Sunday, November 26, 2006

The People Vs. The First Amendment

I heard on the news, though I can't find a link yet, that the men who were the brunt of Michael Richards tirade are planning on suing him. Question. Why? Isn't what he said, no matter how ignorant, covered under the First Amendment? You know, that whole Freedom of Speech thing. Now, there are times when I don't like the first amendment but to sue someone for exorcising that right is pushing it a little. I don't like what Michael Moore has to say, does that mean I can sue him. Can I sue the people who call me a Nazi and war cheerleader?

4 comments:

Za said...

Just a suggestion, but they may have a case, not exactly what he said, but the fact that he refused to perform because they were (quote, unquote) "niggers".

Feel free to prove me wrong (I'd love an article on this), but I believe that would be justifiable grounds to sue under.

Technically it could also be considered harassment (but then you get into the hazy grounds of who harassed whom).

John K said...

Sould Richards be able to sue also? Because I also heard on the recording the hecklers calling Richards a "cracker" and Honkey and other epitaphs that mean the same thing as nigger.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Blacks in this country think they are immune to racist labeling because of their ethnic membership. I say not so.

Red Stater said...

going unnoticed is that sales for the Seinfeld DVD which was released on the NEXT day after Richards now infamous "rant" are going through the roof.
This smells a lot like a hollywood "publicity stunt". Richards has already sucked-up to Jesse and AL and the NAACP and said he was sorry,and blames hurricane Karina for his "anger"... soon everyone will forget about it and the money rolls on in. Hollywood has already forgiven him... no harm- no foul.
hmmmm
-red

Za said...

That was my point John. If it's for harassment then it would probably mean equal grounds for both parties to sue each other.