Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff asks Terry Jones to not screen film.

[cthulu2016]

Okay, how weird will this get? Terry Jones claims that General Martin Dempsey, the COTJCOS, told him the movie is pornographic, a claim that gives Jones an out to not show it. Either that or Demspey actually did call it pornographic.

WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, called a Florida pastor on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has been linked to violent protests - including one that ended with the death of America's envoy to Libya.

"In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause," Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, told Reuters.

"He told me he had seen the film and that the film was pornographic ... and very, very bad. He asked me not to support it," Pastor Terry Jones told Reuters.

Jones agreed to "re-evaluate" his plans to show the film. "If the film is indeed pornographic, then, of course, as a Christian pastor I cannot support that type of film and could not show it," he said.

Dempsey's office declined comment on Jones' characterization of the call

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/terry-jones-anti-islam-film_n_1878898.html

[progressivebydesign]

1. One of the actresses mentions a sex scene with a 10 year old girl...

and that the director wanted her to be 7 years old, instead. I'd say it's pretty hideous, bordering on illegal.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. If this is true

and I have no reason to believe it isn't, I'm not comfortable with the nation's top military officer calling a citizen and seemingly exerting pressure to stifle free speech.

[Dkc05]

3. Just arrest the bastard for inciting a riot.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Showing a film is not inciting a riot n/t

[Dkc05]

6. Karl Rove or whoever made it. Knew very well that they would stirring up hatred toward the USA.

This has to be part of the October surprise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Hate speech, like porn

You will know it when you see it...in this case, it seems it hits both...sex with a ten year old is porn...and it is hate speech...a twofer.

Like the second, freedom of speech is not absolute...incitement to violence is actually a limit to it.

[Confusious]

10. Sorry, no laws against hate speech in the states

Freedom of speech and all.

Besides which, the law is pretty clear, you have to incite to riot. just showing a film doesn't cover it.

in·cite/inˈsīt/
Verb:

Encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).
Urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way: "he incited loyal subjects to rebellion".

To urge people to attack the embassy is to "incite." to show a film which they don't like is not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Incitement is a limit

Not screaming fire in a theater (unless there is an actual fire) are real limits to speech.

So are laws related to Slander.

But you knew that.

The complication is that this happened abroad, but...pay attention now, these people entered US territory, as in sovereign territory, per the Viena Convention, in one case leading to Murder, four counts.

Will the DOJ press charges, don't think so, but the crimes actually occurred in US territory by tradition. So i will not be shocked if quietly You Tube removes this material, Facebook cancels rights to use the service. Same for twitter. All these are private companies and do not want even the suspicion of liability here...

And quietly I can see other sanctions too.

We call them consequences...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Incitement laws are very specific

And simply showing a movie, no matter how offensive, doesn't fall within the parameters of incitement.

But you knew that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Well, you can tell this to the four dead people

Or the fact that the people making this understood the reaction. But you knew that...or maybe you did not.

Of course I s'pose the Vienna Convention is furiegner stuff so who cares.

[Confusious]

18. reading the Vienna Convention correctly would help

as is stated down below.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I am

and bye.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. For some odd reason

You seem to be confusing the irrational reaction of a group of individuals with the legal definition of incitement.

You're free to do so, of course, but repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it any more accurate.

[Confusious]

17. Oh, good grief. Here we go again.

The embassy is not United States territory.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070110055033AArqDLB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. So I guess the Viena convention is not what it is

Whatever...try reading the actual convention, which is part of international customary law...good grief indeed.

[Confusious]

22. Miss this statement?

The reason for the misconception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government forswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow transmuted into UK (or other) soil or legal territory for purposes of law enforcement.

or this

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.

If it's codified in the Vienna convention, how can it be customary law anymore?

and obviously, if it's known that "full extraterritoriality" is not the law, nor the custom, how can you say it is?

more links:
http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/

The status is placed upon the people serving, not the property.

If a US diplomat commits a crime, then he would be tried under US law, not the host country.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. If it truly is child porn

the Jones will be arrested for possessing and showing it.

And as repugnant as hate speech is, there is no law against it in the U.S. Incitement laws are very specific, and showing a movie doesn't fall within the parameters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. See pot 12

[cthulu2016]

15. It quite obviously is not, but folks will have their fun

People seem to really enjoy claiming things are child pornography.

[cthulu2016]

9. I agree

[tavernier]

4. I'm all for freedom of speech.

I'm also all for throwing a bag over the head of a nutcase who films porn with a seven year old and purposely instigates an international incident leading to murder.

Call me old fashioned.

[spanone]

8. so the 'pastor' terry jones is promoting a film he hasn't seen

does he know anything about it?