Was it a hate crime? (Last one, I promise!)

[ecstatic]

Is Michael Richards guilty of a hate crime?

Examples of hate crimes include:

* Graffiti
* Arson
* Theft
* Physical or Verbal Assault
* Intimidation
* Ritualistic Abuse
* Sex Crimes

http://www.ywca.org/site/pp.asp?c=djISI6PIKpG&b=297549

Edited to clarify bullet points and add California's definition of a hate crime:

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.

[mondo joe]

1. I think you should edit your question to include the following:

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.”



You did not give the definition of a hate crime - you used examples.

[ecstatic]

2. OK I will update!

nt

[Karenina]

50. So a white guy who MISTAKENLY IDs a black guy

(that's NEVER happened before) as the one who heckled him and screams "NIGGER" at the top of his lungs, in addition to assuring said party that there were times that a pitchfork would be shoved up his ass just goofed?

I'm SO LOVING DU these days... :eyes:

[kiahzero]

3. You might want to include the legal definition of assault, also

West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 240
ASSAULT DEFINED. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

[mondo joe]

4. Thank you for the clarification. Since a hate crime has to involve an actual

crime, and this did not, then no, it's not a hate crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. No. Crime means "crime". Saying something, even something obnoxious or dumb

is NOT A CRIME.

Edit: If you can find the pertinent penal codes regarding this supposed crime of "verbal assault", I'd be very interested.

[ecstatic]

6. Is verbal sexual harassment a crime? nt

[mondo joe]

7. That's because of the implied threat, and the power of a superior to deliver on it.

Of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I'm not sure in most cases if it's a crime like assault.

It's something people get fired for, and it's something employers can get sued for, but unless there's coercion re: a sex act (which would be a form of rape) then I don't think pure speech is a crime.

[ecstatic]

10. I'm not seeing the difference mondo joe

There were threats involved in KKKramer's tirade as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. That's a good point.

Making threats against someone isn't protected speech. But merely being an obnoxious, racist, hate-filled jackass is not a crime. That's why the Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie.

[mondo joe]

12. What were the threats?

And would a reasonable person construe them to be genuine threats?

If so, they may have a case.

(But they don't.)

[ecstatic]

13. I'm bitterly recalling the time when I was flamed (you were amongst the flamers)

I said African Americans and Gay Americans do not face the same struggles. At one point I conceded that I was wrong, but now all your posts defending Kramer's "free speech" are making me think twice. As soon as its convenient you throw us under the bus.

[mondo joe]

14. No one threw you under any bus. I'm asking you what the threats were,

and would a reasonable person construe them to be legitimate.

You asked a question about law and I'm giving you an answer.

Don't accuse me of bus throwing because you don't like the law.

[silverojo]

15. I'm not defending his "free speech"

I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't have to face SOME sort of legal ramifications for what he said in a public place.

However, the fact that his career has very likely ended might be the greatest punishment of all. You can always hire a lawyer, but you can't hire people to see your performances, watch your TV show, etc. etc.

Buh-bye, KKKramer!

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Really? You don't think arresting people for saying unpopular or obnoxious things might come back

to bite you on the ass some day?

I won't defend what he said- it was pretty fucking repulsive and vile. But I will defend his free speech, just like I'd defend the free speech of Nazis marching in Illinois (and I'm Jewish) or anyone else. The First Amendment gives people the right to be assholes.

And I wouldn't put "free speech" in quotes, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Like the ACLU, I accept that the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie.

I understand why.

And I come from a Jewish family. I had relatives in the camps.

There's a BIG difference between "defending" what Richards said and realizing that it's not a crime to be a bigot or an asshole. I don't think anyone here has defending what he said. It was one of the most noxious, vile things I think I've ever seen a celebrity do.

[mondo joe]

23. You'll have a hard time explaining that to the anti-free-speech types on

DU these days.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Yes, too many people limit free speech to those who agree with them.

On DU as well as FR.

[mondo joe]

30. It used to be a problem of the far right, but it has sadly crept into the left as well.

Sometimes I think the right and left just exchanged some views and that's the baggage we're stuck with.

Time to renew my ACLU membership I guess.

[Guaranteed]

43. It's really shocking to me to see it on DU. Broad free speech rights

seem to me to be the most basic of those afforded us in this country- those rights, more than anything, make America, America, IMO.

So when I see DUers, well-educated (supposedly), talking about using racial epithets as a CRIME or a tort....it's probably the most unbelievable thing I've ever encountered on the board. That anyone here thinks that....

There should not be one person this board who doesn't understand the importance of this essential right.

[mondo joe]

45. I fear both the left and the right have surrendered their historic values.

I've been a leftist since I was a kid, and was appalled by the right.

That said, the traditional conservatives had some values they held to, and some where worthwhile.

These days, the Neocons have abandoned any values, and I fear there will be a Neolib contingent willing to do the same.

[JVS]

34. I'm with you and impeachw, being a racist asshole is not a crime

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Depends on the context, I should think- but usually it's something people get fired for.

Not something they get arrested for. Therefore, it's something employers- rightly- don't tolerate, and it's something that people can file civil lawsuits about for creating a hostile work environment- but generally speech is speech, and protected by the first amendment.

[JVS]

35. If you make unwelcome lewd comments to strangers on the street...

is it sexual harassment?

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I'd say "yes". But whether you can be arrested for it

is something else.

[Karenina]

47. What if the hecklers were misidentified???

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

The irony of the insult, according to audience member Pitts: It wasn't the black guy who interrupted him. The black man sat next to the alleged heckler. Pitts told our colleague Darryl Fears the two were in a group of roughly 10 people who ambled into the Laugh Factory during Richards's routine. The comic ordered them to shut up, then asked, " 'What are you talking about?' "

The black guy spoke up: "My friend doesn't think you're funny." The loud-talking friend "was maybe Arab or Hispanic but not black," said Pitts, who was not part of the group. "The way it's been portrayed is that a group of black guys came to the club and were disorderly . . . and that's inaccurate, absolutely."

[madmusic]

16. Have to ask: Have you ever used the Young Woman's Christian Association

As an authoritative source before? And how many Google hits did you have to go through before you found Verbal Assault listed as a hate crime?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but it seems you are trying to slant the poll. Gloria Allred tried to say the words were like "missile attacks." Were they really?

Were they anything like the threat of racism by those with real power - the police, an employer or landlord, or a politician?

It's hard for me to see how a comedian can have that much power.

EDIT bold

P.S. I voted "No, the outburst was repugnant, but not a hate crime"

[bliss_eternal]

17. Keep in mind, Truth Hurts...

DU is just a smaller representation of the world at large--progressive or otherwise. Be encouraged. ;)

:hi::hug:

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I find the poll results encouraging.

Seems to me, most people here recognize that what Richards said was vile, hateful, idiotic, obnoxious and beyond offensive.

But vile, hateful, idiotic, obnoxious, beyond offensive speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

[bliss_eternal]

21. Poor First Amendment...She must be SO Tired

used so mercilessly on DU today.

First Amendment, you have Bliss's permission to go to bed now, nighty-night. Get lots of rest...But be sure to wear that red dress 'mama--DU's gonna' work ya' some more tomorrow. Yeeehaw!

:spray:

[Guaranteed]

44. What is WRONG with you? You're actually making light of the 1st Amendment??

Do you have the first clue as to HOW IMPORTANT THAT AMENDMENT IS??

[bliss_eternal]

48. Of course not...

I'm a leftist, commie pinko--as such I hate America, have no morals and murder unborn children. Where the hell have YOU been?

[Solo_in_MD]

22. I reject hate crimes as a concept

[Kelly Rupert]

27. I'm torn on them.

I understand that a hate crime or sexual crime is more painful for the victim, and if we are to outlaw assault as a seperate crime from battery, we are obviously declaring that the victim's emotional trauma is worth considering. However, the other half of me believes that hate crime legislation is more or less outlawing thinking certain things in certain situations, and that is a rather frightening precedent.

[mondo joe]

29. I'm somewhat torn as well. But here's how I resolve it: hate crimes are an extension

of the actual criminal act because they create a climate of intimidation for a CLASS of people (beyond the individual victim), and are in effect a form of terrorism. So for me the act beyond the individual crime can merit a punishment beyond the original as well.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. An excellent point.

Thank you.

[baby_mouse]

37. It's worrying, certainly

I think the concept is an acceptable basis for legislation providing there's a clear distinction between the thinking and the action resulting from the thinking. Doesn't sound hard on paper...

[Kelly Rupert]

24. No. It wasn't assault.

Assault is the act of making someone believe that they are in immediate, real threat of grievous injury or loss of life. Physical assault is doing so by attacking or making it seem as if a person is about to be attacked. Verbal assault is, more or less, making a realistic threat to take someone's life. If he had patted his jacket and said, "I got a .45 here and I'm going to kill you and smile, n*gger boy," then that would have been verbal assault, and a hate crime to boot.

This was simply an offensive, disgusting outburst that deserves condemnation, but not legal action.

[baldguy]

25. He should be criticized for being unprofessional, losing control, and not being funny.

[sweetheart]

26. it was on a bloody stage

When you're acting your character for that many people, you lose ownership of the narrative to
the masses who consume you like a wave consumes the foam breaking on its crest. Then the
actor, however much identified he was with the character, clearly a method actor who's not clear
from what intuition his impulse derives... and all that visible for all to see on stage,
something that exposes and causes a withdrawl from racist ideals, causing a public to speak
how repugnant and bring out the macrophages that consume viral racism through exposure
to the light of day.

Racism lives like a cockroach in the dark, but when you turn on the stage lights,
it is the job of the actor to draw the poison, but mr. richards swalloed the poison
instead of spitting it out. He's got a better chance of living than that poisoned
russian spy; he should count his blessings.

[goodhue]

32. hate speech sure, but there is no criminal act

[Jed Dilligan]

33. I think it was really bad comedy

Someone trying to improv while enraged, high, and stupid.

No one has explained to me how Michael Richards' supposed intense racism never came out before in a 20-some year Hollywood career. I think he was trying to do edgy humor on race, like Larry David does, and it went horribly awry.

Why not pick on the real racists out there? It seems like everyone just wants to jump on this poor sad sack because he made it so easy.

[baby_mouse]

40. Agree

Really, I think a lot of people have over-reacted with this one.

[Brewman_Jax]

36. Teaching tool

rather than following the standard 1st Amendment arguments, this incident can be used to bring to light the poison of biased attitudes and the racial caste system so that they can be dealt with. Bad attitudes and bias aren't a sudden event and held only by cross-burning hood-wearing yahoos.

[porphyrian]

38. That's for the jury at the trial to decide, if they go to court. - n/t

[mondo joe]

39. Since there's not even a criminal charge, that's quite unlikely.

By California Law a hate crime would denote a crime WITH a bias.

But there isn't even a crime to begin with here.

[porphyrian]

41. Then it's not a hate crime, by legal definition anyway.

That doesn't excuse his saying it, though.

[mondo joe]

42. What other definition than a legal one would be applied to whether an action

is a CRIME or not?

[porphyrian]

51. Dear mondo, things do occur outside the courtroom.

In the rest of the world, words can be used as an exaggeration or to otherwise convey some aspect of metaphor, as in "It's a crime that {name of vacuous long-haired celebrity} cut their hair," or "It's a crime to put blueberries in the stuffing." Surely you've encountered one or two incidents of this before my post.

[mondo joe]

52. The word CRIME has a specific meaning. The words Hate Crime yet more

specific.

So I'm asking, what would a poll about whether an act is a Hate Crime reference other the law?

[porphyrian]

53. You need rules, don't you? - n/t

[mondo joe]

54. No, I need people to mean what they say and say what they mean.

Hate Crimes have a specific legal meaning. The OP even includes the legal definition.

If you want to ask if what Richards did is hateful, fine. But if you want to ask if it was a hate crime, there's a simple factual answer: no.

If you want to have any sort of meaningful communication, it's probably worth choosing the words that mean what you want to convey.

[porphyrian]

55. Right, you just gave me a bunch of rules. I'm guessing you feel uncomfortable without them. - n/t

[mondo joe]

56. I don't have the authority to give you rules. I expressed my position.

If you want to say things you don't mean, it's certainly your choice.

[porphyrian]

57. Well, that's true, but that's not what I was saying just now.

My post before this was a response to your post in which each sentence was a list of rules with conditionals which did suggest you wanted everyone to follow, which is a demand, not an opinion.

[mondo joe]

58. I didn't issue a demand, nor rules. I stated some facts.

If you disagree about their factual basis, you may opt to respond.

I don't know how you think I could make a demand when I have no power or authority to do so.

[porphyrian]

59. I don't know how to show it to you any other way.

I really don't require you to understand.

[mondo joe]

60. That's good, since I don't require you to understand either.

Which is also convenient for me, all things considered.

[Homer Wells]

49. Looked more like a

Psychotic Break to me.

[Bluebear]

61. "50 years ago we would have hung up upside down with a fork up your fucking ass."

To me this rises above free speech. Coupled with Richards' disgusting "He's a n*****! He's a n*****! He's a n*****! This is what happens when you interrupt the white man" . . .well, i can't see how anyone can not see that the African-American audience members would have felt at beat unwelcome and at worse threatened.

Another thread mentions the hecklers want to sue and many, many people think it's a ridiculous prospect. Personally, I support their suit, as Richards' should face SOME kind of punitive charge for the inciting tone of his tirade. Who knew if white power members or other sympathetic types were in the audience and would have pounced? You never know.

I have heard too many stories of someone shouting "he's a FAGGOT! a FAGGOT!" and the subject is beaten mercilessly.