Suing Cosmo Kramer

Damocles said:
Imagine all the courts sewn up with kids and their bullies... everybody afraid to say anything at all, comedians constantly sued for harrassing an audience member during an act (not like this, not part of the act)...

Crying about people's feelings hurt is too much for our courts to handle. I, for one, do not want to live in the Glorious Society where speech is credited and equated to actual harm.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say it should be a hard fast rule. I think the courts should allow for pain and suffering of individuals that are innocently subjected to verbal abuse.

And as for bullying, I definitely support parents taking legal against against children that torment other children. How are your kids supposed to learn when they are getting tortured by other kids and the parents don't want to step in. I say sue the fvckers. That will get them to put a stop to that type of behaviour.

And you are implying that the only justification I've put forth is hurt feelings, when its not the case. People don't have a right to verbally abuse you, no more than I have the right to sing at the top of my lungs at 3:30 in morning in my apartment. Infringement on other individuals right to exist peacefully shouldn't be tolerated.
 
LadyT said:
Again, I didn't say it should be a hard fast rule. I think the courts should allow for pain and suffering of individuals that are innocently subjected to verbal abuse.

And as for bullying, I definitely support parents taking legal against against children that torment other children. How are your kids supposed to learn when they are getting tortured by other kids and the parents don't want to step in. I say sue the fvckers. That will get them to put a stop to that type of behaviour.

And you are implying that the only justification I've put forth is hurt feelings, when its not the case. People don't have a right to verbally abuse you, no more than I have the right to sing at the top of my lungs at 3:30 in morning in my apartment. Infringement on other individuals right to exist peacefully shouldn't be tolerated.
Click to expand...
I'm not implying that the only justification is hurt feelings. So long as it is verbal, I'd prefer it be handled by regular harrassment laws rather than the constant stream of people in lawsuits. Going begging is not the only way to rectify such an issue...

As I said, if you put it into law there will be those who will stretch it as far as possible.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not implying that the only justification is hurt feelings. So long as it is verbal, I'd prefer it be handled by regular harrassment laws rather than the constant stream of people in lawsuits. Going begging is not the only way to rectify such an issue...

As I said, if you put it into law there will be those who will stretch it as far as possible.
Click to expand...


I'm not suggesting new laws be enacted. I'm merely saying under certain circumstances, victims of said abuse should have access to restitution.
 
I dont think the plaintiff will win in this one since he statrted the whole mess. In effect threw the first punch.
 
Opening the courts up to suing for hurtful words (especially in the name of comedy) would be a terrible idea and open up a huge can of worms. Heck, I would be able to sue George Carlin after every stand-up act he does if that were the case. Makes zero sense.
 
leaningright said:
Opening the courts up to suing for hurtful words (especially in the name of comedy) would be a terrible idea and open up a huge can of worms. Heck, I would be able to sue George Carlin after every stand-up act he does if that were the case. Makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

I've already stated that comedy routines inside the acts are one thing. What richards did was another. And its not just "hurtful words", I'm talking about verbal abuse.
 
LadyT said:
I've already stated that comedy routines inside the acts are one thing. What richards did was another. And its not just "hurtful words", I'm talking about verbal abuse.
Click to expand...
I agree that we have to allow this kind of suit -- the can's already open, LR: deal with it -- because the only way to prevent them would also prohibit too many other, more substantive suits. OTOH, I do think the plaintiffs here have gone too far.

I might feel differently if they were close friends or family though, I freely admit. ;)
 
leaningright said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...
If you don't know then you haven't been paying attention.

Under certain circumstances, words really can do harm. That's especially true with children, of course, but extends to adults too. Employers can cause substantive harm to employees, for example, and employees can do so to co-workers. Almost any sort of relationship can become abusive, in fact.

Now, as I said before, I happen to believe that this particular instance is rather silly. Yeah, he stepped way over the line but the two guys in the audience aren't likely to be harmed in any substantive way. I'd say they should get their money back and are owed a major apology.
 
leaningright said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Hurtful words don't have to be verbal abuse. Hurtful words can be one's opinion of your car, or something you've created. I think "abuse" is pretty self explanatory. Purposeful degrading and maligning sums it up nicely.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
If you don't know then you haven't been paying attention.

Under certain circumstances, words really can do harm. That's especially true with children, of course, but extends to adults too. Employers can cause substantive harm to employees, for example, and employees can do so to co-workers. Almost any sort of relationship can become abusive, in fact.

Now, as I said before, I happen to believe that this particular instance is rather silly. Yeah, he stepped way over the line but the two guys in the audience aren't likely to be harmed in any substantive way. I'd say they should get their money back and are owed a major apology.
Click to expand...

exactly. I find it interesting that people seem to have few problems with $exual harassment suits even when often times, those are merely words. I bet a lot of these people would see the need to allow for this type of suit if some perv was saying inappropiate ("just words") to their young daughters.
 
I don't think parents who let their young daughters go to comedy clubs have any right to complain. Comedy clubs are not noted for G rated atmosphere.
 
uscitizen said:
I don't think parents who let their young daughters go to comedy clubs have any right to complain. Comedy clubs are not noted for G rated atmosphere.
Click to expand...

some are and some aren't. it still doesn't give a perv the right to verbally harass them.
 
LadyT said:
exactly. I find it interesting that people seem to have few problems with $exual harassment suits even when often times, those are merely words. I bet a lot of these people would see the need to allow for this type of suit if some perv was saying inappropiate ("just words") to their young daughters.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's exactly because of real problems like sexual harrassment that we can't limit suits like this in law. It's a cultural problem, not a legal one.

As a culture, I do feel we've become too litigious: we're far too prone to try to profit from lapses of taste and judgment. I put it in the same category as our cultural bias toward sexual priggishness. But these are issues that are very difficult to address in law.

To put it another way, better a lot of little, arguably frivolous lawsuits than to limit remedy for people who have legitimate claims.
 
i hope cramer counter sues them for harrassment and also has them criminally prosecuted hnder the RICO act for them interfereijng with his lawful pursuit of his business. He should sue them for the millions he may lose becuase of their harrassment wheile he was trying to perform his job duties.

If they can sue him for harrasment, the it's only fair that he can sue them since they started the harrassement, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top