Whoever made the film must be laughing their asses off

[RobertEarl]

Once again they have driven us liberals into a frenzy.

They're laughing at us as they watch us defending them and their actions.

Sure, the defense is under the guise of "Free Speech" which is fine and dandy, but what is missing is the indictment of the intent of these rove like creatures.

As for me, I hope they and their ill intentions are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Trajan]

1. bleh ...

I interrupted my frenzy long enough to make breakfast this morning ...

But I did use some of it when I whipped the eggs .... It came in handy ....

[RegieRocker]

2. Are you saying that the Muslim Extremists

and the Right Wing Nuts want the same thing? Censorship in America?

[RobertEarl]

5. It goes to intent

Believe it or not, actual free speech is not an absolute.

There are many things you can not say and and remain free from retribution of some sort. Even here on DU certain speech is not allowed. With good reason, I will add.

As for the makers of the movie, their intent, imo, was to cause harm to world peace. I hope they are investigated and uncovered.

[RegieRocker]

9. First DU is privately owned

however anything you can display yourself is covered by free speech. In this case Google could've said no to the posting of the video. They have that right. Now if the guy had paid for his own domain and posted it that way. Only the hosting provider could refuse. If he had his own server. Well, probably nothing could be done because of free speech. It is a two way street. Very few Americans condone this movie as with very few Muslims condone the horrific actions of a few.

[RobertEarl]

10. Yes. You are right

What amazes me, and must make the Roves of the world laugh, is our maneuverings that end up excusing them.

It behooves us all to not condone their intent. An intent that none of us have yet uncovered.

Really, the old term of "Knee jerk liberals" comes to mind having witnessed many of the posts here. I feel we are dealing with a criminal element that deserves closer examination.

[RegieRocker]

12. Well stated

[cthulu2016]

3. If you think people are "defending them and their actions" you haven't got a clue

I defend your right to vote.

I do not in any way support you deciding to vote Republican except as an extension of my abstract support for the proposition that it is your call to make, not mine.

But I do defend your right to vote. Strongly.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Should Salman Rushdie have been prosecuted for writing "The Satanic Verses"?

Since this book caused bombings and murders?

[RobertEarl]

6. Was that his intent?

I am not real familiar with Rushdie. Are you?

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I think we are all more familiar with Rushdie than you are with American law...

How do you determine 'intent'? By the reaction of the most ignorant who read it? By those who already hate the group the author is part of? How? Do you suggest that you, or some magical tribunal is able to see within the hearts of men and judge the intent of the artist Mr Rushdie? Do you use divining rods or do you toss the authors into water, and if they are innocent they sink, but if they were of bad intent they live to be executed?
Be specific, this is the real world we live in, not some fantasia.

[RobertEarl]

8. Specifics

I think the film was part of a political ploy meant to influence American politics and this election.

The intent could actually be of a terrorist nature.

I am not jumping to conclusions as so many of my fellow liberals here are doing. Mainly because I am familiar with how the 'free press' is manipulated by the powerful.

[seabeyond]

11. they are hiding like the cowards they are peeing their pants. nt

[tifanyhunter]

13. Let them laugh

I don't think anyone is failing to indict the content of the movie. I believe H. Clinton called it "reprehensible." However regardless of intent, there is no prosecution warranted here regardless of intent (save for any parole violations if those prove to be true). As soon as we start prosecuting people for offensiveness and ill will toward others, the government suddenly has the power to prosecute anyone who openly speaks against it. For instance, if you were involved in a peaceful protest against US involvement in a war, that could easily be construed as being offensive or showing ill will toward our soldiers who volunteered to fight.

[RobertEarl]

14. I am not jumping to conclusions

Unlike some here. I know better than to do so.

And, please, do not conflate peaceful protests with this incident. I do not see the film as a peaceful protest. I see it as with possible criminal intent.

[tifanyhunter]

17. what potential crime are you referring to?

The point is, that if it was were illegal to intend to anger others, even to make them so angry that they take violent actions, then Malcolm X could not have said half of what he said both because he could be inciting the people he was addressing and because he could be inciting angry whites. And if that were the case, MLK could not have said half of what he said.

It is illegal to incite a riot, but if you look at successful prosecutions for inciting riots, the speaker basically has to have told the listeners to go attack people or property. That is not what is happening the Innocence of Muslims movie.

[RobertEarl]

18. Again. It was the intent to cause Peace to be harmed.

And if there is any law with which to prosecute such then I say let us move forward.

Meanwhile the people who caused this situation are laughing their asses off at being compared to Peace lovers like MLK, by some liberals.

So...I'll not do or say anything to support them. Yeah, I want them to be harassed in many ways. I do not understand why all of us do not profess the same.

[tifanyhunter]

19. Good thing you were not in power in the 1950s to stifle free speech

Because the civil rights movement and vietnam war protests would never have gotten off the ground when the sixties rolled around.

I think it would be hard for you to find more than a few people on this site do not agree with you that the movie is highly offensive.

You have completely ignored the point I have now made in two posts that if we prosecute free speech because we find it reprehensible, then at some other time, that precedent is going to be used squelch speech we dearly need to hear.

And please don't be absurd in claiming that I am comparing the films makers to MLK. I am actually contrasting them saying that you have to protect the speech of the bad to ensure that the speech of the good is protected as well. It is no different than the ACLU protecting the KKK's right to march in parades. Sure the KKK probably laughs, but the ACLU knows that protecting the free speech principal is more important that stiffling one hate group.

[RobertEarl]

20. Absurd concoction

KKK is not legally allowed to light a cross in public. Are you next going to insist they be allowed to do so?

If you stop and think about it, there are many expressions which are regulated. And rightly so.

As I have stated over and over, it is INTENT which is the cause for our concern here. I feel the intent in this case was to cause harm to the peace and harm to the politics here at home.

If you wish to delve no further into the matter and just stake a claim that the perps had every right to inflame and cause harm to the Peace, that is your choice. My choice is to try and get to the bottom of the matter and discover all the facts of who, and why.

[spanone]

15. i don't believe this was directed at liberals.

[RobertEarl]

16. Why not?

What has occurred is that an election between a (TIC) " socialist, Kenyan born Muslim" and a "capitalist pig, warmongering crusader" is being influenced by this speech.

I learned a long time ago that there is very little coincidence when it comes to American politics.

The intent, imo, is to hurt Obama's reelection. I'll not play along.