Freedom of speech for the people behind the anti Muslim movie?

[Hubert Flottz]

I believe in the Bill of Rights, but should we protect people who yell fire in a movie theater? Should we protect someone calling in fake bomb threats?

[MrDiaz]

1. this man

has not done either of those. And I believe this isn't really about the film anyways. But even if it was, he committed no crime, he could not have KNOWN this would happen.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. "could not have KNOWN"

Oh I'm sorry, is that person a close friend of yours? Tell me more about this person and what he knows about. You're the first person I've run into who knows the nut. I guess the guy don't ever watch TV because he would have seen how some people in the middle east go nuts when you attack their god just like Jimmy Swagger would if you attacked his God.

[MrDiaz]

6. should the

creators of South Park be arrested as well, after all they depicted alah in a show once. Were they doing that to get a reaction like this? Or is that situation different, I'm asking you because you obviously have some way of knowing when shit is about to happen and what people are thinking. Your view seems to be that we should watch our mouth and what we do in order to not piss someone in a different country off. I still believe in freedom and the man who made this film DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME, unless of course for some reason you believe he knew 100% that these riots would occur which NOBODY can prove but obviously MANY people ASSUME. The fact that they kill women, homosexuals, and still stone people offends me...you don't see me starting riots and murdering people!

[Hubert Flottz]

8. I know that if that person wasn't insane he would have known that there would be a violent

backlash.

Edit...crazy or STUPID?

[MrDiaz]

72. so

should there be a law that all religions can no longer be criticized, or is it just the religion of Islam?

[treestar]

124. NO ONE is talking about "arrests."

No one said the guy committed a crime or should be prosecuted. This guy has freedom of speech and he exercised it. He's not going to be arrested.

However, how he can live with his conscience is another matter.

[jody]

177. "how he can live with his conscience"? Same way a commander in chief lives after using drones

to murder innocents as collateral damage.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Of course he knew. He released it around 9/11 to incite a group of people who have killed before....

over just a DRAWN PICTURE of their prophet. He knew. He's been in prison, packs a gun, belongs to a group that hates muslims (and I'd bet hates other minorities). I'm gonna bet he has tattoos and is a right wing hate monger, but that's just a guess.

[michreject]

58. He's been in prison, packs a gun

If this is true, he committed a federal felony.

Why worry about the film when the feds have him on a ten year charge? All other charges would be minor compared to this.

[Hubert Flottz]

60. And I have not a single gripe, about his freedom of speech...

under oath, or to cop a plea and tell on any political benefactors who may be have motivated him, IF there were any.

I know the GOP backwash brigade are already defending the film and the maker of the film, all across the cyberworld.

[michreject]

64. The hell with the film

I'm just pointing out that if he is a felon in possession of a gun, the feds can let the movie drop and get him on the gun charge. That's ten years in prison.

[Hubert Flottz]

68. I understand.

And it's a good point.

[Honeycombe8]

70. Yes. Saw a story on him on tv..they know who he is. Interviews with others in his anti-muslim

group.

He had been in prison. No, it's not a felony for him to produce the movie any more than for you, because he has a criminal record.

He uses aliases, has been sued for identity theft. He's a real scumbag, antisocial nut. There were interviews with other nutsos in his anti-muslim group. They knew the name he used was fake.

There are no criminal laws broken for his movie, as far as I can tell. He's still in trouble for identity theft, though, I think. There was an interview with some guy on TV...the jerk had stolen his identity and done all these other things that identity thieves do...there is a lawsuit filed or going to be filed. I don't recall if they mentioned criminal charges. The FBI has found and interviewed the jerk about the film.

[michreject]

71. I'm focusing on the gun issue

You stated that he carries a gun. As a felon, he can never legally or illegally own a gun. The feds can put a stop to all of the madness if they arrest him on the gun charge.

[MrDiaz]

78. wtf

I have been to jail, pack a gun, and have tattoos. Does that mean i'm a bad guy? Just let the stereotypes flow. I guess stereotypes are good when YOU use them right? SMH

[Honeycombe8]

17. It seems like the violence was BOTH planned by some, AND a mob reaction to the film. It was 9/11...

or thereabouts.

It sounds like there was a planned attack in Libya AND a semi-planned violent mob reaction to the film. Either because it was 9/11 or the planned attackers called the film to the attention of others knowing what the reaction would be. That would be so easy to do, to spread the word that the evil U.S. has a film on the internet denigrating the Holy One and we oughtta storm the embassy, etc. The young male radicals would totally get ticked off and storm the embassy.

[auburngrad82]

74. In an interview the day of the attacks the producer said they KNEW it would happen. nt

[madmom]

112. Well, yes, he could have and did know. He gave an interview,

I can't find it right now, but will keep looking, where he said he figured something like this would happen.

[kestrel91316]

159. FAIL. He clearly made the movie for the sole purpose of provoking this exact thing.

He needs to be shamed and shunned by every thinking person on the planet.

[CJCRANE]

2. Freedom of speech means we can shine a light on them

and find out who they are, although in a sense it's already too late as the damage is done.

[cali]

3. yes. freedom of speech and no, this isn't like yelling fire

as far as protected speech goes. Sadly, the results may be much the same, but the speech (if one can actually call it that) that is that vile little "film" is most certainly protected by the 1st Amendment- hard as that is to stomach. There really isn't any serious debate about that.

[Hubert Flottz]

5. Would they arrest someone for inciting a riot?

They would arrest someone if that person was a teacher, miner or construction worker, on a picket line, or a mountain top removal mining protester.

[cali]

9. If someone directly stood there and said go beat in the heads of the cops or the corporate

bosses, or whatever, yes that person would be arrested.

If they made a movie depicting the police as evil pigs who just wanted to kill and corporate bosses as blood sucking, soul destroying fuckwads, no.

See the difference?

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Apples and oranges...

I saw them frog marching the guy just a while ago on TV, so we shall see. Which was what prompted my OP.

[cali]

23. lol. YOU brought in the apples and oranges

And the maker of the film may well be in violation of parole. I would literally bet my life he won't be prosecuted for incitement and if you think he will be, you're not well informed.

[Hubert Flottz]

35. I'm not a lawyer...

I'm asking questions to try and figure all of this clusterfuck out. I bow to your great brain power. I wish I was super smart like you.

[whathehell]

79. lol. You don't sound like you've heard everything either.

Another version of this story is that the movie was entitled "The Innocence of bin Laden"

and that brought in the crowd..When they viewed it, it turned out to be some sort of

soft core porn flick about the prophet Mohammed. The audience was then told to call a

phone number and told they were being BILLED a certain high amount for seeing the film.

The maker of this film is a convicted conman and tax cheat...Trust me..He'll be booked

for SOMETHING and he should be. eyes:

[cali]

81. your point, sweetie?

I never said he wouldn't be looked into for something. It appears as if he violated his parole. That's just a wee bit different from arresting him for inciting violence. duh.

And where's your link to your story? Because from everything I've read, that showing at the Vine, had a "crowd" of 10 people, and there is certainly much doubt that a feature film was played.

try again, hon.

[whathehell]

86. Your point, dear?

or do you feel you needn't make one as long as you can lay on

the cheap sarcasm and patronizing "endearments"?

Check out this link, sweetie:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/13/friends-of-sam-bacile-a-whos-who-of-the-innocence-of-muslims-film-project/

[cali]

97. I've read that story. So?

We're talking about the Constitutionality of the "film". I made my point succinctly. Do try and follow.

And I'm fond of endearments, and amused that you're engaging in something you think is cheap.

[whathehell]

109. You finally caught up?

I'm fond of jackasses who try and cover

their insecurities with displays of arrogance.

and I'm amused to find one to poke at

this early in the day.

[cali]

120. you actually think you're poking at me, hon?

that's awfully cute- along with your precious bravado.

[whathehell]

126. I know I am, sweetie.

[WinkyDink]

146. There needs to be specificity and proximity. NOT a MOVIE.

[Warren Stupidity]

180. You have to explicitly incite a riot in order to incite a riot.

Should we ban the works of Salman Rushdie for inciting attempted murder?

[Honeycombe8]

12. I haven't seen the film. Have you? nt

[cali]

14. I've seen what's available- a 13 minute trailer

there may well be no actual film.

[Honeycombe8]

19. That's it. Is it on youtube?

I tried to find it but couldn't.

[cali]

24. yes, try under "Innocence of Muslims"

[whathehell]

80. Try under "Innocence of bin Laden". n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

26. No I haven't

And I don't know a damned thing about Muslims or their beliefs, but I know that people get pissed off when someone attacks their religion. And I know that the radical militant Muslim factions abroad feed on hate, just like radical militant Christan fundamentalists do. Maybe we need to ask Mitt about the dude and his film. Mitt seemed to be ready to pounce on the story as soon as it hit the news. Maybe Karl Rove put the dude up to it? I put nothing past our homegrown political terror mongers.

[Quantess]

46. I saw it. It is the cheeziest film ever.

I thought it was boring and crass.

[Zalatix]

7. This movie does not qualify as inciting a riot. That is all.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Yeah right.

Have you turned on your TV? The radicals in the Mid East probably love the film maker.

[eqfan592]

96. Something somebody says may incite a riot...

...but that does not automatically mean the speech would qualify as an attempt to incite a riot by the film maker.

[Honeycombe8]

13. The film doesn't "incite" when you're talking about normal people. But it does, when you're

talking about a film aimed at an extremist group that has killed before for much less. So the film maker KNEW it would incite violence, although the film may not use violent words.

Doesn't mean it qualifies as hate speech here in America. Just sayin'. It's purpose was to incite violence, whether illegal here or not.

[Hubert Flottz]

16. I agree 100%.

[Zalatix]

18. So whether your actions are acceptable or not depends on who you're offending?

I'll fight to my dying breath to ensure that is never accepted as law in America.

[Honeycombe8]

25. I stated outright not illegal "hate speech" in America. But...

it's called "foreseeability." The maker of the film didn't have to use a crystal ball to know what the result of the film would be. It was a totally foreseeable, knowing the people who are the subject of the film had killed before just because someone printed a picture of their prophet. So he knew that violence would ensue and people would die. He will say he didn't know, of course. But it was foreseeable, and in fact, guaranteed.

I did not say the film should be banned. This is one of those gray areas...a film intended to inspire hatred and cause violence, but which doesn't actually meet the legal criteria of "hate speech" in this country.

The film IS illegal in some of the countries it was seen in.

[Zalatix]

28. "The film IS illegal in some of the countries it was seen in." Well bully for them.

The film is not illegal here. That pretty much makes all other discussion moot.

[renie408]

56. And THAT, THAT right there is why people of other nations hate us.

Because Americans think the only thing that matters is Americans. Fuck the Muslims who take their holy figures more seriously than WE think they should. THEY have a problem. Not US. WE are never wrong. OUR rights and freedoms are the rights and freedoms THEY should all aspire to RIGHT NOW.

Hey, man, that comment right there would fit right in over at the Free Republic. You should check it out.

[Zalatix]

59. Then let them hate us. I'll die before I give up my freedoms.

Let them hate all they want to. And if they hate our freedoms enough then just let them come and try and take those freedoms away from us.

[whathehell]

117. That's real big of you, Zal, but maybe our four embassy members didn't want to die for what

YOU perceive as a "freedom" to provoke violence in another country with a different culture

and different laws.

Maybe "our freedoms" should stop at OUR borders. duh.

[Zalatix]

118. That film maker made the film in America. That was his GOD given right to do that. PERIOD.

Our freedoms do stop at our borders. This does not mean that we can't make films that insult religions, Islam included.

If the rest of the world doesn't like that then tough for them. They don't get to make rules for us within our own borders.

[renie408]

182. Oh. MY. GOD.

If the rest of the world does no like the appalling things that Americans do under the cover of freedom of speech to intentionally insult and enrage them, well they can go fuck themselves. And if it gets people killed, well, this total ASSHOLE'S right to make an inflammatory, insulting movie designed to spark unrest is more important than their right to live.

And my friend, that is EXACTLY the argument being used by the GOP and the Freepers, so the analogy is still sound. All you have to do is throw in how Obama hates America and that post up there would ALSO fit right in over at the Free Republic.

Freedom of ANYTHING comes with responsibility. At least to adults it does.

[Zalatix]

184. If the rest of the world does not like the appalling things that Americans do

... under the cover of freedom of speech to intentionally insult and enrage them, well they can come try to invade us and make it stop.

Stop whining and take action. Can't do that? Then deal with it.

[eqfan592]

98. Oh what a load of bullshit.

I'm sorry, but seriously, if you're talking about curtailing the freedoms that so many of fought and died for here just to appease a small minority of extremists in other countries, then frankly, I want absolutely nothing to do with you. It's a disgusting view point in my opinion, and you should feel completely ashamed for it, and for attempting to color somebody who disagrees with you as a freeper.

[renie408]

178. Those freedoms are ALREADY curtailed.

Where have you been?

But wait...you are disgusted and want nothing to do with me?? Well, then, that really changes things!!

[riderinthestorm]

111. Really?? You want to go there? "They hate us because of our freedoms?" nt

[renie408]

179. Actually, I am saying the exact opposite.

They do not 'hate us for our freedoms'. They hate us because we assume that what we consider our freedoms should be the freedoms that all people should aspire to RIGHT NOW. They hate us because we think that ridiculing their most sacred prophet is our RIGHT and should be defended. They hate us for the way we exercise our freedoms all over them.

[WinkyDink]

155. Wow. You are actually arguing that Americans should not hold our freedoms in high regard...FOR US.

SORRY that your poor Muslims DON'T VALUE FREE SPEECH, OR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, OR FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Yes, "THEY have a problem."

[renie408]

181. You are conflating a lot of things there to muddy the waters on a single issue.

But what the fuck ever. I am sick of trying to talk reasonably about this. You guys go ahead and beat your breasts and put the back of your hand to your dewy brow. Keep expecting the rest of the world to be just like us and tolerate the gross things Americans do in the name of freedom of speech and see how that works out.

[WinkyDink]

154. Maybe you should wonder about the violent natures of the rioters.

[whathehell]

90. How about it's not a question of "acceptable" or not

in this country, but whether it's acceptable in ANOTHER country?

America is not the "world".

[Zalatix]

93. Yes, it is a question of what's acceptable in this country. Period.

[eqfan592]

101. Exactly.

I don't understand what the hell is so hard to understand about this, nor why some folks on this forum are so willing to kick basic freedoms to the curb in order to appease a small minority of extremists in other nations.

[Zalatix]

102. Some people insist that other nations dictate what we do within our borders.

Over my dead body and the dead bodies of three hundred million freedom-loving Americans, will that ever happen.

[whathehell]

116. I can tell you like things "simple", bro, but this case isn't. Period.

Be sure to notify us when you have something factual to report.

[Zalatix]

119. I have one fact you will not try to deny. That film is acceptable in America. You have been notified

You are quite simply wrong.

[whathehell]

138. It's being "acceptable" in this country was not in question...I notified YOU on that.

You are quite simply redundant.

[WinkyDink]

156. If you are arguing "taste" or "propriety," that is one thing. But if you are arguing legality, THE

LAW is CLEAR.

If you do not CARE for the law or the scope of the First Amendment, that is YOUR right. BUT DO NOT TRY TO ARGUE THAT THE LAW IS NOT WHAT IT IS.

[whathehell]

161. Let me explain this to you in a manner you may understand

The First Amendment is NOT "absolute". There are legal "limits" on Free Speech -- Do we

have to repeat them for you? Incitement to violence. Crying fire in a crowded theater

when there IS no fire.

Incitement to violence, in particular, can be a matter of "interpretation", so

the law is NOT always clear in that respect.

[Zalatix]

162. The First Amendment is NOT "absolute". But this movie is legal under the 1st AM.

Period. Deal with it.

[whathehell]

163. Sorry, but until I hear from someone with more impressive credentials

than an anonymous poster on an internet board,

I don't need to deal with anything -- Including you.

[Zalatix]

164. Wake me up when this film is declared illegal. Till then, thbbbbbbt!!!

[cali]

166. Why some people are playing so fast and loose with the 1st

and an expression that while loathsome is perfectly legal, is a mystery to me. this "film" is a perfect example of offensive speech that is protected.

[whathehell]

168. Wake me up when you learn read...duh!!

[Zalatix]

170. Wake me up when your argument becomes relevant to the issue.

Because right now, it ain't.

The film is legal and it always will be. I know it hurts but... deal with it!

[whathehell]

171. You're cognitive skills appear inadequate to the task of understanding what my "argument is", LOL

You might be better off staying in the shallow end of the pool.

[Zalatix]

175. I deciphered your argument flawlessly. Your argument just plain stinks.

"The First Amendment is NOT "absolute". There are legal "limits" on Free Speech

Those limits don't make the "Innocence of Muslims" movie illegal.

Incitement to violence, in particular, can be a matter of "interpretation", so

And there was no incitement to violence involved in this movie.

Therefore, as I said, your argument is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

And that is how I completely destroyed your argument.

Have a nice day!

[whathehell]

176. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

See the Cenk Uygur Youtube posted on post #174.

If you can grasp it, you might be able to report on how his argument "stinks" too.

[Zalatix]

183. Allow me to repeat since you didn't comprehend it the first time.

"The First Amendment is NOT "absolute". There are legal "limits" on Free Speech

Those limits don't make the "Innocence of Muslims" movie illegal.

Incitement to violence, in particular, can be a matter of "interpretation", so

And there was no incitement to violence involved in this movie.

You can cite Cenk Uygur all day long, but you still cannot escape what you said. It is also possible, given your cognitive skill level and all the limitations that it implies, you don't even realize what you said.

[whathehell]

186. No, dear, as your post reveals, it's you who don't "comprehend" that, for one thing

Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

you have to actually READ a post before commenting on it, e.g. I don't "cite"

Cenk Uygur, I let him speak for himself in a youtube video

made of his last show, but since you're too insecure to even consider

broadening the conversation beyond knee-jerk absolutism,

I'll have to reclaim my time and welcome you to my ignore list.

Buh Bye.

[Zalatix]

193. Cenk Uygur shakes his head with shame at your irrational arguments.

Take all the time in the world, you'll never be able to get over the mess you made in aisle 5 with your "points".

[Scootaloo]

21. Nor does protest equal riot.

You asked in a previous thread, "are you denying that rioting madmen did this"?

Yes, I am. The attack on the Benghazi consulate was carried out by a militant group - fingers are pointed at the ansar al-sharia group, but the exact perpetrators aren't 100% certain. Whoever they were used a protest about hte film as cover for their attack on the consulate.

Neither they nor the protestors were "rioting." The protestors were protestors, and the attackers were coordinating a military assault. Whether or not they are "madmen" I have no idea - I'm not their psychiatrist. If we're going to assume "killing noncombatants in a military strike = madmen," then we have to apply the term to our own armed forces and their nasty habit of exploding weddings in Afghanistan, I think.

Now, over in Cairo, there are riots. However, interesting thing... they're riots instigated by the police. As in Benghazi, a number of people showed up to protest about the film (they joined a larger group already there - apparently there's a permanent protest outside our Egyptian embassy) and the Cairo police did what the Cairo police are really good at, and resorted to violence first thing to drive the protestors away - and the Cairenes, who are presumably pretty sick of getting their asses kicked by cops after all this time, are kicking back.

Sudan and Yemen... I have less knowledge of. I know there's been violence involved in these places, though.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Protestors of the film, as I type this, are climbing embassy walls with bloody hands...

carrying weapons. That isn't just a protest. That's called a violent protest.

[Scootaloo]

32. Source?

I like to stay informed. Thanks in advance.

[WinkyDink]

157. Now their legal system will have to deal with them.

[JCMach1]

55. Exactly, let's take a look at what the 'clerics' were saying about it to stir the pot

there is your incitement...

[CJCRANE]

20. The movie works on two levels....

At the superficial level it looks like an anti-islam film...

but it also portrays the film makers as christians and jews who are hateful people and want to destroy islamic culture, which is why it's being used as pro-islamic fundamentalist propaganda.

So, it's a twofer (or threefer) which riles up the fundamentalists on all sides.

[Honeycombe8]

29. That's how it's being used. To serve a dual purpose. Good point. But it's intent...

was to insult islamic people and incite the radicals to violence. I doubt the criminal maker of the film is smart enough to make a film with a dual purpose.

Radical extremists are clever in finding any number of reasons to protest because they've been insulted.

[Scootaloo]

30. Also note...

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:19 AM - Edit history (1)

The filmmaker falsely claimed to be an Israeli-American. He claimed he got his funding from "100 Jews." He himself described his film thusly;

"a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam."

"Islam is a cancer," he said. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

Yes, he clearly had no motive.

Says the film consultant, Steve Klein,

"I'm kind of an unsophisticated James Bond operative. I want to piss this guy off, I want to find out, Why does he want to kill me?" he said. "Why does he want to capture my daughter and granddaughter and rape them? Why does this guy want to act this way?"

Obviously, he didn't want to piss anyone off.

The actors in the film were also apparently grossly misled about it; apparently they were told it was a very different film, and their likenesses were used for this... thing, rather than what they thought they were putting themselves into. I believe that's a form of fraud, isn't it?

[graham4anything]

45. by the way-this filmaker is NOT Jewish. That was proven a lie,his name was an alias

and it takes a fundamentalist rightwing extremist Christian with ulterior motives to claim to be a Jew to see that indeed, something stinks with this.

By claiming to have been Jewish, this was an obvious attempt to change history, aka assassinate history so to say.

He should be sentenced to hang for treason.
same with anyone who abetted him.

and his attempting to pass himself off as Jewish is just as vile as Susan Murderer Smith who attempted to blame a black guy for her killing her own kids.

Hang or fry him for treason.

this spark could cause millions of deaths by a Mitt like person with twitchy itchy fingers pressing the button of a major bomb starting the end of the world scenerio and to alter the presidential race same as LHO did in Texas or SS did in Los Angeles kitchen of a hotel, or JER did in Memphis or that schmuck did outside the Dakota.

It is 100% the same thing only multiply this by who knows what.

[Scootaloo]

63. I'm aware he's not, and my take on his lie is the same as yours

Though, I wouldn't say he needs to be hanged. What, killing him is going to fix anything? Good lord, man.

His defrauding his actors - and probably several other people besides! - is probably going to have him living on the street or in a cell as it is.

[davidpdx]

69. Thanks for pointing that out I hadn't heard that yet

And I agree with you on hanging this guy. I honestly hope karma comes back to bite him in the ass. Him being run down by a bus would be a good start.

[cali]

52. Why are you spreading the lie that A Jew made this or had anything to do with it?

Just curious.

[Scootaloo]

61. Did you not see the word "claimed"? It's a different word than "is."

I'm pointing it out because it's fairly obvious to me that the guy claimed this, in order to either try to stoke flames higher, or to deflect any blowback onto Israel / Jewish communities, or more likely both, in order to create an even bigger mess.

I'll edit my post to put "falsely" in front of claimed, since it seems you and another poster missed the implication.

[CJCRANE]

62. That kind of inadvertantly makes my point...

that this movie is also designed as an anti-jewish and anti-christian movie. The effect of the movie publicity is to portray christians and jews as hell-bent on denigrating islamic culture.

[pennylane100]

22. I believe you are may be misinterpreting the right to freedom of speech

as outlined in the first amendment of our constitution. It does not protect people who yell fire in a movie theater because they are using speech, not to communicate that there is an actual fire but to enjoy the panic that ensues as people try to leave the area.

It does, however, protect people that espouse unpopular viewpoints that may be hurtful to other people. Hate groups like the KKK arre free to march down any Main Street, USA as long as they have a permit. It allows the production of a movie that portrays the leader of one of the world's major religions in a very unflattering light. If it did not, it would not be a law that protects freedom of speech.

If you really believe in the Bill of Rights, you have to take the bad with the good. We value the protection that the first amendment gives us to say what we think. Yelling "fire" in a theater is clearly not said to to promote your belief in fire, it is to cause panic. The motives of the film maker are open to interpretation. When we start allowing courts or legislative bodies or any other grops the power to make these interpretations, it is no longer free speech.




y













y










y












y

[Zalatix]

31. This movie is NOT like yelling fire in a crowded building. Indeed.

Edit: wrong thread, lol.

[Hubert Flottz]

33. I do believe in the Bill of Rights

but I think it was meant to protect us, not to stir up hatred and murder, of to let international corporations fund our elections.

That's why, IMHO, the film maker's motive needs to be looked into.

[cali]

34. no, it wasn't meant to protect us. Certainly that wasn't its primary

focus. Do you really think that it wasn't understood at the time?

You don't understand freedom of speech under the constitution. You clearly aren't aware of its SCOTUS history.

This will no more be looked into than Nazis marching in Skokie will.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. Well thanks for your great wealth of smarts and stuff.

I'll be indebted to you for eternity, you wonderfully brilliant person.

Thanks again...

[cali]

39. yeah, that was a cogent response. Not.

[whathehell]

82. Do you have any idea of how much the incident of Nazis marching in Skokie was "looked into"?

because it sounds like you think it was some trivial incident which

was quickly and easily dealt dismissed.

The Nazi March in Skokie (which never transpired, btw) became a national issue, and even though the ACLU

cleared it as "Free Speech", about half the lawyers of the ACLU left over the decision.

Freedom of Speech is not an "absolute". There are limitations. Whether this

movie and the manner in which it was communicated will be interpreted as such,

is something we don't yet know.

[cali]

87. yes. I'm quite familiar with it

And I know that Skokie lost its Supreme Court case against the National Socialist Party of America.

That the Nazis never marched in Skokie has exactly jack shit to do with the FACT that they had a Constitutionally protected right to do so. duh.

And yeah, we fucking well do know that this movie will not be ruled unconstitutional. It's called precedent.

[whathehell]

91. Gee, insecure much?

or do challenges to your opinion always make you this pissy?

Yeah, I know about "precedent" too, honey, and it's called

on in many cases. It's the interpretation that counts. Duh.

[cali]

100. not terribly.

or at least not about things like this.

As my tagline I used to have "I hate stupid". and I do, dumpling.

The film is constitutional on its face. There's no real argument about that except by those who are, well, ignorant.

And it fucking well should be.

[whathehell]

107. I'm sure you don't think so, sweetie

but having 4 posts hidden in ninety days

tells a somewhat different story.

[cali]

121. huh? what story did your fevered little imagination cook up, pumpkin?

I do love your imitating my use of endearments. Can't say I love your lack of knowledge.

[whathehell]

125. LOL..I don't think i've seen anyone take the bait so easily

but thanks for playing.

[pennylane100]

133. Well, that goes to my point of who decides what the motives are?

The first amendment asks only that our motives are to communicate. Using film to communicate one's ideas or cause is done all the time. An example our be Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Clearly this film was produced to communicate the idea that the founder of Islam was no saint (yes, I know there are no saints in Islam). However, the law allows him to send that message.

[Hubert Flottz]

136. "who decides?"

History will for sure.

[WinkyDink]

148. Don't be so sure of your being on its side.

[WinkyDink]

147. What you "think" is irrelevant to the differing legal decisions on this amendment.

[graham4anything]

36. inciting a riot or wanting to overthrow the gov't is NOT freedom of speech-fry them

you can't yell fire in a theatre
anarchists wanting to overtrhow the gov't (or neo-cons disguised or setting up a situation) is treason
aiding and abetting the enemy

this was seemingly made by a criminal with a past

Now, that makes this guy subject to arrest, and if it were me, I would include those that are with this person or pass this person along

(i.e.-the asswipe rightwing extremist that killed the abortion doctor was a murderer, and anyone that helped him should be hung for treason (the treason being a political take over of an issue or killing to achieve a goal by murder)

These people being criminals, and criminals have NO rights, especially in time of war

as Cole Porter wrote "Anything goes".

Fry them. (don't waste the taxpayers money putting these people in jail, hang them for treason.

It is not inconceivable that thousands or millions could die from this spark.
(WW1 started on a killing, if one remembers their history lessons)

and don't let the idiot libertarians or tea party people distract, because, they would love nothing more than to have this perhaps friendly fire incident someone associated with them might have done, change the presidential race to have Herr Mittens win.
Billionaires have the ability to have behind the scenes wanted to have this occur.
just saying.

[Hubert Flottz]

40. "Loose lips sink ships"

I put NOTHING past the neoCONs.

[Zalatix]

99. This was not an act of inciting a riot.

[pennylane100]

165. Arguing that this film is protected under the first amendment

does not imply that it is anything more than a piece of garbage. The issue is not so much the film itself rather than what limits are there to our rights under the first amendment. Most court decisions have given a lot of leeway to those who test those limits. Those batshit crazies from the Westboro church have managed to continue their harassment of grieving families all over the country because the first amendment protects them.

While this disgusts most of us, the reality is that for a legal system to work, it has to work for everyone. If these people are breaking no laws, the fact that their cause repulses most of us is irrelevant. I support the ACLU and I often get angry when they take a really unpopular case. However, their goal is to ensure that the freedoms we take for granted thanks to the Bill of Rights are enforced. For every cause they fight that is unpopular (to say the least), they keep our justice system honest and that is the most important goal.

You say that criminals have no rights and again that is not true. They do. Furthermore, this man who supposedly made the film is an ex convict. That means he has been released from prison and while he may be on parole, I do not see film making (regardless of the trash he is producing) as a parole violation unless it was a specific term of his parole.

You can be as angry as you like about him and what you believe his motives are but that does not change the law. Also, there is an unexamined part of your post that I think should be addressed. If this film produces the wide spread chaos that you fear, unless the film advocates this kind of violence, he is not responsible. The actions of those who loot, burn and kill, because they do not like his message, are responsible for their own actions.

Just try walking into court and explaining to the judge that you burned your neighborhood down and looted a few stores because you read an article in the paper criticizing the leader of your local church, and see how long that argument will keep you out of jail.

If you want to enjoy the privilege of living in a society where there is equal justice for all, you have to take the bad with the good.

[graham4anything]

167. while in theory yes, what you say is true, however

with all due respect

if say, I have friends traveling in this period overseas, and someone kills them as part of the riot, then are you saying their deaths are just another word for freedom of speech?

or if say, let's use 9-11 and this situation.
Let's say this situation happens, and then next month there is another 9-11 and 3000 people die.

Well, we are in a period (officially and congress authorized it) where we are in a war against terror. And anything that is done to respond to that, is legal.(no matter how much the people here say otherwise, the congress authorized it under Bush and that authorization continues.

Now, parts were rolled back, parts people want rolled back.

But under the laws authorized by Congress(as allowed by the founding fathers in the constitution) anything done is 100% legal under these wartime rules.

(and war on terror is the same as war against a country, as terrorists have no real home, and the gov't of those nations not neccesarily in agreement with the terrorists.

While we all hated Iraq war by Bush43, it was voted on by almost every politican (except a few including Barack Obama. If you remember that was the single biggest issue against Hillary in 2008 and difference.)

And there is not many people who didn't like the OBL was taken (and the uprising when Obama wanted to try KSM in a federal court makes capture impossible for someone like OBL).

Now in reverse of the faux movie director/producer and his secretive murky ties and whomever financed this (was it the rightwing here in the US?)

(small print-the following is broad and general and has nothing to do with anyone on this thread, ok?)
let's look at how the stereotyping of Muslims as the bad guy is akin to the McCarthy hearings against mostly Jews and specifically Jews in Hollywood called to name names. I am really shocked that on DU there seems to be so much prejudice against Muslims (shocked! shocked!)
and also, against Jews blaming the 1% as being Jews on Wall Street.

a movie like this, by someone claiming falsely to be Jewish and someone who knows what is going on in the world, did not make this faux movie for entertainment purpose or to make millions. It was made to cause the things it has caused. In upheaval other things could happen.
While we don't know which came first (the planning for Libya attack, mixed in at the time of the uprising in Egypt, we don't know if they are conected, and we quite honestly don't know if we should or should not call it terrorists or just angy mobs, but if it is terrorists, than more than not, the people behind the film might be part of that group (whomever they are) and might be part of the funding of terrorists.

Under the law, and the war on terror that Congress voted in-a misguided kid from a rich family in Los Angeles, wanting to help the world by helping the poor, got caught up back in the post 911 days, and it seemed John Walker Lindh was the one and only person George W. Bush and Dick Cheney arrested and in a plea, jailed. For doing what? I wouldn't have jailed him, matter of fact I would hope after Obama's reelection, he gives the kid a pardon. But his jailing was legal (and in spite of what those on the left think, so is Gitmo and any other means under the broad war on terror.

So legally this could be shifted to say it is terrorist in nature, in which case that trumps the first amendment.

It would be far better if this happened outside the election period.
However, also illegal is attempts cross state lines to subvert an election if proven in court is indeed illegal.
It is why those Brooks Brothers rioteers at the Miami Dade courthouse should have been jailed in 2000 recount, not thought of as innocent local citizens expressing their free speech.

so, no not everything is freedom of speech

I am for freedom of speech, but not everything is covered under that, especially in this time of war on terror.
(and the only answer against that would be, vote out all republicanteapartylibertarians like Long Island NY congressman REPUBLICAN King, who immediately pounces on any slight the republicans seem to make waivering on the resolve of fighting terrorists. Those types need to be defeated and replaced with someone else, then without politics involved, try to pass laws ending the war on terror allowances.
But until that day, it is 100% legal to apply different legalese to situations that fit under the broad term "war on terror", like it or not.

all it would take is one money link to be found from one donor to the faux movies making, to indeed have a right to charge this person with major crimes(and then he personally would have to make a case he didn't know, which would be dubious, and he would say he was duped and he has 1st amendment rights). OK then, bring on that trial and let's see.

btw-let's also use the example of rape, so much in the news lately. For rape to be considered a major crime, one must always side with the one who claims they were raped.
And the alleged rapist must be basically thought of guilty til proven innocent(while that is not of course officially said, it is how it is handled.) (and without having the stats in front, but judging on what one reads, it would be said that 90% plus of people who say they were raped were raped.)
So there is another example of not everything cut and dry.

all depends on the judge and the jury, and for terrorists their own special rules.
Texas after all kills innocent people it seems legally all the time without blinking under their death penalty rules.

And speaking of laws, our prime laws "All are created equal" most certainly was a lie from the start because of slaves not being considered men and having zero rights (and look how the idolized Thomas Jefferson abused/raped his slaves and yet is considered a hero to people on both sides of politics.)

[oberliner]

38. No one has to watch the stupid video

In the movie theatre, everyone is forced to hear the shout of "fire".

Not so with this stupid video.

Should videos mocking other religions be similarly not protected? A South Park episode making fun of Mormons, for instance?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I'm not even sure that crap about fire in the theater is actually true.

Has anyone really tried it?

Seems like a slim fucking reed to hang the entire concept of "banning all speech that might make anyone real mad"

[Hubert Flottz]

48. Did the South Park episode give militant Muslims an excuse to

murder any Americans. Warren Jeffs is a Mormon who sexually assaulted little underage girls and taped it all and they arrested his stupid ass.

Have you seen any of Warren's tapes?

[oberliner]

53. No movie gave anyone an excuse to murder Americans

Your argument seems strange to me.

If some Mormons had gotten upset about the South Park episode and killed people as a result, then that would change things?

Also, not sure what Warren Jeffs has to do with anything.

[Hubert Flottz]

65. Mister Jeffs was a Mormon fundie, who liked to make tapes and stuff.

While he sexually assaulted little kids. And his tapes were what sealed his fate in court.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. So your idea is that, for instance, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect blasphemy.

Soounds like a great plan. Really like where that's headed.

Or maybe it's that anything that might piss off a lot of people isn't protected by the 1st Amendment?

Short answer? Yes. This 'film', such as it is, is protected by the 1st Amendment. Doesn't mean it's not a turd, doesn't mean making it was stupid, insensitive, and all the rest.

However, stupid, insensitive, blasphemous speech is still protected by the 1st Amendment.

[WinkyDink]

149. EXACTLY.

[MadHound]

42. This isn't yelling fire in a theater, this isn't a fake bomb threat.

It is a film insulting the prophet of one of the biggest religions of the world. It is no different than the many films, works of art, and other portrayals that Christians have found to be blasphemous over the years. Eight hundred years ago, Christian authorities put people to death whom they thought had committed blaspheme, but gee, times change, people evolve. It is time for these fundamentalist Muslims to change as well.

Is the film a despicable POS, certainly. But the filmmakers have the right to make the film, and to limit our freedom of speech simply because a bunch of fundamentalist religious nuts can't control their baser instincts is the wrong thing to do. They are the ones who need to be changing, not us. After all, how many violent riots were there over Chris Ofili's painting "The Holy Virgin" or Andres Serano's "Piss Christ"? Oh, that's right, none.

These people need to grow up and learn to live in the twenty first century, not expect the rest of the world to watch what they say and limit their speech simply to accommodate a religious sect still stuck in the Middle Ages.

[graham4anything]

54. no sorry you are wrong

this is akin to an assassination, premeditated and wanting to alter the course of history

and is the spark like started WW1

this is akin to treason

(and note, the film maker attempted to pass himself off as Jewish, and that has proven to be a lie, he most certainly is not Jewish, most likely a fundamentalist Christian looking to have millions possibly die.)

(and thank God for great record keeping by Hollywood, kudos to CPAs and stat guys.)


btw, I interpret what your opinion of this is, to saying the woman should endure whatever a male does to her, though I am sure you did not mean to imply that.
BUT You are blaming the victim
instead of the one who incited the mob to riot in the first place.

(which could be some misguided billionaire wanting to either help Mittens in 2012 or Jeb in 2016 and embarrass Hillary somehow, or dance the old John McCain bomb bomb bomb Iran).

[Hubert Flottz]

73. I get the same feeling about this thing.

I don't trust the neocons. Now the next question is, where will all this lead now that it's in motion? Could the Roves, Cheneys, the Addingtons The Armeys The Kochs and the Yoos, be setting Obama up for political slaughter and election theft, like Reagan did to Jimmy Carter when he made his deal behind the president's back, to hold the American hostages until Reagan beat Carter. I think the neocons are so afraid that Mitt is going to lose, even though the GOP is trying to rig the outcome with the ID cards, that the pubs would try anything to eliminate Obama's chances. Keep in mind all of the neocon's fake alerts. All their lies to get us into Iraq. All their lies about everything. Hell Bush even lied about the weather. Now it's not the American people's fault, that they don't trust the GOP anymore?

[4th law of robotics]

89. Both a bomb threat and yelling fire in a crowded space

present the hearer with a very real threat to their lives (as far as they know).

A movie does not.

[MadHound]

103. Akin to an assassination?

Let's see, who did the film, or filmmaker kill? Oh that's right, not one single person.

And how is this treason, really? No state secrets were passed, no betrayal of the country, a film was made, that was all.

As far as blaming the victim, who is the victim here, who are perpetrators of the crime? Did the filmmaker kill the US ambassador? No, a Libyan mob killed the ambassador and the others. That is where the blame for these deaths lie, with the people who actually did the killing.

By your logic, it is correct that Rushdie has a price on his head, that the Danish cartoonists were in the wrong, that we should watch what we say and do because it might offend some fundamentalist religious sect that isn't even in this country. By your logic we should also prosecute Chris Ofili and Andres Serano as well, since they riled up fundamentalist Christians.

But we didn't, and we won't, because of that pesky First Amendment, which means artists and filmmakers are free to express themselves in this country. Considered one of the most enlightened pieces of law in the world over the past two hundred plus years, yet you want to attack it because some fundamentalist religious sect abroad might be offended.

What's next, allowing fundy Christians to control what we see and hear? Because that is the next logical step down your path. If a fundy Islamic sect is allowed to control what we see and hear, to limit our freedom of speech over their interpretation of what is blasphemous, then fundy Christians will also demand the same sort of control over our art, over our media. Then away we go, happily back to the Middle Ages.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the First Amendment.

[eqfan592]

105. Well said!!!!!!!!!!! (nt)

[eqfan592]

104. Sorry, but your line of thinking is a very dangerous one...

...and its one I'm glad only a minority of people seem to hold here.

[graham4anything]

110. I disagree. I bet, when more people see mine or many others who agree with this, their minds will

see it too.

Because this person, pretending to be Jewish when there are many people looking for a spark to start a war with Iran and any other place does this, one has to wonder wtf is up with that.

Like Susan Smith blaming a black person for her murdering her own kids(and even worse, the f'n bigots in her state all beliving her
without question, setting race relations back 100 years. (and then letting other racist events happen).

(same as OWS and it seems everyone who backs them believes the Jews are guilty of anything/everything, just because some are successful on Wall Street.

code words and code movies kill.

people who kill are murderers and there is a price for treason in the courts- ask Coward Tim in Oklahoma, whom I am sure there is not one person here defending.

This could end up a million times worse if it leads to bombing a country that will fight back this time. (Bush was swift bombing Iraq knowing they could not fight back, but then cowards usually are).

Maybe many don't like Bibi and his POLITICS in Israel, well, the way to change their system is to elect a different leader if the one in power is not popular.
Which is why we don't need a president like Mitt in a fit of rage or backing his war mongering neo-con friends anywhere near the button to start a world war.

THAT IS DANGEROUS.

and again, the film amateur who made this is NOT JEWISH as has been proven and was 100% political in his wants and needs.
he did NOT do this film for money and to make the next Hobbit movie. And neither did that abetter TJ the fundamentalist inciter of hatred (something of course Jesus never was, but TJ uses his name in vain).

[eqfan592]

113. Like I've said elsewhere, your reasoning is very dangerous.

By your reasoning, any person or group could easily be silenced by the group they have "offended" simply by having members of the offended group riot over the offense, and that could VERY easily be abused. That's why the legal definition of inciting a riot doesn't mesh with yours in the least.

Sorry, but your wrong, end of story.

[graham4anything]

115. again, would you give a parade for Hitler?

again, I just wish there were drones back then.
The war could have ended before it started and 6 million Jews and millions of others would possibly still be alive in old age today

All those who wish OBL was still alive and plotting, raise your hands and be counted (no not saying anyone here would want that)

[WinkyDink]

153. What, pray, is the connection to the 1st Amendment?

[MadHound]

114. And now you've veered into conspiracy theory woo,

There is absolutely no evidence that this movie was deliberately made in order to incite violence in the Middle East, or to get us involved in a war with Iran.

But you know what, even if it was, I'm sorry, but the First Amendment rules in this country, and the responsibility for the violent reaction to this movie lies with the mob leaders abroad, not the filmmaker.

It is past time that fundy Muslims joined the rest of the civilized world in the twenty first century. If we follow your line of reasoning, then we would hand the control of our freedom of speech over to fundy religious practitioners, both Muslim and Christian. Is that what you want?

[WinkyDink]

152. Note, please, that S. Smith was NOT PROSECUTED FOR HER SPEECH. Oops! Lost that one!

[whathehell]

122. I agree...I have no problem with this film showing here, I object to it being sent overseas.

The "freedom of speech" argument works in our country, not necessarily in others.

I don't see how one can argue for it being sent to OTHER countries where, based on our knowledge of THEIR

laws and culture, we KNOW it can cause serious DANGER to the lives of Americans in the area.

Given all the circumstances, sending this film, via the internet, overseas, looks to be deliberate incitement to violence

[Llewlladdwr]

189. It wasn't sent overseas.

Cripes, now y'all want to censor the Internet too?

[Union Scribe]

144. Oh my God.

The level of inane hyperbole just keeps getting ratcheted up around here.

[WinkyDink]

151. You omitted a letter in "inane."

[WinkyDink]

150. WTH?! NO, a MOVIE is NOT "akin to an assassination"! Nor is a movie TREASON! Get a GRIP.

[Quantess]

43. The real crime is becoming violent over a stupid B-movie.

I'm not saying I support the buffoons who made the film, but they did not kill anyone, now did they?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Hell, I think another crime is actually calling that thing a "film" or "movie" at all.

I have spent decades working in and associated with the Film Industry in various assorted forms. As a lad I spent years studying the history, theory, and production of narrative film. To call this thing a "film" in any way, shape, or form, even the Salvador Dali/Andy Warhol experimental sense, is a crime against anyone who ever picked up a Bolex.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. Well you know Reich Wingers...

Always worried about the DEFICIT!

[Bluenorthwest]

92. I second every word you said

Thanks for that post, Warren.

[slackmaster]

49. NPR and BBC are now referring to the production as "an amateur video"

It's not a movie by any stretch of the term, and doesn't rise to anywhere near B level.

[Hubert Flottz]

51. So are you giving it a thumbs down?

[slackmaster]

75. It's worse than anything Alan Smithee ever directed

[Hubert Flottz]

77. Damn I'll stick to educational flicks like Sarah Palin watches like

Bewitched...

[renie408]

57. An amateur video that cost $5 million to make.

It might be a shitty movie, but it is still a movie. If NPR called it a dog toy, that wouldn't make it any less of what it is.

[Hubert Flottz]

66. Right...

I'd love to know where all that cash came from.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Um, how do you know there was 'all that cash'? The criminals who made turd video

promoted it as a 5 million dollar project, but I personally have zero reason to believe a word such people utter. What evidence do you have that there was 5 million involved? I think that is a piece of misinformation which was intended to make trouble. They claimed it was expensive, funded by Jews and shown on US Network TV for 9-11. Do you believe everything they said? Why do you believe anything they said? The guy who is quoted as saying 5 million is also a convicted con man who did time for fraud, but you accept that figure?

[slackmaster]

76. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly have spent $5 million and ended up with that

[davidpdx]

67. I always though NPR and BBC had good taste

[malokvale77]

134. did OBL kill anyone on 9/11?

[Quantess]

137. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Would you like to weave the Pope into this discussion, too?

[malokvale77]

143. I was responding to "your comment" where you said the makers of the film didn't kill anybody...

What's up with you?

[underpants]

83. They (purposely) incited a riot

they should be charged

[eqfan592]

106. No, they didn't. At least not by the legal definition. (nt)

[Confusious]

108. You have to activly push people

To be charged with inciting a riot. nobody has found a point in the movie where he says to attack the American embassy.

This also wasn't in the united states, so US laws don't apply.

And no, embassy grounds are not the united states.

[Hubert Flottz]

127. Charles Manson never went to Sharon Tates house either...

And he thought he was Jesus.

[Hubert Flottz]

129. I think you're right.

I hope if he gets popped for a Gun charge, he rats out the bastards that put up the funds.

I wonder if his brother spent the night at Neil Bush's house before the flick was released?

[whathehell]

139. Yup. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

173. Should Salman Rushdie have been charged for writing "The Satanic Verses"?

Riots and many deaths resulted from the publication of that book.

[gollygee]

84. Free speech for people behind anti-Muslim movie: yes

For people yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater: no
People calling in fake bomb threats: no

Not equivalent. He made people angry, people who should have been able to control themselves. He did not mislead them into thinking there was a fire or a bomb.

[Marrah_G]

85. This is not a case of yelling fire in a theatre

[4th law of robotics]

88. To your two analogies: no and no

to making a movie that some people don't like: yes.


Consider this analogy: instead of shouting fire in a crowded theater you stand outside and tell people as they leave that their favorite play was stupid. Do those upset theater-goers now have a right to murder you or more likely some third party because you offended them?

[NCTraveler]

94. There are billions of muslims in the world.

I find it hard to hold anyone accountable for mocking their religion.

[treestar]

123. They have freedom of speech. The took the chance and got the consequences they wanted.

If we condemn them for what they did do, it does not deprive them of Freedom of Speech. It may deprive them of our good opinion. Indirectly it deprived some people of their lives, though IMO there were other causes too.

Taunting people is usually not a good idea. That doesn't mean they should be prosecuted for it. It just means they are being adjudged dumbasses for doing something stupid.

[whathehell]

160. How about if someone sent all his personal information

name, photo and address, to a radical muslim group in the Middle East

Would that be protected under the First Amendment too? shrug:

[hughee99]

128. We need to prevent people from creating or distributing material that may cause riots!!!

Like that guy who shot the Rodney King video and the networks that aired it.

[cthulu2016]

130. And the authors of the Occupy Handbook

[CBGLuthier]

131. Are you really sure you believe in rights?

How the fuck is some assholes making a movie a threat to anyone other than children with superstitions. Are you really saying that I an american am not allowed to say that Mohammed was a jerk? He sure seems like a real jerk to me.

[WinkyDink]

158. THAT is the basic question. Thank you!

[Alduin]

132. No one should ever have to give up their freedom of speech.

Regardless how hateful it is

And no, you are making false equivalencies. Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is not the same as making a crappy movie.

The real crime in all of this is the people getting pissed over a horribly shitty movie.

[malokvale77]

135. No, the real crime is

innocent people died because someone made a crappy film.

[NYC Liberal]

140. You can yell fire in a movie theatre. You won't get arrested, because it's not illegal.

[whathehell]

141. It is if it's crowded and there is no fire.

[KamaAina]

142. First Amendment rights. Absolutely!

Remember, though, the First Amendment protects us from actions by the government. Thing is, YouTube is not an arm of the government. It would have been perfectly within its rights to pull the hateful film down, as it has done with many far less offensive videos.

YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil". Hmmmmm...

[whathehell]

169. Yes, as long as you remember that First Amendment rights are not "absolute".

[WinkyDink]

145. Should, Schmould. The courts have spoken, and Freedom of Speech has won. Are you SERIOUSLY

suggesting "the Arab Street" be catered to???? IN OUR COUNTRY???

[Romulox]

172. This isn't as silly as the thread calling for a "reboot" of our First Amendment.

But only just. These are decided matters.

[whathehell]

174. Cenk Uygur on The film, the special circumstances around it, and the First Amendment:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/14/cenk-uygur-anti-islam-movie-weirdest-movie-scam-of-all-time/

[renie408]

185. Freedom comes with responsibility.

I sincerely believe that the freedom of speech that so many have fought and died for comes with the responsibility to use that freedom wisely. Not to use your freedom of speech as cover for your own agenda to inflame unrest in another part of the world and with the knowledge that the exercising of your freedom of speech endangers others.

There are reasonable limits on freedom of speech now, as mentioned in the OP. Again, the debate is not whether there are limits to freedom of speech or whether there should be; that ship sailed a long time ago. The argument is whether THIS MOVIE violated those limits.

[Nye Bevan]

187. It's protected speech under the First Amendment unless it is "fighting words".

This doctrine was established in 1942. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Example:

"I hate those Muslims. We should bomb them all" is protected speech as there is no immediate incitement to violence.

BUT

"I hate Muslims. Hey, there's one over there on that corner! Come on, let's kill him!" are "fighting words" as it's an immediate, credible incitement to violence.

Clearly the crappy Youtube video falls under the first category.

[rachel1]

188. When hate speech leads to violence and rioting

then there ought to be a limit in place in order to prevent Islamophobes from inciting riots.

Knowingly insulting and provoking people by making Islamophobic films which result in violence and deaths is no better than yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Hate speech or no hate speech? Which is better? Hmm...

[4th law of robotics]

191. When hate leads to violence and rioting over free speech

then there ought to be limits in place in order to prevent such bigots from rioting.

Hate speech or no hate speech? Which is better? Hmm...

False dichotomy. Like saying "due process or putting murderers away, which is better?"

[Skip Intro]

192. Your post offends and upsets me. You have no right...

to say things that offend or upset me.

Your post should be hidden from view, as you have no right to say offensive things.

You are responsible for my reaction if I throw a tantrum.

[MrSlayer]

190. Yes, as assholic as they are, for them too.

Freedom of speech goes for the good and the bad. Making this movie is in no way akin to calling in a bomb threat or yelling fire in a theater. No one cared about this movie here.

It's no different than the Phelps church. They're assholes but they have the right to be assholes.