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
Trump should pull the networks license-or at least suggest its possible if they don’t make changes.
They don’t serve America.
Leave pay TV alone,but free TV should not be like this.
Why do liberals get to use networks to bash any opposition?
It’s nuts! imho
The guy’s not any different than any other liberal.. he just happens to be on TV (not on mine though).
Sounds great but, we don’t know how to do what you are suggesting\
________________________________
Seriously?
Trump supporters did this with Kelloggs, Nordstroms, Target, etc.
Simply develop a list of Colbert advertisers and then contact them and tell them you are not buying their products and why...
To object to his right to screed is to be a hypocrite.
Let the market be the judge.
The author demonstrates that we all have two things, one of them being the origin of #2...
To object to his right to screed is to be a hypocrite.
Let the market be the judge.
The author demonstrates that we all have two things, one of them being the origin of #2...
"He stinketh."
I will not be listening to him from this day forward. (Of course, I did not listen to him before he spewed forth this vile, putrid, scumbaggery, as there were already numerous reasons not to listen to him before this latest stench, but I wanted to emphasize that that wise decision I made will continue on into the future too.)
An old proverb: If you find your enemy busy destroying himself, let him.
CC
At my daughter’s campus I’ve heard there is some nutcase out there in the “free speech” area blasting the kids with crap under the guise of religion. Confronting girls and calling them whores and calling for them to repent. To heed the lessons of Sodom and Gomorroh, etc. Sounds like one of the Westboro Baptist nutcases.
Wouldn’t telling some poor kid that she is a whore be defamation? Of course it’s finals time, and who can afford a lawyer. And the nut is probably LOOKING for a legal fight as he do like the Westboro folks do and aim to win a bunch of money - knowing all the tricks of the law.
Colbert had to have a professional Writers Guild of America writer write that line for him.......
Trump will not respond and righty so. Let SC die out there also alone with his smug hatred of conservatism and lack of human decency.
Childish insults as you’d expect to hear from second graders on the playground - next Colbert would have called Trump a doo-doo head.....
I think that I’ve seen that guy on Youtube.
One night I was bored and was surfing youtube. Somehow I ended up seeing videos of “street preachers”. This lunatic was one of them.
He was on a college campus, I believe it was Arizona State. He was screaming that the girls were whores and he actually stated that they deserved to be raped. He was a real piece of work.
I suspected he may have been a Westboro type “Provocateur”.
Exactly. Let's get a list of his advertisers. It's time to boycott those companies who wish to continue subsidizing Stephen Colbert's vile hatred.
In the nutcase case, probably not, because no sane person takes the nutcase's accusations as having any particular basis in fact. Random namecalling is protected.
Stephen who?
I don't think that was exactly what happened to O'Reilly. I think the junior Murdochs wanted him gone, and enthusiastically caved to advertiser pressure. CBS no doubt agrees with everything Colbert said, and will probably not yield to any advertiser pressure the way Fox gleefully did with O'Reilly. If they were to lose advertisers, they'd just get new ones; the same way Fox could have.
Colbert = worthless. I do not understand why anyone would waste six seconds watching him. At least Jon Stewart had his funny moments.
PETITION: 100,000 Signatures To Fire Stephen Colbert!
http://conservativefighters.com/stephen-colbert-petition/
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.