Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

"Do you think Mitt Romney should sue Jay Leno too?"

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
yes, subject to qualifications I quoted.

So comedians should be deterred from making jokes about politicians by way of the threat of lawsuits?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
yes, subject to qualifications I quoted.

I do not believe US law does provide for this, unless someone can point me to it. Anyone can file a suit for almost anything. Lots get chucked out even before they get to court.

If so, do you believe it should? And how would you frame this law? To whom would it apply and for what offence? How would damages be calculated?

I think if you tried to do this, I think you would soon realise why most civilised societies have shunned the idea of making this a matter for the law. It is almost impossible as a matter of practice, and undesirable as a matter of principle.

Originally posted by FMF
So comedians should be deterred from making jokes about politicians by way of the threat of lawsuits?

Are you not stretching things too much in an effort to prove that Jay Leno is at liberty to to crack jokes at the expense of sensitivities of a minority community ?
By the way, I am having to go for some domestic work. So, till the next opportunity to shoot my posts down, bye !

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
yes, subject to qualifications I quoted.

I find what you're saying ludicrous, because where does it stop? What would happen if a journalist wrote something about a politician or a political party that 'hurt someone's feelings', judging from what you've wrote so far suing them would be an appropriate option? What if someone said or wrote something about a cricket team, passions run high when it comes to cricket in India, and that hurt someone's feelings? Would they be able to sue also?

Where does it stop?!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Are you not stretching things too much in an effort to prove that Jay Leno is at liberty to to crack jokes at the expense of sensitivities of a minority community ?
By the way, I am having to go for some domestic work. So, till the next opportunity to shoot my posts down, bye !

Stretching things? How so? Yes, Jay Leno is at liberty to to crack jokes. I think it's a fundamental right. You obviously don't. Have you ever lived in a totalitarian state?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I find what you're saying ludicrous, because where does it stop? What would happen if a journalist wrote something about a politician or a political party that 'hurt someone's feelings', judging from what you've wrote so far suing them would be an appropriate option? What if someone said or wrote something about a cricket team, passions run high when it ...[text shortened]... and that hurt someone's feelings? Would they be able to sue also?

Where does it stop?!

You are forgetting the provisions and safeguards I quoted in the post. The said society was to consist of members who are equal under law and who are mature and sensitive to the sensitivities of the minorities in that society, members who are alive to their rights as well as responsibilities. In such a society, recourse to law will be an exception and well deserved when that will happen, is it not ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You are forgetting the provisions and safeguards I quoted in the post. The said society was to consist of members who are equal under law and who are mature and sensitive to the sensitivities of the minorities in that society, members who are alive to their rights as well as responsibilities. In such a society, recourse to law will be an exception and well deserved when that will happen, is it not ?

A society where people can successfully win damages for hurt feelings would not be a free society.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I do not believe US law does provide for this, unless someone can point me to it. Anyone can file a suit for almost anything. Lots get chucked out even before they get to court.

If so, do you believe it should? And how would you frame this law? To whom would it apply and for what offence? How would damages be calculated?

I think if you tried ...[text shortened]... law. It is almost impossible as a matter of practice, and undesirable as a matter of principle.

Actually the debate has drifted from what has happened in US to what should be the rights and responsibilities in a free society.
As I said earlier, if the law suit against Leno has no legal merit, it will get thrown out with consequences for both the parties. If the Sikhs win, Leno would be wiser, if not poorer. Do you think Sikhs should not have exercised their legal right to file this suit against Leno ? Since you appear to be a student of law, I am asking this.( I am not a lawyer, only a son of one. And the best advice given by my father was a) You do not get justice in a court of law. What you get is deemed to be justice. b) Do not ever go to the court as a complainant. Best is to go there as a defendant. ) Not as a counterpoint in an unnecessarily prolonged debate.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Actually the debate has drifted from what has happened in US to what should be the rights and responsibilities in a free society.

There's no "drifting", really. What has happened in the US, in its own tawdry way, goes to the heart of what should be the rights and responsibilities in a free society. You have come out against freedom of speech.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Actually the debate has drifted from what has happened in US to what should be the rights and responsibilities in a free society.
As I said earlier, if the law suit against Leno has no legal merit, it will get thrown out with consequences for both the parties. If the Sikhs win, Leno would be wiser, if not poorer. Do you think Sikhs should not have exerci ...[text shortened]... est is to go there as a defendant. ) Not as a counterpoint in an unnecessarily prolonged debate.

I'd like to see him make the same joke at the Golden Temple, in Punjabi.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I'd like to see him make the same joke at the Golden Temple, in Punjabi.

He would not do that, it will invite reactions which may not be humorous.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
He would not do that, it will invite reactions which may not be humorous.

Well as long as they don't use violence, people in Punjabi who don't like Leno's joke should be free to say what they want about him [and his joke about Romney].

? Since you appear to be a student of law, I am asking this.( I am not a lawyer, only a son of one. And the best advice given by my father was a) You do not get justice in a court of law. What you get is deemed to be justice. b) Do not ever go to the court as a complainant. Best is to go there as a defendant. ) Not as a counterpoint in an unnecessarily prolonged debate.[/b]

I am not a student of the law, but I have had a fair bit of legal training for my work.

Do you think Sikhs should not have exercised their legal right to file this suit against Leno?

I would answer this question two ways, depending on precisely what you meant.

1) Yes, I do think Sikhs should not have exercised their legal right to file this suit. They have no chance of winning and I think it makes them look overly sensitive and ridiculous. It does not advance their cause one iota, and if anything sets it back.

2) Should Sikhs have the right to file (futile) lawsuits like this? Yes. It clogs up the system and wastes people's time, but I would defend their right to do it, even if it is just a media stunt. But this should not preclude it being thrown out quickly, and costs awarded against them.

I liked the quotes from your father, by the way. I am actually a staunch defender of the courts (by which I mean the UK courts, as they are the only ones I have knowledge and experience of). Why?

Well, because whenever I hear someone complain about a 'mad decision', they are usually only responding to the media reports. When I have read the actual judgement, in most cases you would have been hard put not to agree with the judgement. Or they are complaining about what the law says, which is a matter for Government, not the courts. Or they are complaining about the fact that the court won't rule in their favour, when they have no evidence to support their accusations.

And the fact that the courts will tell the Government to get stuffed on a frequent basis, when they break their own laws. If I was on trial for my life, I would hope to be in front of a UK court and jury, or any country that follows the same principles.

But your comment on going as a defendant is well made, and rather supports the view that the Sikhs should have left well alone.

Originally posted by FMF
So comedians should be deterred from making jokes about politicians by way of the threat of lawsuits?

I think Leno's writers were looking for a photo of an over the top building and with 100 kg of gold plate, this one filled the bill. It could have been any religion that had possession of such a place.

[Edit: Also, some non-religious building like the Hungarian Parliament.]

Like glass houses and throwing stones, people who live in a gold house should expect photos of it to be used to depict extravagance.

Originally posted by JS357
I think Leno's writers were looking for a photo of an over the top building and with 100 kg of gold plate, this one filled the bill. It could have been any religion that had possession of such a place.

[Edit: Also, some non-religious building like the Hungarian Parliament.]

Like glass houses and throwing stones, people who live in a gold house should expect photos of it to be used to depict extravagance.

All this hyperventilation about Sikhism being exposed to "hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy" makes this perhaps a classic example of manufactured outrage.