Confirmed: The Director of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Is a Schlocky Softcore Porn Director Named Alan Ro

[babsbunny]

Confirmed: The Director of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Is a Schlocky Softcore Porn Director Named Alan Roberts

http://gawker.com/5943427/confirmed-the-director-of-innocence-of-muslims-is-a-schlocky-softcore-porn-director-named-alan-roberts

Adrian Chen

The anti-Islam film that's set off a firestorm in the Middle East was directed by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts, we've confirmed. He's the creative vision behind softcore porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.

An Alan Roberts is listed as director on the film's casting calls and call sheets from the summer of 2011, back when it was innocuously called Desert Warriors.. Castmembers and crew told us yesterday that Roberts was brought on by producer "Sam Bacile" aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and he muddled his way through a disorganized three-month shoot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. What crimes is he going to be charged with?

Some posters are so sure that creation and distribution of the noxious video is criminal...

[HooptieWagon]

2. No, posters are saying posting the video to YouTube

is a violation of probation when the terms of probation prohibit use of the internet. Why are you lying?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. There are a number of posters thinking it was criminal

You must not be paying attention (again)

[davidn3600]

5. They are. Some people here think its criminal because they say it is "inciting a riot"

Apparently they think any speech that pisses people off should be illegal.

The reason we have to have this right in the constitution is specifically because it will piss people off. And the government will try to shut you up when you start cause trouble for them.

[HooptieWagon]

7. It possibly is inciting to riot.

Thats all Ive seen people suggest. He wss warned in advance about the reaction to the movie, apparently that was the reaction he desired. And it still isn't known yet who funded this movie. Find that out, and theres additional clues to motive.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. No, its not.

That case would never get anywhere. Offending somone's religious sensibilities is not "inciting a riot".

[HooptieWagon]

12. Yelling "fire" in an open field isn't either.

Its when in the context of a dark crowded theatre that it loses free speech protection.
Doesn't matter anyway, the guy just signed a death warrant for his wife and family back in Egypt... I guess he'll find out the hard way that actions have consequences.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Has anyone ever, actually, been convicted of doing that?

It's like the goofy example that is always used but is meaningless, because it never actually happens.

Either way, it's totally irrelevant to this situation. Like I said, offending someone's religious sensibilities is protected by the 1st Amendment just like other speech. Whether it's wise, is another matter.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. I'm sure they'll contort their way around it somehow. nt

[RobertEarl]

6. My opinion

There is criminal intent behind the making of the film. We shall see.

I sure am not going to jump to the conclusion as so many here have that there was noting else behind the making, ie. that it was all innocent.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Oh, im sure they were deliberately trying to piss people off. Absolutely.

However, pissing people off is still protected under the 1st amendment.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. You sure it wasn't "Alan Smithee"?

This seems like his work.

[underpants]

11. Adam West and Phil Silvers were in that movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080839/

[msongs]

13. confimred: the instigators of the "riots" were all located in the riot zones nt