Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

Originally posted by FMF
What law has he broken? You yourself conceded that Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple does not expose the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred".

Surely the lawyers who filed the suit know their business unless you are an expert in US law.

Originally posted by FMF
You dodged my question. Why do you claim that a lawsuit "is the one remedy available" when there are clearly several courses of action he could take?

Why and how am I in any position to decide on the best course of action ? Is the option taken wrong-morally or legally ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Surely the lawyers who filed the suit know their business unless you are an expert in US law.

Nonsense, they filled the suit as a publicity stunt.

They have precisely no case.

Doesn't pass the laugh test.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Surely the lawyers who filed the suit know their business unless you are an expert in US law.

Yes I know the business of lawyers. It's about representing clients. Perhaps if you were seeking to undermine the principle of freedom of speech because someone hurt your feelings or they said something you did not like, you'd have to hire a lawyer too, and as long as you've got the money or the lawyer wants the publicity, he or she will file your suit for you. Your argument about "civilized society" seems to be floundering.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Why and how am I in any position to decide on the best course of action ? Is the option taken wrong-morally or legally ?

You may not be a legal expert but you can still offer an opinion on what you think a reasonable response would be.

Morally or ethically if you like.


incidentally you do appear to be ignoring my posts, not that FMF isn't hitting up similar points.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nonsense, they filled the suit as a publicity stunt.

They have precisely no case.

Doesn't pass the laugh test.

So you have inside knowledge-- do you ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Why and how am I in any position to decide on the best course of action ? Is the option taken wrong-morally or legally ?

You're still dodging my point blank question. You claimed it was the only course of action.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So you have inside knowledge-- do you ?

You must have missed this -

So where do you draw the line? If you agree that Sikh's should file a lawsuit then surely you agree that any religious person can file a lawsuit when someone has their feelings hurt.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So you have inside knowledge-- do you ?

No I don't have inside knowledge, I have just seen this before, many times.

They have no case, he didn't come close to breaking any laws, and US free speech laws are
really strong.

They don't have a prayer of getting anywhere in court.

That isn't to say that it's not impossible that the networks involved might not come to some
out of court settlement and release an apology if they think that's the right pr move (or they
think it might hurt business in India) but if they have a spine and take it to court they would
win any case, assuming the judge didn't just dismiss the whole thing.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You must have missed this -

So where do you draw the line? If you agree that Sikh's should file a lawsuit then surely you agree that any religious person can file a lawsuit when someone has their feelings hurt.

Ditto this...

With example... should I be sued for ridiculing Scientologists or Ron Hubbard?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You may not be a legal expert but you can still offer an opinion on what you think a reasonable response would be.

Morally or ethically if you like.


incidentally you do appear to be ignoring my posts, not that FMF isn't hitting up similar points.

One needs to step into the shoes of the people --certain Sikhs in US who filed the suit to answer your post. They are a minority in a country they have adopted and they have thought their sentiments have been hurt. The one remedy available to them they have opted for. Skies have not fallen.If the suit is legally without merit it will be thrown out. And that will be that. But even in that case, Leno would have appreciated what were the feelings of the people whose shrine he mocked.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
One needs to step into the shoes of the people --certain Sikhs in US who filed the suit to answer your post. They are a minority in a country they have adopted and they have thought their sentiments have been hurt. The one remedy available to them they have opted for.

Why do you keep saying it's the only "remedy" available to them? This is patently false. They could try to promote "self-restraint" in the public domain without attempting to undermine a basic human right.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You must have missed this -

So where do you draw the line? If you agree that Sikh's should file a lawsuit then surely you agree that any religious person can file a lawsuit when someone has their feelings hurt.

U.S. is a free country, is it not ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
One needs to step into the shoes of the people --certain Sikhs in US who filed the suit to answer your post. They are a minority in a country they have adopted and they have thought their sentiments have been hurt. The one remedy available to them they have opted for. Skies have not fallen.If the suit is legally without merit it will be thrown out. And th ...[text shortened]... t case, Leno would have appreciated what were the feelings of the people whose shrine he mocked.

Again, he didn't mock the shrine, he mocked Mitt Romney.
And again, if you believe in freedom of speech then you can't go around suing people for mocking you.

The people who filled this law suite, the people who complained, need to grow up, toughen up, and
stop worrying about having fun poked at them once in a while.

Particularly they need to not be so sensitive as to get all up in arms about a joke that wasn't even aimed
at them, or their religion.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
U.S. is a free country, is it not ?

And the people who filled this lawsuit are trying to make it less free.

Also you missed the point.

If you can file a lawsuit as a Sikh against someone 'mocking' your temple.

Then I could create my own religion that prohibits people mocking me or anything I do or say,
and sue anyone who transgresses.

It's not possible to follow all the taboos of every religion out there and no earthly reason
why anyone who is not a member of those religions should have to.

the fact that someone thinks something is sacred does not mean that any one else has to
tiptoe around it.