Trial By Media: Michael Richards

[madmusic]

Let's cut to the chase. If he's guilty of racial slurs, his career gets lynched (civil trial and guilty by a preponderance of the evidence). If he's a wholehearted racist, he's the first one sent to the new Halliburton concentration camps (criminal trial and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

We can present evidence for the prosecution or the defense, and then someone can post a poll and we can decide: not guilty, civilly guilty, or criminally guilty. We need some Brown Shirt volunteers to enforce our verdict. That should be easy enough.

Here's the first witness for the prosecution:

http://www.independentconservative.com/2006/11/24/racist_michael_richards_part2/">update 11/24/2006 1:12AM: Allahpundit found that Richards has also done a Black face routine, which includes some of the most stereotypical acting since Hollywood Shuffle. See the video below.

We cannot let the Rethugs outflank us on punishment! Please submit evidence and let's get this dangerous criminal off the streets or at least banish him from "civil" society.

EDITed the link

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. OMFG

So now anyone who thinks that there should be consequences for behaving in this manner is a Brown Shirt? Puh-fucking-leez. Free speech does not and has never meant consequence-free speech.

If a white co-worker of mine goes around calling African Americans "niggers," I probably will avoid social engagements with him. That doesn't make me a fascist or a Brown Shirt. Nor does it mean that I think any of this should be criminal, or amounts to a tort. It simply means that I get to pick and choose whom I associate with, and that I have my own freedom to suggest to others that they avoid the same guy, for the same reasons. If a guy calls my wife a "cunt," I would act the same. In your version of events, I should have the guy over for dinner, or else I am a fascist.

[QuestionAll...]

2. heh. most excellent response.

now I can be speechless, there is nothing to add.

[Solomon]

9. Except that it is a tort. It's called Defamation and Intentional

Infliction of Emotional Distress.

[mondo joe]

10. So you claim, though you have been unable to identify damages.

And you have been unable to identify any such precedent for use of a racial slur.

Shake that cracker jack box you got your diploma out of a little harder - maybe there's something else in it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. I don't think it is defamation

And I'm not convinced the second works either. If I call my wife a bitch, I am intentionally causing her emotional distress, but it's not actionable. There's some threshhold - whether it be severe and repeated actions, or emotional distress in addition to some other harm - no? If I'm driving down the street and some guy cuts me off, and I call him an asshole, is that actionable? No, it's not, and for good reason.

[QuestionAll...]

15. definite emotional stress.

lynching is still in the living minds of many who can pass on the stories first hand or had a family member murdered in this way.

yes, I can see that being rather stressful. unfortunate too many can't see it that way.

would be interesting to find some vids or photos of lynchings with a poll question:

Do you consider this being stressful? Yes or No.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. In the ridiculous psychobabble of contemporary self-help culture?

Or in reality?

Was there any real danger of these folks being lynched? Did Mr. Richards set up a scenario that caused them to fear for their lives? No? Then no.

If you can't see the difference between this set of facts and, say, setting a cross on fire on someone's lawn, then you have no business on any jury worthy of the name. You demean the real civil rights struggle with such nonsense. Is Mr. Richards a douchebag? Yes. Should he be boycotted and ostracized? probably. But this is not actionable.

[mondo joe]

18. And that's probably why there is no lawsuit. Even an ambulance chaser

sometimes knows there's nothing there.

Instead, this is an opportunity to shakedown Richards for a settlement in order to get the thing out of the news - even though there is no successful case to be had.

Richards is a douchebag, but I do hate to see lawsuits misused.

[QuestionAll...]

20. obviously I misread the OP and your first reply.

and retract my response to yours.
yes, it is a reality than lynching is a damn scarey thing.

[mondo joe]

21. Hearing something that causes stress is not actionable

in and of itself.

[madmusic]

22. Solomon , no offense intended, but...

You keep saying that and have yet to post one case that supports it. There are cases within the work environment that support your argument, but not in a non-work environment, and certainly not within a club. What's more, the audience members will have trouble saying they were damaged by public ridicule and defamation when they went public with Allred and helped fuel the media attention.

But the real question is, Is trial by media a fair and impartial way to find anyone guilty or not? Can it ever be? It's great for the media because it's great for their ratings. But is that good enough?

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Depends what you mean by "guilty"

If you're referring to legal definitions of guilt, then obviously the answer is no. If you're referring to judgment in general, with consequences, but not state-enforced legal consequences, then the answer is yes. We judge all the time. We gather a set of facts that is necessarily limited and make judgments on that basis. But this has nothing to do with legal guilt. Your confusion on this point is telling.

If you think judgment in general - on the basis of information presented in the media - is impossible, then you would be unable to say that George W. Bush is someone who should be opposed. Unless, of course, you know him personally?

[madmusic]

32. No, your confusion on this point is telling.

"Guilt" was merely a convenient word, but people do decide actual guilt or innocence even though they do not have the power a jury does. That much is clear.

Look how long it took to get some real facts out on W. Look how long the pubic was fooled and tricked. Of course we judge all the time, but the media is in control of our judgment because it controls the evidence. The OJ trial is one example. The jury heard all the evidence, and public opinion could very well vary on guilt or innocence depending on where they got their facts from, say from CourtTV or elsewhere. Because the facts are often slanted by the station, by the producer, by the "reporter."

Another example was Fox's attempt to air the new "If I Did It" stuff. Could that have been intentional to divide and conquer the Left? Was there an attempt to air a new "trial by media"? Maybe, maybe not, but either way it would influence the court of public opinion even though few could be positive beyond a reasonable doubt based on ALL the evidence. That's power.

And I wouldn't put it past Fox at all to use the Richards tragedy for the same reason. So we do of course make judgments, but they are judgments under the influence of the media.

The question is, Do we want the "trial by media" to have that much control over us? If so, we should skip the expense of trials and use CourtTV's online polls and met out sentences with another poll. Now, if you're going to argue that all our judgments based on media evidence are always sound and correct, then I'll just have a good laugh and be done with you. If you are going to argue you agree the evidence we get isn't reliable enough, then there is nothing for us to debate, except for one point:

Even if all the media evidence were reliable, is that good enough just because it's FUN?

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Oh my God! The media controls perceptions???!!!

If your point for this thread weren't so tediously pedestrian, it would actually be comical.

[madmusic]

36. Your every post is a hyperbolic utterance...

:boring:

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Jesus, be original

I understand that your point is anything but original, but at least your half-assed retorts can be. Think of something.

[madmusic]

3. No, that's only for the sentences...

It's a satire on "trial by media," which I'm consistently against. If that is what we are going to do, let's do it and quit bullshitting ourselves.

[mondo joe]

11. That sounds like reasonable and appropriate consequences.

And I don't think I've seen anyone suggest there shouldn't be consequences.

Just that a lawsuit is not an appropriate solution.

[madmusic]

13. Exactly.

How it got to "there shouldn't be any consequences," well, I don't know. The real point anyway is that "trail by media" is a very popular American pastime, from reality TV to Nancy Grace, a lot like the Roman coliseum days. The Romans had the gladiator fights and the throwing the Christians to lions to keep the rage of the masses in check. They even offered free bread so no one would complain too much about starving the rest of the time. Bread and blood, opium for the masses.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Oh so fucking what

You know what? It's fucking FUN being part of the masses. And Mr. Richards is rich as a motherfucker behind his catering to the masses, so if the thing flips on him, that's just how it goes. Now, trial by media is a fun pasttime. So what? Tell us something we didn't know when we woke up this morning. We have a mass media that fixates on the titllating! Holy shit, madmusic, what a fucking discovery! And you don't like it! Holy shit, madmusic, join the fucking crowd of moralists. It's seven hundred miles long.

If that's your only complaint, then why the fuck are you including lines and lines of nonsense about criminal and civil trials and Brown Shirts and punishment? Those seem to have zero to do with any of this. So the media throws out figures for consumption, and people consume. Wow! I mean, wow! The depths of your profundity are astounding.

[madmusic]

23. Nancy Grace is the moralist.

Because there are Brown Shirts and there is punishment. That's why. You're the moralist hidden in the crowd. If it's FUN, then so be it. That's an argument in its favor.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Yes, I'm a moralist because I'm not friends with the guy that calls my wife a cunt

Right. I'm right up there with Cotton Mather. :eyes:

You and Nancy Grace have a lot more in common than you think. Hyperbolic utterances being at the top of the list.

[madmusic]

26. What did Richards call you again?

I missed that part where you were there or knew him. Are you going to file a lawsuit? Maybe you could join in on a class action suit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Who said anything about a lawsuit?

This isn't actionable.

I don't hang out with people who call other people niggers. If that makes me a moralist, so fucking be it.

[madmusic]

30. Talke about hyperbolic utterances...

From your first reply you lost it. Who said anything about no consequences? Who said anything about who you should or should not hang out with? Who said anything at all about what you choose?

No one. That's who.

And of what relevance is your wife?

None.

If you support "trial by media" and CourtTV and all the rest of the infotainment justice and think it's good ol' American FUN, that's fine. You're not alone, but your wife and your choices have nothing to do with that other than you choose to support, dum-dee-dum-dum, Trial by Media.

[Bluebear]

4. "Trial by media": yeah, it's shame his tirade was caught on tape.

So the media could show the world the tape and let us judge him by his own words.

[madmusic]

5. Violation of the Hearsay Rule, you need to post the link to the tape...

Or it will be stricken from the record.

[Minnesota_Lib]

6. ...

:popcorn:

[madmusic]

8. Hopefully it will be debate and not flames...

I'm series and mean this as a serious cultural question, and it's not just this one issue. The media has a great deal of power and influence over us and often controls our verdicts. There is little doubt the cell phone video is powerful evidence in favor of quilt, but that is only one piece of evidence. Is it enough? Well, let's have a full blown trial my media and render a verdict if that's what we're gong to do.

[madmusic]

7. Paul Rodriguez for the defense?

Sort of. You the jury get to decide:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231617,00.html#|Comedian Paul Rodriguez’s take on Michael Richards’ meltdown>

[Disturbed]

12. He says that he is not a racist. Mel says he's not anti-Semetic.

What are we to think about their comments?

[madmusic]

19. That's a good question.

Should they be banished? Is banishment too severe? Doctors are banished from practicing medicine for malpractice. Is this the same?

The point is, this "trial by media" is a never ending story and the blood lust can never be satisfied. There is a never ending supply of news stories to rile the mob. Everyone has their favorite issue that is worthy of severe punishment, and this is the foundation of the punitive society. Is there anyone other than Bush or Jesus who could not be convicted in the court of public opinion? The witch hunts continued until the judges themselves were accused of being witches.

Someone will latch onto that last sentence and say, "But the witches were not really witches, and so were not really guilty of any crime." That would be true, but it is the blood lust and the desire to find them guilty that equates to the "trial by media."

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Mel and Michael, Michael and Mel, sittin' in a tree, goin' to hell

These people aren't human avatars of Evil, they're jackasses. (With apologies to Johnny Knoxville.)

Are we so hungry for a real Devil that we now elevate pipsqueaks on the slightest provocation?

OJ was adjudged not guilty, but who knows? Yet he's still being perversely glorified in the media, who recite his name at the merest suggestion, even as Jay Leno keeps the memory alive at least twice a week in the monologue. Many DUers were ready to lynch Mark David Carr for killing JonBenet; and her father at one time before him. Britney smoked while pregnant and belches on a whim; she probably also has a Confederate Flag hanging in the living room of her double-wide. And "everybody knows" that Michael Jackson is a pedophile -- Michael Musto said so!

But Tom Cruise is the worst of all. That scoundrel, that cradle-robber, that despoiler of feminine beauty, that blackguard, that ... that SCIENTOLOGIST! I rebuke thee! I reject thee!

Punish them! Punish them all! Oil the whip and heat up the rack!

Folks, the Mass Media Three-Ring Circus of Factitious Outrage is out of control. Don't buy into it.

But ... "There must be CONSEQUENCES! CONSEQUENCES, I say!"

"Consequences" is the shout of the fascist; "N****r" is the shout of the fool. Let the fools' consequences be the knowledge that they are, indeed, fools; why reward them with fascism? Who will ever again believe a word that Michael Richards says? Who will take Mel Gibson seriously? If they are someday rehabilitated, it will have to be through hard work, good works, and the long forbearance of their one-time fans. A lot of each.

To have a laugh at their expense is a fine form of release. But to gnash teeth and call fire from the heavens? We have more urgent forms of evil with which to struggle.

This world's bread and circuses have gone hate-based. If some of the circus animals want to stoke that hate, it's not the knell of the Apocalypse. Why should we jump into that ring and help them?

--p!
Moose ... Indian ... Rosebud ... Federline ...

[madmusic]

28. Your sig says it all, and great post...

But it's FUN!

[zalinda]

31. This whole thing about Richards is about MONEY

Why do you think Gloria Allred is involved?

Richards could have gone off on a fat person, and have been brutal, but it wouldn't have made the news. In fact the audience probably would have laughed like crazy. I doubt if he would have even gotten such a reaction if he went off on an Asian. But since it was a black person, his whole life is in turmoil, and Gloria (go for the money) Allred is making speeches. She makes me sick. Those guys could have walked out at any time, but chose to stay there.

He's a comedian, for Pete's sake, they ALL push the envelope. And, yes, sometimes they go too far. But, what he did was no worse than some I've seen. Any one remember Sam Kinison? How about Andrew Dice Clay? And I'm sure Richard Pryor, has gone off on white guys and, well big deal, right.

zalinda

[Karenina]

33. Zalinda, the guys he went off on

were NOT the ones who dissed him. The hecklers were NOT BLACK. Aber, danke für die Blumen.

[zalinda]

38. You know what, it's hard to tell what is the truth

anymore. There is so much spin to this story that I'm getting dizzy. But, still the guys that he went off on were not tied up and forced to stay. If I was offended by some thing some one was saying, I would get up and walk out. Of course, a little side trip to see the manager would also be in order.

Man, it's like complaining about what is on TV, but you won't change the channel. That's just plain repub.

zalinda

[BlooInBloo]

35. Doesn't matter - According to DUers none of this means that he's racist.