We've been told any action reasonably expected to elicit a violent response

[Nuclear Unicorn]

is morally culpable for the ensuing violence.

Now that the film maker is under police protection the fact that he is being protected and not arrested (even if he were the courts would laugh it out of the room) it is reasonably certain that the agitators will be -- agitated. That means our government would now be the source of the violence if those claims are to be believed.

It's time to stop catering to bullies.

[JoePhilly]

1. Our extremists are worse than theirs because our extremists expect others

to fight their extremists.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I'm not sure how that relates to the OP

The fact is our government is protecting the creator of the film as it is obligated to do so. He has committed no crime and cannot be charged with a crime and I don't think any charge would survive judicial scrutiny.

That means our government, our laws and our enshrined rights are now the new source of provocation. We cannot and should not discard those things because violent bullies murder and destroy to get what they want (and who among us would want what they want?). We have reached a point where we either sacrifice what makes us who we are or we deamnd they cease their violent ways (would their lives be diminished if they did?).

That seems to be the choice laid before us and I know which side I choose.

[renie408]

3. I think there could be a case made for inciting a riot, hate speech violations or

negligent homicide.

He did what he did wholly knowing that it would set off a firestorm among Muslims. The standard is if you can reasonably assume that violence would be a result of your behavior/speech. I think that with the highly inflammatory nature of the film, you would have to be pretty damn stupid to not expect some extreme reaction.

I think they should charge him with SOMETHING.

[Missycim]

14. You know for a fact what they intended to do?

not what you think they wanted to do but have facts?

[wickerwoman]

17. The standard should be the truth, not the ability of others to handle it.

Should African Americans have shut up in the 60s because their protests were causing retaliatory violence from the KKK? Of course not.

Sue him for libel if his film was inaccurate. But it shouldn't be a crime to express an opinion... that smacks of "he made me do it" as a murder defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Excellent point. Do gays holding hands in public incite gay-bashers?

[haele]

20. The government of Egypt wants to charge him and anyone else involved-

Probably with Blasphemy, which (unfortunate for the Egyptians) is not a crime here. But I'm pretty sure they could at least bring a hefty civil case for at least the cost of all the police activity required to quell the hysteria that aggressive promotion his "re-mastered" production was designed to evoke. I don't think it would be difficult to prove that's what they intended with their "free speech".

Even though he's technically protected by the 1A, if he and his buddies were looking to create havoc, they're no better than the radio celebrities in Rwanda and environs who stoked up the genocidal war there, and in my opinion, they bear the same responsibility as anyone else who goes out aggressively looking for trouble.

There's huge differences between standing up for your beliefs, expressing your opinions, presenting a challenging argument, and the acts of going out to pick fights or create conflict through spreading of fear and insults.

People have been killed and injured (and will continue to be) in this supposedly free, "open-minded" country through the actions of fearful or misguided people who are still being egged on by those who have an axe to grind or feel they can profit off chaos.

What's ironic is that most of the provocateurs are usually also big on "taking responsibility" for one's choices and actions. Except, of course, their own.

And yes, people have been arrested, charged, and fined for inflamitory speech in this country if it was specifically designed to inflame or create a riot or chaos.
The specificity and the intensity of provocation is the key, not the speech or the reaction. The KKK can march through Skokie with their white power signs and chant about the supriority of their beliefs, but they aren't protected if those signs are specifically derogitory (as in <targeted group> always <unspeakable acts> ) and otherwise verbally assault people, their families, their culture, and their activities in the crowd as they march by.

Haele

[Jim Lane]

53. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is too narrow.

You write:

The specificity and the intensity of provocation is the key, not the speech or the reaction. The KKK can march through Skokie with their white power signs and chant about the supriority of their beliefs, but they aren't protected if those signs are specifically derogitory (as in <targeted group> always <unspeakable acts> ) and otherwise verbally assault people, their families, their culture, and their activities in the crowd as they march by.

That's not how American courts have applied the First Amendment. The speech you describe (the highly offensive signs) would be protected.

There's a limited exception that's not based on the "intensity of provocation" but rather on the circumstances. The exception can be roughly stated as "a clear and present danger to public order". If I want to carry a sign saying that the LDS Church is a Satanic cult and that Mormons commit unspeakable acts, I can do so, even if I'm parading through downtown Salt Lake City with it. BUT if Joseph Smith (the founder of the LDS Church) is being held in jail, guarded by only a handful of deputies, and there's a large angry anti-Mormon mob assembled outside, and I give a fiery speech intended to incite the crowd to go beyond general hostility to Mormons and instead to storm the jail right there and then to drag Smith out and murder him, then that speech can be prohibited.

Furthermore, there's an exception to the exception. The courts generally won't enforce a "heckler's veto" (as termed by Harry Kalven). In the (historically accurate) Joseph Smith example, the clear and present danger to public order came from the people whom the speaker was inciting to action. If you allow suppression of speech based on the reaction of those hostile to the speaker, then anyone willing to resort to violence can shut down the peaceful speech of nonviolent advocates of different ideas. It's as if abortion opponents, by threatening to bring guns to a reproductive rights rally and start shooting people with pro-choice signs, could thereby empower the authorities to prohibit the rally. That's not the law in the United States, nor should it be.

[MrDiaz]

51. if every one KNEW this was going to happen

How come nothing happened when south park did it?

If you tell a christian that his beliefs are wrong, are you inciting violence? If he kills you is that your fault? NOPE

[renie408]

4. I just reread what you wrote and I think I disagree a bit.

"We have reached a point where we either sacrifice what makes us who we are or we deamnd they cease their violent ways (would their lives be diminished if they did?)."

I an assuming that with the first part of that you are talking about free speech. We already have limits on free speech with regards to hate speech, speech which incites a riot or speech which spurs one person to kill another. This is no different. Terry Jones could have reasonably expected that his movie would make some Islamic fundies go nuts. From there, it is not a reach to think that in the ensuing nut-going that someone could be hurt or killed. We could prosecute this guy and not give up one iota of who we are.

[msongs]

7. so if people riot because of what your write here, you are responsible for the riots? ok nt

[JoePhilly]

10. If your intent was to get them to riot ... probably yes.

The intent matters.

And our extremists want a holy war, just as badly as their extremists do.

[MNBrewer]

12. How are you EVER going to prove that in a court of law

Not just your opinion, mind you, but a legal standard.

[JoePhilly]

13. Did I say we need to take the idiot to court? Don't think I did.

Again ... the extremists here, and there, want a holy war.

The interesting thing is that the extremists "here" don't plan to fight that war. They want the US military to fight it.

We can either acknowledge this rather obvious fact, or ignore it, and invade Iran, Syria, Libya, and Saudia Arabia now.

[MNBrewer]

15. Fair enough.

However, upstream there was mention of being able to "charge him with something". I mistakenly transferred that statement down to your post.

I apologize, but the question remains for THAT poster. How could you prove in a court that he intended the riots to occur.

[JoePhilly]

18. np ... I follow you.

I can't see the US trying to take any legal action against "our extremist" ... our Constitution allows that kind of free speech. So its going to happen.

[JoePhilly]

9. It relates to the reailty of what is actually going on, as described in your OP.

The INTENT of "our extremists" (eg., the film maker) is to incite retaliatory violence, but violence that will occur to other people.

Our extremists want a holy war, but they don't want to fight or die in that holy war themselves.

Our extremists know that they are protected by oceans. They also know that Americans living abroad do not have that same geographic security. And they are happy about that.

And so for our extremists, the best way to create the holy war they want, is to incite violence from the Islamic extremists, who are unable to engage our extremists directly, and so they attack the closet surrogate.

Every Religion has extremists (see Abortion bombers on wikipedia).

The reality is that the moderates of the world must take on ALL of the extremists, condemn them all, and cut them off.

And if our extremists had any guts, or if they believed in their God, they'd go over to the ME and fight. But they won't. They'll hide behind the oceans.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. So you say but the reality -- the real reality -- is there are terrorists who killed Americans

and demand we punish someone else on their behalf. That is not an option.

[JoePhilly]

19. No, the US won;t be punnishing "our extremist" in this situaiton.

"Our extremist" has the luxury of hiding behind our Constitution, which is his right.

Extremists use the tools they have available. "Our extremist" is never going to go and fight the evil Muslims. But he doesn't need to. He uses the tools and targets he has available.

Similarly, the Muslim extremists use the tools and targets that they have available.

Which is what "our extremist" in this situation counted on. They can't get to him, so they will attack what is available, as "our extremist" now hides under our government's protection.

Personally, I think we should cut all of the extremists loose. He made the film. He should stand by it, and even take it to the ME and show it there.

Think he will?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. If mocking people's sacred beliefs automatically make someone an extremist

then DU is riddled with extremists. Some hide behind the 1st Amendment, others hide behind the fact they know their target is really rather passive. Both are probably cowardly.

But the fact remains, it would be foolish to give away out laws and our rights to the benefit of terrorists who were determined to attack, regardless.

If we sacrifice our rights and laws for violent bullies we will lose much.

If the violent bullies sacrifice their ways they an everyone else will actually be better off for it.

[JoePhilly]

25. You suck at this ... the guy who created that video had an intent. You can PRETEND

to not know that intent ... but his INTENT is very obvious.

And again, no one has suggested we "sacrifice our rights and laws" ... that is a false right wing strawman, and I'm sorry to see it repeated here on DU.

But you are free to do so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Let's cut to the chase

Option A: use the power of governemtn protect the filmmaker from any who might wish to do him harm but in so doing realize that the agitators may interpret this as a government protection of the film itself

Option B: prosecute the filmmaker because someone somewhere used violence even though it may run counter to our rights and case law

Option C: leave him to his fate even though he's in the US and not a criminal

Option D: other

[JoePhilly]

29. How exactly does option A differ from option C?

He exercised his free speech. Good for him.

Does he, or do you, expect his use of free speech to get extra protection than that of anyone else?

The fact that you want extra protection for him answers the question. A Religious extremist in the US gets extra protections.

It is that simple.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. I would expect anyone under a credible threat of violence to be protected

So I'm not sure what the complaint is. That some attackers might be more numerous or better armed or more determined than -- say -- a disgruntled ex-employee seems to be a valid, mitigating factor in the degree of protection provided.

You can say "extremist" all day long but labels are not law. There are environmental extremists, animal rights extremists and even anti-religion extremists but until and unless they actually commit a crime they are protected and should be. Even if they do commit a crime the only people appointed to mete punishment are the civil authorities and only under predefined laws with predefined penalties. A lynch mob should be turned away with as little, or as much, force as may be required to move them off their intended course of action. I presume you would agree.

That being noted, I'm not sure what you mean by "extra protection" where the authorites might term it "sufficient protection."

So, should we punish him ourselves, resign him to whatever mob may want him or continue to protect him despite the fact those spoiling for a fight will use it as an excuse to impute guilt to others?

[4th law of robotics]

30. Truly. The most horrible kind of people are those who *don't* go around murdering others

I wish our extremists would just fly off the handle and kill people every time they're upset.

Then you would praise them.

Not so?

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. A suggestion for you

go march through a Catholic neighbourhood in Belfast on the 12th of July wearing an orange rosette and singing "The Boyne Water" at the top of your lungs. Then get back to me on that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. And how would that prove the validity of violent bullying?

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. It'd prove the blind stupidity of thinking that deliberate provocation should be ignored

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Just because someone wants to react violently doesn't mean we capitulate

Pictured above: Federal troops are deployed to protect the rights of some that were considered to be provocation to violence by others.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Not the same thing

Totally false equivalence. Desegregating schools is not the same at all. Actually to be perfectly clear here, what we're talking about, an anti-Muslim propaganda film, would not be protected speech in most countries. Most European countries, for instance, have laws about "incitement to religious and/or racial hatred". In Germany, this or something like it would probably be banned...and given their relatively recent history, this is somewhat understandable.

[Zalatix]

50. "Would not be protected speech in most countries"? Really?

So your real agenda here is to get rid of the First Amendment?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. That does not make Europe the paragon of civil liberties.

The film did not say "go kill group X;" which is the traditional definition of incitement. The film said "belief system Y is farcical."

But to return to the point of the OP -- again -- we are obligated to protect the filmmaker and as such those who want to agitate in favor of violence will impute guilt to us for that protection. We cannot prosecute the filmmaker and we cannot abandon him to ideologically motivated vigilantes even though we will have earned their violent emnity.

These plain facts prove the fallacy of the argument granting license to the murderer's veto.

[Livluvgrow]

6. You know it is crazy

When I would probably be arrested for protesting at a fracking site but these bozos get police protection

[L0oniX]

8. Of course ...the Boston Tea Party was responsible for the British being violent.

[BarackTheVote]

24. I think the filmmakers could certainly be hammered for other reasons

Apparently, they lied to the cast and crew regarding the intention of the movie, so, breach of contract, and misrepresentation (already, there's a law suit in the works for this, apparently). Also, I'm sure you could tack on some kind of reckless endangerment of the cast and crew, since they weren't given the choice to say "no" to a project that might result in each and every one of them getting a fatwa declared on them. And in addition... where the hell did the purported five million dollar budget go? Seriously, I make films, I work for a TV company, I see where the money goes in a production, and, in this case... it's definitely not on screen! Hell, the Asylum makes movies of higher quality than this dreck, and they regularly make movies for under $500,000!

(Also, if this film was made only with the intention of inciting violence, then, I don't believe it should be protected free speech. There's a huge difference between being provocative and being irresponsibly inflammatory).

[tama]

26. I don't agree with the statement of first sentence

Peaceful civil resistance to corrupt police state is action reasonably elicit a violent response. As we all know, violent response is what Occupy and other similar actions get. We know that and while resisting violent system aim to minimize the violence against us to the our best ability.

There is difference between resisting an inherently violent system which will response with violence against any challenge, and consciously trolling for extra violence by pushing emotional buttons.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Fair enough but I restricting my comments to the subject at hand and

exclusively in that context.

[tama]

36. I cannot fully follow your line of argument

and what point you are trying to make - and against whom? Maybe I haven't been following the discussions closely enough.

Obviously there is reason to suspect that the filmmaker may be in personal danger because of his actions, so in that sense protection is justified and understandable. And yes, government is the source of violence as it claims the legal monopoly of violence, in this case threat of police violence to protect an individual from potential lynching mob. And yes, much anger is running rampant because of the original provocation and it's consequences, looking targets here and there and everywhere, including those who don't agree with the target of anger or need to feel angry. That's just the way of anger as we all know, it's not very rational.

Is this what you were trying to say or did I miss something? Was your intention to pour more oil in the flames or do your best to quell the anger, as I'm inclined to benignly interpret, not to let bullying anger affect us in any form no matter the source?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I think we're mostly in agreement.

Many are saying that since the film could reasonably be expected to have incited violence than it stands to reason that anything that has a reasonable chance to incite violence should be denied.

Now that the government is protecting the filmmaker it is reasonable to assume that those who rioted would interpret this as the government protecting the film itself and will further add to their grievances.

If we give in to demands made under threat of violence than the government should not be protecting the filmmaker -- if we heed those who claim the filmmaker is culpable for the riots.

I don't know if that clarifies matters.

[tama]

46. Violence begets violence

and hate speech is form of violence. Our emotions are much less "private" than we often think and believe and much more collective than some believe. Anger is very catchy emotion and spreads very easily once ignited, ire like fire.

I'm not sure at all how reasonable it is to assume that those who riot interpret this as government protecting or subscribing to the film itself. Depends much on what and how people they trust as their community leaders (e.g. religious leaders) say - or agitate. So far I have no idea if religious leaders there want to use this particular action to agitate more violence. I don't know nor understand which threats of violence you are referring to, against protecting the filmmaker from potential violence.

What I see here is that many DUers are angry and agitated also against the film maker, which is also not difficult to understand, and in the "lynch mob mood" angry at also US government for using tax payer money to protect the person they are angry at. I thought the agitation you mentioned referred to that mood, which was quite confusing.

[4th law of robotics]

40. How does that apply here?

Who were the people in Libya opposing?

The US for . . . supporting their uprising?

[tama]

47. I'm not

aware of the motives of all the parties involved, I don't know even all the involved parties. But if I'm expected to come up with an answer to your second question, my phenomenally most simple guess would be: something mostly if not purely symbolic. People kill for symbols all the time, what else is e.g. money but something purely symbolic?

As for your first question, I felt the distinction was important to make to clarify further discussions.

[4th law of robotics]

31. If I recall protests have occasion led to riots and other forms of violence

shouldn't protesting be banned to avoid causing such reactions?

We'd be a lot safer if we weren't so free.

[Zalatix]

33. Shhhhh... You're giving the NYPD ideas...

[4th law of robotics]

34. But but incitement. . . hate speech . . . stochastic terrorism. . .

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. That is 180-degrees from what I'm arguing; so perhaps we're in agreement

I'm claiming we have a responsibility to protect the filmmaker despite the fact some will use that as an excuse to incite yet more violence.

[4th law of robotics]

39. I wasn't arguing against you

sorry if that was unclear.

I was addressing the (majority?) opinion that people doing anything that leads to violence should be held personally accountable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I was thinking you were but I wasn't sure. Thank-you n/t

[tama]

38. See post #26 nt

[Zalatix]

32. Tell the Teabaggers "an African American is going to be President for 2 terms, DEAL WITH IT!!!"

Watch them riot. Get sued!

[julian09]

45. This film was made in US so we were blamed and innocent people died, not the filmmaker

while he hides, carnage is still going on two days later at several US embassies, provocation is provocation and reprisal is expected. He is hiding under US protection for lying, demeaning, disgracing, blasphemy etc. While Assange is persecuted for telling the truth and embarrassing people. I don't think he deserves special protection, at least he knows what to expect, but our diplomats didn't see it coming. We invaded Afghanistan because, Taliban didn't turn over OBL; they invaded our embassy because that is where the americans are, who in their mind created this insult to their religious founder and beliefs. While defending his right to free speech are we condoning him? Did he rate his film, comedy, fiction, satire anything to lessen impact?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Nonsense

No one knew who made it at the time. Not clear we know now who was really behind it. That assumes that attacks were not preplanned some variant had been public for awhile before 9/11.