Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Another one JustAnotherGen Sep 2012 #1
Don't you know the film represents American Values & Freedom of Speech???????????? Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #97
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #197
And I'll argue it again here leftynyc Sep 2012 #216
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #218
Giving in to the lunatics is never leftynyc Sep 2012 #224
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #225
That is simply not true leftynyc Sep 2012 #230
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #231
No it isn't yelling fire, however after watching people in your country disintegrated and 2on2u Sep 2012 #226
I don't think that applies when you know 2pooped2pop Sep 2012 #227
What would have possessed him? The timing is interesting, for one thing. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #200
The Idea the Makers Of this Film Should Not Be Condemned, Sir, is Ludicrous The Magistrate Sep 2012 #2
We have a lot of DUers suggesting the contrary under their "FREE SPEECH" at all costs argument... hlthe2b Sep 2012 #4
The 'right' of 'free speech' has never been an absolute right. The SCOTUS has coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #130
So now any DUer who strives to uphold the 1st Amendment is a bigot? Really? riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #139
No, but if your eyes have been open, you've seen those to whom I refer. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #144
Well, as I pointed out in another thread... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #153
Hateful bigots have a right to be bigots, and others have the right to criticize... Odin2005 Sep 2012 #211
No one said that treestar Sep 2012 #156
No, I don't believe anyone has said that Confusious Sep 2012 #228
There are real limits to free speech nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #6
hate speech is accurate here G_j Sep 2012 #25
There is no prohibition on hate speech in the United States SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #59
Hate speech is always written in BLOOD. :-/ n/t DeSwiss Sep 2012 #64
Where is "hate speech" outlawed in the United States? We are not the UK. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #84
Since I really do not feel like retyping nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #149
This film is not an obvious incitement to riot. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #213
Only in the fevered imaginations of some folks who don't understand the bill of Rights. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #163
It is depressing to see how many people don't understand the 1st Amendment. "Hate Speech" is NOT Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #107
What is prohibited is incitement to a riot nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #148
And if you think you can define "saying anything that might make people mad" as "incitement", you're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #151
Excuse me, did we have a riot outside now at two embassies and one Consulate? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #154
I was in Skokie when the Nazis marched, "Sparky". I take the 1st Amendment REAL fucking seriously. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #162
When exactly did I say shut them up? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #167
Right, so the only reason no one has been prosecuted for inciting a riot lately, is because they're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #170
The code was first used against organized labor by the by nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #171
I'm not sure why you are confusing, say, "blasphemy" or speech-that-someone-finds-offensive, with Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #172
When did I confuse them? FRACKING nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #176
Your own words, upthread: "There are limits to free speech- HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THEM" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #181
Whatever, they do have a limit nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #187
"Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #189
Let me see the Ammendment is barely two sentences nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #191
You said there are "real limits" on "hate speech". Here. That is what YOU said. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #192
Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #193
What specific code prohibits "Hate Speech". The specific "code". The specific LAW. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #194
in this case pbrower2a Sep 2012 #221
Wouldn't incitement to riot be saying "come on guys! Let's RIOT!" ? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #175
I will answer this nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #180
There actually IS a global war on free speech MNBrewer Sep 2012 #184
But we are talking of INTERNATIONAL AGREMENTS nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #185
I understand that MNBrewer Sep 2012 #186
As long as we are clear nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #188
And the pro-Censorship contingent here supports it, I bet. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #220
I think just saying "Come on, Feel The Noise" might qualify. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #183
Hate speech is not prohibited. Read Virgina v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps, etc...nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #116
What about "fighting words?" The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #124
With fighting words, you have to prove that provocation/call to violence msanthrope Sep 2012 #135
Cool. Thanks. The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #146
I would imagine there are plenty of Muslims in the US who are incensed by that "film" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #165
Apparently, if someone believes that, they're a member of "The Federalist Society" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #195
Don't let them look at the dissents, then...heads can explode from too much irony. nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #196
I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie" ehrnst Sep 2012 #11
Is Theo Van Gogh responsible for his own murder? n/t cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #26
Can you expound - give some reference to your question? ehrnst Sep 2012 #28
He made a movie critical of the Muslim treatment of women. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #32
So why do you ask me if he was responsible for his own murder? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #37
Seriously? cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #58
*Crickets* *crickets* Zalatix Sep 2012 #60
?? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #81
I don't agree with the premise of your question, so there is no "Yes/No answer. ehrnst Sep 2012 #79
Making a movie that is a critical evaluation of a real-world issue BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #212
Here's where your theory falls flat... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #222
Even Roger Ebert called this film akin to yelling "fire" in a theater BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #229
if you're clever enough to operate a computer, then you probably know the answer frylock Sep 2012 #55
Not about the insinuations made about my position. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #121
You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #67
Would you say the same about, say, "The Last Temptation of Christ"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #87
Why don't you ask the people who are "giving them a pass"? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #105
Who is giving the rioters a "pass"? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #122
They don't get a pass, certainly not for this treestar Sep 2012 #157
YOU don't have to agree; the law will do that for and without you. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #86
"pin the due portion of responsibility for those consequences to your utterance." It is a rare U.S. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #101
The riots didn't take place in the US under US law. The world doesn't belong to the US. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #160
Hm... so what's the legal definition of imminent? BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #214
+1 Gold Metal Flake Sep 2012 #173
"That you have a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do." M_M Sep 2012 #219
Fully disidoro01 Sep 2012 #3
Sorry, the YOUTUBE promotion is clearly ugly incitement and they do have blood on their hand. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #5
Yes- there is blood on the hands of both the filmakers and the rioters. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #20
They have responsibility on a moral level, yes. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #166
The people who did kill have to be held accountable nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #8
Thank you! You understand my post. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #19
I never wished death on him or anyone. Who here has demanded the death of the filmmaker? ehrnst Sep 2012 #21
knowing the sensitivity of the muslim world, this was nothing less than inciting violence spanone Sep 2012 #7
Someone else in the koran burning incident had made the point jp11 Sep 2012 #52
Conjecture much? 99Forever Sep 2012 #104
I think that suing crazy hateful people for the consequences of their actions ehrnst Sep 2012 #110
Maybe if ignorant slime stopped baiting them BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #217
Oooh, the "sensitivity"!! So do American Evangelicals get to have the same "sensitivity"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #90
How about American homosexuals? Do we get to burn down megachurches and kill the preachers MNBrewer Sep 2012 #169
Condemn the makers of the film, certainly. MadHound Sep 2012 #9
Yes they have the right - but they can also be held accountable. ehrnst Sep 2012 #17
Held accountable how? Which part of the First Amendment do you want to do away with? Zalatix Sep 2012 #61
Hate speech and inciting violence can be subject to civil suit when damage or death occurs. ehrnst Sep 2012 #76
Inciting violence, eh? So if I pay 2000 people to go riot over your pro-theocracy arguments Zalatix Sep 2012 #91
No. Not at all. ehrnst Sep 2012 #95
So if the military warns you not to post these opinions THEN you are liable. Zalatix Sep 2012 #99
I doubt that the military would have that opinion ehrnst Sep 2012 #112
Your argument is downright silly. Zalatix Sep 2012 #125
Because, I want a theocracy, right? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #133
I suggest you review American law, to wit: WinkyDink Sep 2012 #93
Wrongful Death, to wit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #100
What was your LSAT score again? Zalatix Sep 2012 #136
Libyans were told this was a Hollywood movie tjdee Sep 2012 #10
Do you know who was involved in the promoting of this film? ehrnst Sep 2012 #13
And Egyptian TV! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #202
It should've been obvious upon observation this was no blockbuster ButterflyBlood Sep 2012 #66
Idiocy per se is not illegal here. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #96
Condemn? yes Lucy Goosey Sep 2012 #12
This was deliberate propaganda - this isn't about censoring normal speech ehrnst Sep 2012 #14
I'm curious what the "most basic definition" of propaganda is onenote Sep 2012 #80
I think that covers it - I personally think that it fits a basic definition of porn ehrnst Sep 2012 #123
Incitement To Violence is a crime in the US. closeupready Sep 2012 #15
THis film told muslims to riot and kill people? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #177
So are you going to tell John Kerry you think he is wrong? bighart Sep 2012 #16
No, why does implicating the propaganda makers diminish the crime of people who acted on it? ehrnst Sep 2012 #18
Those who participate in actions of violence are responsible for it. bighart Sep 2012 #22
Yes - I agree. I would like to see a wrongful death suit filed. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #29
A wrongful death suit against who? Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #63
Terry Jones and the producers. The US. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #120
I oppose that, and it will get exactly nowhere MNBrewer Sep 2012 #178
Julius Streicher, Froduald Karamira... pbrower2a Sep 2012 #223
i will call it like i see it. isreal and rw joint in creating this mess. mob rule wrong. obama, seabeyond Sep 2012 #23
Interesting piece of flawed logic slackmaster Sep 2012 #24
Who is holding the rioters 'blameless'? ehrnst Sep 2012 #27
Here's some "shit" that they did ehrnst Sep 2012 #39
It's not hard for me. Both film-maker and his ilk and the rioters should be condemned. randome Sep 2012 #30
Yes - there are some here that think you can't see the wrong on both sides. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #31
one act is criminal, one isnt. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #33
They could be held liable in civil court for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #34
Inciting a riot is against the law in most places. randome Sep 2012 #35
inciting a riot is a huge stretch. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #54
He was warned this could happen, and was asked to stop ehrnst Sep 2012 #114
Incitement is a very narrowly defined offense onenote Sep 2012 #82
He was warned that continuing could result in violence, and he continued. ehrnst Sep 2012 #117
WE can attack the propagandists, but the Prez doesn't have that luxury - yet. reformist2 Sep 2012 #36
Here's Exhibit One in a wrongful death suit against the filmmakers: ehrnst Sep 2012 #38
What's the burden of proof here? That Mohammed IS a true prophet MNBrewer Sep 2012 #41
That they were inciting violence - Jones has a history of it. ehrnst Sep 2012 #48
So fucking sick of worrying about the delicate sensibilities of Muslims. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #57
I'm fucking sick of the danger of drunk drivers. But I still stay off the roads on new year's eve. ehrnst Sep 2012 #118
Yes, you're so Realpolitik I can smell it from here. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #147
It appears that you misunderstand the legal concept of incitement onenote Sep 2012 #88
In a wrongful death suit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #126
I'm not sure who "he" is in this instance or exactly what "he" did. onenote Sep 2012 #190
This country is filled with preachers who call for war on gay people, who say 'take off the gloves Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #44
I never said jailed - sued for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #45
And what of the rest of those preachers mongering hate? Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #50
If they deliberately plan to incite a riot, and someone gets killed as a result ehrnst Sep 2012 #72
But it comes down to your inability to prove intent to do so. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #201
ANY statement criticizing Islam can cause riots. Zalatix Sep 2012 #62
That could also go for any statement criticizing Christianity ehrnst Sep 2012 #70
If criticizing Christianity caused riots I'd be saying the same thing. Zalatix Sep 2012 #89
I have no idea where your line of thought goes. Theocracy? ehrnst Sep 2012 #131
And if two gay people kiss in front of a chick-fil-a and it starts a violent riot Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #69
If this CFLwas in a country that outlawed Gays, ehrnst Sep 2012 #71
Good luck on the lawsuit. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #103
I don't have a case. The families of the dead, I believe, do. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #128
Check your watch, it's silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134
And who did that shirt kill, exactly? Nevernose Sep 2012 #65
Really? That's what you take from this? He had been warned by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #92
Your analogy might work, had Jews rioted and killed Nazi officials MNBrewer Sep 2012 #40
Jews weren't the target audience, Christian Germans were. ehrnst Sep 2012 #47
Were they? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #56
Yes. The film was dubbed into Egyptian Arabic. ehrnst Sep 2012 #78
Condemn them, yes. Hold them accountable? For what? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #42
Wrongful death. In civil court - they can be sued. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #46
Perhaps. But that will be very tough to prove. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #49
I think that their "promotion" of it after they were asked to desist by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #83
Slippery slope, there. I understand where you're coming from. randome Sep 2012 #115
it goes to Jones knowing what the consequences could likely be ehrnst Sep 2012 #119
Ah so the military should decide what speech is acceptable? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #132
Never said that - in this case the Military had an understanding of local conditions ehrnst Sep 2012 #137
Requesting is one thing. You asked that it be used as evidence 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #138
Warned - he was warned that it could result in violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #142
Explain how this couldn't be applied to the scenario I described 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #145
Americans seem not to gasp the fact that outsideworld Sep 2012 #43
Some of the rest of the world needs to grow a thicker skin when it comes to things like religion slackmaster Sep 2012 #51
Not gonna hold my breath for that. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #74
I think Americans are well aware of the lack of freedoms elsewhere. How should that affect OUR WinkyDink Sep 2012 #75
Ummmm ....... so what? If the Libyans want to put him on trial in abstentia, go ahead. nt kelly1mm Sep 2012 #168
people who stir up hatred against entire religions, races, etc. are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53
Really? The reactors have no Free Will NOT to riot, kill, bomb, attack, ....??? By this standard, WinkyDink Sep 2012 #77
Who said they had no free will? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #85
FGS! READ your own previous post! WinkyDink Sep 2012 #102
Maybe you're confusing me with another poster? ehrnst Sep 2012 #109
who said anything like that? i said those who stir up hate are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #155
Hate like this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #203
not sure what your point is. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #204
My point is that it doesn't necessarily take provocation MNBrewer Sep 2012 #205
i assume that 'thugs' of any kind don't need provocation, as they're 'thugs'. why are you so HiPointDem Sep 2012 #206
I've done plenty of Christianity bashing on DU, so don't try to make me out as focused on Islam MNBrewer Sep 2012 #208
They could always try to claim that it's "Brilliant Swiftian Satire" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #68
However, Swift was not warned by authorities that his work ehrnst Sep 2012 #108
Govt propaganda is a different level of "movie." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #73
This was shown on state TV in Libya. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #94
uh...I am referring to the film-MAKERS. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #98
Uh, yes I know. But the Government in Libya ehrnst Sep 2012 #106
but ann--- Sep 2012 #111
Absolutely - I'm referencing others that ehrnst Sep 2012 #113
Who said we cannot condemn the filmaker? nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #127
See this post ehrnst Sep 2012 #129
Doesn't even come close to answering the question. nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #140
We can condemn hate without censoring it. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #210
We can defend a person's JoeyT Sep 2012 #141
He was warned that promoting it like he did would cause violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #143
I don't think there's much chance of JoeyT Sep 2012 #150
We must avoid provoking criminally insane people into committing crime MNBrewer Sep 2012 #159
You know, Terry Jones did not make that thing. This fact is muddling much of what you are Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #161
There is a massive and fundamental difference between this movie and the ones you cited. Xithras Sep 2012 #152
Terrific Points ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #182
+1 for both your post and the Professor's post. Great points. nt riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #198
if MrDiaz Sep 2012 #158
So long as you don't seek to have the government punish or stop the asshats that made kelly1mm Sep 2012 #164
I think it was financed by the Romney campaign. 6000eliot Sep 2012 #174
If you get to have Terry Jones prosecuted for his "incitement to riot" MNBrewer Sep 2012 #179
Egyptian Television to blame for current unrest MNBrewer Sep 2012 #199
When the US starts sending Muslims to concentration camps your point may work. CBGLuthier Sep 2012 #207
The fact of the matter is, by not condemning the film maker, we are sending a message that jillan Sep 2012 #209
Except no one was ordered to see this movie oberliner Sep 2012 #215
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If we're not supposed to ...»Reply #25