In a recent opening monologue, Jay
Leno made a joke towards GOP candidate Mitt Romney. He showed a clip of the Golden Temple of
Amritsar (a holy shrine to the Sikh’s) and made it appear to be Romney’s summer
home. An Indian-American man, Randeep
Dhillon, was angered by the joke and filed a lawsuit in California for
libel. He argued that the joke “‘hurt
the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to the plaintiff.’” The lawsuit went on to argue that by making a
joke towards the Sikh’s holy temple, Leno exposed all Sikh’s to mockery and
hatred and that the joke was “racist and derogatory.” NBC, the channel that broadcasts The Tonight
Show, has also been requested by other members of the Sikh community for
action against the comments made by Leno.
Primarily, this is a case about
slander and freedom of speech. One man
was offended by the words of another said on national TV. However, the plaintiff believed he had a case
against Leno largely because his religion was mocked in his opinion. This suit, if it goes further in the justice
process, will raise the questions of 1) if a religion is mocked, do the
followers of that religion have the right to sue and 2) does that trump freedom
of speech in the United States? If “‘the
sentiments of all Sikh people’” are hurt, does that have more precedence that
the constitutional right of free speech?
As mentioned above and in the
article, America has the constitutional right to free speech. Anyone who watches The Tonight Show is aware that Leno’s opening monologue is filled
with jokes. While there may be some
truth to what he says during the monologue (before showing the temple as Romney’s
home, two other actual homes of GOP candidates were shown), there is always a
punch line at the end. The joke Leno
made was not directed at the Sikh religion, but towards Romney. The intent of the joke was to make fun of how
Romney is rich. While I was aware of the
Sikh religion, I did not recognize the gold temple as a holy site to the Sikh’s,
which I believe is the same for many Americans watching Leno’s opening
monologue. Leno could have shown a clip
of Buckingham Palace instead of the temple and send the same message about
Romney, and the British monarch would likely not have filed suit against Leno. Hypothetically,
if this case where to not be thrown out and Dhillon won, the implications of
the case would mean that shows like South
Park, an equal opportunity offender, and Family Guy could be sued on a regular basis. If the feelings of a religious group were
superior to freedom of speech, the government would be favoring religion. While that is not establishing religion or preventing
the free exercise of religion, it would be ignoring another very important constitutional
freedom Americans have.
11 comments:
There is a quote from a well-known freedom of speech case (the cite to which escapes me at the moment) that says speech cannot be restricted simply because it makes a certain group uncomfortable. Pair that with the expansive interpretation of "freedom of the press" given by the court, and I believe this suit is going to have a short life.
While I sympathize with the Sikhs in that their faith was used in the line of fire for a joke, I do not feel that the legal issues of this case will go much further than an apology from the Leno show. With Mitt Romney being the butt of the joke, it seems quite surprising that the Sikh's were chosen to be the "vacation home" for Romney. I feel that the complication in this situation is that while it is not "fair" for the Sikhs to have been affected, this calls forth for a better understanding on all parties of the implications brought forth by "freedom of speech" & how one choses to use that freedom.
Exposure to "mockery and hatred"? Was the joke's intent "racist and derogatory"? I don't believe so. Hundreds of pictures depict individuals in worship, the Pope, the Cross, Jesus, TajMahal and other religious sites in contexts they were not intended. Of course we all should be more sensitive but,in my opinion the lawsuit should be dismissed. Welcome to America the land of the free...and of free speech.
great post
In my opinion, religion is mocked everyday by thousands of people.I am familiar with sikh religion and would say that Golden temple is their holiest temple where every sikh vists at least once in his/her lifetime. But that is no reason to sue Jay leno. That may have hurt Sikhs feelings but it meant to show romney's wealth. They probably showed it because of the Gold on the Dome, signifying $$$. if freedom of religion was more important than freedom of speech, then sean hannity and neal boortz on 95.5FM would get sued everyday because they literally insult islam and many other other religions on national radio everyday.If the plaintiff was hurt by the mockery, he could have turned off the TV, but he didnt.
I think this case has no real merit and the court should rule in favor of jay leno.
I agree with the Catherine’s point of view, Sikhs should not have been offended. There are many shows that she mentions that offend religion directly. A while back South Park did an episode where they had a cartoon of Muhammad, this cerated many problems. The writers of South Park removed the character of Muhammad because it was offensive to Muslim they believes that Muhammad cannot be depicted. Coming back to the reference about the Golden Temple, Sikhs should not have gotten this upset. The joke was intended towards Romeny not the Sikhs. I believe that religious institutions should pick there battles, and this was just not worth picking.
Building off what Sachin said, by filing a lawsuit they are bringing more attention to the joke. Had no suit been filed, only those who watch the show would have seen the joke. But because of the suit, people who missed the episode or never intended to watch the episode were exposed to the clip.
This is an interesting law suit because like many, I did not realize that the golden temple belonged to the Sikh tradition. There is a point on whether satirical representation of religious figures, rituals, sites, etc. could be considered derogatory in the use of their images in jokes. there have been many different cases involving South Park where religious groups have sued based on their feeling of damages owed but I don't believe that they have won. Do these cases not set a precedent on this matter and protect Jay Leno's freedom to joke about the presidential candidates? I believe that this case, if won, could open up many questions about the representation of religious iconography in the modern media and may even limit our laughs as viewers.
I agree with your arguments. I do not believe that members of the Sikh religion have standing to sue because they were offended by a joke. In my opinion, Jay Leno’s intent was not to mock the Sikh religion, it was to poke fun at Mitt Romney. In the Supreme Court case, Hustler Magazine, Inc v. Fallwell, the Supreme Court ruled that Hustler magazine’s parody of Fallwell was protected by the First Amendment because it did not use factual claims. Collectively, people interpreted the article as a joke. I think that the precedent of this case can be applied to this case as well.
While I also believe this suit has little merit from a constitutional/legal standpoint, I am sympathetic to the underlying concerns voiced by the Sikh communities. This suit is ultimately about the continued misunderstanding and ignorance of Sikhism. Sikhs are often mistaken for Muslims because of their religious garb, most notably and visibly their headgear (turbans and headwraps). After the 9/11 attacks, there were a number of retaliatory hate crimes committed against Sikhs, in large part because they look like the popular caricature of terrorists as dark-skinned people who wear turbans, an image long promoted by American media outlets. With these tragedies still fresh in the collective consciousness of Sikh communities, it is no wonder that there would be a public outcry from them at yet another demonstration of ignorance about their faith. That most Americans could not identify that picture used by the Jay Leno Show as the Golden Temple only adds to the evidence that the Sikh religion remains largely misunderstood by the American public. While Jay Leno certainly has the constitutional right to speak freely and use the Sikh religion as the punchline for a joke, I'm not sure the freedom of speech necessarily means that that speech should always be spoken. Certainly, the Sikhs know first hand that things can go terribly wrong as a result of misinformation and unrestrained/irresponsible speech.
This type of case in which followers of a certain religious affiliation get offended and file suits against comedians and televisions stations is becoming old. And although I commend the Sikh for speaking up, I don’t feel that this lawsuit will fly. Religion has become an easy target for humor and contention and is referred to everyday in the media. And it will continue to be. The Sikhs should accept defeat and next time, just take it as a grain of salt.
I understand why Randeep Dhillon would be upset. However, I do agree with the fact that the first amendment allows us the freedom of speech and I also see how this should not go any further than that. Being of Indian decent I did not even know what that was a picture of. I do not think that Jay Leno sought out to offend anyone but conducted a mere joke which is required of him for his late-night gig. I think a public apology should suffice even though our first amendment gives us full permission to speak our mind. The comments that were made in the clip were directed towards Romney and his wealth. In no way were they degrading the Sikhs. The Sikhs may have felt that there temple which is a holy place to them, was now a joke and that may be the spark that caused the flame. I just don’t think that its such a big issue, but that’s just my opinion.
Post a Comment