Why is Sam Bacile/Nakoula not being held for violating his federal conviction decree??

[Vinnie From Indy]

"Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

The YouTube account, 'Sam Bacile,' which was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July, was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: 'It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511893/new-questions-about-makers-of-anti-muslim-film-as-shadowy-details-emerge/

If he was convicted and sentence in 2010, it would seem his posting of this film on YouTube would be a clear violation of his conviction decree.

[MADem]

1. Well, they'd have to charge him and haul him into court.

You can't just "assume" that he did it, even if it's seeming pretty obvious that he did.

Further, we need to find out if his "probation officer" gave him approval to use the internet for film-related stuff (as opposed to "bank fraud - related" stuff).

[Indydem]

2. So what? Did we amend the First Amendment to include:

"Unless it may inflame or insult islamic extremists"?

I do NOT understand why people are even bothering giving this asshat attention. Talking about it, giving it your thoughts, engaging this douchebag is EXACTLY what he wants.

What they did was in poor taste and even poorer judgement, but the problem is extremists who use it as a rallying cry for violence.

Producing something like this is protected speech. Period.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. He can say anything he pleases, but he cannot defy a federal judges conviction order

regarding his use of the internet and computers for five years. Did you miss that part?

[Indydem]

8. This is what I haven't missed:

Why has there been so much digging into the source of this stupid poorly produced, trash video?

WHO CARES?!

I don't care if Kim Kardashian made the damn thing. Who made it, what it says, how it was financed, where it was filmed, who "starred" in it - all of these things are inconsequentially irrelevant.

If this douchehammer killed a carfull of kittens and murdered a hobo on the way to posting this video - IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONTENT OR RECEPTION OF THE VIDEO.

Dwelling on this thing, and acting like he did something wrong in the creation of the posting of the video lends credence to the idea that its wrong, which it is not.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Just to be clear...

You are offering that ANY discussion of this video outside of the lines you have drawn is irresponsible and unacceptable? Is that correct? If so, please let me know if you have a blog or web site that lists what is appropriate and what is not in regard to topics being discussed so that all of us can be better informed as to how not to piss you off and send you into an epic rant. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers!

[Indydem]

17. Please explain to me why it matters.

A person made a video that made people who take their sky daddy way too seriously angry.

They used said video as an excuse to do bad things.

Please explain to me why the stupid idiot who is BEGGING for attention (that's why he made the video in the first place) matters?

The genesis of the protected speech item is irrelevant as far as free people are concerned. If you want to shit all over him because of your personal beliefs that no one should say anything bad about sky daddies cause it could make crazy people angry, then that is your right. I choose to ignore him entirely and focus on extremists of all types that can't get over their religion be "desecrated."

They are the problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. A convicted fraudster might have been paid by someone else to do it

and who that is might be important if someone intended this to stir up riots in the Middle East.

[Indydem]

26. Ahh I see.

If someone does something that inflames crazy people then they are obviously working as an agent of who?

Romney?
The republicons?
THE JOOOS?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Since the man seems to have pretended to be a Jew

and claimed his backers were a group of Jews, we can't call them 'secret backers'; but with him being caught in a lie, I suspect he lied about them too. Republicans? Well, the kind of people who like to stir up hatred do have a tendency to vote that way, but they may not be American at all. Romney wouldn't, I think, be organised enough to have set up a film a year ago.

[sufrommich]

31. I'm wondering if the film was found on you tube

and exploited though. The original release of the film might not have anything to do with it being used to foment anger in the Middle East.

[sufrommich]

25. I doubt that it was one person involved in

making the video or it's carefully timed release to the muslim world. It is certainly not inexplicable that there is curiosity about the backround of a film that has now caused riots all over the Middle East.I don't think the question has anything to do with his right to free speech, I think the question is "who's tail is wagging the dog".

[Indydem]

28. Carefully timed?

The trailer has been available for over 2 months.

Carefully timed? You mean like extremists who dubbed it into arabic and are using it to whip up a frenzy?

Educate yourself.

[sufrommich]

29. "extremists who dubbed it into arabic "

But that is exactly what I meant by carefully timed. The fact that the rumor of the film is now front and center n the Middle East is not an accident,someone planned to fan the flames with this film, regardless of when it was first released.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. Just to be clear...

He was "ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer."

Did YOU miss that part??

Do you have proof or knowledge of what he has been allowed to do by his probation officer? If so, please post it so everyone can see it...


Thanks in advance,

Ghost

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

6. +1 gabillion zillion google to infinity

no religion or religious belief is above ridicule or mocking in a non-theocratic republican democracy such as the U.S. with a strong and vital first amendment right.

If people's faith is shaken by a badly made movie spoofing its prophet(s) and/or sacred cows, then perhaps the people's faith is not as strong as it should be, regardless of how in poor taste the film is/was.

A work of art, a Broadway play, a movie, a cartoon, whatever else - no matter how in poor taste it may be - should never ever be a reason to murder any one.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not like this movie or approve of the way it was done, but I will defend the right of any one on U.S. soil to make it and distribute it.

With that being said, it should be a responsibility of the film maker to assess the potential consequences of his/her actions. Considering that we are dealing with people who are not as educated or exposed to democratic ideals as we are and that we are dealing with irresponsible clerics who are using every single minute detail to rail against the Western world, we have to be very careful about our actions - even in light of the first amendment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Probably ...

they would have difficulty proving that he created and/or posted to the youtube account.

All he'd have to do is say, "All I did was make the movie ... I didn't post it to the internet."

[Indpndnt]

4. Perhaps they need to prove he is Bacile first before arresting him?

Surely concrete evidence would be a good thing. I don't doubt he is Bacile, but our system requires proof before we can punish him for violating his parole.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Ya think?

I guess I should have been clearer.

Here ya go!

If the person that posted the video is also Nokoula, it would seem he violated his conviction decree prohibiting him from using computers and the Internet.

I never meant to imply that Nokuola should be summarily arrested and thrown in jail with ZERO proof of his violation.

Happy now?

Cheers!

[Junkdrawer]

10. Vinnie, I noticed yesterday there are a WHOLE lot of people here...

who are going out of their way to say "Pay no attention to who and how the video was made or who financed it, just focus on those craaazy Arabs!"

[Indpndnt]

16. I know you're not talking about me.

Because I can't wait to find out who made this film and who financed it. I just don't think people should be thrown in jail without, you know, proof.

[Indpndnt]

13. Your thread title demanded to know why he isn't already being held.

Since it has yet to be proven he IS Bacile, that's rather premature.

But, yeah, perfectly happy. You're obviously not, but that's not my problem.

[godai]

12. His middle name is Bassely! n/t

[Barack_America]

14. Thankfully our court system requires a greater burden of proof. nt

[Indpndnt]

15. That's a clue, not proof.

Let the authorities gather proof and then deal with him. Hopefully, it will all be very public.

[godai]

18. I'd call it evidence. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

7. Good point. I hope authorities are looking into this. n/t

[Nikia]

19. Despite what people are saying, not as much "proof" is required to revoke one's probation

As convicting someone of a crime. Expect him to be in jail by the end of the day.

[Junkdrawer]

20. And I hope he sings like a canary. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. His 'conviction decree' prohibited him posting videos to YouTube?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. "ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval ...

... from his probation officer". And I doubt a probation officer would be cool with posting an inflammatory trailer for an anti-Muslim video.

[HooptieWagon]

22. Is he hiding from angry muslims or the police?

I'd say the latter is the more likely.