The same people talking about the freedom of speech of the filmmakers...

[dansolo]

are probably the same ones who objected to the Dixie Chicks.

[cali]

1. huh? can you elaborate?

[MadHound]

2. I fully support the freedom of speech of the filmmakers,

In addition, I think these fundamentalist Muslims need to join the twenty first century instead of expecting the rest of the world to limit their free speech rights in order to accommodate a religious sect stuck in the Middle Ages.

That being said, I thought it was a wonderful thing when the Dixie Chicks called out Bush.

Any other stupid questions?

[Honeycombe8]

3. No one asked that Dixie Chicks be legally banned from speaking their beliefs.

The objectors merely exercised their rights to speak out against them, and not play their music...even DJs. That is legal and within the bounds of our laws.

One person has his rights of freedom of speech. Another has his rights not to listen to it. That's fair.

[Dokkie]

4. freedom of speech

only protects you against govt actions. If I called my boss an idiot, he is going to fire my ass and it wouldn't violate my freedom of speech. So you can still support the 1st amendment while railing against the Dixie Chicks without being a hypocrite.

[graham4anything]

5. Yeah, assuming you mean

the neocon rightwing extremist republibertairan tea party.

Yelling fire in a theatre is NOT freedom of speech
What Dixie Chicks said was (and they were private citizens who got royally screwed.

this so called Christian fundamentalist posing as a Jew who made this movie did so as did Terry Jones after, to alter history, aka just like an assasssin does. Those type people have no rights to do so and every other assasssin in history was jailed after being found guilty, or better yet, given the death penalty (like political extremists like the coward of Oklahoma City.)
and should have been fried like the killer of the kind meek doctor in Kansas and anyone who aided or abetted him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. So those who planned and executed the deliberate attacks have no responsibility for what happened in

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

your mind?

[graham4anything]

9. probably they are one and the same, no?

that is my point.

the person who incites a mob to riot, or use a mob as a distraction is the guilty party.

Who was more guilty on 9/11? OBL or the 19? I would suggest OBL and the others were henchmen, same as when 2 punks rob a gas station, and the female girlfriend or male boyfriend waits in the car having no idea what is going on inside.

they are accessories, but without the main person they are nothing but expendable

[eqfan592]

10. So all a group of people have to do to silence somebody they don't agree with...

...is riot over it and they'll be able to get that person charged with a crime and tossed in jail. Yeah, there's no possible way THAT would be exploited....

Sorry, but your definition of "inciting a riot" does not even come close to the legal definition, and I'm very thankful for that.

[graham4anything]

12. what would you have done with Hitler? Give him a parade?

too bad there were no drones back then
6 million Jews and millions of others might still be alive and enjoying their old age today had there been a drone back then.

This is WAR.

Todays terrorists are yesterdays Hitlers.

(the cold war is over you know. Though Herr Mittens seems to think it is still going on and Russia is our only enemy).

Yelling fire in a theatre is illegal and in an insuing riot, the person who yelled fire should be arrested for 1st degree murder for willingly knowing what they were doing would lead to end result.

And pretending to be Jewish and making a youtube film should alone be a crime of some sort when the film you make directly will lead to deaths of Jewish people or Jewish sympathizers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. A classic hecklers veto situation

[TheKentuckian]

14. Uncontrolled fire is an innate danger to life and limb that any rational human can comprehend

There isn't a piece of prerecorded media that presents any threat to life and limb on this Earth (unless you believe "The Ring" is real or some such).



You understand why one is causing a problem when "fire" is FALSELY yelled in a theater (because one is OBLIGATED to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is one really in progress at the location).
A real fire burns people, creates smoke that can suffocate, can block points of egress, causes pain and death, and will destroy most structures. It is clear that an uncontrolled fire has incontrovertible outcomes in the real and physical world. Fire its self is a danger, prerecorded media can never be other than maybe tripping over it or getting twisted up in the film if you had it unraveled or something.

The comparison to an assassin is at least as absurd, if not more so. It is like you cannot grasp reality to me. Conflating killing someone directly, ordering a hit, or hell just encouraging someone to murder with response to offense is loopy.

The reaction is unreasonable and insane, even if predictable and that is inescapable to me.

It is reasonable to wish to avoid the the threat of death and injury and so react to that perceived threat, there is no such rationale at work here and it is fucked up to pretend such a dynamic is at work.r

No one's expression is a hostage to the most willing to act irrationally if they are offended. If some group says they will murder if our women in media are not covered and do so will you be telling them to sit and spin or will you be demanding burkas be worn to avoid a clearly unreasonable reaction?

In fact, I think the hot button is actually a "who" based thing rather than a "why" and "what" deal. If the reaction was to a "Last Temptation of Mohammad" type treatment that was considered offensive most would be telling those who reacted murderously that we'll see them in hell, Oliver Stone (or whoever) is an artist and get over your selves and your religion. Nobody would call the director an assassin even if he was like "I expected people to be offended and that is unfortunate but this is my vision" and that would be it for most hollering now.

[Scootaloo]

6. Well, I've seen several...

Who objected to Chicago teachers exercising their first amendment rights.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

8. I believe freedom of speech should be protected in both public and private arenas.

I believe human rights should transcend all imaginary lines and borders.

If I have an entertainment career and say something offensive, then it should be left up to my fans to stop their support. Any effort, publicly or privately, to silence me should be illegal.

[cali]

16. fuc k no. that's insane. Private sphere is entirely different.

Talk about a can of worms.

[MineralMan]

11. That makes no sense at all.

The right-wingers who objected to the Dixie Chicks tried to organize boycotts of their music. They never suggested that it should be allowed to be made.

You've drawn a very poor analogy, there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Ah perfect example of what the lawyer

Told me yesterday over coffee



Thanks.

[cthulu2016]

17. Well that's a filthy and facially false thing to say. Thanks for the mindless OP.