Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
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.

If Dhillon were to win the suit, how much money do you reckon Leno ought to have to pay in damages?

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

What sort of an answer is that?!

Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that any religious person should file a lawsuit if their feelings have been hurt?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

Why should they try to promote "self restraint " ? Because they are in a minuscule minority ? They are not having legal rights equal to Leno's freedom ?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What sort of an answer is that?!

Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that any religious person should file a lawsuit if their feelings have been hurt?

If the law provides, yes.

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.

When Dasa recently called for a genocide of all Muslim men, one or two posters called him a "nutter". If all that had happened in the public domain (rather than this somewhat 'private' domain that we inhabit here at RHP) do you think Dasa would have been justified in suing the people who called him a "nutter"?

Originally posted by FMF
If Dhillon were to win the suit, how much money do you reckon Leno ought to have to pay in damages?

Let us leave to Dhillon.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If the law provides, yes.

Then you absolutely and unequivocally don't support freedom of speech as anyone else understands it.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Freedom of Speech can exist only in a societal and civilised framework which respects feelings of others whom the free speech may hurt.

Don't confuse what may be desirable with what needs the force of law to prevent.

Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society.

So, telling lies on its own is not an offence. Telling lies during a criminal investigation would be, and should be punishable by criminal sanctions. Telling lies that result in a person losing money commercially is a civil matter which can get the person recompense for the loss concerned.

Ditto religion. There is no basis for restricing free speech legally on the basis that some groups of people do not like what is being said. Being called ugly can be deeply hurtful, but we shouldn't run off to court to protect our feelings.

By all means educate people to show restraint on sensitive issues, but if they don't, either ignore it or have a pop (verbally) back.

Why should religion be any different?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If the law provides, yes.

Should we stop at religion, or do you believe we can include other topics that might hurt peoples feelings?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Why should they try to promote "self restraint " ? Because they are in a minuscule minority ? They are not having legal rights equal to Leno's freedom ?

There is no freedom from having your feelings hurt, rvsakhadeo. Why should they try to promote "self-restraint"? You yourself said "self-restraint" was the key. Why would they NOT want to promote it?

Originally posted by FMF
When Dasa recently called for a genocide of all Muslim men, one or two posters called him a "nutter". If all that had happened in the public domain (rather than this somewhat 'private' domain that we inhabit here at RHP) do you think Dasa would have been justified in suing the people who called him a "nutter"?

In a public domain, Dasa would have been prosecuted for preaching hatred against a community. And had he filed a suit for being called a nutter, surely that would have been thrown out with damages.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Let us leave to Dhillon.

You're dodging a point blank on-topic question again. If Dhillon were to win, and you support his action and therefore you presumably want to see him win and for Leno to be ordered to pay damages, how much money do you reckon Leno ought to have to pay?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In a public domain, Dasa would have been prosecuted for preaching hatred against a community.

But even you concede that Leno wasn't "preaching hatred against a community" with his surreal gag about Mitt Romney. So why would there be any need for Leno to be prosecuted? Some Sikhs didn't like his joke. So what? Why don't they exercise their freedom of speech by ridiculing what they see as Leno's poor taste in the media?

Originally posted by FMF
There is no freedom from having your feelings hurt, rvsakhadeo. Why should they try to promote "self-restraint"? You yourself said "self-restraint" was the key. Why would they NOT want to promote it?

You want the Sikhs to promote self restraint in the face of Leno's ridicule. Why ? Please give me your point of view. Do not throw my words back at me with a question mark.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You want the Sikhs to promote self restraint in the face of Leno's ridicule. Why ? Please give me your point of view. Do not throw my words back at me with a question mark.

You must have missed this -

Should we stop at religion, or do you believe people can file lawsuits regarding other topics that might hurt peoples feelings?