HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Police Sent to California...

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:39 AM

Police Sent to California Home of "Innocence of Muslims" Producer (for protection)

Source: KARN News Radio 102.9

(CERRITOS, Calif.) -- As outrage over the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims spreads across the Middle East, police were sent to the California home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the film's producer, who according to authorities is frightened for his life.

Sheriff's Deputies were sent to the Cerritos, Calif., home of Nakoula, 55, on Thursday to protect him and his family, a senior law enforcement official told ABC News. According to a sheriff, the police were at Nakoula's home overnight Thursday but have now left, as media reports identifying him as the man behind Innocence of Muslims, and listing his address, have circulated.

According to California law enforcement officials, Nakoula, who is also known to authorities as Bacily Nakoula, was frightened for his life and "scared of retaliation" against his family.

Sheriffs from the Cerritos police station were sent to his home to keep Nakoula safe and to provide a uniformed presence to assist the members from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, official reports said.

Read more: http://www.karnnewsradio.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29907818



148 replies, 22653 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 148 replies Author Time Post
Reply Police Sent to California Home of "Innocence of Muslims" Producer (for protection) (Original post)
LeighAnn Sep 2012 OP
oberliner Sep 2012 #1
alfredo Sep 2012 #12
oberliner Sep 2012 #60
alfredo Sep 2012 #136
goclark Sep 2012 #139
alfredo Sep 2012 #145
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #13
freshwest Sep 2012 #30
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #40
freshwest Sep 2012 #85
oberliner Sep 2012 #62
azurnoir Sep 2012 #99
oberliner Sep 2012 #102
azurnoir Sep 2012 #110
Laurian Sep 2012 #16
harun Sep 2012 #47
oberliner Sep 2012 #63
Amonester Sep 2012 #79
oberliner Sep 2012 #104
heliarc Oct 2012 #147
oberliner Oct 2012 #148
LeighAnn Sep 2012 #2
frylock Sep 2012 #3
Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #18
HooptieWagon Sep 2012 #76
Mopar151 Sep 2012 #84
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #43
radhika Sep 2012 #50
Blue State Bandit Sep 2012 #53
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #56
Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #87
kooljerk666 Sep 2012 #96
Blue State Bandit Sep 2012 #114
alp227 Sep 2012 #119
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #124
kooljerk666 Sep 2012 #130
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #131
kooljerk666 Sep 2012 #133
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #134
Politicalboi Sep 2012 #57
Missycim Sep 2012 #69
frylock Sep 2012 #88
Missycim Sep 2012 #109
frylock Sep 2012 #116
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #72
BlueMTexpat Sep 2012 #86
frylock Sep 2012 #89
BlueMTexpat Sep 2012 #93
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #121
frylock Sep 2012 #129
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #132
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #120
BlueMTexpat Sep 2012 #127
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #128
Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #80
frylock Sep 2012 #73
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #75
frylock Sep 2012 #91
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #123
liberalmuse Sep 2012 #107
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #125
closeupready Sep 2012 #78
snort Sep 2012 #4
LeighAnn Sep 2012 #11
freshwest Sep 2012 #25
Marrah_G Sep 2012 #5
Blue State Bandit Sep 2012 #59
msanthrope Sep 2012 #6
Panasonic Sep 2012 #7
L0oniX Sep 2012 #54
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #98
alfredo Sep 2012 #8
LeighAnn Sep 2012 #20
freshwest Sep 2012 #26
barbtries Sep 2012 #23
freshwest Sep 2012 #27
Maeve Sep 2012 #71
reflection Sep 2012 #9
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #10
madmom Sep 2012 #34
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #38
madmom Sep 2012 #90
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #122
madmom Sep 2012 #135
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #137
madmom Sep 2012 #140
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #141
PavePusher Sep 2012 #142
L0oniX Sep 2012 #68
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #74
jsr Sep 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #41
Zoeisright Sep 2012 #15
appleannie1 Sep 2012 #17
Rabid_Rabbit Sep 2012 #19
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #100
JEB Sep 2012 #21
sarcasmo Sep 2012 #22
NOLALady Sep 2012 #24
HeeBGBz Sep 2012 #28
radhika Sep 2012 #29
kooljerk666 Sep 2012 #31
L0oniX Sep 2012 #67
frylock Sep 2012 #95
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #101
Jim__ Sep 2012 #32
NotThisTime Sep 2012 #112
marble falls Sep 2012 #33
malaise Sep 2012 #35
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #36
seabeyond Sep 2012 #37
Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #39
Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #42
Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #92
asjr Sep 2012 #44
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #45
Gin Sep 2012 #51
L0oniX Sep 2012 #66
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #46
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #48
L0oniX Sep 2012 #65
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #49
L0oniX Sep 2012 #61
cali Sep 2012 #70
Politicalboi Sep 2012 #52
slackmaster Sep 2012 #55
KansDem Sep 2012 #77
L0oniX Sep 2012 #58
azurnoir Sep 2012 #103
LanternWaste Sep 2012 #64
frylock Sep 2012 #94
LanternWaste Sep 2012 #146
GROON Sep 2012 #81
closeupready Sep 2012 #82
Amonester Sep 2012 #83
Downtown Hound Sep 2012 #97
liberalmuse Sep 2012 #105
azurnoir Sep 2012 #106
Livluvgrow Sep 2012 #108
olddad56 Sep 2012 #111
appleannie1 Sep 2012 #113
closeupready Sep 2012 #115
xocet Sep 2012 #117
Raster Sep 2012 #126
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #138
olddad56 Sep 2012 #143
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #144
alp227 Sep 2012 #118

Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:42 AM

1. No mention of his ethnic background

Previously, news outlets seemed to be eager to share his being an "American-Israeli Jew".

Now that this has been discredited, his ethnicity is not so important anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:50 AM

12. He's a Coptic Christian. He not only hurt Americans, he made life more difficult for

Coptics living in Muslim nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:54 PM

60. And the MSM made life more difficult for Jews/Israelis living everywhere

By running with the BS headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #60)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:43 PM

136. Bacile first claimed to be Israeli. Two sources should be the minimum.

They took his word for it. That was a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #136)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:28 AM

139. Is he Mittwits twin?

They seem to LIE alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goclark (Reply #139)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:27 PM

145. Policy advisor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:51 AM

13. Is he an Egyptian Copt again? It's hard to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:17 PM

30. I know some who are fine people, wouldn't do this. Most peaceful and forgiving I've ever met.

They immigrated to live in peace here. If some of them are causing trouble back home, they should stay there, not drag us into this.

However, this is more about the Cheney gang and the GOP wanting to inflame the Middle East and make Obama look bad. It's really dirty politics they have been playing since 2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #30)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:26 PM

40. Only

Only since 07? Rove has been a player a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #40)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:52 PM

85. I mean the Obama is a Muslim thing. The Clarion Fund pushed films to scare people prior to 2008.

But they timed the release of their film Obssession, etc. to go along with media calling Obama Muslim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:55 PM

62. The reporting on this has been very sloppy

At least a few journalists are doing some actual journalism before rushing out stories that turn out to be BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #62)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:45 PM

99. The reporting on a number of things surrounding this incident has been sloppy

or perhaps quick that includes what happened in Libya and who the perpetrators really were

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #99)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

102. Yes indeed

Recent reporting seems to suggest that the events in Libya were less than spontaneous.

One wonders it the relationship between those events and the others that do appear to be related to this video are intentional or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #102)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:16 PM

110. I have read that in Libya at least terrorists used the protests as a cover

but the Libyan government has arrested 4 people over the incidents there

Libya: four arrested over deadly Benghazi attack on U.S. consulate

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libya-four-arrested-over-deadly-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-1.464834

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:53 AM

16. I'm curious. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? Who are his associates?

Lots of questions, no answers (yet).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:38 PM

47. And where did he get his funding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:57 PM

63. Funding for what?

Have you seen the "trailer" on Youtube?

Doesn't look like this "movie" required a whole lot of funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #63)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:38 PM

79. Cost him at least $500 to lie to the actress about what it was

about.

Saw her say he lied to her when he offered her the role on CNN International two hours ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #79)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

104. Yeah

Overall I think we are talking about an amount in the thousands, though, not the millions for the whole shebang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #63)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:47 AM

147. This is a little misinformed

Let's look at the trailer on Youtube...

First of all it was shot and cut in full 1080 resolution. The picture is superb... The amount of stuff you see on youtube made for very little money that looks as good on a full size screen is limited to Studio releases and commercial music videos.
My guess is the infrastructure alone in editing equipment to cut this video required a render farm and a high end editing station... possibly avid. upwards of $15,000 plus the editors time if he owned his own equipment. likely $500 daily... for a couple weeks at least.

The ADR alone to replace all of the lines with dialogue would have taken meticulous work in studio. Probably 3-4 days replacing all thos lines with "Mohammed" and "jihad". I'm not saying the work was done well, but it was studio work nonetheless. Likely $3000

The locations were professional stages or green screen rooms. The compositing and green screen post was terrible, but it is so bad that sometimes it almost seems intentional. Regardless, renting or licensing that many locations in or around LA county requires a little dough, and then compositing or providing backgrounds for all of the greenscreen shots takes time and money.

The makeup while terrible, was clearly hired. Actors in the biz don't do their own makeup like that. Not by a long shot.

And these were actors in the biz. I recognize some of them, and others have come forward to say that they were paid. It's a cast of at least 20 if not more... and extras... It's not a huge production, but we are talking about a couple to 3 weeks of shooting time with lots of actors. that's more 20 grand.

In my professional opinion, I believe this was shot and produced for about 75,000-175,000 dollars on the cheap side, could have cost almost 500,000 dollars depending on what's not in the trailer I've seen, and I've discussed this at length with friends of mine in entertainment. Our theory is that this was INTENTIONALLY mishandled in production and post production to appear amateur. Sometimes it was more costly to appear amateur in this case as well.

There are tell tale signs... The audio in some scenes is bad when it doesn't need to be. EQ varies erratically without explanation. Cuts are haphazard. scenes of dialogue are cut across locations but production sound was kept though ADR time was clearly available. There is too much to point to "amateur" being the intent here.

Anyway, saying this film didn't require a lot of funding doesn't make a lot of sense from my perspective. No, it's not a studio picture with 300 million behind it, but it's not your average festival feature made for 30 grand either.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heliarc (Reply #147)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 05:41 AM

148. Thanks for sharing

Why do you think this was done intentionally and do you have any theories on who was behind the funding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

2. *Mission Accomplished*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

3. oh good, now taxpayers are footing the bill to protect this filth..

i hope this fool lives in terror for the remainder of his miserable life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:57 AM

18. I'm thinking this "protection" is more of

"Let's camp out in your driveway just in case you're in the mood to take a long vacation under one of your assumed names...And by the way, let us guard your passport(s) for safekeeping -- Wouldn't want them to get stolen or burglarized..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:29 PM

76. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:49 PM

84. Oh yeah - the "Sherrif Andy" approach

"Yessir, you know these things get kind of complicated, so Officer Fife will need to set down a few pieces of information - you know, phone numbers and suchlike, so the fellers from Raleigh can look into things. And Barn - maybe we should pick up his mail for a while, too - be sure you get a slip for Earleen down to the post office."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:29 PM

43. Does it really offend you that our tax dollars go in part to prevent people from being murdered

 

for utilizing their free speech?

/a pro-choice protester in Mississippi may also get free police protection despite stating something that is very offensive (even murder-worthy) to some. I'm ok with that and with this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:43 PM

50. You're just being rational - I'm not there yet

Yeah, I know.

Miranda rights, protection for abortion providers and unpopular views, sanctuary privileges. I am for those things. And I want them there when I am the hated one...still

I loathe this puke, I want him to reap what he sowed with the same intensity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM

53. When the fear of retaliation is used to elicit cooperation during police investigations...

all the time, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are "protecting" this guy either. Close surveillance of him, would be appropriate though in this case.

There used to be an equalizer withing the 1st amendment; the fear of ostracization from the community at large acted as a check on outlandish speech. We do it here with our jury system.

And I don't know of any pro- or anti- choice advocates who undermine and threaten national security with offensive speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #53)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:51 PM

56. They police aren't there to protect him from being ostracized

 

That is still a very real and powerful thing.

They are there to protect him from being murdered.

No amount of police presence will make your neighbors like you.

People are asking that he be allowed to be murdered because they don't like what he had to say. That is absurd to me.

/I'm sure a lot of people are upset that "their tax dollars" are going to protect certain people and their silly rights as well. Let's not set that standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:59 PM

87. I still say the police are preventing him from fleeing

at least in the short term, since he has a few identities...

And he needs to be kept on ice anyway until the dust clears, because the list of unanswered questions is growing exponentially by the hour...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:23 PM

96. As a reformed conTARD, bigot, Racist asshole myself.........

 

I am real left wing now, but have plenty of hatred for the right, I mean real serious hate & I keep my mouth shut, mostly and do not write into the newspapers or publicly say anything that would cause murderous rage to come down on my family or my dog.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of MRFF http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ gets death threats all the time, from AMERICANS, and does not rate police protection, why should this guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:41 PM

114. Well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:09 PM

119. ConTARD? Really? Let's be better than those who are obsessed with "libtard".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:25 PM

124. Is it right that people should be silenced by threats of violence?

 

You say you keep your mouth shut to avoid death threats.

Is it right that you should have to do so, or that others should have to do so as well?


Mikey Weinstein, founder of MRFF http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ gets death threats all the time, from AMERICANS, and does not rate police protection, why should this guy?


If it was OK to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps why isn't it ok to put any group in to concentration camps without a trial?

/you see the logic there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #124)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:02 PM

130. I keep my mouth shut cause I know what "conseratives" are all about.

 

We church guys used to subscribe to Liberty Lobby's "The Spotlight", voted for David Duke & had lots of guns to be ready to fight the armies of Satan, though that made no sense cause the rapture should taken us away.

We also did not like Israel, but tolerated it cause Jesus said to.

This was back in the late 80's, funny thing I do not remember much animosity against Islam.
I used to go to Bible Baptist Church, in SE PA, I know what the rightwing crowd is all about.

My one buddy, who was in good standing at church was arrested for 2 rapes of women at gunpoint, everyone was surprised.

Conservatives have blown up Planned Parenthoods, killed Dr Tiller, attacked to Holocaust Museum, shot up a Unitarian Church and that is just off the top of my head.

If it was OK to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps why isn't it ok to put any group in to concentration camps without a trial?


I don't understand the connection but do think internment of Japanese Americans was a real stain on 20th century american history.

Look & listen to RW hate radio & RW xtian stuff, that crap is taken seriously by many dimwits & maybe you should try to get a better understanding of how they want all opposing ideas dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #130)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:06 PM

131. Interesting

 

you're arguing in favor of being silenced by threats of violence.

So the only people you can speak out against are those who won't fight back.

So Amish and the like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #131)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:11 PM

133. I am not in favor of it, it is just the way it is.............

 

.........go out & provoke people & ya get your lights punched out or worse.

I am not saying this is good, bad or indifferent.

It is just the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #133)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:13 PM

134. "it's just the way it is"

 

Could you find a way that that argument couldn't be used against agitators pushing for say civil rights?

They caused a lot of trouble too if I recall. And they were guaranteed to elicit violence.

And and that's just the way things were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:52 PM

57. His "free speech" is hate speech

So YOU should take the consequences of your actions. I don't want tax dollars going to help this asshole. Let him find big pockets to put him in hiding. He did it to himself so fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:06 PM

69. Your Humanity

 

is just dripping from your post. Remember those words when a fundie doesn't like what a pro-choice person has to say. I am sure you will say that same thing, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #69)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:00 PM

88. your strawmen are piling up like cordwood..

it could become a fire hazard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #88)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:54 PM

109. Oh sorry I thought I was commenting on

 

your humanity (or lack there of)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #109)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:54 PM

116. clearly you were mistaken..

now run along, n00b.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:19 PM

72. All speech is hate-speech to someone

 

the constitution wasn't written to protect the well loved and popular people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #72)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:53 PM

86. Sorry, "hate speech" is real and has been defined.

Let's not dismiss it in such a cavalier fashion. Please. And especially when it can have singularly catastrophic impacts on American living and working outside the United States, where different standards apply.

See the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the international view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

The ICCPR states that "hate speech" is "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" and that it "shall be prohibited by law".

While the US has significant reservations about what should be prohibited by law, citing constitutional freedom of speech concerns, its own National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA") gave one of the first government definitions of "hate speech" in the 1990s.

According to NTIA hate speech is:

Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.


There is a more recent effort by the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) which is gaining ground, albeit slowly, after producing a groundbreaking study of hate speech on commercial radio.

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors

In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age. Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:02 PM

89. it amazes me that you have to inform people of this..

and it's been explained many times over that hate speech does indeed have a very real definition that has been set by the courts. are people really so stupid as to not understand that?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:09 PM

93. Like you, I find it surprising that so many people

still do not seem realize that "freedom of speech" is NOT absolute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:18 PM

121. That's from a report

 

it has no legal significance.

When we start jailing people for hate-speech let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #121)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:02 PM

129. let me introduce you to Walter Chaplinsky..

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way, he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. He was arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity.

For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #129)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:09 PM

132. Let me introduce you to the entirety of US law since 1941

 

(an odd era to pick, since back then it was deemed legal to round up certain ethnicities in to concentration camps and deny others the right to be full-citizens. I should hope we've evolved since then).

Post-Chaplinsky
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.



/If the WBC is protected then these movie producers are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:17 PM

120. I couldn't care less about the international rule

 

that doesn't apply to us.

And as far as I know the US does not penalize so called hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #120)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:47 PM

127. You obviously did not read or understand my whole post.

But your attitude is exactly why those who do live and work abroad - often in service, military or otherwise, to this country - are often at risk for "hate speech" in the US whether that speech has yet been recognized as such and penalized here or not.

But the times may be a-changing. Here is more about NHMC: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3776 From your attitude towards my post and to those of others here, I doubt whether you'll bother to read it. But there may be others who will and who will learn.

In the meantime, enjoy your ivory tower and hope that your own life may never be on the line because of someone else's hate speech.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #127)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:51 PM

128. Does the US currently punish hate-speech

 

yes or no?


But your attitude is exactly why those who do live and work abroad - often in service, military or otherwise, to this country - are often at risk for "hate speech" in the US whether that speech has yet been recognized as such and penalized here or not.


The Iranian government often says horrible things about the US, right? Are Iranians fair game here? Do we attack their embassies? No?

Maybe hate-speech isn't as powerful as you seem to think it is.

I will stand up for free-speech. That is a concrete term. Hate-speech can be rewritten at need.

Remember that every fascist organization came to power convincing people that they were going to make things better, and make everyone safe if they'd just give up a few pesky rights. They never came to power on a platform of oppression, fear, and suffering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:42 PM

80. What about your hate speech intent on fomenting violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:22 PM

73. no what offends me is people hiding behind the skirt of 1A to avoid personal responsibility..

i'm just funny that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #73)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:24 PM

75. Personal responsibility in this case is defined as what exactly?

 

Being criticized? No he's subject to that.

Or are you referring to him not wanting to either be jailed by our government or shot by people who offended him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #75)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:06 PM

91. i don't have all day to deal with obtusive idiots..

if you can't understand that you're responsible for the shit that spews from your grocery hole, then i don't know what to tell you. have a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #91)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:22 PM

123. Don't get mad at me because you can't defend your beliefs

 

without coming across as a totalitarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

107. Slander is not free speech.

And you can get in deep shit for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, which is the equivalent of what this man and his backers have done. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmuse (Reply #107)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:26 PM

125. Legally he has done no wrong

 

unlike the fire scenario.

And if it's criminal slander to offend people for their religious beliefs a lot of people are going to jail (like anyone on here who made a crack about mormon magical underware).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:36 PM

78. I kid not - screaming headline from pro-war NY Post: "You Will Pay"

from today.

It was probably intended as a message to rioters and murderers, but OTOH, since they are a pro-GOP tabloid, the ambiguity of the text could be interpreted as a dictate sent to US taxpayers that we are going to pay for military adventures in executing these people. A type of gallows humor.

There is a further irony that while alive, Republicans feel these people are worthless. But alive, they are each worth literally billions of dollars in defense spending (in pursuit of finding and executing them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

4. Good.

I hope this trash is frightened enough to be puking his guts out. Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snort (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:50 AM

11. Needs to be frightened of going back to prison

"Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

The YouTube account, 'Sam Bacile,' which was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July, was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: 'It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511893/new-questions-about-makers-of-anti-muslim-film-as-shadowy-details-emerge/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:11 PM

25. I'm waiting for his ties to the James O'Keefe gang to surface. The circle will be complete then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:45 AM

5. Scared? doesn't he trust in his "God" to keep them safe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:54 PM

59. Well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:48 AM

6. I wish no violence on this man. Only the wrath of the Internets. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:48 AM

7. This man is a ex-con.

 

Why protect a ex-con who's solely responsible for the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and two others.

He produced a film that knew would inflame the Islamic world.

Revoke his citizenship here in the United States and dump him in the Middle East somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM

54. "solely responsible"??? ...get off the crack pipe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:39 PM

98. What evidence supports your claim that he is "solely responsible for the death of Ambassador

Stevens, Sean Smith and two others"?

President Obama stated that he believes that these men were killed by Al Qaeda members trying to avenge the death of al-Libi, one of their leaders. I think Obama is probably well informed.

Did this crazy guy make the film? Yes. Is it offensive? Apparently a lot of Muslims think so. Did he have anything to do with the killing of our ambassador and members of his staff? No.

Our President has explained that the deaths were not directly related to the film. Don't blame this man for something he did not do. Having made the film and being disgraced for that is social punishment enough for his extremism. That is my opinion. Many will disagree, but that is my opinion.

Further, if you think of the case involving Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell, then you realize that it would be very difficult to prosecute someone for making a mean, parody film regarding a religious leader. Per Wikipedia:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Directly inciting people to riot is not protected speech, but no one is saying that the film exhorted people to go out and riot. That's quite different from telling a crowd of angry people that they should use their "Second Amendment Rights."

I can picture someone going after Jon Stewart if the First Amendment did not protect parody and satire. They wouldn't get far, but they might try. Mohammed is long dead and can't pursue this filmmaker for libel.

It's nice to vent, but the anger is not going to bring people together or improve understanding between different religious groups. And that is what is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

8. Are there any ties between the movie and Republican lawmakers and donors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:03 PM

20. Made for 2012

I'd bet money that the whole intent and purpose of the production of this film was to alter the outcome of the 2012 election by inciting violence in the Middle East. Nobody went to the trouble of producing this horrible specimen of "film making" for any reason other than that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:12 PM

26. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:09 PM

23. check this link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:13 PM

27. You found it, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:13 PM

71. So it looks like this might have been an attempt to foment a cultural war

...a la "Helter Skelter"...possibly even to make a martyr of the poor stupid sap who is now scared for his life.

It's the sort of thing we should have been expecting to see, if we paid attention to the RW fringe idiots, especially now that it looks like that "black socialist Muslim" is going to be re-elected. (and for the irony-impaired, no, the President is neither a socialist nor a Muslim! He's Irish, O'bama, so there!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

9. It's a shame his family is in danger.

It should just be his cowardly ass, assuming he is the producer and his product wasn't bastardized after the fact without his knowledge.

In other words, if he produced this "film" for the express purpose of inflaming tensions, then I say fuck him and let him reap the whirlwind. But his family should get clear of it, and fast. The odds are that they were not involved.

I've made a lot of assumptions, so I reserve the right to change my mind if new evidence appears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

10. Good

 

No one should be murdered for what they have say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:22 PM

34. but they should also stand up for their convictions, not hide behind

security that is most likely taxpayer funded.If he so truly believes what he says, why not shout it from the roof tops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:25 PM

38. Because he would be murdered

 

not everyone is eager to die for their beliefs and that shouldn't be the standard for who is allowed to speak their minds.

If this were someone making a controversial video that people here mostly agreed with and was facing death threats the mantra wouldn't be "stand up for your convictions, don't hide behind security".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #38)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:04 PM

90. Bill Maher made his movie, Religulous, lots of people were offended as well as

Mel Gibson's Passions of The Christ. Taxpayers didn't have to pay for their opinions. From what I've read this was done with the intention of inciting some kind of reaction, he did, now he should reap what he sowed.
"Actors in "Innocence of Muslims" say they were duped by the man claiming to be Bacile, and that the film as they knew it was not about Islam. One actress claims all the offensive references were dubbed over the lines the cast actually read. The movie was originally titled "Desert Warriors." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-nakoula-basseley-nakoula_n_1880706.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D204975

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #90)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:21 PM

122. Bill and Mel were offending people who don't have overly emotional responses

 

to movies leading to violence (say by burning down embassies and murdering those within).

They offended people who at worst write letters or stage a boycott.

If your intention is that it should only be acceptable to offend people who won't respond to violence while effectively silencing those who would offend people who would respond with violence I will have to disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #122)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:18 PM

135. this.....

Jessy169 in post #2 and #9 said it so much better than I could.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014229142

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #135)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:33 AM

137. This doesn't fall under the category of screaming fire in a crowded theater

 

in that case you are presenting a real danger that any sane person would seek to avoid at almost any cost. You wouldn't incite them to murder, you would incite them to flee which leads to the deaths.

Being burned alive is a basic fear that all humans share.

Sane people are not forced to commit plan and orchestrate an attack after hearing about a movie that insults their favorite fairy tales.

Two entirely different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #137)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:18 AM

140. I'm sorry this guy did this with the intent of inciting

a riot. He is responsible for the actions he put into place. Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but his actions caused the deaths of several people, why is he in jail? Osama bin Laden didn't fly the planes into NY, but his actions caused the deaths of a lot of people, why was he hunted down and killed? Same difference! They incited a reaction by their action, they are just as responsible as the people doing the actual deed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #140)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:03 PM

141. You can't predict or control the actions of insane people

 

and killing over this is by definition insane.

Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but his actions caused the deaths of several people, why is he in jail?


He specifically ordered people to commit murder.

Osama bin Laden didn't fly the planes into NY, but his actions caused the deaths of a lot of people, why was he hunted down and killed?


He specifically ordered people to commit murder.

They incited a reaction by their action, they are just as responsible as the people doing the actual deed!


They gave specific orders. They didn't say something that someone else interpreted as a reason to kill.

"Go kill these people" is a bit different than "your beliefs are dumb". Don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #140)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:18 PM

142. I haven't seen this "movie" yet. Did the producer/writer actually tell anyone

 

to go out and kill people? Because that's actually what Manson did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:06 PM

68. I'm sure many wanted to murder Bill Maher too after he said they were not cowards.

I am surprised at those in the DU community that take sides with George Bush that the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #68)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:22 PM

74. I'm not

 

people are always bold defenders of the rights of others that they sympathize with.

And less inclined to care when that is used against someone they dislike.

If this weren't human nature then enshrining those rights for all (not just the popular kids) would never have been necessary (and so hard fought).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:51 AM

14. So now the taxpayers are paying for his protection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:26 PM

41. That's part of what taxes are for

 

does it offend you when an accused murderer is given a lawyer and police protection from the mob at our expense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:52 AM

15. Well, what you sow ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:55 AM

17. What did he expect? And are we supposed to protect him the rest of his sorry life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:03 PM

19. Good

 

I hope he gets all the protection he and his family need. Scary to think that anybody in America would need protection after questioning somebodies superstitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rabid_Rabbit (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:46 PM

100. I hope he is protected too even though I do not agree with his vulgarity. It isn't

necessary to be so insulting to people who do not understand what you are saying or the cultural context in which you are saying it, but it isn't to be censored either. There is fault on all sides.

We are all overly sensitive sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:05 PM

21. This dude

is lost in the wilderness and his compass is broken. He should be held responsible for his actions....at the very least made to pay the cost of his protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:06 PM

22. Religion causes more trouble than it's worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:09 PM

24. Now, he's frightened.

NOW, he's scared of retaliation. SMH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:14 PM

28. Stupid fkr

What did he think would happen? If you are going to produce incendiary shit, you are more than likely gonna get your ass burned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:17 PM

29. As a CA taxpayer, I resent paying for his protection...

I support his right to free speech, but he should bear the result of the hate he spawns.

4 US Embassy personnel dead as well as 10 Libyan police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:18 PM

31. Why do this guy rate protection.............

 

I thought law enforcements job was to investigate after a crime has been committed.

This guy & his family deserves no protection, if you want to make trouble be prepared to defend yourself.

Fuck him & his family, they all deserve whatever they get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #31)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:03 PM

67. This is the USA ...even people in prison get protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:13 PM

95. sounds like a good idea..

a cell would likely be the safest place for this scum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #31)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

101. I'm wondering whether he violated his parole -- if he was still on parole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:21 PM

32. His fright and concern didn't extend to American diplomats in the Middle East.

Now he's frightened for himself. Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #32)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:21 PM

112. +1000 He knew what he was doing when he put it out there. Now he has to live with the consequences

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:22 PM

33. Welcome to the other side of the coin. Dija know while Mitt suports the free expression of crap....

he wants to cut back on police, he wants you to face up to the responsibilities of your free speech on your own with no government protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM

35. Get the hard drives

I want to know the contacts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM

36. ....

''Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.'' ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM

37. hmmm, not nearly as "scared" as those diplomats in libya, i bet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:25 PM

39. I don't think taxpayers should be protecting him from himself....

 

He reaps what he sows. He knew or should have known that this film was likely to be very incendiary but he made it anyway. Pay for your own protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:28 PM

42. Why isn't this guy being held for violating his federal conviction requirements?

If the news reports about his past federal convictions for stealing are true, he was forbidden from using the INternet for five years. Posting this thing to Youtube would seem to be a clear violation of his sentence requirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinnie From Indy (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:08 PM

92. Not sure...

I think people are still trying to get to the bottom of this intentionally vague chain of responsibility, and who he's working for--Because there is NO way this assclown pulled this stunt all by himself...

And even if no laws were technically broken, you can bank that there will be a big lawsuit coming from the victims' families...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:30 PM

44. He should have asked Pat Robertson for shelter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:31 PM

45. Oh Damn ...

cognitive dissonance time ...

On the one hand, with the exercise of rights (in this case, freedom of speech) has consequences.

On the other hand, the exercise of rights should not be fear inducing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:46 PM

51. Instead of hiding

He should be proud of his creation........and shout it from the rooftops........its his first ammendment right.....

Instead...he starts this shit and he knew it would be trouble".......and hides.........coward

his ass shoild be in jail for parole violation....IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:00 PM

66. Oviously those who did the killing had no fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:34 PM

46. A gut level response ...

"What ... You have no faith your god will protect you for speaking his truth?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:39 PM

48. Freedom of Spech is one thing

You can say anything you want, it is America. Telling someone to shut up is not being against freedom of speech either. However, when you say something, be prepared to accept the consequences. I was just saying... is an excuse that is not even acceptable on a playground.

However, in this case, Nakoula should be charged with the American deaths. Consider this, if someone pokes at a tiger with a stick and runs away, and the tiger subsequently attacks someone, is it the tiger's fault, or the person poking and deliberately enraging the tiger? Given the long history starting with Rushdie and Satanic Verses, dutch cartoonist, etc... Kakoula knew damn well the reaction he was going to get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #48)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:59 PM

65. Fuck all religions ...and fuck the assholes who kill and blow up medical centers.

I hope that pisses off all religions. Come and get me! I will use my freedom of speech and damn anyone who dares to try to take it away. I stand for our US Constitution and Bill of rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:39 PM

49. Good. He did nothing wrong. We should cherish the freedom of expression...

 

No matter how vile it is.

The taxpayer dollars on him are spent because we allow religious extremists to be in this country.

No one should have to live under the threat of religious extremism.

Anyone even meeting to discuss violence for a religious cause should be given a one-way ticket out of the country, permanently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #49)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:54 PM

61. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #49)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:07 PM

70. he did a lot wrong. he may not have done anything illegal

in making this film, but that's a different story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:48 PM

52. Can't he defend himself

My tax dollars going to protect a homegrown terrorist. Poor baby. I bet he feels like an abortion doctor. How does that feel asshole? I have an idea, just blast Rush Limpballs from your home, that will keep them away. I hope they catch him, and make their own movie. LOL! I bet the mob only wants some tips on how to produce hate films.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM

55. County Cops Cover California Coptic Christian's Crib

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #55)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:33 PM

77. Very good!

A little off topic but whenever I see an alliteration like yours I think of "Miracle on 34th Street"

Kris Kringle Krazy? Kourt Kase Koming; 'Kalamity,' Kries Kids.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:53 PM

58. Goog thing that Bill Maher didn't make that film but rather did one on Jesus.

What if he had? Would he have his right to freedom of speech slammed by the DU community too? If your going to blame Nakoula for the deaths then you should also blame the US for its freedom of speech rights too. I guess it really is just a piece of paper to some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #58)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

103. Bill Maher covered the bases in Religilous

including doing what IMO was a 'Bill Reilly" on a young Muslim Muslim he 'interviewed'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:57 PM

64. ignorant, half-educated, sub-literate, profiteer of fear and hate...

I imagine that if I stood in the middle of my yard and began yelling racial epithets at every non-Caucasian (which is, as we are tediously reminded, is our divine right due to imaginary red and blue line on a map), I'd be scared for my life too.

But then again, I'd be compelled to remind myself that a) my fear was a direct consequence of my actions, and that b) my actions added nothing positive to this world; that in effect, I'm not merely wasting my life, but wasting tax payer dollars to protect me from something that common-sense tells us would have been wholly avoidable if I had simply not aggressively attempted to insult people.

And, if I had done that, I'd be the first one to call myself an 'ignorant, half-educated, sub-literate, profiteer of fear and hate"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #64)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:12 PM

94. but but but first amendment!!1

why do hate freedom of speech, you freedom of speech hater?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #94)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:54 PM

146. Precisely. The lack of nuance in these discussions is absurdly disheartening.

Precisely. The lack of nuance in these discussions is absurdly disheartening. An intractable group of dogmatists appears to believe that the entire spectrum of this discussion is limited to either an absolutist support free speech, or an absolutist support of violence and denial of all speech, with zero room in-between.

Being the optimist that I am, I'm compelled to think that this group doesn't really believe that as much as they simply want to score rhetorical points... regardless of the petulance involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)


Response to GROON (Reply #81)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:46 PM

82. Goodbye.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GROON (Reply #81)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:48 PM

83. Why do you keep the CAPS LOCK key

locked?

A to Q: Search +Wars +Religion

Edited to add: ... also search +exploiters +behind +wars +religion

Hundred millions of 'hits' in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:34 PM

97. And yet Michael Moore has to pay for his own security

Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

105. I guess slander gets police protection?

Good to know...IMHO, he threw gasoline on a fire and is partially responsible for causing the incidents that killed innocent people. Fucking coward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:51 PM

106. seems that some of those caterwauling about freedom of speech have gone quite silent in that respect

it seems the who is more important than the what in this case, my opinion has not changed the guy put out a film that was designed to incite and it should be dealt with as such

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:54 PM

108. He made his bed

Let him lay in it. Scumbag

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:20 PM

111. lock him up. That is protection enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:25 PM

113. Responsibilities come with rights and no one should step on other people's rights just because you

don't agree with them. He should have known that his movie would create problems and considered the rights of Muslims before thinking about making it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:44 PM

115. They should send him a bill for private security; don't make taxpayers

pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:23 PM

117. Parts of this thread are among the ugliest that have ever been seen on DU....

Freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

Allowing people to act violently as a response to unpopular speech is absolutely unacceptable.

In this country, even Phelps and his crew are accorded the right to speak freely: see their reprehensible website (http://www.godhatesfags.com/index.html) as an example of this right if you can stomach it.

The producer of this movie may be no better than Phelps, but he is also no worse.

It is too bad that people get offended, but they cannot be tolerated if they resort to violence.

After all, who gets to determine how slight the offense need be to "justify" murder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #117)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:47 PM

126. I agree. No better, no worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #117)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:34 AM

138. It seems that roughly half support freedom of speech

 

and roughly half are saying that if they don't like what you have to say you should be subject to violence or jailtime.

Frightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #138)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:21 PM

143. Does a person have a legal right to incite a riot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddad56 (Reply #143)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:24 PM

144. Under our legal definitions that is not what this guy did

 

If someone went in to a Batman showing and screamed "I have a gun!" leading to a panic and deaths that would be a crime.

If they said "Batman sucked" and this leads to Batman-fans rioting and killing people that would not be a crime.

Do you see the distinction?

Likewise if this guy went in to a mosque and screamed ""I have a gun!" leading to a panic and deaths that would be a crime.

Instead he said "islam sucks".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:04 PM

118. source should be ABC News Radio, not KARN, to be more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread