The thing I resnet most about this case is that it’s now garnering publicity for Michael Richards.

Richards’ “career,” such as it is, has been dead for over half a decade. Yes I know it’s “bad publicity,” but in public relations parlance, “There is no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity.”

The unwarranted personal attacks on their intelligence and character has cost them. Before this nobody knew who they were and now they have been deemed ignorant hecklers, when they were simply taking their seats in a comedy club. They’ve been thrust into the national media just to try and reclaim their dignity.

Libel and slander don’t include ethnic insults. Both libel and slander require, not only that the statements be “injurious” (actually costing the plaintiff income, or incurring some actual and demonstrable cost) – a difficult burden to meet, in this case.

If Al Sharpton, for instance, were to get upset with me during a public exchange and used a racial derogatory, like “cracker” or “honkey” it would likewise, be offensive, but NOT actionable, as I could easily prove malice and offense, but not injury or personal cost.

As I said, if this is actually “actionable” then so is ANYTHING that someone deems “offensive” coming from any public, political or entertainment figure.

Many find almost weverything that a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say as “offensive,” and EVERYTHING that the likes of Metzger, Farrakhan, etc say, as “offenisive.”

Is racially offensive, even speech proclaiming racial animosity “protected?”

Absolutely…and without question.

In fact, we, as free individuals, are free to hate for any or even no reason at all…and to proclaim that hate and even proselytize that hatred under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment.

Is that a noble use of freedom of speech?

No.

Is it even potentially dangerous?

Yes, depending upon how articulate and charismatic the speaker is.

And that’s why that sort of speech/thought MUST always be protected!

Noble, decent and agreeable speech needs no protection. It’s offensive, controversial and hurtful speech that does. Without that protection, the likes of Sharpton, Jackson (like them, or not), Farrakhan, Mtzger and even merely controversial Liberals and Conservatives can be silenced.

However, Richards comments were liable, slander and death threats directed at 2 individuals. Kyle Doss and Frank McBride have solid grounds to take some of his money for that. And they will.

While I understand the outrage behind the sentiments, I’ve always disagreed with the idea of “thought crimes” and “compensation for offense.”

It’s one of the reasons I’ve strongly opposed any kind of “hate crimes” legislation,” because it punishes motive (thought) more than the act/crime itself.

Under this inanne system, if one person is “lucky enough” to be assaulted by a member of another race, he/she can get “more justice” (a stronger sentence for their attacker, in some cases, more compensation for the attack). The person attacked by a person of his/her own race is simply sh*t out of luck.

“Hate crime?” ALL crimes are based on some sort of hate – ethnic/racial, ideological, class/status, etc.

In TX, two of James Byrd’s killers got the death penalty, the third life. Unlikely that that would be the case in such “hate crimes meccas” as NYC or Washington, D.C. In my view those guys were punished correctly for their CRIME, and NOT their motivation. If they’d killed some generic white guy, I’d expect and demand the same thing. There crime wasn’t “worse” because of any motivation. In fact, their hideous thoughts alone, are not even crimes! It’s the acting on those thoughts that is the crime.

That’s also a part of the reason I oppose compensating people for offense, either real or perceived. Yes, in this case, the offense is all too real, but again, just as the likes of the late Khalid Mohammed, Louis Farrakhan, Tom Metzger, David Dukes and other assorted bigots are free, within a free society, to spew their vile, so is this dolt Michael Richards.

The proper punishment, at least in my view, that Richards should face is the loss of his sizable fan base. It’s already too late for him to “save his career.” People live up to their means and Richards has been living at a very high level that his previous success took him to. Same with Michael Jackson (only Jackson had even far more success than Richards)…and now Jackson is nearly broke and scaling back his own lifestyle after years of low sales, and legal costs associated with his views and actions.

Richards has far less of a cushion than Jackson did and he’s had little success since a single show that ended over a half decade ago. He’ll be a pariah now…and he should be, but is offensive speech actionable now?

If it is, then “offensive political speech” is almost certainly next. With the media behind it, many forms of Conservative speech could and would be made actionable by our Liberal elites.

No, we can’t go there.

The 1st Amendment protects the most egregiously offensive speech imaginable, with exceptions only for slander, liable (hard to prove, with the bar set at proving “malice”) and treasonous speech (almost always required to be coupled with an action, for instance fighting with an enemy of the U.S.).

While I understand your outrage, I can’t agree with that part of your solution that would make offensive speech legally actionable.

In fact, this event SHOULD trigger a vital and long overdue discussion of race in America…and not merely a session on minority grievances, but an honest assessment of the near universal condition known as xenophobia and bigotry and the increasing self-segregation of, not only America, but most multi-racial societies.