Over the last week, the country became aware of a particularly vitriolic tirade issued by former Seinfeld star, Michael Richards (Kramer). The situation basically evolved from a disruptive entrance by a large party at a comedy club in Los Angeles. From there, it de-volved into a name-calling, epithet laced banter between the comedian and the members of the crowd, some of whom are black.
Now, the subject of this verbal melee has contacted counsel and are considering legal action. But what can the courts do? Can they compel Mr. Richards to do anything?
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm
Wouldn't a government sanctioned decision (while civil and not criminal) abridge Mr. Richard's freedom to spout his racist rantings? This is another case where logic and reason complicate America's sense of justice. Clearly, Mr. Richards offended the people whom he verbally assaulted. And ask any lawyer, people have the right to redress their grievances for at least $200 per hour in legal fees.
However, where do we draw the line? In Germany, it is illegal to imitate Adolph Hitler. In most of Europe, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. While some of these behaviors are reprehensible, in this country, we could say pretty much anything so long as it didn't endanger another's life (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater).
But the times, oh they are a changin.' As kids we used to be able to say that we live in a free country and could do anything we want. even if it is moronic. I'm not so sure that is the case anymore. Just ask Kramer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment