| Kramer goes on racist tirade | |
|
JavaGuy - Student  |
DISCLAIMER: It's as bad as you've heard.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qjE0E5lgm9Q 
_______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
One of the few things I will agree with the ACLU on
The Government that governs best governs least. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Hardwired - Retired 
|
Quote:
Quote:
At the academy we have decided that to help keep this place a bit more civil and friendly for all ages, that swearing isn't an acceptable thing.
Thanks for answering my question Buzz, this was the point I was trying to get at. When deciding the rules of this community, the JAC weighed up the value of free speech against the potential for conflict and offence, and decided to limit free speech. In the UK, the government, when making up the rules for this community, weighed up the value of free speech against the potential for conflict and offence, and decided to limit free speech. So you made exactly the same decision as my government, and enforce that decision (just like me  ), for exactly the same reasons my government did, but you have criticised their decision and stick by yours. I find that odd personally.
Please dont think I'm being argumentative, I'm just finding this an interesting discussion. Actually. The JAC didn't decide anything concerning the rules. That was all me and Fizz. 
- HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: I'm against government cencorship. Individual organization censorship though I do not have a problem with. There is a difference. Just as I have no problem at all with individual businesses banning smoking and I would even encourage them to do it, but I have a massive problem with the government making it a law that all businesses need to be smoke free.
Heh, I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer government intervention to private intervention. However, I do think that too many things are censored, and too many people take advantage of the laws regarding slander, trying to make some money in court. Since we're on the subject of michael richards, I refer you all to the episode where kramer sues a restaurant because his coffee was too hot.....not slander but a good representation of what is going on in our legal system. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
I'm against government cencorship. Individual organization censorship though I do not have a problem with. There is a difference. Just as I have no problem at all with individual businesses banning smoking and I would even encourage them to do it, but I have a massive problem with the government making it a law that all businesses need to be smoke free. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student 
|
Quote: At the academy we have decided that to help keep this place a bit more civil and friendly for all ages, that swearing isn't an acceptable thing.
Thanks for answering my question Buzz, this was the point I was trying to get at. When deciding the rules of this community, the JAC weighed up the value of free speech against the potential for conflict and offence, and decided to limit free speech. In the UK, the government, when making up the rules for this community, weighed up the value of free speech against the potential for conflict and offence, and decided to limit free speech. So you made exactly the same decision as my government, and enforce that decision (just like me ), for exactly the same reasons my government did, but you have criticised their decision and stick by yours. I find that odd personally.
Please dont think I'm being argumentative, I'm just finding this an interesting discussion. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Your country is a community you can choose to live in or not. If you choose to be there there are certain rules to follow. The rules themselves are in place to keep some form of quality service and standard of living.
My point is I dont see why your values and beliefs apply to one place and not somewhere else. Surely your morals and beliefs are the same wherever you are. If you think something is wrong, surely you think it is wrong anywhere? And likewise, if you think something is okay, shouldnt you therefore believe its okay anywhere?. If you think its okay for me to offend whoever I want, why does this belief not carry over to this community? Why is it ok for me to offend someone in the street but not here? 'Its the rules and you choose to be here' is not a response to my question, I know what the rules are, I am asking why is this rule in place considering it apparently goes against the values of both our 'enforcers'. Is it there to lower the risk of arguments and confrontations? Your country is a public community. This is a private community where you voluntarily joined. In my public community of the united states there is a guarrantee to the freedom of speech. Its not freedom of speech unless you offend someone. I believe in your right to say what you want. But I also believe that there are places where you can say inappropriate things and so you shouldn't speak as freely as you would under other circumstances. For instance at work, I don't think its the best place to be swearing. At the academy we have decided that to help keep this place a bit more civil and friendly for all ages, that swearing isn't an acceptable thing. Its like being quiet at the library. The librarian doesn't believe you need to be quiet everywhere and whisper no matter what. But the rules and courtesy of the library asks that you be quiet there. And if you don't listen they can kick you out. How well do you think arguing that the librarian doesn't tell you to be quiet anywhere else is going to work? That's also an organization limiting your speech, but they're not the government so no problem there. And what about people that don't have a problem with people smoking, but do not want them smoking in their house? Are you going to claim that is a conflict between their morality and beliefs? But even if I don't think something is appropriate under circumstances, I don't believe the government should be arresting you for those acts. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
Your country is a community you can choose to live in or not. If you choose to be there there are certain rules to follow. The rules themselves are in place to keep some form of quality service and standard of living.
My point is I dont see why your values and beliefs apply to one place and not somewhere else. Surely your morals and beliefs are the same wherever you are. If you think something is wrong, surely you think it is wrong anywhere? And likewise, if you think something is okay, shouldnt you therefore believe its okay anywhere?. If you think its okay for me to offend whoever I want, why does this belief not carry over to this community? Why is it ok for me to offend someone in the street but not here? 'Its the rules and you choose to be here' is not a response to my question, I know what the rules are, I am asking why is this rule in place considering it apparently goes against the values of both our 'enforcers'. Is it there to lower the risk of arguments and confrontations? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Hardwired - Retired
|
Buzz beat me to it.
My point was the same. This is a select community that you can choose to belong to or not. And if you choose to be here there are our rules to follow. The rules themselves are in place to keep some form of quality service. That in itself does not translate into the real world. But I doubt anyone here needs lectures on why the real world that internet communities are diffrent in structure. - HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Out of interest though, buzz and hardwired, our 'enforcers', you think I should be able to run up to a black man in the street and shout in his face that hes a n****r and should get out of my country but if I wanted to use that kind of language here I shouldnt be allowed? I always thought the bad language rule was in case we offended people or someones kids read it etc. You seem to be eager to say we should have a right to offend anyone we want without punishment, but if I was to do it here, its likely to be one of you two clicking the magic ban button. Just wondering how you justify that stance.
Because we're not a government. We have our own set of internal rules for running this place, and outside of it you are allowed to do whatever you want. You want to swear up a storm somewhere else go ahead. You want to cuss and be profane in public be my guest. But do it while you can because if they make it illegal for you to say offensive things in public they'll try and expand that to offensive things on the internet too. And yes I do believe you have the right to go up to a black man call him a n****r and to get out of your country. I also believe that he then has the right to proceed to kick your ass and when you try to press charges against him, you will lose because you provoked him. If you're stupid enough to do it why should I stop you? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student 
|
Well of course I can't comment on how it is applied in Sweden, but it would of course be wrong if it is used only to protect certain sections of society and not others. I do wonder though whether you say you couldnt press charges from it from your own experience or if its an assumption or something youve read in the media.
I personally think the laws are good as I have personally seen them prevent several situations and put a stop to behaviour that is clearly not acceptable in society. In the UK the police forces job first and foremost is to protect the queens peace. If we just let people run around calling people n****r etc thats not really keeping the peace in my honest opinion. Out of interest though, buzz and hardwired, our 'enforcers', you think I should be able to run up to a black man in the street and shout in his face that hes a n****r and should get out of my country but if I wanted to use that kind of language here I shouldnt be allowed? I always thought the bad language rule was in case we offended people or someones kids read it etc. You seem to be eager to say we should have a right to offend anyone we want without punishment, but if I was to do it here, its likely to be one of you two clicking the magic ban button. Just wondering how you justify that stance. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Hardwired - Retired 
|
It isn't just how the law is used, it is the fact that it exists. So it could in fact be used in a very disturbing way. And I for one have a hard time seeing why it should exist. We have similar laws here in Sweden now, and I think they to are rubbish. You should be allowed to speak your mind, however warped or twisted your views are. If anything you just label yourself as a bigger idiot than before. So in essence you only punish yourself.
Then I really never liked that the door doesn't swing both ways. I could never charge someone for speaking our against me racialy, it just wouldn't happen. And that to me is a big no no. - HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
JavaGuy, as a police officer in the UK I feel I have a pretty good view of how laws are applied here, and I'm glad to say that your perception of them is completely wrong. I see the reality of these laws being applied every day out on the streets, and saying we only punish people for speaking against islam is ridiculous. If you would prefer to believe media sources that have selfish motivations for sensationalising and misrepesenting the truth then go ahead, its no skin off my nose, I am pretty used to dealing with people here in the UK who blindly accept whatever headline suits their own agenda. I personally however refuse to believe any journalist in the world has a better idea of how laws are applied than I do.
EDIT: lol just noticed your link is to the Daily Mails website. How about an equally unbiased or prejudiced link such as the BNP's homepage? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life This comment was edited by Gil-Galad on Nov 25 2006 11:38am. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Hate speech laws in the U.K. are a one-way street. Islamic leaders can--and do--use their mosques to give extended antisemitic tirades and promulgate hate-speech against Christians, but any real or imagined insult against Islam is actually a criminal offense. When a Muslim leader openly condones the killing of Christians you won't see him arrested, but God help you if casually mention the well-established fact the Mohamed was a pedophile. In the U.S., a statement can't even be considered slanderous or libelous if it is factual, but in the U.K. making a factual statement can be a criminal offense (if you're white, Christian or Jewish). The U.K.'s hate-speech laws are that in name only; in practice they are Sharia.
Check out a fairly typical example of how "hate speech" laws play out in reality. The biggest (but hardly the only) problem with laws against speech that "offends" somebody is that anybody can be "offended" by anything. In practice, speech is "offensive" if somebody disagrees with it. Once a nation passes hate-speech laws, it means that the ruling political faction a) cannot win an honest debate using the facts, and b) is going to "win" all debates by arresting and jailing anybody who disagrees. You'll find very few examples of actual hate speech prosecuted under hate speech laws. It's mostly political or religious views that somebody disagrees with that are banned. If Richards committed a real crime I'd say throw the book at him. For his behavior last week, however, what's appropriate is social ostracism. If you don't like the show, don't buy a ticket. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
Obligatory KKKramer. _______________ make install -not war This comment was edited by Bubu on Nov 25 2006 03:37am. |
|
Rinzler - Student 
|
hello is this thing turned on? *tap*
in my country this australialand place if you walked down the street and walked upto a minority group and hurled racial insults and historical references to their torture: a) you'd be lucky to get a block b) if they went to the police you would have to answer to charges if there was sufficient evidence to prove that you had committed the offence it doensn't mean this is the law everywhere and it isn't slander or defamation, its more to the flavour of verbal assault _______________ I fite for teh usars!1 This comment was edited by Rinzler on Nov 25 2006 12:31am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Its a lot harder in the US to get slander or libel charges through a court. I really can't think of any place at all short of the people's republic of san francisco that would have laws similar to what you think there are. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
If you dont think walking up to somebody in the street and shouting at them that they are a f**king idiot etc etc should be a criminal offence then fine, but I disagree so no point in further discussion. I would imagine the US law system also disagrees, I find it hard to believe that it is legal over there to go around verbally abusing anyone you want.
And yes one thats example of something that some people would see as harrasment, the legal definition of harrassment is of course much wider. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: However, if you were to walk up to a dude in the street and do that, you could certainly expect find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal conviction. I think most people would agree thats reasonable. You stated you think you should be able to say anything you like if it doesnt incite riot, how about this version of your example?
I find that to be wrong as well. You shouldn't be arrested for something like that. Harrassment: You see a girl walking down the street and you whistle at her and says something to the effect of "damn you're fine." She gets offended and charges you for sexual harrassment. It may be a wrong and stupid thing to do, but it is not criminal. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
Its unlikely that the crown prosecution service would run that charge in my opinion, as its likely not to stick in court due to the circumstances. The police would of course investigate as its our duty to investigate any reported crime.
However, if you were to walk up to a dude in the street and do that, you could certainly expect to find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal conviction. I think most people would agree thats reasonable. You stated you think you should be able to say anything you like if it doesnt incite riot, how about this version of your example? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life This comment was edited by Gil-Galad on Nov 24 2006 06:41pm. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
so if I were in an argument with a person and for some reason said "my god you are completely full of Sh**. How anyone as stupid as you is able to breathe is completely amazing you f**king idiot," they could go out and press charges against me claiming that what I said alarmed them and they are now distressed. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
Quote: [4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]
[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. It is an offence regardless of the racial element, however a racially aggravacted contravention of the above offence is treated as a more serious offence. The only legislation we have in the UK protecting free speech is the human rights act 1998. However in my opinion if you are distressing people by using insulting language and behaviour, you are infringing that persons human rights. Even if this richards guy had a right to say what he did, should he have a right to cause other people distress or alarm? Not in my opinion. If you disagree thats an interesting point of view which I can accept, but one I dont think I could ever share  _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Hmmm. Put it this way, if he had done it on my watch in the UK i would have arrested him and taken great pride in it. I dont know whether you have any laws that prevent this kind of behaviour in the US but we do in the UK. (If anyones interested I'm referring to racially aggravated contravention of section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986). So from my point of view what he did is not only grossly immoral but should be illegal, and definitely would be in the uk. At the very least the guys career should be over, racist idiots like him should have no place in society let alone in the public eye.
So much for freedom of speech in England. Hate crime laws are some of the biggest pieces of garbage in the world. No matter how stupid racist or sexist the things you say are, you shouldn't be going to jail for it. About the only time I can think where you could is if you are inciting people to riot. And then the crime is inciting a riot not, speaking the thoughts in your head. A man shouldn't go to jail just because he said something you feel is offensive. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
Hmmm. Put it this way, if he had done it on my watch in the UK i would have arrested him and taken great pride in it. I dont know whether you have any laws that prevent this kind of behaviour in the US but we do in the UK. (If anyones interested I'm referring to racially aggravated contravention of section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986). So from my point of view what he did is not only grossly immoral but should be illegal, and definitely would be in the uk. At the very least the guys career should be over, racist idiots like him should have no place in society let alone in the public eye. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
I saw the hecklers playing the victim card on Hannity & Colmes. They had their attorney with them, had pretty obviously been coached not to be as obnoxious as they were in the club and are looking to play this for big bucks. In their version of the story the only thing they did was that they came in late and were "a little loud" ordering their drinks, and Richards then started in on them. Forgive me if I'm skeptical. These guys are just oportunists, and what's going to be lost here is that this really is a free speech issue. What Richards said was despicable, but if somebody can be sued if somebody is offended by what he says, then the First Amendment has just been repealed.
One of them actually said he felt threatened by Richards. I laughed so hard I almost fell out of my chair. The only one who felt threatened in that club was Richards when he realized that the entire audience, whites and blacks alike, wanted to kill him. But the victim card plays well in the media, and these guys are looking to cash in. I'd respect them a lot more if they had just said, "Yeah we were acting like jerks, and we're sorry, but we didn't scream racial epithets at anybody or do anything hateful like Richards did." That would be taking the high road but wouldn't play as well when they file their lawsuit. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
just saw both clips... pretty much agreed with buzz's first post. his apology on letterman seemed sincere albeit a little side tracked when he started going on about hurricane katrina or some jazz, linking to javaguys first paragraph. that said, i think sean hannity's a total <beep>. i dont think al sharpton ever 'prohibited' non-whites from watching letterman either, it just seems like a show more whites than blacks would be into - huge generalisation, i know.
all in all i think richards acted like a dumbass and just about killed what was left of his career. and btw, 'wow' is about all i can say to ash's video. _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade 
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey 
Jools is my best friend. 
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID This comment was edited by Hardwired on Nov 24 2006 04:11am. |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |