Posted on 05/02/2017 4:38:18 PM PDT by ckinv368
There comes a time within the bounds of human decency and national consciousness where the populace needs to stand up and declare that “enough is enough.” With regard to the political discourse in America, that time is now.
On the evening of May 1, late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert decided to push well beyond the confines of acceptable political dialogue. When speaking of Trump’s first 100 days in office, he dove deep into the realm of crass, witless, maliciously defamatory humor that is neither acceptable within our honorable society nor protected by the Constitution of the United States. In a twelve-minute monologue directed at President Trump himself, and watched by the nation, Colbert:
• alluded to President Trump being mentally handicapped on several occasions; • strangely indicated that the Trump Administration would be fine with Hitler’s policies; • called President Trump a disgrace; • made several derogatory and sexually charged remarks about the President’s genitalia; • stated the President was the “bloatus,” the “glutton with the button,” a “regular gorge Washington;” • stated that President Trump was the “presi-dunce,” and was turning into a “real prick-tator;” • said President Trump “attract[ed] more skinheads than free Rogaine;” and has “more people marching against [him] than cancer;” • alleged President Trump “talk[ed] like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head.”
Not to be outdone by his previous round of insults, Colbert finished out his monologue by stating “in fact, the only thing [Trump’s] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s . . .” followed by his use of a graphic and derogatory homophobic slur to finish out his thought.
I’m all for political humor in this country, and recognize that President Trump, as a public figure, has a huge Constitutionally-protected target on his back. The Supreme Court, beginning in 1964 with the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, agrees. However, Colbert’s monologue went well beyond the protected limits of political speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Aside from being shocking and in extremely poor taste, I believe Mr. Colbert’s statements were actionable and legally indefensible.
In Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized “the general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment,” and stated that such a proposition “has long been settled.” Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270. The Court held that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Sullivan, at 270. When involving public officials, the Court held that “neither factual error nor defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield from criticism of official conduct,” and that “the combination of the two elements is no less inadequate.” Sullivan, at 273.
While the Court gave great latitude to the New York Times in Sullivan, it didn’t give The Times a blank check to defame at will. Instead, the Court carved out from First Amendment protection statements “made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Sullivan, at 279-80. Congressman James Madison once said “the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.” Sullivan, at 275. But, in Sullivan, the Court recognized that such censorial power has its parameters, outside of which falls an untrue utterance made with “actual malice,” and with the “knowledge that it was false.” Mr. Colbert appears to have soared through that limit.
There can be no denying that Mr. Colbert’s monologue contained knowingly false accusations. Most of his statements—while made from a seeming locus of fact—were both hugely offensive and ludicrous in their factual absurdity. But, equally telling from the video itself was Mr. Colbert’s admission of “actual malice”—his statement that he would be happy to “trade insults with the President of the United States to his face.” It is not difficult to establish actual malice in a defamation context when the speaker admits to the same in front of tens-of-millions of people. Different from the offensive caricature of the Rev. Jerry Falwell depicted in a clearly-noted ad parody upheld by the Court in Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), Mr. Colbert’s speech was meant to be taken as fact, was knowingly false, and was delivered in a malicious and purposeful manner. In short, Mr. Colbert went past the protections the First Amendment provides to comedians and other satirists, and should be taken to task for his actions.
Now, I really do get it. Stephen Colbert doesn’t like President Trump. But, there are lots of people that don’t like President Trump. Just like roughly ½ of the Country did not like President Obama throughout the eight years of his presidency. Even with these strong feelings, when we allow crass, defamatory, inane, tactless and Constitutionally-unprotected comments to cloud the national consciousness when it comes to our political discourse, we are the worse for it. There’s a reason we’ve moved past the days of beatings on the floor of the House of Representatives and duels being held between Congressmen. We’ve grown and matured as a country. We may not always agree with our leaders, but they ARE our leaders nonetheless. They deserve some semblance of even grudging respect. It’s a pity that those with such a commanding voice in our society do not understand that such privilege is intertwined with the obligation to comport themselves with a modicum of decency. Choosing to recreate the past with verbal sparring and disparaging insults is neither a sound legal maneuver, nor good for the country. Mr. Colbert may come to learn that in a very personal way.
For more commentary like this, please visit:
www.cameronkinvig.com
That is very true viz-a-viz Obama. A political commentator would have lasted about 24 hours if they would have said similar things about him.
Agree. Colbert won’t be sued, but this performance won’t help his career.
The decision noted that fact, but the decision was not focused on that fact, and the decision does not hinge or depend on that fact, not in the least. The decision spends much more time on the notion of "offensive," and concludes that "offensive" is what the 1st amendment protects.
Colbert is nothing more than a live version of political cartoon.
His comments may not be acceptable to polite society and could possibly border on libel, but his hateful, vulgar rant is exactly what is protected under the Constitution.
We don't need the Constitution to protect us from speech everybody agrees with. It is the speech that is not popular that is protected.
Wouldn't be surprised if CBS fired him (not likely) and/or Trump sued him for libel.
Everything he’s ever done has been #FAKENEWS, him and that Jon Stewart too. Making up the news and then selling it to the kiddies as satire or parody, but they believe it.
Colbert’s ratings are near the top now for his time slot. They have found success by being more political since the election. Big bucks. Don’t expect him to slow down any time soon.
In case anyone missed Colbert, they can catch up on Sean Hannity radio tonight where he is playing it over and over and over ad nausium, as he often does other things. Colbert was sickening and demeaning. Hannity is not helping. Shut up Sean! We have to lobby to get Colbert and his ilk fired.
If you want to see how far we have sunk in good taste, manners ethics and morals....just look up an original Jack Benny radio program.
Or a Fibber McGee and Molly
Those programs really were funny and nothing was broadcast that would lead to lawsuits, riots,
Present day “comedians” are not funny. only disgusting, mean spirited jerks that would probably be thrown out of your house or mine if they were to show up in person..
“playing it over and over and over ad nausium, as he often does other things.”
Nooo! Not Sean!
He’s innocent, I tell you. He would never give strident repetition a chance.
“I saw his show once; he came out kicking up his legs like the Rockettes and danced with a black man. You want to talk about gay?”
He mouth-kissed a man on the air once.
Simple...someone needs to mark and identify the sponsors of the so called show.
Than, We all need to let the sponsors know about how we feel, about this, in most force full way, THEM sponsoring this type of garbage.
Sit back and watch...
I say we just give him more attention and free publicity to encourage him to do more of the same.
I’m a yuuuugggggeeeee Trump fan and I hate liberal puke comedians like Colbert!
But, I don’t won’t to go down the road of prosecuting people for saying stuff, no matter what was said because we as a people are not capable of fairly administering judgment and punishment for what people say!
Go live in Britain and the EU if you want to feel the bite of someone else judging you and putting cuffs on you for something you said.
>>stated that President Trump was the “presi-dunce,”
“If he’s so dumb, how come he’s President?”—Chevy Chase*
*-technically talking about Ford, a mid-term VP replacement for Nixon who took over as Acting Pres. upon Nixon’s resignation...but it applied here too. How is such a dummy
the President of the US?
Stephen Colbert?
Everything he said is fake, which then makes Stephen a “fake comedian”.
Wait.
I am so confused. I have never watched that loser longer than it takes to use the remote...
It never occurred to me,
He actually has sponsors?
Good thing they avoided the Hollywierd writers strike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.