New in PJ Media:
PJM’s Kevin Downey Jr., a standup comedian himself, said it Tuesday: “Today, every comedian in the U.S. is on Facebook making nervous jokes about the likelihood of Will Smith copycats walking on stage and walloping a comic over a joke that hurt their little feelings.” And not just comedians: on Tuesday, late-night Leftist propagandist Stephen Colbert, allegedly a comedian himself, called on Old Joe Biden, who is clearly as accomplished a pugilist as he is a president, to slap Fox News’ Peter Doocy for daring to ask His Majesty impertinent questions. Yes, it has come to this: Leftists are so open now about their authoritarianism and determination to crush dissent that Colbert got applause for saying that the president of the United States should physically assault a reporter for asking him questions he didn’t like.
Colbert began by making fun of Doocy. “Yesterday, President Biden held a press conference, and he was asked a ridiculous question by a ridiculous man: Fox News reporter and that one kid in high school who wears a suit to gym class, Peter Doocy.” Then Colbert played a clip of Doocy asking Biden about what he meant “when you said a chemical weapon used by Russia would trigger a response in kind?” Doocy was asking whether Biden was actually saying that the U.S. would use chemical weapons, but Biden answered, “It will trigger a significant response.” When Doocy asked him, “What does that mean?” Biden responded, “I’m not going to tell you. Why would I tell you? You have got to be silly.”
The easy marks, crooks, socialists, and assorted nuts that make up Colbert’s audience thought that Biden was a regular Don Rickles. They laughed and applauded at Biden’s line, but it really wasn’t anything to laugh about. Biden was pretending that Doocy was asking him to reveal state secrets and details of his strategy against Putin, when in reality, Doocy was simply asking the dementia-ridden pseudo-president to clarify one of his many reckless and ill-considered recent remarks.
Colbert then added, “Remember—,” but stopped for more applause before plowing on. “Yes. Remember how on last night’s show I said that slapping is never, ever the answer? I’d like to file a one-time exception on behalf of the president of the United States.” For this, he drew even more applause from the assembled lumpenproletariat. He then mimicked Doocy while pretending he was indeed asking for classified information, saying: “Uh, Peter Doocy, Fox News. I’ve got two more questions. First, what are the exact locations of all of America’s troops? And can you give me the nuclear launch codes? Just tell me, is one of them a four?”
There is more. Read the rest here.
Frank Anderson says
Assault is putting one in fear of harmful or offensive contact with person or something closely associated with that person. Battery is actual harmful or offensive contact. The defense to such a charge whether civil between private parties in a lawsuit or criminal between the state and an accused is PROVOCATION. THAT is the law in the United States.
Rock insulted and belittled a man’s wife, who is enduring CANCER. That is not a joke and was intended to provoke anger and rage, which it did. Smith was provoked. Instead of killing or disfiguring Rock, he simply slapped the living ???? out of him. In any court where I have tried such a case in front of an honest judge, Smith would walk. Provocation is a defense against a battery claim when no injury follows.
Bosch Fawstin says
First, Smith’s wife doesn’t have ‘CANCER”, but alopecia, which causes loss of hair. But there is word that that’s even false, as she may simply like to cut her hair short, as she’s damaged it over the years, trying to straighten it, using chemicals, etc. As for Smith being “provoked”, and you justifying, to the point that you even think a judge would let him walk: do you think my drawing Mohammad cartoons provokes Muslims, or do you think Muslims threatening cartoonists with death provokes Mohammad cartoons? In the history of the Oscars, many celebrities in the audience have been the butt of jokes. Now, since someone with serious problems gets up and physically assaults someone over a pretty tame joke (Rock could have made a crack about how Smith’s wife sleeps with other men, and makes a public show of it, but he didn’t), that crosses the line. It’s a dangerous time for comedians, and for those who tell uncomfortable truths, and the amount of people I’ve seen reserving their criticism for Rock, and not for Smith, will only make it more dangerous.
mortimer says
Bosch Fawstin has made many great observations here. Black women who torture their hair and scalp for different hair styles must share in at least some of the blame if their hair growth is stunted by all those poisons. Without accepting some responsibility, this is similar to a life-long smoker with lung cancer putting all the blame on the cigarette companies.
mortimer says
The real point is that the joke was about a haircut, rather than about a disease. A lot of black women today are adopting that same short haircut, and I’m sure they all take some ribbing about it, some of it will be good-natured and some mean spirited. The comic began by saying ‘Jada, I love you’ as a way of showing his jibe was intended to be good-natured.
What Colbert did was pretty bad … to approve of assaults to people he personally does not like. That is certainly NOT ok to any lawyer.
somehistory says
smith laughed at the joke before he gave in to his violent *reaction*…possibly not to the joke, but to his wife’s disapproval at his laughter.
If I sat on a jury to judge him…he’d be guilty of assault. Some states don’t have “battery” laws.
Frank Anderson says
S.H. you are entitled to your opinion without any criticism from me. I have actually defended cases where provocation was an issue. Have you? There is a difference in many states between criminal assault and tortious assault. You may have missed the discussion of provocation as a defense when you were in law school, with Criminal Law being only 2 semester hours in the first year. But for a zero-injury response to provocation I do not see a conviction when my cancer-stricken wife is sitting next to me when a “comedian” makes a disturbing and insulting comment. If I were still practicing I would ORDER Smith to keep is mouth shut and defend him vigorously against pious uninformed comments and nonsense interpretations of the law as people think and wish it to be. An honest judge would never convict Smith nor would an honest judge allow a monetary judgment against him. If a conviction or judgment were obtained, I think it would be reversed on appeal.
I sat with my most important and significant other through months of chemotherapy. She did not lose her hair, as many do. She fought for her life A THIRD TIME against cancer and won again. That is no joke and is not fair game as a subject for a mindless A$$ to try to turn into entertainment..
somehistory says
FA,
I did not say the joke was okay. But, she doesn’t have cancer and she shaves her head, so Rock may not have known that she has an auto-immune disorder.
It was in poor taste if he did know, but still, smith ***laughed*** first and then went up and engaged in violence. And then, the violence was made to be “okay” by smith getting applause for his speech and winning an award.
Attorneys can argue all they wish, but the Jury makes the decision as to guilt or innocence. And, as I said, if I sat on a jury where smith was accused of assault against Rock, I would have to find him guilty.
I believe anyone who values free speech would have to consider all of the facts…that it was a joke, that smith laughed and it was all on tape…and many would feel as I do…that smith is guilty of assault.
And, to your “may have missed,”…No, I didn’t. We covered it extensively and my professor was a practicing attorney.
You, of course, have the right to your opinion based on your personal feelings about your loved one and her health issues, and on your law experience.
Law is one of those things that is not absolute due to the differences of thought processes, personal experience and, as another of my professors explained to me, it can change from one day to the next. He was another practicing attorney with years of experience.
when my son was engaged in the process, he had to argue one day as a defense attorney and the next as the prosecutor. And then, he did the same in real life practice, going from defense practice to the office of Deputy DA, so I am aware that a lot of what comes from the jury is based on just how well the attorney argues the case and the personal feelings of the jury.
someone who had a similar condition as smith’s wife, might see things in a different light than someone such as I.
BTW, I have about a half dozen auto-immune disorders and I have learned to take things people say with a box of salt. 🙂
gravenimage says
Good posts Bosch and Somehistory.
somehistory says
And, jada doesn’t have cancer. She has said it is alopecia…probably an auto-immune disorder.
Humphrey Bogart had alopecia.
It’s not funny, but it is not something over which to be violent. And, then his violence was overlooked while he lectured the audience…there in whoever was watching at home…about being violent.
somehistory says
and whoever…not “in.”
gravenimage says
Frank, *no joke* is provocation for violence. Then, Jada Smith doesn’t have cancer, but just alopecia. This condition can be distressing and embarrassing, but is not life threatening or even painful.
The joke was about her appearing in “GI Jane II”–GI Jane was a film where the (incidentally very beautiful) Demi Moore shaves her head in boot camp. This joke is mildly off-color at worst. There were lots of jokes about it when it first came out. This from Rock was definitely a joke. (One can argue about whether it was funny or not, but this is a different matter).
And this was no sudden action–Smith wasn’t even on stage with Rock. In fact, he first laughed at the joke himself–it was only when he looked over at his wife’s look of rage that he changed his mind, ran over to the stage, mounted it, and assaulted Rock. He has plenty of time to think about what he was doing.
Then, he doubled down on his vioence during his Oscar acceptance award. He own thuggish son gloated, “That’s how we do it!”.
In a civilized society, ‘offensive’ speech is countered by *more speech*. If Smith had walked out, criticized the joke, or even taken the microphone and cursed out Rock, sympathy probably would mostly have been with him.
But once you initiate physical violence you lose the moral high ground.
Do you *really* want a society where people can be physically assaulted for making a joke or asking a question–or perhaps criticizing Islam? Jihadists *certainly* agree.
Infidel says
As someone who’s watched Chris Rock in the 90s make absolutely vile jokes, including those about date rape, I had absolutely no sympathy for him. Had Will Smith slapped anyone else, I might have condemned him. However, in any clash b/w anyone and Chris Rock, I’d support the other person. I’m actually appalled at conservatives congratulating Chris Rock for maintaining his dignity, when dignity is the last thing that I’d associate w/ Chris Rock
gravenimage says
The main point here is not about Chris Rock. No comic deserves to be assaulted–I don’t care *how* vile their humor may be. There are civilized ways to respond–stop going to their shows, walk out, complain to the Academy, make public appearances condemning the joke. Will Smith certainly has enough of a platform to get a lot of attention if he wanted to take any of these actions.
Infidel says
Obviously we disagree! In all the years that I’ve observed Will Smith, I’ve seen nothing that he did that was controversial (he may or may not have been a liberal – don’t even know!). Never watched Fresh Prince of BelAir, but did watch some of his movies – forgetting which, though!
But I do remember Chris Rock’s vile jokes, and how it infuriated me. So sorry, I’m not remotely sorry to see him assaulted! Had I been there – not that I follow anything about movies or pop culture these days – I would have given Will Smith an ovation
gravenimage says
Infidel, if we have a society where you can physically assault anyone who offends you, this is *exactly* the same thinking that allows the waging of violent Jihad if one is offended.
And by the way, Will Smith made an almost identical joke some years earlier about a bald man in the audience of a show he appeared on. When some in the audience groaned, he sneered at them because it was a joke.
Should he have been assaulted as well?
Jihadists are good with cutting the throats of cartoonists and comics–by this moral standard, who is to say they are wrong? *Ugh*.
Infidel says
Doing nothing about it is precisely what has brought us to where we are. Had Chris Rock been subjected to today’s level of cancellation, it wouldn’t have come to this! Obviously, he got the message that it’s okay to be rude in public, until it got to the point where someone – in this case Will Smith – took a swing at him
gravenimage says
Infidel wrote:
Doing nothing about it is precisely what has brought us to where we are. Had Chris Rock been subjected to today’s level of cancellation, it wouldn’t have come to this! Obviously, he got the message that it’s okay to be rude in public, until it got to the point where someone – in this case Will Smith – took a swing at him
…………..
In other words, Infidel, so long as anyone is prevented from speaking, they won’t be assaulted by someone who might be offended by them.
Noted.
Need I say what this does to freedom of speech–including speaking out against Jihad?
If only Anti-Jihadists are prevented from speaking, they won’t be attacked by Jihadists.
Are you OK with this?
Infidel, don’t you realize that many are offened by your speaking out against the horrors of Islam? Do the have the right to attack you, also? I don’t believe they do.
somehistory says
this article about the fool colbert encouraging the older fool to engage in violence, brought to my mind what the school board members were doing to parents who stood up to question the things their kids were being taught and the rape of the one daughter by a male student pretending to be female so he could enter the girl’s restrooms.
The school boards had many parents hauled away by security or police…*just for speaking, for asking questions, for objecting to the school’s curriculum*…guess colbert and his idiot audience are fine with that.
Westman says
Colbert is rarely funny, a Poor Player strutting his hour upon the stage. Colbert seems a regressive replacement for Jon Stewart’s tongue-in-cheek, morphing it into nasty ridicule. Bob Hope, Carson, and Jay Leno were real comedians whose humorous presence also lived outside their shows. When Colbert goes into the night there will be no search party.
Being a Leftist propagandist, what will Colbert do when the Biden Presidency collapses? We all see it coming, even Colbert’s hedonistic audience can see it. Bob Hope would have made mild jokes about the situation. Would Colbert dare or will he be afraid the “Will Smiths” would be coming for him?
Hmmm. Is this Will Smith thing going to generate another “type” reference, similar to a “Karen”? Will an aggressive man who hits someone be called a, “Will Smith”, a “Will”, or, a “Smith”?
somehistory says
If the violence keeps being smiled upon, wessons will come next. and it won’t be just oil.
gravenimage says
+1
Rarely says
Joking about a person’s medical condition is never funny. Such jokes fall into the same class as ethnic jokes and carry with them the real possibility (likelihood?) that the object of the joke will be offended.
Good comedians don’t need to resort to such “humour”.
gravenimage says
Rarely, this is less about Rock’s joke, and more about Will Smith assaulting him. I’m not saying I necessarilly like all of Rock’s humor–but does that give me the right to slap him around? Punch him? Stab him? Shoot him?
gravenimage says
Stephen Colbert Says Joe Biden Should Slap Peter Doocy for Asking Uncomfortable Questions
PJM’s Kevin Downey Jr., a standup comedian himself, said it Tuesday: “Today, every comedian in the U.S. is on Facebook making nervous jokes about the likelihood of Will Smith copycats walking on stage and walloping a comic over a joke that hurt their little feelings.” And not just comedians: on Tuesday, late-night Leftist propagandist Stephen Colbert, allegedly a comedian himself, called on Old Joe Biden, who is clearly as accomplished a pugilist as he is a president, to slap Fox News’ Peter Doocy for daring to ask His Majesty impertinent questions. Yes, it has come to this: Leftists are so open now about their authoritarianism and determination to crush dissent that Colbert got applause for saying that the president of the United States should physically assault a reporter for asking him questions he didn’t like.
…………….
This is *just appalling*. Not only were Doocy’s questions perfectly reasonable and something that all Americans should be concerned over, but far more imporant is that there are no questions from any journalist that should bring a violent response–especially *from the President of the United States*.
Physical violence is *only* appropriate as a response to physical violence. Not to awkward questions, and not to jokes one might consider rude.
What is happening to our society? This used to be something only advocated by ignorant thugs.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I will spare the details of ONE case I defended before a corrupt, dishonest court of non-lawyers. Provocation must be considered unless the violence is so overwhelming and out of proportion to produce serious injury. A slap in the face is not such a severe injury, in my opinion. I would of course recommend other responses. But lawyers do not get to choose their clients and the clients’ problems.
Imagine how you would feel if you sat among 100 fraternity “brothers” taking tor 10 minutes or so being called a traitor to the fraternity for helping a completely independent, non-competing fundraiser for St. Jude Hospital. My client’s response was to remove the hat worn by the chairman making the abusive comments, nothing more. Both my client and I, along with at least a third of the membership, found more satisfying uses for our time and money.
gravenimage says
Frank, slapping someone is indeed an act of violence–pretending it is not makes no sense. Physical violence *is* an out-of-proportion reaction to a joke of *any* type.
Removing someone’s hat may be getting into their personal space, but it is not an act of violence. For myself, this is not a “fraternity” I would want to remain in under these circumstances. I would leave.
And Will Smith is not some thug you get assigned to you as a public defender. He is in fact a role model for a great number of people. That assauting your fellows at a public awards ceremony may now be considered normalized is *chilling*.
Then, do you agree with Stephen Colbert that Joe Biden has the right to slap Peter Doocy because he asked him some questions he didn’t like? Do Jihadists have the right to assault–or rape, or murder–critics of Islam like Robert Spencer and Bosch Fawstin? They get threats to that effect all the time.
This savagery is a road we do not want to go down–at least not for civilized people.
Frank Anderson says
Provocation requires more than unpleasant words.
Insults, accusations of illegal, unethical, or immoral conduct can be sufficient to justify the defense.
“Would the reasonable, prudent person be so inflamed by the words that control is lost?”
How about wonderful people who tailgate me with my surgically repaired and extremely vulnerable neck? Must I drive 15 miles per hour OVER the posted speed limit to satisfy them; or should I slow down to a speed appropriate for the distance?
This is why courts, laws and decisions are necessary. DON”T ASSUME that I agree with others. You will be most likely in error. Remember from the communication seminars that were popular many years ago what happens when we assume!
gravenimage says
Frank, if someone slanders you, you can refute the charges, or in some cases sue the libeler. But no–even in these cases, you *do not* have the right to physically assault them.
More:
“Would the reasonable, prudent person be so inflamed by the words that control is lost?”
…………….
No, they *would not*. Smith assaulting Rock over a joke is neither reasonable nor prudent.
And this is quite similar to a joke Smith himself made about a bald man in the audience some years ago, incidentally, where he was not assaulted and when her urged everyone to just take it as a joke.
More:
How about wonderful people who tailgate me with my surgically repaired and extremely vulnerable neck? Must I drive 15 miles per hour OVER the posted speed limit to satisfy them; or should I slow down to a speed appropriate for the distance?
…………….
I’m sorry that you sometimes experience other’s bad driving–sadly, all good drivers do. I doubt that many of these idiots are deliberately taunting you over your neck injuries–I doubt that many of them have any idea that you have neck injuries.
If you honk your horn, say, or flip them off, you are justified–but if you stopped them and assaulted them, no matter the provocation from their inconsiderate driving and rudeness, then I’m afraid that you, not they, would be in the wrong.
Your implication that drivers have the right to physically assault other drivers for speeding or tailgating is mistaken. (And no–I don’t need a degree in law to know this).
More:
This is why courts, laws and decisions are necessary. DON”T ASSUME that I agree with others. You will be most likely in error. Remember from the communication seminars that were popular many years ago what happens when we assume!
…………….
I suppose I did make a mistake in assuming that you would be opposed to this kind of savagery–my apologies. I’m sadder but wiser.
I notice that you have chosen not to address the issue of whether politicians have the right to slap journalists who aske difficult questsion–and whether pious Muslims and other thugs believing they have the right to assault and even murder those who dare question their creeds. Sad to see this, as well. Silence is likely also an answer of sorts.
Frank Anderson says
GI, the assumptions you make are beyond reasonable or justified. What I would do with over 70 years of experience and over 40 years of being a licensed lawyer in 2 states is not the measure. What clients do before they consult a lawyer is what must be handled when the test comes.
HOW can you imagine that I would support Sleepy Joe attacking Peter Doocy for making a point in a press conference? And, as many unfavorable comments as I have made concerning islam and its participants in the criminal conspiracy, you don’t seem to make a connection. Your imagination must be strained and perverse. The defense of provocation rarely or never applies when there is death or “great bodily injury”. The difference is something to be studied in law school, for bar exams and CLE seminars in preparation for trials. Before you accuse me, you really would do well to know more about the duty of defense lawyers and the cases they follow in defending their clients.
My answer to tailgating drivers is to slow down to speeds commensurate with the distance at which they follow. It makes it easier for them to pass, or it reduces the energy that has to be dissipated if they decide to hit me. Until “law enforcement” starts enforcing the law, that is basic self-defense. It is not required to wait until injured to act in self-defense. That comes from one of the oldest cases discussed in Criminal Law the first semester of law school. In my state, and many others, following vehicles must maintain at least 20 feet for every 10 miles per hour under dry favorable conditions. That is only the reaction time needed to apply the brakes. The law ASSUMES both vehicles can stop in the same distance and time. Under wet, icy or other more hazardous conditions, MORE distance is required.
gravenimage says
Frank Anderson wrote:
GI, the assumptions you make are beyond reasonable or justified. What I would do with over 70 years of experience and over 40 years of being a licensed lawyer in 2 states is not the measure. What clients do before they consult a lawyer is what must be handled when the test comes.
………………
Of course this is true. But just because a client, say, murders someone and you defend them in a court of law, this *does not* change that fact that murder is illegal and morally wrong, no matter the supposed verbal provocation.
More:
HOW can you imagine that I would support Sleepy Joe attacking Peter Doocy for making a point in a press conference? And, as many unfavorable comments as I have made concerning islam and its participants in the criminal conspiracy, you don’t seem to make a connection. Your imagination must be strained and perverse. The defense of provocation rarely or never applies when there is death or “great bodily injury”. The difference is something to be studied in law school, for bar exams and CLE seminars in preparation for trials. Before you accuse me, you really would do well to know more about the duty of defense lawyers and the cases they follow in defending their clients.
………………
I did not accuse you, Frank–I asked you a question. If the initiation of violence is fine in the case of verbal provocation, where does that end? If a joke is enough provocation to warrant a slap, then why isn’t a journalist asking uncomfortable questions enough to also warrant a slap? And why isn’t “insulting the ‘Prophet'” enough provocation to warrant greater violence?
More:
My answer to tailgating drivers is to slow down to speeds commensurate with the distance at which they follow. It makes it easier for them to pass, or it reduces the energy that has to be dissipated if they decide to hit me. Until “law enforcement” starts enforcing the law, that is basic self-defense. It is not required to wait until injured to act in self-defense. That comes from one of the oldest cases discussed in Criminal Law the first semester of law school. In my state, and many others, following vehicles must maintain at least 20 feet for every 10 miles per hour under dry favorable conditions. That is only the reaction time needed to apply the brakes. The law ASSUMES both vehicles can stop in the same distance and time. Under wet, icy or other more hazardous conditions, MORE distance is required.
………………
Frank, *of course* speeding drivers should slow down and tailgating drivers should stop tailgating–I have never said any different. Why you include this in regard to a story about initiating violence I have no idea.
I still believe that unilaterally initiating violence is a hard line that no decent person should cross. That there are thuggish criminals who do so does not argue for its being so.
Infidel says
Peter Doocy does ask great questions, but I sympathize w/ him actually getting a pretty crappy job covering this White House. When during Trump, that job was assigned to John Roberts, who these days simply interviews generals about the Ukraine war. W/ FNC sucking up to the Dems to try and win some over, why didn’t they simply send Juan Williams to the press room, and add Peter Doocy to ‘The Five’?
As for Colbert, need one ask what he would have said had President Trump ever slapped Jim Acosta, who dwarfed Sam Donaldson in rudeness when it came to confronting presidents?
somehistory says
acosta should have been taken out behind the barn…or the woodshed.
A slap once meant there would be a duel with loaded pistols. That was outlawed for a good reason.
I have sympathy for Peter Doocy and he keeps his cool, which is admirable.