consider it a term of hate.

I don't maneuver the twisting paths of who it's ok for, and who it's not ok for. I don't understand why it's ok to use it within the black american culture, but not outside of it. I'd rather just not hear it at all.

Lawsuit? Over the top, in my opinion. I probably would have been the one arrested, had I been in attendance. I would have incited the group to throw all their beer bottles at him and chase him off the stage. That would have been good enough for me. That, and the fact that his career ought to be in shreds at this point. Who in their right mind would take an after-the-fact apology? :shrug:

[Bluebear]

120. It's not that they were called 'that name', CW

I think the issue is Richards potentially inciting the audience against the hecklers, along with fond remiscences of lynching.