Achmed "the dead terrorist" behind lawsuit against city

I just read in my local newspaper that the american stand-up comedian/ventriloquist Jeff Dunham's famous character Achmed "the dead terrorist" is the cause of an possible upcoming lawsuit in Sweden.

Apparently a social secretary in the small city of Borås found him funny and was sharing a youtube-link featuring Jeff Dunham and Achmed via email with her friends. This was done during working hours.
Somehow the email of a client of hers was included and the client also recieved the link.

The client was a muslim man and he got very offended that the link was sent to him by a woman that he was relying on to get his social wellfare money.
Apparently he didn't find Jeff Dunham funny at all, but rather an insult on his religion of Islam.

So he demanded that the city paid him for the suffering this youtube link had caused him.
The social secretary apologized publicly and was reprimanded, but the city refused to pay the man any money, and is now facing a possible lawsuit.

This is the story in short.

My first thoughts when reading this was that he was overly sensitive.
I have watched Jeff Dunham - he is one of my favourite comedians, and I just love his Achmed character (silence! - I kill you!). I also think that you can make jokes about almost everything.

As inappropriate as it might have been to send this to a muslim client - was it A CRIME to send a youtube link, that have passed the youtube censorship and was considered non-offensive, to this man?

If this is the case where do we in the future draw the line between a joke and a criminal joke then?
Are you to possibly be sue'd for sharing various humorous youtube links with the wrong persons in the future?

Link to article (in swedish): www.bt.se...(2257176).gm

Google translation of the text:

Muslim jokes got cut from the Social Secretary - denied damages
Boras today 07:35 | Updated today 07:42

The e-mail from the social worker was a link to a movie making fun of Islam.

The man who received the e-mail is a Muslim and was very upset. But Boras city would not give him damages.

The e-mail from the social worker provided a link to a YouTube clip of an American stand-up comedian and ventriloquist, inter alia, make jokes about Islam. The message was sent to eight different people and did nothing but link.
One of the recipients was a man who is a client of the social worker and dependent on her for financial assistance. He was very upset.
When he contacted the social worker asked her to apologize and explained that the email was meant for her friends and acquaintances - the man's email address had been with the mistake.
- It is unacceptable that a person in the municipality is located and send this kind of work, "says the man.

He believes that it is particularly serious because he knows that the social worker in his work found many Muslims.
It damages the trust in the municipality, he thinks:
- It's easy to believe that there is something under the surface, in her heart that she was prejudiced against Muslims.

A few days later he received a written apology, in which a manager within the social type that has "taken the incident very seriously" and that the conduct "contrary to Boras town values."
The social worker also received a written warning by his employer.
The man also asked for a substantial damages from the city of Borås, citing that he felt humiliated at having received such an email from his social secretary.
- It's not about money, "says the man and explains that he wants the damages will have a deterrent effect.
- If you drive through a red light is not enough to apologize, you may also fine as a deterrent so that you can not do it again.

But Boras city has now rejected his request for damages.
- The official who sent the e-mail has acted in a very inappropriate way, there's no doubt about it. But I can not see that the violation is so serious that there is no basis for damages, "said Rosangela Hansen, town lawyer in the city of Borås.

Your thoughts on this?

reply to post by Tollon


My thoughts?

Just another childish Muslim that cannot take a joke and saw another oppertunity to leech off of taxpayers money.

*I am only suprised that he did not start sending death threats to the social worker or to Jeff Dunham like they normally do when they are offended

reply to post by Vampiri


Suing somebody has nothing to do with tax money. Civil cases are private matters and the settlements are between the parties involved - not taxpayers.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide



"The man also asked for a substantial damages from the city of Borås"

The parties involved are the city of Borås and the gentleman making the damages claim. where do you think the city of Borås gets its funding from?

Although I dont agree with the wave of liberalism spreading through western society and with it over the top political correctness I can see how this was found offensive by a muslim. The fact that it came from someone in power only strengthens there beliefs that they are victimised as a religion and race. It was a terrible accident which should never have happened,if this person was doing their publicly paid job correctly and not wasting time sharing links,rather than in their own time,on their own computer which I would have no problem with btw,this incident would have never occured. I myself think Jeff Dunham is fantastic and very self deprecating,which is a sign of a good comic.His Achmed and Walter puppets are a joy to watch and the humour is not vicious or upsetting to most people,just a shame that it got sent to a proud Muslim guy who did,quite rightly,take offence.Organised religion as gradually been ground down and diluted in the Western world this century and if we went back 50 years and saw a muslim guy with a christian puppet making a mockery over tragic events and the way we worship,dress etc there would have been hell to pay!!

reply to post by Vampiri


From the sourced and quoted article in the OP:

But Boras city has now rejected his request for damages.
- The official who sent the e-mail has acted in a very inappropriate way, there's no doubt about it. But I can not see that the violation is so serious that there is no basis for damages, "said Rosangela Hansen, town lawyer in the city of Borås.

So, if this matter proceeds, it is purely civil.

~Heff

Over the last several months, I've noticed that muslims have done more to isolate themselves, than can be blamed on discrimination. They are extremely over sensitive to every perceived slight, whether there is actually an insult or not. They have tried to get special treatment not afforded to any other faith. ANY group of people who go around with a raw nerve exposed, ready to cry foul at the slightest provocation, will always find a reason to whine.

reply to post by Hefficide


If you say so, but so far i have not seen any claims for damages against the actuall individuall that sent the mail only against the "City of Borås".

Being Norwegian my self (the difference between norwegian and swedish is about the same as the difference between american(english) and irish(english)) i can see that the translation is not perfect. Here is the actuall text from the original article.

"Men Borås stad har nu avslagit hans begäran om skadestånd.
– Tjänstemannen som skickade mejlet har agerat på ett mycket olämpligt sätt, det är ingen tvekan om det. Men jag kan inte se att kränkningen är så allvarlig att det finns någon laglig grund för skadestånd, säger Rosangela Hansen, stadsjurist i Borås stad. "

www.bt.se...'

"The serviceman that sent the mail has acted in a very inappropriate manner, there is no doubt about that.
But i cannot se that the offense is so serious that there are any legal grounds for the damages claim. Says Rosangela Hansen, state lawyer in the city of Borås."

The lawyer is only saying that there is no -->legal grounds

reply to post by Vampiri


Haha. That youtube guy was funny.

- I was offended. I have rights.
- So what? Be offended. Nothing happens!

Classic...

I get offended when I get spam emails.
I think it's inapropriate of businesses to send me offers of cheap viagra since I have no potency problems.
They probably do this on their working hours.
That doesn't mean I sue them.
I just ignore them and get on with my life.

Is this case any different only because it involves religion?
I think not.
I have a hard time believeing that this man's religious faith is more important to him then my potency is to me...

Ah,whatever.Jeff Dunham is awesome.Muslims just don't know how to take a joke.It's funny how they demand money every time they feel they've been insulted.They get insulted by the most ridiculous things.Maybe they should realize the world isn't Islam and nobody owes them anything.

People make jokes about all religions.Christianity is in the firing line 24/7.Don't see them bugging out.

reply to post by Vampiri


Thank you for the translation! I might be out of my element commenting here, as I am basing my opinions upon limited knowledge of American law, and without knowledge of the language involved.

Still, I stand, fairly well convinced, by my initial thoughts that punitive damages, if awarded at all, will probably come from a civil and not civic source.

Maybe, at some point, an expert in Swedish law will join into the conversation and provide us with some insight into the particulars as they pertain to such cases.

But, thank you again for the translation. The membership of ATS never fails to impress me with their resources and knowledge!

~Heff

Originally posted by Vampiri
reply to post by Hefficide

 

If you say so, but so far i have not seen any claims for damages against the actuall individuall that sent the mail only against the "City of Borås".

Being Norwegian my self (the difference between norwegian and swedish is about the same as the difference between american(english) and irish(english)) i can see that the translation is not perfect. Here is the actuall text from the original article.

"Men Borås stad har nu avslagit hans begäran om skadestånd.
– Tjänstemannen som skickade mejlet har agerat på ett mycket olämpligt sätt, det är ingen tvekan om det. Men jag kan inte se att kränkningen är så allvarlig att det finns någon laglig grund för skadestånd, säger Rosangela Hansen, stadsjurist i Borås stad. "

www.bt.se...'

"The serviceman that sent the mail has acted in a very inappropriate manner, there is no doubt about that.
But i cannot se that the offense is so serious that there are any legal grounds for the damages claim. Says Rosangela Hansen, state lawyer in the city of Borås."

The lawyer is only saying that there is no -->legal grounds

I have to say I would be personally offended if someone sent me that Ahmed thing. It does my head in. The ringtone advert used to play over and over on a loop on all music channels here in the UK, and occasionally on all the other channels too.

Get "I keel you" by texting 555055 Ahmed 1. Or something along those lines.

It reminds me of a similar legal suit I found myself in last year. By mistake I sent a link to a Youtube video of Crazy frog, to a frog in our Human Resources department. After a long legal battle I was forced to pay him the sum of 1000 flies, 200 moths, and a very small fish, within 30 days of the order. Political correctness gone mad!

Originally posted by Tollon
Your thoughts on this?

My thoughts .. wait for it .. wait for it ... I keeeeel you!
I love Achmed. He's a hoot. When he and Walter get into it, it's exceptionally funny.
I'd love to see someone sue Achmed and have HIM show up on the witness stand!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Tollon
Your thoughts on this?

My thoughts .. wait for it .. wait for it ... I keeeeel you!

I love Achmed. He's a hoot. When he and Walter get into it, it's exceptionally funny.
I'd love to see someone sue Achmed and have HIM show up on the witness stand!

That would be a .... blast

The man is entitled to be offended, of that there is no doubt. Just as we are entitled to be offended when someone tries to use the system to gain money and assuage hurt feelings.

Is he entitled to a sum of money because he was offended? IMO no. People need to understand that this is America. We have many freedoms and many of us exercise them very frequently. We are allowed to express ourselves. People who come here to enjoy those freedoms should not expect others to cater to what they find "not funny".

I get offended upon occassion myself. I either turn the channel, delete the email, or remove myself from the situation all together. We are a melting pot, and there are a ton of different humors and beliefs that come with that.

I don't think we should lump "all" muslims together when things like this happen either. Using "All" to describe most any group is usually based on assumptions and are highly stereo-typical. I get lumped into the Christian group when my beliefs are generally far from what most people consider a non tolerant group.

The man should drop the case. Apologies have been given and if he is still so offended he needs money to ease the pain, then I question his motives.

Originally posted by Hefficide
So, if this matter proceeds, it is purely civil.

A civil case against an entity that gets its funding from taxpayers, if won, gets paid out of the pocket of taxpayers.

The offensiveness of this goes beyond call someone an idiot or trying to push some drugs. The Muslim nation has been persecuted by western culture, as 9/11 was an inside job to build support for war. Estimates range from 200k to 2 Million dead. I am not sure of his connection to the war torn parts but it is possible that he has dead family and friends. Then the state sends him a message 'I Keeel you'. The state was lucky he did not lose his cool in a big way.

I was slightly offended about the fact jesus is a reoccuring character in family guy. I've an idea i'll ring the police. honestly muslims need to accept that all people get offended and it's not just them

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Vampiri

 

Still, I stand, fairly well convinced, by my initial thoughts that punitive damages, if awarded at all, will probably come from a civil and not civic source.

I don't understand why you are being so insistent here. Have you never heard of a city or county or state getting sued? A city employee sent an 'offensive' message to this guy who now wants to sue the city for allowing that to happen. I agree that it's frivolous and may not fly, but it is certainly not unprecedented.

A "civil" suit is "civil" in the sense that it is not "criminal," i.e.: The local prosecutor has not filed charges and you won't go to jail if convicted. It has nothing to do with being civil versus being civic. In "civil" cases anybody can sue anybody else for anything and that can include a call for punitive damages. If a city gets sued and loses that suit, the city will pay, and it will pay with tax dollars (baring insurance, the preium of which was also paid by tax dollars), period.

There are thousands of examples from all over the world of cities getting sued in "civil court" and losing only to be compelled to pay damages with taxpayer money. There are several "civil" suits against my city right now. Most all of them have to do with the city not adequately perfoming its functions, making arbitrary decisions, not following its own rules, etc. And some of them involve a city employee doing something inappropriate.

I certainly agree that in this case the city should not lose, but it certainly could get sued.