26 Jan 12
"A lawsuit has been filed in California suing US comedian Jay Leno for what it calls "racist" comments on the Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar.
[...]
"Mr Dhillon filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages. Leno's joke "clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh", Mr Dhillon said in his petition."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16714305
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFHindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
"A lawsuit has been filed in California suing US comedian Jay Leno for what it calls "racist" comments on the Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar.
[...]
"Mr Dhillon filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages. Leno's joke "clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridic ...[text shortened]... Mr Dhillon said in his petition."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16714305
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoDo you think Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple exposes the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred"?
Hindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoBunk, we ridicule everyone, including ourselves, Hindus and Sikhs are not even close to being
Hindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.
the top candidates for being ridiculed. Christians, specifically crazy Christians who believe in
Young Earth Creationism are far more common targets. Also the French...
Indians, not so much.
In this instance Jay Leno wasn't ridiculing Sikhs at all, he was ridiculing Mitt Romney for having
problems due to his being incredibly part of the 1% (or really the 0.01% ).
Being able to ridicule people/groups, to satirise, to offend, is a crucial part of free speech and
defence against tyranny.
This is not to condone racism, sexism, (or any other ism) but to realise that simply having fun
poked at you from time to time doesn't count as such.
In this case however Sikhs were not the target of ridicule, a massively wealthy candidate for
president of the USA who keeps sounding like Marie Antoinette was, and he doesn't get to sue
anybody for being ridiculed either.
26 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoWell, ok, I see you are not a defender of freedom of speech. But isn't self-restraint just that, self-restraint, in a free society? You think a comedian should be punished with a law suit for making a joke? Surely suing someone is just (attempted) "restraint"?
Something has to be done to make a point that the freedom of speech should be enjoyed with self restraint required from all of us as civilised beings sharing a planet.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoOh good I hear the strapping on of suicide vests already...
Something has to be done to make a point that the freedom of speech should be enjoyed with self restraint required from all of us as civilised beings sharing a planet.
Religions get no right to not be offended or ridiculed, period.
Grow up, and stop whining.
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI would suggest that Mr Dhillon's lawsuit creates more chance of American Sikhs being held up to ridicule than the gag about Mitt Romney does.
Oh good I hear the strapping on of suicide vests already...
Religions get no right to not be offended or ridiculed, period.
Grow up, and stop whining.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFOh hell yes.
I would suggest that Mr Dhillon's lawsuit creates more chance of American Sikhs being held
up to ridicule than the gag about Mitt Romney does.
Nothing like suing people because you think they ridiculed you to get people to ridicule you.
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFDon't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.
Well, ok, I see you are not a defender of freedom of speech. But isn't self-restraint just that, self-restraint, in a free society? You think a comedian should be punished with a law suit for making a joke? Surely suing someone is just (attempted) "restraint"?
26 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHow have I misrepresented your views? You are clearly not a defender of freedom of speech if something you don't like or didn't find funny is labelled "abuse" and you suggest that people have to be "taught" to not say things you don't agree with by way of lawsuits. So, how have I misrepresented your views?
Don't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSelf restraint against what?
Don't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.
We have libel laws and anti-hate speech and/or incitement to violence laws to deal with people
who overstep the bounds of free speech.
Jay Leno overstepped none of those bounds, and didn't come close to doing so.
If you don't like what he said, don't watch.
If you don't get that then you are plainly NOT in favour of free speech and don't understand it.
The whole point of free speech is that it means you CAN ridicule and offend WITHOUT people suing you
or 'teaching you a lesson'.
And again, when you talk about "...self restraint will have to be taught to him/her." I hear the strapping on
of suicide vests.
It's like the Danish cartoons again, just because you think the building is a holy place of worship doesn't
mean that someone else can't see it as a giant and tacky golden palace.
The fact that you (or others) might find that offensive doesn't mean that nobody should be allowed to say it.
You are not entitled to impose your taboos on people who don't believe in your religion.
26 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFFreedom of Speech can exist only in a societal and civilised framework which respects feelings of others whom the free speech may hurt.
How have misrepresented your views? You are clearly not a defender of freedom of speech if something you don't like or didn't find funny is labelled "abuse" and you suggest that people have to be "taught" to not say things you don't agree with by way of lawsuits. So, how have misrepresented your views?