26 Jan 12
2 edits
If Mr. Leno has the freedom to say what he said then Mr. Dhillon has the right to file a lawsuit. It doesn't mean he will win but I don't see the problem here.... while the original question in the OP has only been spoken on briefly with the one person voicing his opinion being criticized... I think one only has to read this whole thread to see the hypocritical theme here.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFNo, but quite a few around here are.
"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
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't think anybody has proposed taking Dhillon's right to file a lawsuit away. It's a red herring. The OP was pretty clear. So you think the joke has promoted "hatred" of Sikhs?
If Mr. Leno has the freedom to say what he said then Mr. Dhillon has the right to file a lawsuit. It doesn't mean he will win but I don't see the problem here.... while the original question in the OP has only been spoken on briefly with the one person voicing his opinion being criticized... I think one only has to read this whole thread to see the hypocritical theme here.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFNo, I don't. I don't even think that most people are paying attention to this lawsuit and it will fade out of the media spotlight in short order.
I don't think anybody has proposed taking Dhillon's right to file a lawsuit away. It's a red herring. The OP was pretty clear. So you think the joke has promoted "hatred" of Sikhs?
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232So where does that leave your "hypocritical theme" cheap shot? Who wants to restrict Dhillon's free speech according to you?
No, I don't. I don't even think that most people are paying attention to this lawsuit and it will fade out of the media spotlight in short order.
27 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe hypocritical theme is the way certain persons in this thread support freedom of speech right after jumping down rv's throat for voicing his opinion.
So where does that leave your "hypocritical theme" cheap shot? Who wants to restrict Dhillon's free speech according to you?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Filling a lawsuit is not equivalent to free expression. Not even close.
If Mr. Leno has the freedom to say what he said then Mr. Dhillon has the right to file a lawsuit. It doesn't mean he will win but I don't see the problem here.... while the original question in the OP has only been spoken on briefly with the one person voicing his opinion being criticized... I think one only has to read this whole thread to see the hypocritical theme here.
If I call you names, then you can simply ignore me.
If I file a lawsuit against you then suddenly you get served with official documents and
instructions to appear in court.
Possibly if its a libel case with admonitions not to talk about the subject of the suit due
to the gagging order I got.
You now have to take time to take legal council and appear at court... even if the case then
gets thrown out you have been inconvenienced, potentially intimidated, you have had to spend
both time and money.
The simple filing (or threat) of libel lawsuits against people is a known and effective tactic (particularly in the UK)
for silencing critics, often successfully employed by big corporations with deep pockets against
individuals without the financial muscle to fight back even if they would ultimately win if it went to court.
You do not have the right to file a lawsuit against anyone who says something that offends you.
And doing so when there is evidently and obviously no possible legal justification is unequivocally an attempt
to stymie that persons freedom of expression and at the very least intimidate them into keeping quiet and
self censoring in future.
Also, having the freedom of speech doesn't mean a freedom from people voicing their objections to the content.
Perhaps you should read the whole thread before you jump to conclusions about hypocrisy...
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Where did the exchange run out of being OK? FMF says something, then rv says something negative about what FMF said, then some certain persons say something negative about what rv said, then you say something about negative about what these persons said.
The hypocritical theme is the way certain persons in this thread support freedom of speech right after jumping down rv's throat for voicing his opinion.
It's all OK. Nobody here has violated anybody's rights or suggested they be curtailed. Have they? Criticism is allowed, including yours -- and mine, if you take this as such -- and any criticism of this that RHP allows.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by JS357The exchange ran out of being ok when certain persons derailed the OP and instead attacked rv's opinion. It wasn't in violation of any rights but it was certainly hypocritical.
Where did the exchange run out of being OK? FMF says something, then rv says something negative about what FMF said, then some certain persons say something negative about what rv said, then you say something about negative about what these persons said.
It's all OK. Nobody here has violated anybody's rights or suggested they be curtailed. Have they? Critic ...[text shortened]... ding yours -- and mine, if you take this as such -- and any criticism of this that RHP allows.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis doesn't make any sense and contradicts your whole stance. You can say something that may hurt someones feelings but you can't file a lawsuit because it may inconvenience someone?
Filling a lawsuit is not equivalent to free expression. Not even close.
If I call you names, then you can simply ignore me.
If I file a lawsuit against you then suddenly you get served with official documents and
instructions to appear in court.
Possibly if its a libel case with admonitions not to talk about the subject of the suit due
to the ...[text shortened]... .
Perhaps you should read the whole thread before you jump to conclusions about hypocrisy...
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Just so we understand each other...
The exchange ran out of being ok when certain persons derailed the OP and instead attacked rv's opinion. It wasn't in violation of any rights but it was certainly hypocritical.
Hypocrisy is claiming to do (or that one should do) one thing,
and then actually doing something else.
In which case I would like you to point out where someone said that
in support of free speech its not ok to criticize people for holding and
espousing views that you don't agree with?
I for one have argued that it's not compatible with free speech to have
people threatened with lawsuits for offending or ridiculing people.
If I then offend, ridicule, or criticize someone (or their arguments/positions),
how does that in any way become hypocrisy?
I think that you are talking nonsense and would realise it if you re read the thread
properly instead of skimming it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232It makes perfect sense and contradicts nothing in my stance.
This doesn't make any sense and contradicts your whole stance. You can say something that may hurt someones feelings but you can't file a lawsuit because it may inconvenience someone?
If I say something [publicly] like butcher X puts little children in his sausages then I have
said something that might well (if taken seriously) threaten butcher X's ability to conduct
business and might get him investigated by the police. It will cost butcher X time and money,
and possibly permanently damage there earning capability.
If it isn't true, then I have just destroyed this butchers livelihood by stating unfounded and
damaging assertions.
We have (rightly) made this illegal and put in place civil laws that allow for people and or corporations
to sue others who say things that would hurt their reputations and or business that are not true.
If I say that person A is a degenerate immoral person who has no right to live and should be taken
from their home and stoned to death, then I am inciting people to commit a violent crime.
And we have laws against that too. (hate laws)
However, If I say that building X is tacky and an eyesore and make fun of it, and building X happens
to be a holy site of a faith I don't belong to, then I have done or said nothing libellous or hateful and thus
have not broken or come close to breaking any law.
And moreover my actions are specifically protected under law.
Thus if someone where to try to prevent me saying these things by filing a lawsuit against me then they are
attempting to imping on my legal right to free speech with absolutely no ground for doing so.
They are abusing the legal system to try to achieve an unlawful end.
In the particular case as outlined in the OP Jay Leno wasn't even poking fun at the building but at Mitt Romney
who is a candidate for president who is tripping over himself in his attempts not to appear like a callous
multi-millionaire business fat cat who is completely out of touch with 'regular people' and lives in a gilded palace...
And so his staff almost certainly want out to find any picture of an OTT golden building and found this.
To claim that this was ridiculing Sikh's is absurd, at most it's ridiculing the building.
But that is irrelevant because even if it were ridiculing the building, Sikh's and/or their religion, it would still be legal,
and Jay Leno would be entitled to do it.
It can't be ok to have people suing people for doing things they are allowed to do.
Would it be ok for Tesco's to sue me for shopping at Waitrose because it costs them money and market share?
Comedians make fun of people, things, ideas, and in the west it's legal.
It's not hypocritical or contradictory to support freedom of expression and not support frivolous lawsuits against people
who have not done anything illegal.