Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:39 AM
LeighAnn (2,444 posts)
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, 12000 views
| Author | Time | 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
oberliner (22,355 posts)
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? |
Response to oberliner (Reply #1)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:50 AM
alfredo (46,860 posts)
12. He's a Coptic Christian. He not only hurt Americans, he made life more difficult for
|
Coptics living in Muslim nations.
|
Response to alfredo (Reply #12)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
60. And the MSM made life more difficult for Jews/Israelis living everywhere
|
By running with the BS headline.
|
Response to oberliner (Reply #60)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:43 PM
alfredo (46,860 posts)
136. Bacile first claimed to be Israeli. Two sources should be the minimum.
|
They took his word for it. That was a mistake.
|
Response to alfredo (Reply #136)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:28 AM
goclark (30,404 posts)
139. Is he Mittwits twin?
|
They seem to LIE alike.
|
Response to goclark (Reply #139)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:27 PM
alfredo (46,860 posts)
145. Policy advisor
Response to oberliner (Reply #1)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
Comrade Grumpy (3,732 posts)
13. Is he an Egyptian Copt again? It's hard to keep up.
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #13)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:17 PM
freshwest (32,410 posts)
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. |
Response to freshwest (Reply #30)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:26 PM
oldsarge54 (582 posts)
40. Only
|
Only since 07? Rove has been a player a long time.
|
Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #40)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:52 PM
freshwest (32,410 posts)
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.
|
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #13)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:55 PM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
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.
|
Response to oberliner (Reply #62)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:45 PM
azurnoir (27,388 posts)
99. The reporting on a number of things surrounding this incident has been sloppy
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) or perhaps quick that includes what happened in Libya and who the perpetrators really were
|
Response to azurnoir (Reply #99)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:48 PM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
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. |
Response to oberliner (Reply #102)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:16 PM
azurnoir (27,388 posts)
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 |
Response to oberliner (Reply #1)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
Laurian (1,156 posts)
16. I'm curious. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? Who are his associates?
|
Lots of questions, no answers (yet).
|
Response to Laurian (Reply #16)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
harun (9,768 posts)
47. And where did he get his funding?
Response to harun (Reply #47)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:57 PM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
63. Funding for what?
|
Have you seen the "trailer" on Youtube?
Doesn't look like this "movie" required a whole lot of funding. |
Response to oberliner (Reply #63)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:38 PM
Amonester (10,256 posts)
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. |
Response to Amonester (Reply #79)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:50 PM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
104. Yeah
|
Overall I think we are talking about an amount in the thousands, though, not the millions for the whole shebang.
|
Response to oberliner (Reply #63)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:47 AM
heliarc (1,937 posts)
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. |
Response to heliarc (Reply #147)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 05:41 AM
oberliner (22,355 posts)
148. Thanks for sharing
|
Why do you think this was done intentionally and do you have any theories on who was behind the funding?
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM
LeighAnn (2,444 posts)
2. *Mission Accomplished*
![]() |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM
frylock (19,354 posts)
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.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #3)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:57 AM
Blue_Tires (31,870 posts)
18. I'm thinking this "protection" is more of
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) "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..."
|
Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #18)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:49 PM
Mopar151 (6,111 posts)
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."
|
Response to frylock (Reply #3)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:29 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:43 PM
radhika (758 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
Blue State Bandit (1,601 posts)
53. When the fear of retaliation is used to elicit cooperation during police investigations...
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:50 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) 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. |
Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #53)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:51 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:59 PM
Blue_Tires (31,870 posts)
87. I still say the police are preventing him from fleeing
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:00 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) 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... |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:23 PM
kooljerk666 (776 posts)
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? |
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:41 PM
Blue State Bandit (1,601 posts)
114. Well put.
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:09 PM
alp227 (20,988 posts)
119. ConTARD? Really? Let's be better than those who are obsessed with "libtard".
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #96)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:25 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #124)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:02 PM
kooljerk666 (776 posts)
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. |
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #130)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:06 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #131)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:11 PM
kooljerk666 (776 posts)
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. |
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #133)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:13 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:52 PM
Politicalboi (9,624 posts)
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.
|
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:06 PM
Missycim (950 posts)
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?
|
Response to Missycim (Reply #69)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:00 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
88. your strawmen are piling up like cordwood..
|
it could become a fire hazard.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #88)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:54 PM
Missycim (950 posts)
109. Oh sorry I thought I was commenting on
|
your humanity (or lack there of)
|
Response to Missycim (Reply #109)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:54 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
116. clearly you were mistaken..
|
now run along, n00b.
|
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:19 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
72. All speech is hate-speech to someone
|
the constitution wasn't written to protect the well loved and popular people.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #72)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:53 PM
BlueMTexpat (2,611 posts)
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 |
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #86)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
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?!
|
Response to frylock (Reply #89)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:09 PM
BlueMTexpat (2,611 posts)
93. Like you, I find it surprising that so many people
|
still do not seem realize that "freedom of speech" is NOT absolute.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #89)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:18 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
121. That's from a report
|
it has no legal significance.
When we start jailing people for hate-speech let me know. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #121)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:02 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
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 |
Response to frylock (Reply #129)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:09 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #86)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:17 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #120)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:47 PM
BlueMTexpat (2,611 posts)
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. |
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #127)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:51 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #57)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:42 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (7,117 posts)
80. What about your hate speech intent on fomenting violence?
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:22 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
73. no what offends me is people hiding behind the skirt of 1A to avoid personal responsibility..
|
i'm just funny that way.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #73)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:24 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #75)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:06 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
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.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #91)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:22 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
123. Don't get mad at me because you can't defend your beliefs
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) without coming across as a totalitarian.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:53 PM
liberalmuse (15,427 posts)
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.
|
Response to liberalmuse (Reply #107)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:26 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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). |
Response to frylock (Reply #3)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:36 PM
closeupready (19,695 posts)
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). |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:43 AM
snort (222 posts)
4. Good.
|
I hope this trash is frightened enough to be puking his guts out. Fuck him.
|
Response to snort (Reply #4)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:50 AM
LeighAnn (2,444 posts)
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/ |
Response to LeighAnn (Reply #11)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:11 PM
freshwest (32,410 posts)
25. I'm waiting for his ties to the James O'Keefe gang to surface. The circle will be complete then.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:45 AM
Marrah_G (22,698 posts)
5. Scared? doesn't he trust in his "God" to keep them safe?
Response to Marrah_G (Reply #5)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
Blue State Bandit (1,601 posts)
59. Well put.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:48 AM
msanthrope (16,905 posts)
6. I wish no violence on this man. Only the wrath of the Internets. nt
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:48 AM
Panasonic (2,921 posts)
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. |
Response to Panasonic (Reply #7)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
54. "solely responsible"??? ...get off the crack pipe!
Response to Panasonic (Reply #7)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:39 PM
JDPriestly (38,318 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
alfredo (46,860 posts)
8. Are there any ties between the movie and Republican lawmakers and donors?
Response to alfredo (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:03 PM
LeighAnn (2,444 posts)
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
|
Response to alfredo (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:09 PM
barbtries (15,023 posts)
23. check this link
|
http://maxblumenthal.com/2012/09/meet-the-right-wing-extremist-behind-anti-muslim-film-that-sparked-deadly-riots/
he may not be a republican but he is known to the SPLC. |
Response to barbtries (Reply #23)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:13 PM
freshwest (32,410 posts)
27. You found it, thanks.
Response to barbtries (Reply #23)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:13 PM
Maeve (28,528 posts)
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!) |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
reflection (4,929 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
10. Good
|
No one should be murdered for what they have say.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #10)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
madmom (9,408 posts)
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?
|
Response to madmom (Reply #34)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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". |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #38)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:04 PM
madmom (9,408 posts)
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 |
Response to madmom (Reply #90)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:21 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #122)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:18 PM
madmom (9,408 posts)
135. this.....
|
Jessy169 in post #2 and #9 said it so much better than I could.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014229142 |
Response to madmom (Reply #135)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:33 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #137)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:18 AM
madmom (9,408 posts)
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!
|
Response to madmom (Reply #140)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:03 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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? |
Response to madmom (Reply #140)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:18 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
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.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #10)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:06 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
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.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #68)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:22 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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). |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
jsr (3,526 posts)
14. So now the taxpayers are paying for his protection
Response to jsr (Reply #14)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:26 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
41. That's part of what taxes are for
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) does it offend you when an accused murderer is given a lawyer and police protection from the mob at our expense?
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:52 AM
Zoeisright (7,997 posts)
15. Well, what you sow ...
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:55 AM
appleannie1 (3,017 posts)
17. What did he expect? And are we supposed to protect him the rest of his sorry life?
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:03 PM
Rabid_Rabbit (131 posts)
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.
|
Response to Rabid_Rabbit (Reply #19)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:46 PM
JDPriestly (38,318 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:05 PM
JEB (642 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:06 PM
sarcasmo (13,560 posts)
22. Religion causes more trouble than it's worth.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:09 PM
NOLALady (3,443 posts)
24. Now, he's frightened.
|
NOW, he's scared of retaliation. SMH!
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:14 PM
HeeBGBz (7,361 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:17 PM
radhika (758 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:18 PM
kooljerk666 (776 posts)
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. |
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #31)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:03 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
67. This is the USA ...even people in prison get protection.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #67)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:13 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
95. sounds like a good idea..
|
a cell would likely be the safest place for this scum.
|
Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #31)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:47 PM
JDPriestly (38,318 posts)
101. I'm wondering whether he violated his parole -- if he was still on parole.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:21 PM
Jim__ (8,652 posts)
32. His fright and concern didn't extend to American diplomats in the Middle East.
|
Now he's frightened for himself. Fuck him.
|
Response to Jim__ (Reply #32)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:21 PM
NotThisTime (3,372 posts)
112. +1000 He knew what he was doing when he put it out there. Now he has to live with the consequences
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
marble falls (2,101 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
malaise (107,053 posts)
35. Get the hard drives
|
I want to know the contacts
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
DeSwiss (17,467 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
seabeyond (85,893 posts)
37. hmmm, not nearly as "scared" as those diplomats in libya, i bet. nt
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
Swede Atlanta (2,335 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:28 PM
Vinnie From Indy (8,791 posts)
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.
|
Response to Vinnie From Indy (Reply #42)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:08 PM
Blue_Tires (31,870 posts)
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... |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:30 PM
asjr (9,780 posts)
44. He should have asked Pat Robertson for shelter.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:31 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,663 posts)
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. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:46 PM
Gin (7,015 posts)
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 |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:00 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
66. Oviously those who did the killing had no fear.
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:34 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,663 posts)
46. A gut level response ...
|
"What ... You have no faith your god will protect you for speaking his truth?"
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:39 PM
oldsarge54 (582 posts)
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. |
Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #48)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:59 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:39 PM
Comrade_McKenzie (2,526 posts)
49. Good. He did nothing wrong. We should cherish the freedom of expression...
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:43 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) 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. |
Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #49)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:07 PM
cali (81,181 posts)
70. he did a lot wrong. he may not have done anything illegal
|
in making this film, but that's a different story.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:48 PM
Politicalboi (9,624 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
55. County Cops Cover California Coptic Christian's Crib
|
|
Response to slackmaster (Reply #55)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:33 PM
KansDem (24,500 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:53 PM
L0oniX (18,005 posts)
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.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #58)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:48 PM
azurnoir (27,388 posts)
103. Bill Maher covered the bases in Religilous
|
including doing what IMO was a 'Bill Reilly" on a young Muslim Muslim he 'interviewed'
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:57 PM
LanternWaste (16,493 posts)
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" |
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #64)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:12 PM
frylock (19,354 posts)
94. but but but first amendment!!1
|
why do hate freedom of speech, you freedom of speech hater?
|
Response to frylock (Reply #94)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:54 PM
LanternWaste (16,493 posts)
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. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
GROON This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to GROON (Reply #81)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:46 PM
closeupready (19,695 posts)
82. Goodbye.
|
nt
|
Response to GROON (Reply #81)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:48 PM
Amonester (10,256 posts)
83. Why do you keep the CAPS LOCK key
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) locked?
A to Q: Search +Wars +Religion Edited to add: ... also search +exploiters +behind +wars +religion Hundred millions of 'hits' in return. |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:34 PM
Downtown Hound (8,287 posts)
97. And yet Michael Moore has to pay for his own security
|
Go figure.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:50 PM
liberalmuse (15,427 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:51 PM
azurnoir (27,388 posts)
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
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:54 PM
Livluvgrow (221 posts)
108. He made his bed
|
Let him lay in it. Scumbag
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:20 PM
olddad56 (2,865 posts)
111. lock him up. That is protection enough
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:25 PM
appleannie1 (3,017 posts)
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.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:44 PM
closeupready (19,695 posts)
115. They should send him a bill for private security; don't make taxpayers
|
pay for it.
|
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:23 PM
xocet (1,155 posts)
117. Parts of this thread are among the ugliest that have ever been seen on DU....
|
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) 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? |
Response to xocet (Reply #117)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:47 PM
Raster (12,621 posts)
126. I agree. No better, no worse.
Response to xocet (Reply #117)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:34 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
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. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #138)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:21 PM
olddad56 (2,865 posts)
143. Does a person have a legal right to incite a riot?
|
Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to olddad56 (Reply #143)
Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:24 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
144. Under our legal definitions that is not what this guy did
|
Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) 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". |
Response to LeighAnn (Original post)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:04 PM
alp227 (20,988 posts)


