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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)67. You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
231 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all]
ehrnst
Sep 2012
OP
Don't you know the film represents American Values & Freedom of Speech????????????
Voice for Peace
Sep 2012
#97
No it isn't yelling fire, however after watching people in your country disintegrated and
2on2u
Sep 2012
#226
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
Hateful bigots have a right to be bigots, and others have the right to criticize...
Odin2005
Sep 2012
#211
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
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
Right, so the only reason no one has been prosecuted for inciting a riot lately, is because they're
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#170
I'm not sure why you are confusing, say, "blasphemy" or speech-that-someone-finds-offensive, with
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#172
Your own words, upthread: "There are limits to free speech- HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THEM"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#181
"Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#189
You said there are "real limits" on "hate speech". Here. That is what YOU said.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#192
What specific code prohibits "Hate Speech". The specific "code". The specific LAW.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#194
Hate speech is not prohibited. Read Virgina v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps, etc...nt
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#116
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
if you're clever enough to operate a computer, then you probably know the answer
frylock
Sep 2012
#55
You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#67
"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
Sorry, the YOUTUBE promotion is clearly ugly incitement and they do have blood on their hand.
hlthe2b
Sep 2012
#5
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
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
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
I think that covers it - I personally think that it fits a basic definition of porn
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#123
No, why does implicating the propaganda makers diminish the crime of people who acted on it?
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#18
i will call it like i see it. isreal and rw joint in creating this mess. mob rule wrong. obama,
seabeyond
Sep 2012
#23
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
WE can attack the propagandists, but the Prez doesn't have that luxury - yet.
reformist2
Sep 2012
#36
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
This country is filled with preachers who call for war on gay people, who say 'take off the gloves
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#44
And if two gay people kiss in front of a chick-fil-a and it starts a violent riot
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#69
I think that their "promotion" of it after they were asked to desist by the military
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#83
Never said that - in this case the Military had an understanding of local conditions
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#137
Some of the rest of the world needs to grow a thicker skin when it comes to things like religion
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#51
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 anything like that? i said those who stir up hate are responsible for the consequences
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#155
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
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
So long as you don't seek to have the government punish or stop the asshats that made
kelly1mm
Sep 2012
#164
When the US starts sending Muslims to concentration camps your point may work.
CBGLuthier
Sep 2012
#207