1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 03:32
    "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
  2. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    26 Jan '12 09:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    "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
    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.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 09:53
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    Do you think Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple exposes the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred"?
  4. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    26 Jan '12 09:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    Do you think Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple exposes the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred"?
    No but to ridicule, yes ! After all the Golden temple is the holiest shrine of Sikhs.
  5. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 09:59
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    No but to ridicule, yes ! After all the Golden temple is the holiest shrine of Sikhs.
    So, the law suit? Is it appropriate?
  6. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Jan '12 10:002 edits
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    Bunk, we ridicule everyone, including ourselves, Hindus and Sikhs are not even close to being
    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.
  7. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    26 Jan '12 10:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    So, the law suit? Is it appropriate?
    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.
  8. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 10:071 edit
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    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"?
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Jan '12 10:07
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    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.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 10:14
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    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.
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Jan '12 10:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    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.
    Oh hell yes.
    Nothing like suing people because you think they ridiculed you to get people to ridicule you.
  12. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    26 Jan '12 10:21
    Originally posted by FMF
    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"?
    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.
  13. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    26 Jan '12 10:272 edits
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    How 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?
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Jan '12 10:32
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    Self restraint against what?

    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.
  15. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    26 Jan '12 10:32
    Originally posted by FMF
    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?
    Freedom of Speech can exist only in a societal and civilised framework which respects feelings of others whom the free speech may hurt.
Back to Top