Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So your interest is in painting me into a person believing in totalitarianism ? Are you in a debate about Jay Leno and the Sikhs or rvsakhadeo as the next Hitler ?

We are not painting you.

You are taking a position that any totalitarian would (did, does) take on freedom of speech.
I.E. that there shouldn't be any.

You can't claim to have freedom of speech and then list all the things you can't talk about
because it might offend somebody.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
But that will mean depriving a person of seeking relief as prescribed in law. Is that your definition of a free society ?

We are not talking about people seeking relief from having the wages cut, or losing jobs or business...

We are talking about people seeking relief from having the mickey taken out of them...

This is not what the courts are for.

If you have and believe in freedom of speech then be prepared to be insulted and offended by people
and have to live with it.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
But that will mean depriving a person of seeking relief as prescribed in law. Is that your definition of a free society ?

My definition of a free society is one in which Dhillon's ludicrous lawsuit, which brings ridicule down upon American Sikhs, gets laughed out of court and lawyers are free to fleece him.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Can you name a society in which law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment? And what is the basis for the law suit?

Perhaps the USA,which is said to be a litigious society, besides being rich and having some free time on hand. If not, we will to await the genext in humanity.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So your interest is in painting me into a person believing in totalitarianism ? Are you in a debate about Jay Leno and the Sikhs or rvsakhadeo as the next Hitler ?

There's no need for you to try to play the Hitler Card against me. I lived on and off for the best part of a decade under a totalitarian regime. Their tortured political arguments for and definition of "freedom of speech" were basically the same as yours.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You can prosecute me for dodging a hypothetical question, if you like !

I can't see why you're dodging this one: Do you think Mitt Romney should sue Jay Leno too?

Originally posted by FMF
I can't see why you're dodging this one: Do you think Mitt Romney should sue Jay Leno too?

Please allow me the Liberty to dodge questions of no concern to me. ( or even to you.)

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In a society where all members are truly equal before law and all of the members of that society are mature and considerate of the sensitivities of others esp.minorities, law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment, if applicable in law. Say,in a society where homosexuals are in a minority, if a person is publicly ridiculed for being a homosexual, that is a fit case for filing a suit by the aggrieved party,

Your position is in complete disarray, you can't have freedom of speech and then claim that lawsuits can be filed for a 'perceived hurt sentiment'?!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Please allow me the Liberty to dodge questions of no concern to me. ( or even to you.)

If Mitt Romney had his feelings hurt by Jey Leno's 'joke', do you think him filing a lawsuit would be appropriate?

Yes or no will suffice.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your position is in complete disarray, you can't have freedom of speech and then claim that lawsuits can be filed for a 'perceived hurt sentiment'?!

My post above quoted by you contains safeguards and provisions.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Please allow me the Liberty to dodge questions of no concern to me. ( or even to you.)

Well we are debating an here issue are we not? If I ask a question that makes your stance seem weak, then sure, it's your prerogative to be evasive, by all means.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If Mitt Romney had his feelings hurt by Jey Leno's 'joke', do you think him filing a lawsuit would be appropriate?

Yes or no will suffice.

If provided under US law and applicable, why not ? A hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If provided under US law and applicable, why not ? A hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

So that's a yes?

I'm asking whether you would find it appropriate.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If provided under US law and applicable, why not ? A hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

Your 'principle' re: freedom of speech seems to have deteriorated to 'if lawyers can sue then it's ok'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So that's a yes?

I'm asking whether you would find it appropriate.

yes, subject to qualifications I quoted.