There is a difference between condemning an example of free speech

[Plaid Adder]

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

and jailing the person who engaged in it.

I'm just pointing this distinction out, since it seems to be evaporating in some of the threads I see about Terry Jones's "film."

Look, the First Amendment is one sentence long and it goes like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing any of the US Government representatives have said during this crisis has indicated that Congress is considering making a law that will prohibit assholes like Terry Jones from making or distributing their assholic diatribes. And that is just as well, because in the digital age, trying to deal with shit like this by suppressing it is always going to be a losing battle anyway.

To say, "this is some bad fucking speech, and the speaker is one monumentally irresponsible asshole whose sentiments in no way reflect the official stance of the US government" is not the same thing as saying "this speaker does not have the right to say this." THe US Government is not compelled to defend every crazy thing every crazy American says. It is only compelled, by the first amendment, not to prosecute people who use speech in ways the government considers dangerous, counterproductive, or inimical to US interests (or to the self-interest of the individuals running the government).

What is the point of making a "film" like _Innocence of Muslims_? Obviously the point is to bait Islamic extremists into engaging in violent action which can then provoke a political backlash convenient to Jones and his fellow-lunatics. And it looks at first glance as if it has succeeded; but the evidence suggests that the attack on the Libyan embassy was not actually motivated by the film, and that the film is merely serving as a pretext which can conveniently be used to justify aggressive action on the part of Islamist extremists. In that sense, the makers of the film and its targets are actually collaborating, since thanks to this "film" both extremist constituencies now have what they want.

The argument that films such as this should be banned because they lead to violent deaths is a) impractical (try banning anything in this day and age) and b) potentially dangerous (Batman Rises led to violent deaths too; I don't think anyone needs the law that woudl be created by an attempt to define what actually makes a film bannable on that grounds).

ON EDIT: I didn't think I needed to point this out, but apparently I do: Condemning the film is also not the same as saying that the group of heavily armed militants who attacked the Benghazi embassy and killed four people were justified in doing so. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game, and extending it to include Terry Jones and his ilk does not somehow magically relieve the attackers of theirs. First of all, as I said above, plenty of evidence suggests the Benghazi attack was not actually motivated by the film, though the film provides the attackers with a pretext. Second, even if it was, that doesn't justify murder. I would have thought these things were obvious. But then if they were I suppose Mitt wouldn't have tried his initial gambit.

The fact that Jones et al. have a legal right to make this film, however, does not imply that making this film is ethically defensible. The issue there is not so much the bigoted and mendacious attack on Islam (though I would argue that bigotry is never ethically defensible) as the fact that given recent history it is so obvious that such a film would provide a pretext for anti-American violence on the part of Islamic extremists that one is forced to conclude that provoking such violence must have been part of the filmmakers' intention. And that's not only dangerous, it's disgusting.

Apparently even Mitt is criticizing the film, now that he's figured out how badly he fucked himself up with that press conference. So evidently even he can now grasp the distinction, though he previously worked hard to erase it.

The Plaid Adder

[Spazito]

1. Well said! n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. It would be interesting if the families of those who died brought suit against everyone who made

the video. Since their irresponsibility cause grave physical harm and death, they should pay for that irresponsibility.

The idiots who made the film would not be attacked for their free speech, but forced to take responsibility for that speech.

[cthulu2016]

5. It might be more "interesting" if the sued they people who actually killed them

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. The people who killed them were responding to a stimulus...

Repeatedly over the last ten years, it is has been shown that cartoons lampooning the prophet, burning Korans, and other such things are used to whip people into committing acts of violence. Any reasonable human being will deduce that this act will raise a shit-storm.

Back in the 80's in San Diego, a White Supremacist was happily printing crap that led to violence. Civil Suits took his home his money and everything he had. He could print whatever he wanted to, but when his screed hurts others, he was still responsible.

For that matter, why doesn't this film come under the cover of 'Hate Speech?' What is different here from preaching that "Gays are an abominaitonation in he sight of the lord that can not be tolerated in a just society because of their Gay Agenda to take over he country and their attack on children" and "the Innocence of Muslims." Those statements work to demonize a group because they are 100% inaccurate.

And, yes, "The Innocence of Muslims" demonizes Muslims by demonzing the prophet who was the ideal Muslim upon whom everyone's life is supposed to be modeled. Attacking the prophet is attacking every Muslim.

I do not want the U.S. Government trumping up some stupid charge against the makers of this film. Once they do that, they will happily find exceptions to anything they consider wrong speech. (they are doing that anyway.) But when human beings are hurt, they should demand an accounting of irresponsible assholes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. The underlying theme in what you advocate is that muslims cannot control themselves when provoked

Are you sure you want to go there?
.

It may well be hate speech but it is also protected speech. Moreover, there was no call to violence.
The white supremacist case you cite is not analogous

The US government may well violate the parole of one of the people involved. They will cite that as a sop to the angry mobs. Its not clear they can charge anyone else involved.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. The violence in Benghazi was preplanned for 9/11

that means no grounds for civil action against the film bubbas

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. Please show proof of it being preplanned...

I haven't seen any documentaiton to show this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Its been posted on DU and elsewhere

Multiple sources as well.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201291512714470776.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-12/africa/world_africa_libya-attack-jihadists_1_qaeda-al-zawahiri-al-libi

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0913/1224323960258.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. Thankyou...

[Bjorn Against]

3. That is exactly how I feel

Yes it is free speech, but the people who made this film are sick assholes and they deserve to be shunned for the rest of their lives. Free speech can have consequences, they may not be legal consequences but that doesn't mean they won't be held accountable through public shaming.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. That is the right approach

There is no legal standing, including civil, to go after those who made the film. The right approach is to shun them socially.

A friend of mine referred to this as being "Dixie Girled". It has a certain ring to it.

[Bjorn Against]

18. I mostly agree, I do however think that the film's actors may have a civil suit

It sounds like all the actors were lied to about the intent of the film and the original script they agreed to star in had nothing to do with Islam and the anti-Islamic lines were dubbed in during post-production. If this is true and the actors were tricked into appearing in a hate film that made it appear as if they were speaking anti-Islamic words which they never actually spoke then I would think they likely do have a strong case for a civil suit.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-12/world/world_anti-islam-film_1_movie-islamic-film

[Scootaloo]

6. Very well-put

You've managed to recharge some of my faith in DU after watching (and participating in) this mess.

[cthulu2016]

7. Well said, but shouting into a well

The authoritarian-progressive strain, which used to be an oxymoron, has burgeoned over the last two decades and I guess that is easy to understand.

American liberalism was, in concept, a high-wire balancing act of self-repression of some elements of human nature in the political sphere, and one requiring continual maintenance.

It wasn't going to last forever.

[MrDiaz]

10. what if

the video was made to show how violent and extreme muslims can be and the downfalls of their religion, like beating and killing women for doing damn near nothing, and stoning people to death, and killing gay people. What if that was the intention of the film?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Could have, would have, should have does not matter

Fitna according to some illustrates those things. It too was from a highly questionable source. It generated any number of threats though I do not recall riots. The person behind it is to many a social outcast in his come country.

This trailer/movie (if it exists) was a direct attack on many things muslims hold dear. However it is unquestionably legal in the US. Shun those who generated it is fine. Baying for blood as some have done here on DU is asinine.

[TheKentuckian]

14. I agree. You are in a place that I can support or seem to be except I don't care about the pretext

aspect either because the pretext is not rational or reasonable. It just isn't an acceptable rationale for the behavior and I do not cotton to the concept that anyone's expression be held hostage to irrational reaction and I doubt the veracity of those who claim it is a reasonable exchange because the logic falls apart at the seams if the cause of offense changes. If the the demand became covered women, the "offended" would be told to locate a corner in the deepest level of hell and to sit and spin.

Nobody here would be telling MSNBC they better cover Maddow's face or they are providing the pretext for violent reaction even if there was a murderous riot every day and twice on Tuesdays, using such as the excuse for the rampages. No one has to be respectful of Mohammad any more than Rachel Maddow is expected to cover her face.

If expression creates a danger then our people must either leave those lands or accept the risk that they may be targets if their hosts are insulted. Leave the fuckers to their own devices and to themselves is all I know to suggest and if offense leads them to attack outside of their lands then the full power of our technological advantage should be unleashed upon those bad actors.

[Igel]

19. You get hung up on intent.

That's one problem with a lot of argumentation.

On the one hand, intent can't exculpate somebody because only those perceiving the speech have a right to weigh in on what the speech means. If they're offended, then they have a right to be offended.

Then we turn around and say that intent is everything and that bad intent makes those offended and doing mayhem justified in their excesses.

"Obviously the point is to bait Islamic extremists into engaging in violent action which can then provoke a political backlash convenient to Jones and his fellow-lunatics."

That's not the guy's intent. That was clear, and was stated long before there was any violent action and long before the film was dubbed into Arabic. It was meant to proselytize. To convert Muslims to Xianity. Now, culturally that's still grounds for burning consultates and killing people, but it's a different kind of "offense" and one that most DUers have serious trouble with. Only later did Jones get a hold of it and repurpose it to be primarily something for Xians about Islam.

In context it even makes sense--the claims in the film have been around for a long time, and even Islamic websites have to deal with some of them. So Aisha was married when she was 9 and Muhammed was 50+ is a claim some sites will say is okay, she had menarche by then and was a woman, "How dare we criticize the Prophet?" Others will say that only an idiot could say that Muhammed actually stuck it in her at that age, obviously she was betrothed and the marriage was consummated much later.

Yeah, all that damned "conservative" nuance crap, I know.

There's no justification for murder, not at a two-month's remove from the act. The murderers are pigs and their acts make any vilification of Muhammed by the Copt seem like an act of praise and adulation.