Audience member describes Richards' racist attack

[Sapphire Blue]

Kramer's Tirade, Adding Insult to Inaccuracy
By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Wednesday, November 22, 2006; Page C03

Hey, funnyman: You nailed the wrong guy.

That's what Darryl Pitts would like to tell Michael Richards, the "Seinfeld" star who spewed racist slurs at an African American man after his stand-up gig at a Los Angeles comedy club was interrupted last Friday.

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."

What followed -- as captured on video and circulated on the Internet -- was shocking. Said Pitts, who himself is black: "It was like buckshot. It hit everyone. . . . I have a difficult time accepting his apology -- 72 hours later. What did he do? Read a black history book? Why the change?"

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

[hsher]

1. Uh... oh...

:nuke:

[pepperbear]

2. Yeah man, he screwed up badly. This might be beyond repair. n/t

[bliss_eternal]

3. I always appreciate your posts...

:hi: SapphireBlue! Good to see you--Happy Holiday!

[Sapphire Blue]

11. Thanks, bliss!

:hi: Happy Holiday to you, too!

[goclark]

4. Thanks Sapphire Blue

For adding vital information to this difficult subject.

PEACE and Understanding My Friend

Happy Thanksgiving Sappire Blue!

[Sapphire Blue]

12. Just the facts, ma'am ;) (which I wish more people cared about)

:hi: Happy Thanksgiving to you!

[bliss_eternal]

20. Maybe someone will have "hearts" or "souls" on sale tomorrow.

:spray:

[mykpart]

5. Some stand-up comics just don't tolerate hecklers.

They have them removed by the bouncers. I think this should be the rule for everyone. Audience should give some respect to the performer.

That said, I also must add that the performer must also respect his audience. Richards should not be on the stage if he doesn't respect all the members of his audience. You don't get a pass on being an asshole just because you were really angry or drunk or were being picked on.

[RagingInMiami]

6. Well if he would have used Arabic slurs

He would have been viewed as an American hero.

[hsher]

7. Folks, I am afraid this is unspinnable

[Sapphire Blue]

13. No shit.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Some are trying using the 1st Amendment Right argument.

Though correct, that we need to respect, and uphold Richards' 1st Amendment Rights no matter that they were racial, hateful, and as a rich, white man in American, more than just inappropriate, it's true Richards' has the Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech.

On the other hand, all Blacks, Latinos, and others that hate racial speech should assert their 1st Amendment Right to boycott, and not buy Seinfeld DVDs, and refuse to watch their syndicated re-runs. ALL Americans should, just to nip this anti-black 1st Amendment Rant in the bud.

I believe in responsible freedom of speech; free speech that will help the debate for a better America (and Richards' rant doesn't come close), but since the Constitution doesn't put any limits or guidelines on it's 1st Amendment, the best we can do is boycott as protest, and to hold Michael Richards accountable for his tirade.

I wonder how long say, a D.L. Hughly, or a Dave Chappelle would last if they'd get on stage and call a white audience member "filthy Jew", or say "50 years ago we'd have you shoved into a chamber and gassed with your star of David shoved up your f***ing asses!".

I wonder if they'd get the minimal media exposure Blacks now get for what Richards' has done.

Then again, it would be the stand-up's 1st Amendment Right...right?

[mondo joe]

70. It is absolutely the right of anyone to boycott, to criticize and to hold accountable.

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't be done.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. Yes it is, Mondo Joe.

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't be done.

Well, there was ONE, and the posts just below this one. Check it out. Even called it "petty". That's okay. The poster also has his/her 1st Amendment right to protest that idea.

It's all good.

[Lorien]

77. Having worked in the entertainment industry, I would hope that

most people would not be so petty as to boycott the creative efforts of dozens of creative minds over the ignorant comments of one actor involved in the series. Boycotting his "comedy" acts, on the other hand.....

It seems to me that Micheal Richards is the new Mel Gibson; just another media distraction from the real issues. Everyone has been talking about it for days and days while Iraq keeps burning and the planet continues to melt.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. The Laugh Factory has already banned Richards from performing there but does this do any good?

His Seinfeld residual checks are more than just sufficient to keep him financially strong---just like he told the two blacks when he allegedly said to them: "Tomorrow I wake up, and I'm still a rich, white guy, but tomorrow you'll wake up and you're still a n***er!"

Respecting Richards' 1st Amendment rights, there's no way the two black young men will be able to sue and make Richards pay for his racial outbursts against them.

Their ONLY right is for blacks and latinos to collectively assert their own 1st Amendment rights (although you think that would be petty of them), and boycott until the executives force Richards to pay penance--and hopefully discourage him from showing his bigoted side again...at least, in public.

To his credit, Jerry Seinfeld tried, but Richards failed to impress with his rambling, insincere "apology" on Letterman, but ONLY when Seinfeld personally called Richards to have him do this on the Letterman show. Richards doesn't seem the least contrite for letting it go for days, and when he finally got the chance, he showed the most minimal of remorse...and being an actor, I would've expected him to at least ACT as if he was truly sorry.

He couldn't even do that. If firmly believe Richards isn't the least contrite for his racial tirade.

Yes, I too believe there are bigger, more important issues we need to concentrate on, but for blacks and latinos that feel the painful punches of racism and profiling each and every day, this is a huge issue in their respective communities.

As for Iraq, all we need to do is have Congress withdraw their authorization for use of military force in Iraq since their votes did not declare war as outlined in our Constitution, but was founded on the War Powers Act that allows Congress to give authorization to the president to use military force under Congress' supervision, and ONLY for a short period of time---this in order to prevent another Viet Nam.

It's been three and a half years with no end in sight. All Congress needs to do is vote to withdraw their authorization giving Bush a few months to make good with "old Europe", and to begin withdraw of our troops in Iraq.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Doesn't matter - DU racism-defenders don't care.

[bliss_eternal]

9. Nope. They'll just beat us all about the head with

the first amendment and the bill of rights. :eyes:

I guess those same people would have told Rosa Parks to get her ass to the back of the bus. I mean, gosh--the law on the books at the time was that blacks were second class citizens--what the fuck was she thinking, challenging the status quo, being all uppity and thinking she was too good to sit in the back.

How dare she and all those blacks fight for "their rights"...What the hell...? Women are voting? How'd THAT happen?

[Sapphire Blue]

10. Well, after all, it's just 'words', blah, blah, blah

:puke:

I think you're correct about those same people in regard to Rosa Parks.

We just need thicker skins so we can tolerate their racism better. :argh:

[bliss_eternal]

16. Yes--we're tooooo sensitive.

The same people probably would have considered Martin Luther King completely out of his mind...

Black people ARE less than an actual person dammit! IT SAYS SO in this grand, holy, imperial, supreme government document!!! It says so in the bible...we KNOW you can't read, because we won't let you, but that's what it says! Why's that crazy black man marching and protesting and getting his ass kicked and arrested--he's soooo stupid. Why can't you ALL just make do, I mean rules are rules, right? Why aren't they happy with what they've GOT?!

Why do YOU hate America and the first amendment....whhhhhhhhy?

[bobbolink]

55. Down with "Political Correctness"!!!

Say whatever you feel, whenever you feel it.

If it's racist or sexist, or just plain disgusting... well, that's yer Gawd-given right, eh???

I want off this bus.

:cry:

[BlueStater]

15. Richards has the right to say any racist, dumbass thing he wants

As long as he doesn't physically attack anybody, it's not a hate crime. Sorry.

[bliss_eternal]

17. Hey EVERYONE--Let's all celebrate ignorance...Yaaaaaay!

Let's all run out and tell everyone how much we hate them, and summon the most painful things from their past we can think of...Yayyy! Won't that be FUN? Whooooo HOooooooo! And it won't be wrong, and everyone on DU will tell us it's OK! Yaaaaaay!

Let's argue for the most ignorant, disgusting things in society over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...until those stubborn, idiotic DU'ers with mind's of their own realize we are all superior thinkers and Right, right, right! Then we'll slink away in silence and find something else to do...yaaaaaaayy!

:spray:

[fujiyama]

22. True

but people also have the right to not hire him for anything after this...and he deserves that as well.

[BlueStater]

23. What I'm saying is...

...the idea that the hecklers should earn some sort of compensation for being called names is absurd and, unless Richards' comments caused them emotional distress (highly unlikely), they don't deserve squat.

[Sapphire Blue]

24. Too bad it wasn't 50 years ago; they wouldn't have lived to sue.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:puke: :puke: :puke:

:argh:

[Karenina]

32. You seem to MISS the import

of the article posted. Richard's verbal assault was directed at people WHO WERE INNOCENT of heckling him. As for emotional distress, obviously no one has ever called you a "nigger" and you don't understand the impact.

[Sapphire Blue]

33. ...

BlueStater (706 posts) Thu Nov-23-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Richards has the right to say any racist, dumbass thing he wants

The facts don't seem to matter; gotta defend the racist's rights. :puke:

No, he doesn't seem to understand the impact of being called a "nigger"... or the suggestion that, if it was 50 years ago, he would be lynched.

[goclark]

58. Thank you Karenina!

It continues to disappoint me that people that have neverf wsalked in someone's shoes can tell them that 50 pebbles in their shoes don't hurt.

[Solomon]

63. Notice how you so casually dismiss someone else's emotional distress.

[Sapphire Blue]

25. Suggesting that if it was 50 years ago, they would be lynched is ok?!?!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[BlueStater]

26. It's not okay

But it's also not illegal.

[Sapphire Blue]

27. Keep defending racist's rights.

:puke:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. What he said was offensive, shocking and immoral.

But it is still not a crime.

[BlueStater]

29. I'm defending his right to say what he wants

That doesn't mean I agree with him.

Just what is wrong with you anyway? It's a fairly simple concept to grasp.

[Sapphire Blue]

30. Your concept in your words:

BlueStater (706 posts)

23. What I'm saying is...
...the idea that the hecklers should earn some sort of compensation for being called names is absurd and, unless Richards' comments caused them emotional distress (highly unlikely), they don't deserve squat.

Suggesting that if it was 50 years ago, they would have been lynched is not just being "called names". You can't even imagine how this affected them, yet you decide that they "don't deserve squat." And you ask what's wrong with me?

[mondo joe]

37. Whether they were affected or not is not material to the legality of the situation.

[Sapphire Blue]

39. So, the lawsuit has been settled? The judge threw it out?

[mondo joe]

41. No lawsuit has been filed. nt

[mondo joe]

36. Progressives support the first amendment, EVEN for racists, EVEN for the far

right, EVEN for Fred Phelps.

Free speech isn't just for speech you like.

That's the point.

[Sapphire Blue]

38. Don't forget the KKK, neo-nazis, skinheads; guess I'm just not that 'progressive'.

You go right ahead & so progressively defend racists' rights, EVEN fred phelps; I'll pass... I'd rather stand w/the Patriot Guard Riders.

[mondo joe]

40. I didn't forget them. I'm proud to be a member of the ACLU.

Unlike the Bush administration I do believe in the First Amendment.

[Sapphire Blue]

42. Damn! I'm not progressive! Now I'm being compared w/the bush admin!

Better head on over to free republic.

No... wait a minute... can't do that; they support phelps, don't they?

I have gone down the rabbit hole.

[mondo joe]

43. If you think you can be progressive but oppose the first amendment, good

luck to you.

PS: Supporting equal rights for everyone isn't the same as supporting each person's words or actions.

[Sapphire Blue]

44. 11-24-06: it has been decreed by mondo joe that I am not progressive.

I'll just wander around the rabbit hole.

[mondo joe]

45. Why not? You've taken a page straight from the NeoCon playbook.

If you support any rights for people rounded up as terrorists you "support the terrorists".

If you oppose torture of prisoners in Gitmo you "support the terrorists".

And now, according to you, if you support free speech you "support racists".

Nice.

[Sapphire Blue]

46. How did you manage to leave out "NeoCon" before?

Yet deeper down the rabbit hole... I wonder just how far down it goes?

[mondo joe]

47. I don't know - how much are you opposed to the first amendment?

[Sapphire Blue]

48. I have a real problem w/implied threats of lynching. You haven't called me a freeper yet.

Is that next?

Yet deeper down the rabbit hole.

[mondo joe]

49. Because Kramer was going to lead a lynching in an LA comedy club?

Do you believe in the first amendment at all?

[Sapphire Blue]

50. Yes, if it was 50 years ago, as he screamed in his rage.

Perhaps that's what enraged him so much... that it isn't 50 years ago.

You seem to have already established that I'm a regressive, neocon, etc. who doesn't believe in the 1st Amendment. Why ask the question?

See you (or not) on another thread. I'm getting out of this rabbit hole.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

52. He called to lynch them as if it were 50 years ago?

And do you think the LAPD would have had a legitimate case in suing Ice T for the song COP KILLER?

[Solomon]

67. This has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. Just cause

there's a first amendment doesn't mean yo can just say whatever you want to anybody without consequences. You got a right to say it. But the other guy's got a right to sue you for saying it if you fuck up.

[mondo joe]

69. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Having a legitimate case is

another matter entirely.

Got any precedent for any successful lawsuits based on only a slur?

[QuestionAll...]

80. is the first amendment something like honest elections?

land of the free, the greatest country in the history of the earth?
something I've been playing with in this thick skull of mine.
I don't think either exists, actually. in the way people assume it does, erm,... for the people.

[mondo joe]

81. The First Amendment - like all protections - is sometimes diminished.

If the people don't defend it, it certainly won't exist. Not for long.

[goclark]

54. Sapphire, the lack of understanding makes

mt eyes want to blink.

Where are we? Is this America 2006?

Absolutely shameful.

[Sapphire Blue]

56. I know what you mean.

Where are we? We're down the rabbit hole.

[mondo joe]

65. The lack of understanding of the First Amendment, on a Progressive board,

takes me by surprise too.

[Solomon]

71. This is not about the first

amendment. There's no government action here. Nobody did anything to Richard's first amendment rights. He said what he wanted to say. He can't be criminally prosecuted for what he said, but he can be sued in a private cause of action for saying it.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

[mondo joe]

72. Anyone can be sued for anything. But there are no damages in this

case, as you well know.

[americanstranger]

61. That's what the ACLU does, right?

Richards said something stupid and hateful. As has been pointed out, that's not illegal, although he will suffer the consequences of his own stupidity. He already is.

If it was illegal to say stupid, hateful things, Limbaugh and Hannity would have been in prison for years now.

List me with the crowd that will apply the First Amendment across the board, because eventually the sword of silencing speech will assuredly cut the other way.

This is by no means meant to call you non-progressive or a neocon or any other name that might bother you - it's just to point out that Michael Richards has the right to say those things.

In turn, we have the right to condemn him, under our First Amendment rights.

It's gotta apply to everyone - yes, even skinheads and Nazis and Fred Phelps - or Freedom of Speech is pretty much worthless.

- as

[Sapphire Blue]

73. Yes, just as they did in Skokie. Despicable.

You go your way, I'll go mine. I won't defend vile hate speech, no matter what.

[mondo joe]

74. Civil liberties used to be a Progressive cause. nt

[americanstranger]

75. But you're kind of missing the point here.

You seem to be assuming that I'm defending his actions. I'm not.

I'm defending his right to say those things. There is a subtle difference, which seems to be lost on you.

I don't defend hate speech, and it's a little disingenuous to try and make First Amendment defenders into people who stand with Nazis and Fred Phelps.

The First Amendment must be an absolute, or it's nothing.

- as

[mondo joe]

76. Indeed. The same First Amendment that protects Richards protects us too.

Once we start picking and choosing who gets protection, you can kiss your own goodbye.

[Sapphire Blue]

78. I'm not missing any point; I don't defend hate speech. Period.

You do what you want.

Regarding nazis, phelps & whatever/whoever else, take it up w/whoever in this thread said they would defend nazis' & phelps' rights.

Now I'm getting out of the rabbit hole, again.

See ya (or not). :hi:

[mondo joe]

79. Ironic.

From: A conversation with Elie Wiesel

Salon: There's still so much hatred, even on the Web. We've got white supremacists, anti-Semites, Farrakhan ...

EW: Hatred is always dangerous. It's contagious. It's out of control, but there's nothing you can do about this Web. I don't know how to use the computer, but I hear. Those who deny the Holocaust , they're always there. Nobody can stop them. In some places, you know, in France, if they say so publicly, it's a felony and one goes to jail. But not here -- First Amendment. And I am for the First Amendment.

[Sapphire Blue]

82. Elie Wiesel on racial hate...

Speech delivered by Elie Wiesel in 1995, at the ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

(excerpt)

As we reflect upon the past, we must address ourselves to the present and the future. In the name of all that is sacred in memory, let us stop the bloodshed in Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnia; the vicious and ruthless terror attacks against Jews in the Holy Land. Let us reject and oppose more effectively religious fanaticism and racial hate.

http://www.pbs.org/eliewiesel/life/auschwitz.html

I reject racial hate. I oppose racial hate.

[mondo joe]

83. I reject racial hate too.

Supporting freedom of speech has nothing to do with supporting every use of it.

Elie Wiesel understood that. Ironically, you do not.

[Sapphire Blue]

84. That's good to hear.

You go right ahead & support/oppose whatever/whoever you want.

I'll do the same. And I can live w/my conscience.

bye.

[Solomon]

64. No it's not illegal, but he can be sued for doing it.

[Solomon]

62. You're right. It's not a hate crime. It's a private cause of action called

"Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress".

[kiahzero]

21. I've yet to see one defense of racism here.

I've seen numerous people point out that what he did wasn't illegal, though. Maybe you're confused?

[Karenina]

31. The sun is not affected

by the blindness of your eyes. Here's a relatively MILD example:


"But whether a word is offensive or not is not always inherent to it - "fool" or "villain" will always be offensive, but "nigger" used not to be, and "bastard" I *think* much less so, although I'm not sure about that, while "housewife" (i.e. "hussY") and "capon" used to be; now both of those have changed."

[Sapphire Blue]

34. Indeed, it isn't.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Maybe you're a genius.

[GOPBasher]

14. How does he even apologize for this?

Ok, Michael, so you were upset about the heckling. First of all, control your temper; if you're in comedy, that's going to happen sometimes. Secondly, and much more importantly, how the hell did you end up in a racist rant? What did the ethnic group of the people have to do with it? It's in moments like this that you see people's true colors.

[bliss_eternal]

18. Scary stuff, huh?

:hi: GoPBasher! That's a cool screen name btw.

[GOPBasher]

19. Thanks!

:-)

[bigriver]

51. Why is this even relevant?

Seinfeld was cancelled what, six years ago? why do people care?

[johnnie]

53. I am trying to figure that out too

Not that I support his remarks, but really... this guy is a "B" list entertainer if even that. I've heard people calling for a boycott of anything he is in...lol. What is there to boycott?

Racism is still very prevalent in our society and it's good to see people speaking out about it, but the energy that people are spending on some guy who was in a TV show in the 90s could be used better for the real racism that exists in people that are more powerful.

This whole situation has been blown way out because it was a semi-famous has been that was performing in some small nightclub somewhere. It is giving people a chance to wave their progressive flag, but it isn't doing anybody any good. If they lynched Kramer during a pay per view extravaganza, I doubt it would do nothing to stop racism.

[juajen]

57. Actually, it's important

because the Seinfield series is making a fortune for Jerry and the supporting cast as we speak, or rather write.

Anything that interferes with that money is highly detrimental to the whole cast as the show resides in re-run heaven.

[QuestionAll...]

59. B list entertainers and C list 'progressives'...

but about this amendment 'defense' ...
I could very well be wrong but think it refers to freedom of speech against the government more than freedom of speech against some guy in a comedy club. But some here think that's what the document was really about - the signers were protecting stand up comedian assholes like Kramer...

[mondo joe]

66. Indeed, you are not correct.

Freedom of expression is not stipulated to be against the government.

The amendment isn't about protecting comedian assholes - it's about protecting EVERYONE, even comedian assholes.

[Catchawave]

68. Do you suppose this qualifies Richards....

...for a spot on Fox News' new "comedy" show ? It's a helluva audition tape :evilgrin:

[Raine]

85. He's finished

I can't even stand to watch the Seinfeld repeats (which was one of my all time favorite shows) anymore cause Richards as Kramer makes me wanna puke now. :puke: