Butler: Arrest Anti-Muslim Filmmaker

Absolutely agree. Arresting someone for what they have written or shown in a movie will be a very bad precendent and completely goes against the First Amendment. I don’t even condone limiting the free speech of Fred Phelps and his goons. I don’t like what they do or what they say, but nothing they have done is illegal. Stupid yes, and needs to be vilified and criticized and laughed at, but not something that warrants any kind of legal action.

Arrested? No. Have their worthless crap taken off the air, just as we want Rush Limbaugh taken off the air? Hell yes!

Butler needs to shut up or someone may just search her work for criticizing a religion and push for her arrest.

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

If this is true, why do you spend 400+ words painstakingly demonstrating how little value you place on free speech?

I’m bothered by her idiotic claim that Sam Bacile (whose first name should definitely be changed to “Im”) “inadvertently” inflamed people half a world away. This was not inadvertent. It was deliberate.

A couple of days ago, I heard a bunch of otherwise rational-sounding people call for the use of hate crime law to arrest Bacile. I see no difference between calling a film a “hate crime” and calling it “blasphemy.”

We don’t need that crap in this country. We don’t need it anywhere.

Alverant, #6: If the movie was inaccurate and designed to push someone’s buttons to the point of violence, then I’m not so sure how the notion of free speech really fits into the film.

The point, or at least one of them, is that Dr. Butler is calling for the arrest of the film makers right now. But there is no law on the books that they broke; there is no law under which they may be charged.

Should there be a law? Personally, I agree that this is close enough to incitement that there should. However, those who understand the law better than I have stated that such a law would be violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution according to Supreme Court precedent.

So, the short answer to your question is: this movie is pretty much within US legal guidelines.

–

I’m still curious, though, about legal liability if the allegations are true that they overdubbed the actors’ lines without the actors knowing anything about it, and did so with the deliberate intent to provoke a violent response from Muslims.

Alverant: According to what I’ve read in previous posts here, this trailer is, technically, not “inciting to riot,” because no one in it actually explicitly calls on anyone to commit any violent or disorderly acts. So it may violate the spirit of the law, but it doesn’t violate the letter, so apparently it’s legally okay. (Calling it “treason” is a stretch too, though it clearly does aid and abet enemies of the US.)

There is still the possibility of civil suits though, both by relatives of the murdered Americans, and by the actors, who can plausibly claim defamation and fraud — especially if they can prove they were subject to ostracism or threats in response to things they didn’t really say.

What’s also reprehensible is that YouTube refuses to take the trailer down, even though it clearly violates their terms.

Doesn’t free speech already have limits? For example you can’t incite a riot or say things to illicit violence.

Suppressing free speech requires a clear and present danger that the speech will incite “imminent lawless action.” That’s not here.

Here’s the different.

If I make a movie that says “Mohammed is a pedofile,” I know it will make lots of Muslims mad and some of them might even riot or protest, but I don’t know where or when and I don’t know anything about what will occur.

That is not a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.

On the other hand, if I stand in front of a crowd of devout muslims and tell them “the people in that building *right over there* made a movie saying Mohammed is a pedofile, you need to go burn their building down and kill them all.

Assuming the crowd is suitably fired up, that would probably be a danger of imminent lawless action, and the police could reasonably justified in breaking up the demonstration/speech.

karmakat: you’re right about all that — but that doesn’t make the filmmakers any less responsible for the role they knowingly played, with malice aforethought, in those political and sectarian conflicts. Giving someone an excuse to commit murder doesn’t make you a murderer — it just makes you an accessory to murder.

I find a lot of the pro-censorship arguments more insulting than anything I can imagine in the film, and in a far more insidious way because it feigns respect. They seem to treat the rioters as if they were wild beasts, incapable of self-restraint.

If a person jumps into a lion cage, we don’t blame the lion if it attacks him. Muslims, however, aren’t lions. They’re humans. They’re sapient beings capable of higher levels of cognition and moral reasoning than lions. That means they’re responsible for their actions and reactions. Treating them like wild beasts sets a double-standard on civilized behavior while simultaneously providing support for racist ideas that they’re inherently less capable of rational thought or moral action.

I’m reminded of a pro-burka propaganda poster showing a covered lollipop versus an uncovered one attracting flies. The hidden message it sends is that women are responsible for rape because men are mindless sex fiends who are incapable of resisting an uncovered ankle, and thus not responsible for their actions. Sadly, we’ve got a lot of people with similar attitudes in the US. It’s much the same insult.

If someone was calling for the outright censorship of an anti-atheist movie, citing a fear of riots, I’d be more insulted by the censor who took it upon himself to say what I can and can’t handle.

Suppressing free speech requires a clear and present danger that the speech will incite “imminent lawless action.” That’s not here.

Yes, it bloody well is: the filmmakers knew in advance that certain material would have a very clear chance of resulting in violent reaction; and they tailored the words in the trailer to cause as much emotional reaction — and as little thoughtful response — as possible. They knew in advance that a certain region was in social turmoil, and that a lot of that turmoil consists of resentment of America, and resentment over they very kind of insults they knowingly dubbed into their work.

And how are you going to determine someone’s intent?

In the case of “Innocence of Muslims,” the malicious intent is as obvious as the color of the sky — even without considering how the actors were systematically deceived as to the nature of the work being done. Seriously, do you really think it’s impossible to distinguish between honest criticism and malicious manipulation? We do it every time a Republican opens his mouth, so why are you suddenly complaining now?

Giving someone an excuse to commit murder doesn’t make you a murderer — it just makes you an accessory to murder.

Yeah, it’s like how when a woman wears a short skirt she is clearly an accessory to her own rape. Because obviously she was giving the rapist an excuse.

Ed Brayton, #20: And how are you going to determine someone’s intent? Read their minds?

How do the police and prosecutors determine whether a shooting death was an accident or the shooter actually intended to kill the victim? Maybe there can be enough actual evidence of intent that a jury can be swayed beyond reasonable doubt.

I mean, jeez, if it were impossible to prove intent, then every single trial would result in acquittal when the defendent claimed that they didn’t mean to do what they did.

Raging Bee writes:

What’s also reprehensible is that YouTube refuses to take the trailer down, even though it clearly violates their terms.

How did you conclude that? Google claims the exact opposite after the White House requested they review this video to reconcile it’s content.

I find a lot of the pro-censorship arguments more insulting than anything I can imagine in the film, and in a far more insidious way because it feigns respect. They seem to treat the rioters as if they were wild beasts, incapable of self-restraint.

People caught up in mobs ARE incapable of self-restraint. If you find that well-known fact insulting, tough shit. It’s a real danger, and sometimes people have a moral duty (if not a legal one) to recognize that fact, and modify their words a little to reduce the likelihood of violence when we know it’s a strong possibility.

People caught up in mobs ARE incapable of self-restraint.

No, they’re not. But even if they were, how are the makers of this movie responsible for the existence of mobs? If they’re not, then maybe you should identify who is, and talk about punishing that person.

Just as with the Danish cartoons, the cartoonists and editors of the Jyllands Posten were accused of arousing rioting instead of the imams going around flourishing the cartoons and telling people to rioting. You know, the actual inciters.

Bronze Dog, #25: I find a lot of the pro-censorship arguments more insulting than anything I can imagine in the film, and in a far more insidious way because it feigns respect. They seem to treat the rioters as if they were wild beasts, incapable of self-restraint.

There are already laws that make it an offense to incite a crowd to violence. Do they also treat the crowd as if they were incapable of self-restraint? If not, then what is the difference? I don’t see how the fact that the current laws are more narrowly drawn make any difference on how the crowd is “treated.”

If there isn’t a difference in how the crowd is “treated,” then are you also against the current laws that already exist?

There are already laws that make it an offense to incite a crowd to violence. Do they also treat the crowd as if they were incapable of self-restraint? If not, then what is the difference?

Well, the law prohibits directly encouraging an already-existing angry crowd of people to commit violent acts.

The law does not prohibit making speech that some people, somewhere, at some point, might find offensive enough that they decide to form a crowd and go commit violent acts.

It seems pretty damn obvious to me, anyway…

I posted a comment and it vanished without a trace. Was it because I had a link in it? If so, I’d appreciate it being hustled out of moderation. Thanks.

I just got Rickrolled.

Please point me towards whomever I am now allowed to kill as a result of this offensive video, so that I can do so and the bastard who posted it will be sent to prison.

Notice how no one is calling for any action against the makers of “Islam: the Untold Story”?

Uh, did you happen to read the post you’re commenting on, Raging Bee?

And how are you going to determine someone’s intent? Read their minds?

People usually say what their intent is. Plus there’s a pattern of past behavior, psychoanalyzing, physical evidence, etc. We determine someone’s intent all the time. I have to agree with Raging Bee, the intent was obvious. The people who made the film did it with the intent of causing muslims to riot so they could point to them and say, “Look at those barbarians! Islam is an enemy to freedom!” There’s a big difference between this and the Dutch cartoons. For one thing, the Dutch cartoons was the first big incident of violence over how Mo has been protrayed in recent memory. The artists didn’t know people would have reacted that way nor did they want people to act that way. Not so with this film.

But you are doing so based on the reaction of Muslim fundamentalists.

No, I’m doing it based on said reaction in conjunction with certain verifiable facts unique to this one particular work. Facts that have been explicitly mentioned and discussed here and elsewhere. Why are you ignoring what’s been said here?

There’s a big difference between this and the Dutch cartoons. For one thing, the Dutch cartoons was the first big incident of violence over how Mo has been protrayed in recent memory. The artists didn’t know people would have reacted that way nor did they want people to act that way.

Danish, not Dutch. I was living in Denmark at the time. And yes, the artists did have at least some reason to anticipate violent reaction– the whole reason for asking them to depict Muhammad for publication in the first place was because a children’s book author wanted to write one about Muhammad’s life and couldn’t find someone to illustrate it. All of the people he asked turned him down, because they were too afraid.

I wonder of those who demonstrated and rioted, how many had actually seen the “movie” or having seen it understood enough English to understand what they where talking about. The “movie” is just a convenience to motivate the mobs for political expediency. If it wasn’t this stupid thing it would have been another.

The knee jerk reaction I have to read here are astonishing in their contempt for free speech. When the cartoons where published in newspapers, and the reaction was against mostly European embassies, I read with approval an overwhelming defense of free speech.

That same defense just seems to not count anymore when suddenly American Embassies are mainly (but not solely) targeted.

I see the same kneejerk response that happened after 9/11, when comparing the British responses to the IRA attacks in England and Northern Ireland and the: “Home Land Security” response of dismantling democratic freedoms in the US.

Apparently the democratic freedoms in the US are just a good weather phenom, when things start to hurt – including free expression, what this film is all about, no matter how crappy – freedoms are gladly sacrificed.

And by the way – it becomes more certain that the attacks against the Embassy in Libya had nothing to do with a riot, that this was a planned attack by likely Al Qaeda.

As to the rest of the violent protests: they mostly destroy property in their own countriew and a few idiot protesters get shot – absolutely not my problem.

“It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith’s founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers”

And what exactly is wrong with that idea?

All you can do afterwards is to state the “facts” – whatever they are in more t5han a 1000 year old religion, where the figure of the founder is already doubtful.

I have the right to polemics, even the right to insult, I do not have the right to slander a living person.

But I am free to say that if Jesus existed he was most likely a homosexual, based on the relationship with his apostles.

“Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile’s film.”

And that is the point exactly were the military dictated what democratic freedoms are. Good night America.

“Giving someone an excuse to commit murder doesn’t make you a murderer — it just makes you an accessory to murder.””

The same response: wearing a reveling dress is not an excuse to have yourself raped, it just makes you an accessory to rape.

The stupid burns brightly in the bee.

Does anyone really think religious fanatics can’t find a reason to riot?

Yeah, let’s hand them a victory so they’ll be calmer next time someone offends them.

Raging Bee

Yes, it bloody well is: the filmmakers knew in advance that certain material would have a very clear chance of resulting in violent reaction;

So if I knew who you were and where you lived, and said: “Bee, your posts make me so angry I will punch a random stranger in the face if you post to Ed’s blog again,” then your speech should be restricted, right? That’s basically what you’re arguing.

After all, you would know that your speech “would have a very clear chance of resulting in violent reaction.” And as per your post @55, you now have “every reason to expect a violent reaction.” So according to you, my future fist in someone’s face would be partially your fault. You posting to Ed’s blog would make you an accessory to assault.

See how stupid that is? You cannot restrict speech based on the fact that someone, somewhere, will object to your content in a violent manner. Even if the speaker knows it. That way lies insanity. You have to limit the restriction to when the speaker is actively and actually encouraging illegal behavior. If Ed says “eric, do it man. Punch someone in the face next time Bee posts. I dare you. Do it. Doooo iiiiittt,” then Ed’s speech is arguably illegal. He is encouraging me to commit assault. But your speech does not become illegal merely because I will behave in a predictably violent manner in response to it. The same goes for Bacile’s speech.

the creator knew that his work might be received poorly by some Muslims, a fact that was also true of Salman Rushdie

Rushdie really didn’t. He was quite surprised; and the simple fact is that nobody who reacted violently or who endeavored to take action on the fatwa had actually read the book. It takes a superficial reading (every situation and every character’s words are intended as demonstrations of the author’s beliefs) and a determination to be offended in order to react the way some Muslims did to The Satanic Verses. Now some of that superficial reading might arise from cultural differences. But in the event the fatwa against Rushdie was very much an act of opportunism by the Ayatollah and the offense generated was much less in proportion to the intended artistic effect than is the case with the current situation (in which, of course, no strictly artistic effect was intended at all).

Tangential to the discussion, but to a large degree the infamy of TSV has obscured the fact that there’s nothing especially offensive to Islam in it, if we allow the modern Western literary convention that utterances made by characters in a work of narrative fiction need not be considered representative of either the author’s own views or the themes of the work at large.

I see a lot of fucking idiots claiming we don’t know damn well that the kind of violence that has occurred was exactly what the makers of the video wanted. See here and here for information on who is behind it, and how it came to be available to Islamist fanatics to stir up the riots. They and the religious right extremists behind The Innocence of Muslims are symbiotic, but lackwits like Brayton can’t see it.

Bacile and Terry Jones should be criticized for their stupidity and bigotry – Ed Brayton

“Bacile” doesn’t exist, you ignorant dolt – at least take the trouble to learn a few of the basic facts. And Terry Jones isn’t half as stupid as you: the violence was not an unforeseen side-effect – it was the whole point of the exercise. Jesus wept.

. And Terry Jones isn’t half as stupid as you: the violence was not an unforeseen side-effect – it was the whole point of the exercise. Jesus wept.

What the fuck are you absolute moron talking about? Did they ask the viewers of the film in any way to go out and kill muslims? Because that is what some of the protestors demand.

Did they ask to burn down a mosque? Because the protestors now burn down embassies?

All they did is ridicule and distorted facts. Since when is that against free speech, arsehole, and since when is that an argument for violent response or in an argument to apologize for free speech, motherfucker?

I don’t give a shit if jesus weeps, all he deserves is a swift kick in the arse as well. Too bad I am 2000 years late.

kraut, #70 What the fuck are you absolute moron talking about?

From one of the links that were provided:

As a consultant for the film named Steve Klein said: “We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

That certainly seems to support the statement

…the violence was not an unforeseen side-effect – it was the whole point of the exercise.

Let me say that I have not watched the trailer, as I don’t want to spend five minutes with some shit when I rather respond to the question of free speech or not.

What I have read about the movie – including in the german news paper “Der Spiegel” it is a an insult to the religion of islam, but it does not incite to violence nor does it incite to even burn the fucking quaran.

Even if the producer had the intention to insult, any denigration to the quaran that was done by american troops in afghanistan – liking pissing on the pages – was quite worse an insult.

Even if this rather harmless insult – I could come up with worse at the drop of the hat – was expected to have the reaction, the blame to react lies with the religious fools.

The only reason I can discern what lead to the violence is the fact that the instigators – and those are the bloody idiots in egypt, tunesia, libya etc. – know exactly that the US is unlikely to curtail free speech to bow to the nonsensical demands of some proto terrorist, and this predictable reaction was used to further incite the big unwashed masses, of whom in my estimation less than 1% actually saw that trailer.

Any and all excuse would have been used to get some anti western sentiment going, that is simply necessary to keep the mullahs in control of the religious idiots.

It happened to be a stupid movie this time that was published on the web, it could have been some insulting comment by some hapless politician.

We as a society have to have as our priority the protection of a semblance of democracy (however eroded it is already by internal measures)including free speech, and not to bow the demands of those who want to create a world wide caliphate.

The critique of this movie should never ever have been about support for censorship – this is so wrongheaded as to pull a godwin and compare that to the appeasement of the Fuehrer.

“Now, if it can be shown by evidence (not news “reports,” rumor and hearsay) that someone deliberately sent this video to people who they knew would immediately direct violence against a particular group, then (if we have any law against it), a prosecution might pass constitutional muster.”

Do you really say that a movie that in essence distorts the truth about a religion and makes erroneous? claims of a likely never having existed religious leader 1600 years dead, without any actual incitement to violence against the group in question in picture or word could be construed as “hate crime”?, or that there could be an actual case for prosecution under any other pretense?

If this is the case. then piss on the constitution. It is not worth the paper. You might as well invite Putin to be your next president.

If the intent counts and not the actual content, then me might as well prosecute all muslims in america for treason and sedition right now because the intent of muslims – according to some mouthy mullahs – is to take over the governance world wide.

The amount of stupid posted here even by some who seem to be more reasonable is amazing and disturbing.

Just throw the fucking constitution into the fire together with the quaran and the bible – they are all equally worthless according to some posters.

“Now, if it can be shown by evidence (not news “reports,” rumor and hearsay) that someone deliberately sent this video to people who they knew would immediately direct violence against a particular group, then (if we have any law against it), a prosecution might pass constitutional muster.”

The idiocy of that comment becomes more obvious if one argues that the intent of the perpetrator was to murder the victim, but due to the misfiring of the gun he was prevented from actually firing it. Nevertheless, his intend was to kill so away to the death chamber with him.

Am I really posting here on a site dedicated to rational thought, or did that go out of the window by the reaction of some religious idiots to an equally idiotic movie trailer?

Again, I am amazed by the sizable fraction of the pro or waffling censorship faction.

I had thought within this skeptical community reason would stand a better chance than what I had to read here. I guess when Americans are threatened, reason goes out of the window as the first casualty, together with the truth.

So…to Raging Bee, Chiroptera, Nick Gotts, or the reason for the post, Anthea Butler….

In your world, what exactly should happen to the filmmakers and their film? And who should decide these issues when they come up?

How far down the rabbit hole of self-censorship or societal censorship should we go? Maybe a big boycott of youtube every time some mob or nutbag kills someone based on the words in a video? More power to the flagging system, one complaint of any kind kills the video?

Do you have any solutions or ideas on how to reduce the harm that you seem to think words can do, or is it up to the perpetually “offended” to set all limits?

Do you really not see that giving in to their terroristic threats is far more dehumanising and dangerous than any attack anyone could possibly make on their religion, and can only make the problem worse and weaken our own freedom to resist such tyranny?

In my opinion, you well-meaning nincompoops are far more dangerous to freedom (and secularism)than idiot christian fundies or mobs of murderous muslim thugs could ever be. And they love you for it.

John Pieret & Kraut:

Thanks for the concern trolling, boyz. Kraut, you live in Canada, yes? In Canada where you HAVE laws against hate speech, IIRC? So why the fuck do you stay there? Is it because you don’t know how to live elsewhere?

Pieret:

WTF? can you even read? The news about the film being made by someone NOT named Sam Bacile has been out there for about three or four days.

In your world, what exactly should happen to the filmmakers and their film?

Well played, sir, well played.

kraut @ 76

Do you really say that a movie that in essence distorts the truth about a religion and makes erroneous? claims of a likely never having existed religious leader 1600 years dead, without any actual incitement to violence against the group in question in picture or word could be construed as “hate crime”?

No. This has nothing to do with “hate crimes.” But you can try going back and read what I did say again.

or that there could be an actual case for prosecution under any other pretense?

I forgot before to give the link to an explanation of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the leading SCOTUS case. It is a specific kind of crime: where speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. I don’t know if what the filmmakers did could possible be squeezed into what is permissible under the First Amendment (no one has enough facts about what really happened) but the claim that they deliberately distributed the video to people they believed would take violent action greatly increases the possibility.

I have now been called a “fucking idiot” over at PZ’s place by Nick Gotts, who wants to lock up the filmmakers, and accused of ‘obvious idiocy’ by kraut, who thinks that, under no possible circumstances could any action be taken against them. I’m not sure if that means I’m doing something right or whether I should agree with kraut that this thread had nothing to do with rational thought.

Oops. I accidentally put the following on another, older thread (lots of fail tonight!):

And let’s make no mistake:

even if the film makers didn’t intend to provoke extremist violence, they are still not First Amendment Martyrs.

At the very best, they are vicious lying thugs whose vicious fascist goals must be denounced even as we protect their rights, because both are required to protect our own liberties.

“Thanks for the concern trolling, boyz. Kraut, you live in Canada, yes? In Canada where you HAVE laws against hate speech, IIRC? So why the fuck do you stay there? Is it because you don’t know how to live elsewhere?”

No, because apart from those laws I prefer the health care system that canada has, think their foreign poly is less agressive than that of the US, has a better banking system protecting the customer and offer a lifestyle overall not being matched by other countries – not my opinion only, but assassments by others http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-better-life-index-2011-5?op=1

I do not support those laws with the exception of this paragraph:

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

as to the defense:

3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/15/f-hate-crimes.html

According to your theories:

I have no right to speak out

1. against those who support censorship

1.a especially not when one assumes (your assumption, not mine)they are citizens of the US

2.In general nobody has a right except a US citizen to criticize the US government for any policies whatsoever

3.Nobody has the right to criticize any US citizen on a website hosted by another US citizen.

You Sir, are nothing but an arsehole.

Lofgren (#59) – “The “fact” that you keep harping on is that the creator knew that his work might be received poorly by some Muslims, a fact that was also true of Salman Rushdie…”

Actually the maker of this film (if we can call it that) apparently expressly indicated that was his purpose, he intended to create a riot and hide behind free speech, a fact indicated also by his overdubbing contentious lines into the mouths of actors*.

Salman Rushdie, in contemporaneous interviews (with the publishing of The Satanic Verses), in later interviews and interviews with people who knew him at the time and later, indicate that Salman Rushdie had no idea that this would cause offense or the trouble it would cause.

Apples and oranges.

Dingo

—–

* Hell – the US can ‘disappear’ Julian Assange for publishing government documents that ‘put people’s lives in danger’ [no examples have been shown of this], but put real people’s lives in danger [diplomatic staff and actors] well that’s just ‘freedom of speech’.

“indicate that Salman Rushdie had no idea that this would cause offense or the trouble it would cause.”

Just because Rushdie says so, he living in a country that previously had shown ample samples of religious intolerance makes it so? SDeriously? Rushdie is a story teller, telling not quit the truth comes naturally.

As I said – your intent does not matter if the weapon you have chosen is unfit for the purpose.

And that movie is such a dull weapon that the muslims in toto must be not just arseholes, but unmitigated and totally insane arseholes to get insulted by this crap.

Man, any Christian watching the last Temptation of Christ had more reason to feel really insulted that it indicates simply that after all Christian fundamentalists are after all more civilized than that rabble in the street of Cairo and Kabul, Tripoli and anywhere else muslims are the majority.

You know – fuck them all and all those here who think that movie in any way could be the real reason for those hoodlums to protest and burn property and scream for the “prosecution” of the nutters who made that movie.

No, the muslim street and their moronic mullahs were looking for a fucking excuse, and they are so scull fucked that I cannot but laugh at their idiocies, hoping in the wake of their protest to burn down their own fucking cities.

“Hell – the US can ‘disappear’ Julian Assange for publishing government documents that ‘put people’s lives in danger’ [no examples have been shown of this], but put real people’s lives in danger [diplomatic staff and actors] well that’s just ‘freedom of speech’.”

You know what – go and fuck a ‘roo.

I’d recommend New Zealand or Switzerland

Switzerland is under the thrall of the banking dwarfs, if you think germans are squareheads – you haven’t encountered any swiss yet. Switzerland is a country that robbed europe of most of its land and piled it up – called the alps. What a fucked up country.

And New Zealand? one step too far and you are into the pacific or whatever they call that down there. Not a real country I think, more sheep than humans, and the sheep without voting rights..

I prefer Canada, lots of space, comparatively few folks, half decent politic and lots of space..I think mentioned that, a waether that can stay the same month at a time or change within minutes, cold that makes your dick freeze hard when trying to pee outside and summers with mosquitoes then size of horses.

Besides lots of space we also have a pretty good health care and an economy that has bee chugging along after the big crash in 81 since 1989 quite smoothly – with minor hick ups, chartered banks that cannot adventure too far into the bullshit zone and have not needed any government bailout..

Naa, give me Canada ay time, after all, I choose to live here.

thanks for the diversion and keep going to fuck that ‘roo.

Well you’re the one who introduced the ‘argumentum ad slbum‘, I was simply giving other lists to consider.

You’ll also notice which country came in at #1 on the list you posted, guess I’ll have send you a Kanga to root. ;P

Dingo

—–

Canada. Land area: 9,984,670 sq km. Population density: 3.4353 per sq km.

Australia. Land area: 7,741,220 sq km. Population density: 2.8439 per sq km.

It’s those extra 2,243,450 sq km that all the difference, despite being more squishy. 🙂

I’m shocked. I could never come to the conclusion that many of you have. Perhaps because the “perpetrator” is a bigoted Christian and you came into the story already biased against a vile person? The idea that he’s guilty of anything but inflicting a bad movie on civilization is laughable. And the response to all such movies is “Don’t fucking watch it!” Were each of those protestors simply browsing the internet at home and come across it, resulting in a mob? No. Want to blame someone? Blame the Islamic leaders for using it to inflame anti-American sentiment. If this same vile moron came out with a movie calling gays pedophiles, you’d shake your head in disgust BECAUSE IT’S DONE SO FUCKING OFTEN. And the difference in reaction is because gays don’t kill people? I’ll have to bring that up at the next meeting.

Here’s something in the realm of possibility. What if an atheist made a small video also mocking Muhammad as a pedophile, in order to make the point that ancient holy books have no place dictating morals in the 21st century, and that what was OK back then is not OK now? And if you say that’s too mild an example, I’ll go one further and say the atheist got in front of the camera, pointed his finger and said “As an atheist-American, I believe your religion is an abomination, you worship a false god, and your prophet was an immoral snake!” Such an atheist, reading the blogs that he invariably does, knows for a fact that should certain segments of the population see his video it would enrage them, perhaps to the point of violence. If you still say the author should be punished, I’m sad for you.

I won’t shy away from the idea that a mob may have a hard time controlling itself. Many are acting as if this mob was standing around and suddenly all at once on their smartphones saw this video and became enraged. Give me a fucking break. One should not have to walk on eggshells around a rabid dog. The rabid dog should be put down if it attacks. I’d vote to spend more money on security for our embassies to protect our people, but forget apologizing for rabid dogs.

Stevo = “The film makers may have been – heck, definitely *were* being assholes …” “But you don’t get to murder assholes just for being assholes”.

You can, of course, point out where anybody on this thread even vaguely suggested the filmmaker should be killed? Right?

Dingo

@104 I may be putting words into his mouth, but I believe he was lumping “anyone” into that second “assholes”. Even if it was all Americans who advocated and endorsed that video (which of course is not the case) they still wouldn’t be justified in killing anyone over it.

@ ^ Dingojack : I wasn’t talking about the people on this thread – I was talking there about the Muslims who’e been rioting in response including ones filmed in Sydney giving their toddlers “Behead those who insult Islam!” placards to hold.

Also as I noted over on Taslima’s blog :

To paraphrase from the least popular Star Trek movie (V) featuring the original series crew :

“What does God Allah want with a starship rioting mobs of thugs anyway?”

Seriously, if Allah is so powerful, can he not defend himself? If Mohammad in some imagined paradise crammed with raisins is so seriously offended at this mockery then can’t he send down lightning in person striking the people responsible accurately and not rely on all these angry hate-filled idiots who go around killing and attacking people who had nothing to do with the making, displaying or promoting of this seriously unimpressive video?

These rioting, murdering arsonist Muslims must be really insecure and lacking in faith when it comes to their “Allah’s” ability to deal out whatever imaginary hellish torments they feel are due for bad internet trailer making.

@107. tacotaco :

I’m amazed at the number of posters on here who are apparently in favor of blasphemy laws.

Me too.

Plus at the number of sympatheisers with extremist fundamentalist misogynist homophobic Islam on a supposedly progressive, feminist atheist blog too.

For clarity my # 108 was responding to Dingojack’s #104.

Didn’t expect so many comments happening here so quickly during the USA’s night.

@105.dingojack :

More like letting your rabid dog, dangerous bull, really angry swarm of bees outta your yard. By your reckoning of course you’re not responsible for it, you didn’t bite/ gore or sting anyone, so no fault, right?

So you are saying there that Muslims are no more responsible for their actions than rabid dogs, dangerous bulls and really angry swarms of bees then are you?

Note here too that such dangerous feral animals at large are usually euthanaised on safety grounds if they pose an serious threat to the public. Fair enough.

Oh & the person to “blame” is person who hasn’t had them properly caged and contained and prevented from getting out and harming others. Must remember that – Muslims need more secure and properly supervised containing and /or destruction.

Muslims aren’t responsible for their own actions and cannot be considered normal ethical adult actors. Hey, that’s Dingojack’s assessment of them there, not necessarily mine.

@102. paulg : hear, hear! Well said.

Blaming a filmmaker for causing a riot is like blaming a provocatively dressed woman for causing herself to be raped. – tacotaco

Yet another idiot or liar – probably both. Women do not dress “provocatively” in order to be raped. It is quite clear to anyone who hasn’t got their head firmly implanted up their fundament that causing riots was the whole point of making this video.

“Blaming a filmmaker for causing a riot is like blaming a provocatively dressed woman for causing herself to be raped”

The filmmaker is not a victim. Four people who had nothing to do with him except their nationality were the victims.

He has no legal culpability and shouldn’t, but since he knew and wanted what was going to happen, he shares blame. The reason actions like these are legal is not because they are okay, but because outlawing them endangers society more than they do.

copy->Copt@119

@113. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) :

They are not “stupid” as Brayton says, and the death and destruction is exactly what they wanted.

So , how “smart” does that make the people who’ve fallen for their trap and done exactly what those trailer-makers wanted?

o-one at all has expressed the slightest sympathy for the Islamist shitbags who stirred up the riots, or for Islam.

Really? Ya coulda fooled me then. Seems to be exactly what you are doing here.

You going to unequivocally denounce the Islamists conduct and call their hateful religion what is its then, KG, er.. Nick Gotts?

Going to hold the Islamists accountable for their own actions and the murders and terrorism they committ are you?

Or are you going to continue to whine that “Oh we’ shouldn’t provoooooke dem poor widdle Muzzies? Dose sweet, nice innocwent liddle teowwists?” (Paraphrased slightly for emphasis but basically what ya seem to be sayin’)

Your choice, mate.

You’re a lying genocidal scumbag. No-one at all has expressed the slightest sympathy for the Islamist shitbags who stirred up the riots, or for Islam.

Nope – and see above. Do you know how you sound to reasonable people Nick Gotts?

You’re calling me “genocidal”, “lying” and a “scumbag” eh?

Well, what have I said here that is factually wrong?

How many people do you think I’ve murdered or called for the murders of lately? I’ll tell you : None. Zero, zip, nada, nil, niente, none.

As opposed to the group you are being an apologist for which are putting signs saying “Behead those who insult Islam’ in the hands of their toddlers. Who have committed riot, arson and murder in response to a flippin’ poorly made, low-budget, worthless youtube clip.

You, Nick Gotts, are apologising and excusing away the behaviour of a group of deluded, crazy people who are even now preparing to fire rockets and homicide-suicide bomb lots of innocent people and those trying to protect innocent people from their atrocities. In many nations.

And to think that *you* are calling *me* nasty names for speaking my mind on this. Hah!

You, Nick Gotts, are pathetic and despicable. Take a long hard look at yourself and whose side you are standing on here. Take at look at what those you are supporting are doing and saying and calling for and believing in. Go on, I dare ya.

You’re also a moron: both are clearly to blame, and are clearly in effective alliance.

They are? *Really?* Are they? Got any citations or evidence for that supposed “alliance” then have you?

–

–

–

–

–

*** crickets ****

–

–

–

… No I didn’t think you would have.

The film makers outsmarted and trolled the Muslims, the Muslims fell for it badly and got owned. (And killed people and hurt people and burnt stuff down)

Whose more to blame and stupider there? Guess what.

It ain’t the filmmakers.

@ Nick Gotts everywhere

Life is too full … and too short … to waste any part of it on spittle-flecked individuals who somehow think that phrases like “fucking idiots” and “ignorant dolt” do anything more that demonstrate how inarticulate and incoherent they are.

Have a nice, if irrational, life.

@115. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) :

Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. – kraut

Hey, StevoR, better stay out of Canada!

Why? I don’t advocate genocide and I hear Canada is quite a nice country?

Oh yeah, that’s right, you keep failing basic reading comprehension and keep lying about what I actually think and say.

Do you realise you’re doing this or are you actually that oblivious to reality Nick?

Durnjit Tpotyos!

Advocating fighting Jihadists that are trying to exterminate the rest of us does NOT equal genocide.

Even when we do so vigourously and without holding back too much.

That’s what I’m sayin’.

“Ah, yes … the news! Because we all know that is so reliable! And anyone who may not be up to date on the news is an ignorant dolt and stupider than Terry Jones.”

I’m sorry, did your reading indicate that I said anything like that? If so, I apologize. Otoh, since I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that, well, fuck you.

“It doesn’t matter, of course, that Ed was responding to Anthea Butler’s call to arrest *Bacile*. And how does it matter much who is behind the pseudonym? He, she or it, as Ed says, should be criticized for their stupidity.”

So, you’re going to jump off the cliff, just because all of the other cool kids do it.

The reports were not on FuckTheNew’sCorpse website, fella. As recently as yesterday the LIBYAN gummint was saying that the attack in Libya was carried out by a group that had been in the country for several months and had been planning the attack for that period of time. That Mallomar Quitedaffy’s family and associates were NOT wiped out but, rather, melted into the background or ran off, there’s no telling if they or someone else is behind the attack. It’s a fair bet that they have something to do with it or, conversely, that Al Queda or one of the other Islamist groups (your local nationalists seizing on religion as a justification for their violence).

Kraut:

You seem to have worked yourself into a fine lather about the free speech protections in the U.S. while happily living in a country where you are deprived of those same right. There’s a word for that: hypocricy.

heddle, #123: I does seem that way and yes, it is amazing.

heddle, normally I respect your comments, but right now, seriously? You’ve read the commenters’ actual words and the conclusion you reach is that they are in favor of blasphemy laws?

I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that. Was I wrong?

thomasmorris, #131: …but the latter, unlike the former, was solely made with the attempt to denigrate a religion.

Actually, the point that people are discussing are the allegations that the latter was published with the deliberate intention of causing a violent reaction. Sot the difference between those two films is even greater.

–

And this is all beside the point. I’m sorry.

Actually, what you said is exacty to the point.

You’ve read the commenters’ actual words and the conclusion you reach is that they are in favor of blasphemy laws?

Of course, not blasphemy laws… Just laws against saying anything that might piss off religious people.

The film did not cause harm. Some idiots reacting to it caused harm.

Oops. That last comment was directed to heddle, #135.

tacotaco – ah that hoary old chestnut: ‘guns don’t kill people people kill people’. Brilliant! Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before?

‘Anti drink-driving laws’ call it what you will, if it stops people fro driving it’s a anti-driving law! @@

Dingo

@Dingojack,

I know it’s just an analogy, but as a beekeeper I have to ask: How do you propose one stop a swarm of angry bees from leaving, short of restraining their target?

Smoke.

Dingo

Also I find ordinary flyspray works a treat on paper wasps (I hate doing it, but sometimes needs must). I must say I’ve never tried in on Apis mellifera or their ilk.

Dingo

tacotaco, #141:

Great. Another moron who’s thinking process shuts down when he sees the word “Muslim.”

Let me give you a hint:

Paper wasp nest: 15-200 individuals

Honey Bee hive: 10,000 – 50,000 individuals

Sure. Race relations in the US during just about any point in history.

The propensity for violent reaction is there, but the arbitrariness is not. Religions make their own pronouncements on anything, including scientific and historical questions, and declare these doctrines sacred and unquestionable. The same goes for ethic conflict, except where the ethnic divisions happen along religious lines.

You might have noticed my point was not that religion is the only possible flashpoint for violence, but the only one with such breadth and mutability that its authoritarian leaders could use such a law as a lever of political power. Not that some of its original purpose might not shine through, but rest assured religious authoritarians would move to abuse it with such speed and regularity that it would soon come to be understood as a blasphemy law. Perhaps a blasphemy law with side effects (a sort of blasphemy+ law?) but a blasphemy law nonetheless.

Dave – Let me give you a hint: 1 or 2 μl per wasp kills ’em dead in less than a second. 250ml = 50,000 dead wasps*.

But, no I’m not suggesting poisoning a whole hive of bees.

You have heard of the concept of analogy haven’t you?

🙂 Dingo

—-

* assuming wastage

DaveL, #154: You might have noticed my point was not that religion is the only possible flashpoint for violence, but the only one with such breadth and mutability that its authoritarian leaders could use such a law as a lever of political power.

If I had noticed that was your point, that would have been the point I would have addressed. But I didn’t notice it, and I apoligize for my misunderstanding.

But I still disagree with the point. Any authoritarian can use such laws to their advantage. In some countries today, libel laws are used to silence legitimate political opposition. In the liberal democracies, libel laws are sometimes used by those with an axe to grind to harrass people.

That such laws can be abused doesn’t necessarily mean they are in general a bad idea; one hopes that one can write them narrowly so that the abuse can be kept at a minimum. Maybe that isn’t possible in this particular case.

I don’t see religious authoritarians as any more likely to abuse such laws as anyone else, and so I still don’t think characterizing them as blasphemy laws is really all that accurate or useful.

–

By the way, the children have returned to play. If I stop responding in this thread, it won’t be because I don’t think you (or heddle) or worth responding to; it’ll be because I’ll be at work and don’t have the time to wade through 25 to 30 comments full of nonsense to try to find the interesting ones.

No answers here Dingojack?

Is that your strategy? Ignore tough questions and stuff you disagree with?

Ah. If only that’d been the Muslim way when it came to nasty youtube clips too then.

A discussion on this blog = not too many broader consequences.

Burning down an embassy, rioting and threatening people globally? Nowhere near so harmless. Pretty horrible for a lot of people – especially the bereaved. Those mourning lost lives and others in fear of theirs or nursing injuries.

Go figure.

Following is an attempt to re-post a comment I wrote yesterday, in answer to a question by Michael Heath @33:

Here are some quotes from YouTube’s Community Guidelines (no link this time — just click on “Terms,” then click on the “Community Guidelines” link):

YouTube is not a shock site. Don’t post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to shock or disgust…

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

Things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use are taken very seriously. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.

Further guidelines:

“Hate speech” refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.

While it might not seem fair to say you can’t show something because of what viewers theoretically might do in response, we draw the line at content that’s intended to incite violence or encourage dangerous, illegal activities that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.

So yeah, YouTube had plenty of good reasons to take that trailer down, and they ignored them all.

that’s intended to incite violence or encourage dangerous, illegal activities that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.

So yeah, YouTube had plenty of good reasons to take that trailer down, and they ignored them all.

Yeah, except the video did not incite violence or encourage dangerous, illegal activities. There’s no call in the video to go out and kill xyz, or to go and raid an embassy. Intentionally trying to piss someone off is not the same as inciting them to riot.

Stevo – *yawn* (sorry, irrelevance is just boring).

Apparently tacotaco thinks next I’m proposing to place in the dock a 1941 reprint of Casablanca cut down to running time of 63 minutes.

So you, like tacotaco think I’m in favour of prosecuting the gun for the next famous Sydney drive-by shooting? @@

Dingo

—–

Roof tiles are inanimate objects too, guess they’ve never killed anyone either. Oh wait – there’s precedance going back to Roman times. 😉

Wait now! South Australia is part of Canada now? I never knew that. 🙂

Dingo

The onus is on the target to have a thick skin or, in lieu of that, not to watch.

Isn’t that what bullies say to their targets? “It’s not my fault for hurting you, it’s your fault for allowing yourself to be hurt.” Classic victim-bashing, just like we’ve been hearing from MRAs and other cyberbullies at least since last year’s “elevatorgate” dustup. I know heddle can be a dick, but I never expected him to sink this low.

That’s what the “Innocence of Muslims” trailer is largely about: goading and insulting people from the safety of a distant and powerful country, then sneering at the little people when they react (then calling Obama “weak” when things get dangerous and he has to deal with it).

(And yes, the mobs who are reacting to all these alleged insults to their beliefs are victims, as well as perpetrators: victims of tyrannical regimes, victims of the social turmoil that followed the overthrow of said regimes, victims of stupid-assed US adventurism, victims of ignorant authoritarianism, victims of “leaders” who won’t take responsibility, and victims of a whole shitload of other circumstances, most of which are not their own doing.)

Re captainahags @ #163

I believe that Mr. StevoR lives in Australia, as does Mr. dingojack.

@slc172 ah. I was misinformed by democommie. My apologies, StevoR. I knew about Dingo though.

@Raging Bee

Flat, mindless denial of the obvious? Is that all you have to offer? If I repeatedly insult you, on and on, that’s “encouraging” you to retaliate, whether or not I say you can or should retaliate. YouTube’s guidelines use the word “encourage,” which is a much broader term than the legal usage of the phrase “inciting to riot.” The “Innocence” trailer may not meet the legal definition of “inciting to riot,” but it sure as hell does “encourage” violent and lawless actions. Therefore it is in clear violation fo YouTube’s terms, and YouTube is obligated to take it down.

No, repeatedly insulting me is not encouragement to retaliate, and it’s either dishonest or just plain stupid of you to suggest that it is. It is insulting me. What I choose to do in response is 100% my responsibility. If I choose to argue in reply, or walk away, or punch you in the face, all of those actions are equally my decision and I am culpable for them, in the case of punching you in the face anyway. It’s the responsibility of the rational, responsible people in the world to ensure that the few voices of idiocy are drowned out by the chorus of maturity.

And, I believe youtube has the right to enforce their terms of service as they see fit. Your poorly defined meaning of “encouraging” would probably force half of youtube to be taken down. Seriously, by your logic most atheist youtube channels would be shut down if xtians decided to riot over them. How do you completely fail to grasp that you’re repeatedly arguing for the heckler’s veto?

Kraut – *yawn* [see mine #166]

Dingo

Chiroptera @85:

[quoting someone else]In your world, what exactly should happen to the filmmakers and their film? [end quote]

At the very least people should be saying, “Jesus! What fucking hateful bigots! I’m going to show my friends this hateful awful bigoted film to let them know that it really is important which political factions wins the next elections.”

I have no problem with that. AFAIK, most every person defending their speech has been saying exactly that. What I have a problem with are the arguments that (1) they are partially legally responsible for the riots and should suffer some criminal penalties for those riots, or (2) their speech should’ve been censored because they knew what was going to happen (or (3) both). To be clear, I don’t think you, Chiroptera, are making argument (2). But to the extent that you’re making argument (1), I think you’re wrong.

Actually, the point that people are discussing are the allegations that the latter was published with the deliberate intention of causing a violent reaction. Sot the difference between those two films is even greater.

I think you are riding this ‘deliberate intent’ thing way too far. The speech itself has to be related to the violent act its intended to cause. If I walk into a KKK meeting and yell “Equal rights!,” intending to deliberately provoke people, I am still not legally responsible for their assault on me. I may be responsible if I say “equal rights you a**holes, now come on, who wants a piece of me? Are you cowards or will you fight? Put up your fists!” Because now I am calling for violent action. But just yelling a political, racial, or religious position is not calling for violent action, even if I know someone is very likely to respond violently to it. Its not calling for violent action even if I count on the audience responding violently.

Raging Bee:

If I repeatedly insult you, on and on, that’s “encouraging” you to retaliate, whether or not I say you can or should retaliate.

I can insult you all I want, and if my insults get you so angry that you go off and kill the US ambassador to Libya, you are criminally at fault, not me. I am not responsible at all – not one iota. The same goes here.

You might be able to invoke the ‘fighting words’ concept if you attack me, the speaker. But these people did not attack the speaker. They attacked other american citizens by proxy. As a form of collective punishment. The speaker is not legally responsible for that. Even if, as Chiroptera argued, they fully knew and intended for that to happen.

soo…. If I go into a crowded theatre and yell ‘fire’*, I’m in no way criminally responsible because I’m not the one who actually panicked (thinking the theatre was on fire) and trampled someone else to death my haste to get out. No punishment then?

Dingo

—-

* Yep this old chestnut

I don’t understand what this debate is about anymore. Everyone seems to agree that no US laws were broken by making this film, so it’s just about who deserves more blame for the violence? That seems kind of useless. Or is it about whether there should be some sort of restriction on speech in the US. That would seem more fruitful. For advocates of such a position there is actually movement in that direction. A new book, The Harm in Hate Speech, by professor of law at NYU, Jeremy Waldron, lays out a book-length argument in favor of such laws. The pros and cons are discussed by Stanley Fish in the NYT.

Waldron proposes some interesting arguments but, in my opinion, whether such laws could ever be enacted or, more importantly, fairly enforced, in the US seems highly problematic.

Raging Bee;

[eric] I can insult you all I want, and if my insults get you so angry that you go off and kill the US ambassador to Libya, you are criminally at fault, not me. I am not responsible at all – not one iota. The same goes here.

[Bee] That’s because I’m not in any sort of extraordinary or unusual situation in which I may not be able to make informed, responsible decisions. If I was in such a situation, then you might well be partially responsible for the reaction your insults get from me.

This was a publically released film. Are you now holding filmmakers to blame for the actions of legally insane or drugged up people who see a film and then go out and commit violence? You know that the Matrix has been blamed for violence. So has Twilight. Gosh, we need to hold their producers criminally responsible. And lets not forget Chapman’s (Lennon’s killer) obsession with The Catcher in the Rye. Clearly, we need to hold Salinger responsible for the the people in extroadinary or unusual circumstances who commit murder in response to reading his book.

Even if your argument had merit (I don’t think it does), its invalid in this case. We do not even know what Libyian faction killed him. How can you possibly argue that you know they were in an “extroadinary situation” when you don’t even know who they were? Were they starving? You don’t know. On drugs? You don’t know. Legally insane? You don’t know. Politically repressed – you don’t even know that! It could’ve been pro-Kaddafi former upper class Libyans that did it. We do know that the killers staged an RPG attack on the building he was occupying. That is not exactly a crime of passion; it takes planning and forethought to go get your RPG, head downtown to a bulding, then shoot it. This is nothing but a post hoc justification of your position – you’re engaging in a sort of mirror image No True Scotsman argument. You want to conclude that the filmmakers are to blame, ergo, you assume that the people doing the attack must be in your ‘extroadinary circumstance’ category. Which, to go back to my first paragraph, is not a good reason to hold a filmmaker responsible in the first place.

eric: your arguments fail because you keep on avoiding the relevant facts of this case by hiding behind one bad analogy after another. You’re being dishonest and evasive, and I see no reason to keep on repeating relevant points that you’ve already ignored more than once.

How can you possibly argue that you know they were in an “extroadinary situation” when you don’t even know who they were?

I’m talking about the general population, dumbass. As in, the whole society is in turmoil, and ceratin people are exploiting that turmoil for their own evil purposes. And the filmmakers are deliberately adding to the turmoil, and helping others to exploit it.

I’m glad I don’t live in a Islamic dominated world.

Long Live Free Speech and freedom of expression, however crap it maybe.

And fuck Raging Bee with her patronizing white man’s burden totalitarian views.

Yep – we can always trust in mrbongo to bring teh burning stoopid.

Dingo

Engage me Dingo, why do you feel that Muslims need special protections on their feelings? Are you patronizlingly racist because you feel they are less able to control their behavior?

*yawn*

Dingo

The real hero to this story is

Google. They refused to give into the left’s demands to shut down the film on YouTube. I don’t know what made Dingo, Chiroptera, Raging Bee, Heath, et al more upset 1. that a big corporation wouldn’t make exceptions to free speech or 2) that Muslim sensibilities weren’t protected from criticism.

Here is something to assuage your left totalitarian views –

an Egyptian atheist was arrested for insulting Islam in Egypt. You see Dingo, Chiroptera, Raging Bee, Heath, et al – if you make offending Muslim sensibilities a crime, then open atheists are often the first to go down to the slammer. So Fuck you for advocating limits on free speech.

And as I said before when you have something relevent to post come back and see us.

Dingo

—–

Third strike

This just in:

Brown Egyptian Atheist arrested by Raging Bee’s Islamist allies for the crime of offending Muslim sensibilities and insulting Mohamed. Raging Bee is stoked as she feels these same restrictions should be applied in U.S.

Dingo, Chiroptera, Heath, et al also advocate special laws for arrest/punishment of those who offend muslim sensibilities and insult Mohamed.

Raging Bee – I’ll go away if you can justify why you aren’t in favor of limiting Andres_Serrano’s free speech for Piss Christ, but want to limit our free speech to criticize Islam?

OT ALERT.

Has anyone else been monitoring the situation in western Myanmar (Burma) where the Muslim minority have been forced to live in tent communities because of majority Buddhist violence against them?

The situation has become critical, but as I understand it news outlets have deemed it ‘non-newsworthy’.

Dingo

Uh oh … new papyrus refer’s to Jesus’s wife!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html#postcomment

Riots are sure to break out in Mexico, Quebec, Peru, Brazil, etc. The U.S. embassy in Costa Rica will be attacked! Run!

Oh wait, ……. wrong religion.

Raging Bee – I can’t seem to find your previous comments about piss christ – damn this Opera browser – given that your comments are invisible to all but yourself – could you tell me why you only call for limits on free speech when it came to this ‘film’ that offending muslims, but not for the piss christ sculpture that offended xtians?

I’m just going to say it – you didn’t because your a hypocrite with poor critical thinking skills.

Here is why Dingo, Chiroptera, Raging Bee, Heath, et al views of free speech are unflappable when it came to Piss Christ, but then suddenly do a 180 when Muslim sensibilities are offended by a lame YouTube video —

Hating xtianity is not a taboo in their group, but Muslims are perceived as having non-white victim status. Thus, their group has a taboo against offending them. They aren’t much into critical thinking ergo the reflex to call for patronizing limits on our freedoms to protect Muslims from offense existing side by side with the silence about Piss Christ.

Unconsidered ingroup taboos – we all have them – this thread is a great example of one that dominates how Dingo, Chiroptera, Raging Bee, Heath, et al view the world.

Raging Bee – perhaps your response was invisible to all but those who share your taboo about speech that offends Muslim sensibilties – because all I saw was a vague reference to look supra. I did a ctrl F and found zero references to piss christ until I showed up and slapped you around with your hypocrisy.

Your just a group morality zombie – out to enforce your particular far left subgroup’s taboo against ‘islamophobia’ at any expense – even to point of limiting our freedom of speech. your lack of critical analysis is brought to light when I ask you about piss christ (a near perfect xtian analogue). the fact that you can’t see the hypocrisy of calling for a ban on muslim film while supporting the display of piss christ shows that your just operating at a low level of mindless enforcing your group’s moral taboos.

Okay, mrbongo, I will grant that you have some valid points, if not expressed in the best manner, but is there any possibility that you could maybe in the future combine some of them to reduce the post frequency a bit? Comment threads get a little cluttered when the same person posts 20 times an hour.

Now, as to Raging Bee.. . where to begin. (italics are my original post)

No, repeatedly insulting me is not encouragement to retaliate…

Yes, it is, whether or not you take the bait.

No, it’s fucking not. Are you really this obtuse? While in many cases people feel the need to respond with physical violence to insults, that does not mean that the insults were encouragement. Fighting words are encouragement. Telling someone to fuck themself is not telling them to commit violence. They might get angry at you, but your words are not specifically inciting violence. The only thing causing the violence in the situation is their reaction.

What I choose to do in response is 100% my responsibility.

First, you taking responsibility does not mean you’re not getting encouragement from anywhere, it just means you’re in a position where you’re able to resist or ignore it. And second, not all people are able to take responsibility as we can here. The people in Egypt and Libya, for example, are currently nowhere near as empowered as we are, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out above.

Ah, yes, those poor people, so unempowered that they can’t resist the urge to riot and murder whenever their religious figures are insulted. This is pretty racist. I don’t care how empowered the people in any country are, they’re people, not animals, and it is their responsibility to control any violent urges they may have, not mine to ensure that nothing I say or do offends them. Are they or are they not responsible for their actions? I believe kraut was asking this earlier, and nobody seemed to want to answer him.

And, I believe youtube has the right to enforce their terms of service as they see fit.

IF they claim that right, then they accept the corresponding responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. And if they enforce their terms inconsistently, then a) they’re hypocrites, and b) they can’t hide behind their terms to justify their bad decisions.

Yeah, they do accept the responsibility for consequences, most frequently in deciding whether or not to take things down for copyright violations, etc. I don’t think that they include whether or not some people might be offended in their decision tree.

Defending free speech: UR DOIN IT RONG!

Defending free speech: UR NOT DOIN IT AT ALL

@DingoJack: Yawn. Irrelevant.

soo…. If I go into a crowded theatre and yell ‘fire’*, I’m in no way criminally responsible because I’m not the one who actually panicked (thinking the theatre was on fire) and trampled someone else to death my haste to get out. No punishment then?

Dingo

—-

* Yep this old chestnut

It’s a misquoted and shitty chestnut. The original ruling included the word “falsely,” and was one of the worst decisions in US Supreme Court history, allowing the government to imprison a man for distributing anti-draft literature. It established the “clear and present danger” standard for the limits on free speech. The standard has since been changed in Brandenburg v. Ohio to “imminent lawless action.” Outdated and irrelevant. Next.

@85:

I don’t think you understand the meanings of the words. “Censorship” refers to preventing something from being published to begin with; what people here have been talking about is how should people be held responsible for what they have published.

Actually, that is a definition of “prior restraint”, not “censorship”.

Steve Morrison, #217: Actually, that is a definition of “prior restraint”, not “censorship”.

I thought they were the same thing. Sorry if I was confused.

However, the commenter to whom I was responding did mention “self-censorship,” since that doesn’t seem to apply in this situation, I think it’s still understandable that I didn’t quite get at what the commenter was trying to say.

@ DingoJack

Please, quote where I said that, moron.

Chiroptera’s post reminded me that I haven’t really said what I think about this other than to respond to others, so here goes.

Murder is wrong. Rioting and property destruction and all the other stuff that goes along with it is wrong. The people who engaged in this behaviour were absolutely wrong, and I would fully support their being brought to justice.

The people who made the film are hateful bigots. It is rank garbage, and I can see why people would find it offensive.

The fact that their film is offensive does not give anyone the right to riot, or give legitimacy to the claim that the riots were “caused” by the film. The riots were caused by the people who fanned up fury over the movie, and by the people rioting. To claim that the people in these groups couldn’t help themselves, or anything along those lines, is to pretend that they are not rational agents, and serves to both trivialize their humanity and shift culpability away from them.

Should the people that made the movie have done so? I don’t think so- I think it was being hateful for the sake of being hateful, and maybe it was in fact intended to anger Muslims. But it is protected speech.

Finally, an analogy: Fred Phelps engages in incredibly offensive and hateful speech, often directed at people who are very vulnerable, such as those who have lost loved ones. This does not excuse the actions of anyone who would seek to commit violence against him, nor does it make him responsible if the angered parties go out and start rioting or anything like that. His little gang showed up at the Reason Rally, and we pursued several options, ranging from counter protesting to engaging in discussion with them to ignoring them. No violence required or tolerated.

@220

Wow, dingo just went and made up his own reality in that post.

eric queries “If U.S. Jews watch a movie that grossly disparages them made by Syrians, and then go and kill the Syrian Ambassador to the US by launching an RPG through his window, are the Syrian filmmakers at fault?”

Let me answer for Dingo, Raging Bee and Chiroptera – “Yes, because Jews are ‘white'(enough) and their victim status on the left is wearing off”

You see when you think through shallow social taboos your responses are ready made!

StevoR

So , how “smart” does that make the people who’ve fallen for their trap and done exactly what those trailer-makers wanted?

So far as the Islamist leaders are concerned? Not stupid at all, because they want exactly what the filmmakers want – an increase in Islamist violence: that’s why I have said more than once that the Islamists and the Christofascists are in effective alliance. So far as the followers are concerned, they are almost as stupid as you.

No-one at all has expressed the slightest sympathy for the Islamist shitbags who stirred up the riots, or for Islam.

Really? Ya coulda fooled me then. Seems to be exactly what you are doing here.

Point to one single expression of sympathy from me for them, you lying genocidal scumbag.

You going to unequivocally denounce the Islamists conduct and call their hateful religion what is its then, KG, er.. Nick Gotts?

Going to hold the Islamists accountable for their own actions and the murders and terrorism they committ are you?

I unequivocally denounce the Islamists’ conduct, the murders and terrorism they commit, for which I hold them accountable, and their hateful religion, you lying genocidal scumbag.

Or are you going to continue to whine that “Oh we’ shouldn’t provoooooke dem poor widdle Muzzies? Dose sweet, nice innocwent liddle teowwists?” (Paraphrased slightly for emphasis but basically what ya seem to be sayin’)

Another lie from a lying genocidal scumbag.

“Also, democommie, I find it amusing that you call StevoR a hypocrite for daring to live in Canada and enter an argument about US protections on free speech- and then propose limits on free speech.”

Please provide my quote re: my calling Steve R a hypocrite. IIRC, it was Kraut I was talking to. He is a hypocrite.

tacotaco,

What a dishonest little shit you are. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Rushdie deliberately provoked violence, let alone violence against third parties. In the case of the makers of The Innocence of Muslims, however, there is considerable evidence that the latter is exactly what they did.

Incidentally, comparing rape victims to the Christofascist scumbags who made The Innocence of Muslims, as you did, is pretty vile in itself.

In the case of this particular video, however, we are looking at intent for violence to occur. That may be, in practice, a tricky thing to prove, and there is, admittedly, a fine line between intent for violence and mere expectation that violence will occur. I can see how that might make people nervous.

I don’t really think it’s relevant whether or not he wanted a violent reaction to his video or not. His video lacks the ability to incite violence in the way that we want to prevent. The people who committed violence did not come as a prepackaged angry mob for him to stir up, nor did he create the mob. He did not compel Muslims to watch the film or place it in such a way that it was unavoidable.

Here’s my question:

I love my wife.

She is the most dear person in the world to me.

(She is also still alive, and not a mythical figure from 15 centuries ago.)

If somebody made a video defaming her,

made accusations that I know to be false,

and posted his comments publicly for all the world to see,

and did so out of a deliberate attempt to make me upset,

so that I became enraged at this horrible mistreatment of her,

and I went out and got an RPG and blew up the Libyan embassy,

(to whom the poster had no connection)

would the person who posted the video be an accessory to murder?

I really just don’t see it.

Chiroptera wrote:

That the courts in the US have ruled that the essential characteristic is an explicit exhortation for people to commit violence (is that an over-simplification?)

A little bit. The essential element is the “imminent lawless action” test. The time element is key. An abstract call for violence is protected speech. In fact, that is what Brandenburg v. Ohio , where the test was first articulated, was all about. Brandenburg, a KKK member, called for violence and revenge against n______s, Jews, and pretty much everyone who wasn’t white. He was convicted in Ohio of advocating violence, but it was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1969, and the “imminent lawless action” test, which introduced the time element, has been the standard ever since.

lofgren, #235: I really just don’t see it.

Differences of opinion are common enough and to be expected. That’s part of what makes blogs and comment sections so interesting.

What is interesting to me is how so many people “just don’t see” how the other people are coming to their conclusions.

tomh, #237: In fact, that is what Brandenburg v. Ohio , where the test was first articulated, was all about.

Thanks, tom. I haven’t yet looked up Brandenburg. I’ve just been taking peoples’ word for it that the Constitutional issue has pretty much been decided. I still plan on looking into it, but this answers a couple of questions that I had.

Chiroptera, your demand that we “hold the makers of the film accountable for being the vile hatefilled bigots that they are” only serves to legitimize these Muslims’ view that mocking their prophet is an offense that demands accountability.

lofgren (#235) – if such an outcome was ‘reasonably foreseeable’, yes*.

* In your case it isn’t

OK, let’s say that I have just been fired from work, putting me into a “state of turmoil,” as Raging Bee put it. Is that enough for me to be able to partially blame others for my carefully organized, planned, and targeted fit of rage?

As in – not taking action to prevent a ‘reasonable foreseeable’ accident that causes injury or death makes the person whose inaction contributed the injury or death legally liable.

OK, so I am now in a state of turmoil and somebody who I hold dear as been grievously insulted on the internet. At this point, would you say that an accident is “reasonably foreseeable?”

I am curious about this wording, as well. Is this a specific accident or just some possible accident?

What I am trying to figure out is how you believe this translates to the example given or the situation at hand, and why anybody would believe this was anything but a heckler’s veto.

The logic that has been used over and over again in this thread is thus:

1. Muslims want people to stop criticizing Mohammed.

2. In the past, Muslims have committed violence in order to silence people who criticized Mohammed.

3. THEREFORE, we should not criticize – nor even portray in any way – Mohammed, because violence as a result of that criticism is now “reasonably foreseeable.”

Because Bacile, or whatever his name is, knew that some primitive, angry fucks were going to be angry about his film, he should therefore be held responsible for his actions… Oh, but not those other people who created artwork that primitive, angry fucks were angry about, because, um, because, uh, because we’re going to arbitrarily declare the the Danish cartoon thing was the cutoff line. Before that line, pissing off angry primitive fuckers was laudable, for freedom and shit, but after that line the reaction of primitive angry fuckers determines entirely what can and cannot be said. Salman Rushdie is cool because he published his book a long time ago. If he published it today, then obviously he should be charged as an accessory to his own attempted murder, because he should have known that he was poking the beast, and poking the beast is illegal. Because that makes boatloads of sense.

And I really don’t give a shit that the film was intended to provoke. So the fuck what? Piss Christ was intended to provoke. Howard Stern intends to provoke. Barack Obama has said a thing or two that was intended to provoke. Provocation is a perfectly legitimate – some might even argue necessary – rhetorical tool. But shocking somebody’s sensibilities is not magical mind control juju that turns them into raving murderous monsters.

You guys do realize that these were organized, planned protests, right? This was not the result of a few thousand Muslims around the world coincidentally tuning into YouTube at the exact same moment, and then raging into the streets. Times and places were chosen. Twitter hashtags were created. Then somebody said, “Hey, Abdul, bring the RPG so we can blow a hole in the consulate!”

Well guess what? The very concept of Free Speech implies that some people will find it acceptable to say things that you do not find acceptable. If that shit were standardized across the human race, we wouldn’t need free speech because nobody would say the crap you think should not be said. The very concept of Free Speech implies that some people will react violently to speech in order to silence it. Again, if the only result of speech was more yelling and screaming, then we wouldn’t need speech to be protected because everybody would automatically have it. Terroristic violence like that practiced in Libya as an attempt to silence people through fear is exactly why we need Freedom of Speech. Instead of protecting something that I would consider basically the seed of Democracy, some in this thread would have our own government make common cause with Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists in order to silence somebody who never did anything but express his opinions on the internet.

And why? Because Bacile is an unlikeable bigot?

That’s all it takes for you to cave to the demands of terrorists? That their target is a jerk?

You know who I feel sorry for in all this? The protesters around the world who didn’t kill anybody. They went out to the streets to express themselves in a perfect sensible, socially responsible manner. In some cases, their leaders met with US representatives. They expressed their outrage and requested that the video be banned and the creators punished. The US representatives explained that the US doesn’t do that.

Turns out, they should have just shot the US representatives in the face. Then, since their region is in “a state of turmoil,” they could have everything they wanted but could never get by asking nicely.

Hey are you guys familiar with the “cracker incident?”

A quick summary:

Famous atheist activist PZ Myers announced on his blog that he would desecrate a religious symbol – a blessed eucharist in this case – held sacred by millions of people worldwide.

The purpose of this demonstration was entirely and explicitly to offend. It had no artistic merit. It was not educational. It served no function other than to show that the cherished symbol of this popular, ancient religion held no power.*

PZ Myers knew that there was a chance there would be violent reactions to his performance. He received many death threats from Catholics, which he responsibly forwarded to the police. Of course there may be violent reactions to such a provocation – but American Catholics were attempting to use the force of law to punish a student for insulting their holy symbol, so PZ felt it imperative to stand with a fellow traveler.

But of course threats from a few whiny American Catholics – whose region is not in sufficient turmoil for their actions to also taint any who dare criticize them – these were not enough for PZ Myers… so he desecrated a few pages of the Koran as well.

Now, as any regular reader of this blog should know, desecrating the Koran** is something that has and could very reasonably foreseeably trigger a violent reaction from Muslims. I don’t feel the need to say much more about that. I think most Americans became pretty fluent in what offends Muslims sometime around eleven years ago.

And Myers didn’t merely post a trailer for his fictional homemade movie to a website that millions of people also use to contribute their uncensored personal opinions to the web of noise that is social media. No, he literally performed these heinous, offensive acts, and he wrote about it as a professional blogger (well he gets paid a little) for a website now owned by National Geographic (major media company, Darwinists). The entire story, including photographs of a defiled Koran in the garbage can, is still available. It’s even been rebranded.

Now as near as I can tell, the story of PZ Myers meets all of the same criteria as The Innocence of Muslims.

Myers:

• Malice aforethought.

• Deliberately provocative.

• Widely available.

• Sacrilegious.

His targets:

• In turmoil.

• Easily provoked.

• Angry.

• OK, fewer of them had Twitter accounts then. But otherwise the targets of the offense were pretty much identical in 2008 and 2012.

There are some differences. Myers already had some status, at least on the web, as a blasphemer. Myers had the backing of an American corporation. Myers was not motivated primarily by bigotry or fear.*** Myers did not frame his performance as an accusation (although that’s what it was – it was just more artfully crafted). Myers did not blame the jooz for his speech.

I think any kind of legal retaliation against Innocence of Muslims isn’t just a slippery slope towards also punishing Myers. I think you’re already there. If Myers knew that he could be held legally responsible for murders committed in response to his work – well, he probably still would have done it, because that’s the kind of guy he is. But a lot of others with a similar point to make might have been silenced.

I mean, the category basically includes anybody who has every participated in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Offensive. Check. Deliberate. Check. Sacrilegious. Check. Turmoil. Check.

So what am I missing? What makes Innocence of Muslims so special? Why is it different from a thousand other excuses that we as Americans have given to Middle Easterners and North Africans to riot over? That is what I am just not seeing.

*The actual execution was both educational and effectively done. I was a doubter in the lead-up. I thought Myers was going to end up looking like a jerk and a buffoon performing such a pointlessly offensive act. That was how the event was portrayed in the lead-up, but when he actually did the deed he actually used it to very effectively call attention to the Catholic’s church history of persecution of those who dare to defy it. I recommend you read it if you haven’t.

**Down in the comments there is some bickering over whether or not the Koran is sufficiently holy for Muslims to care about it, for all of the usual highly technical religious reasons. Something about the Baptist Council of 1912. In any event I doubt Myers knew that, so it has no bearing on his intent.

***I mean the guy was a Coptic Christian in Egypt. Is it any surprise he might have a distrust for Muslims? I don’t agree with what he was saying or the way he said it, but I understand why he did it. If he had presented the movie as a catharsis for the torment in his soul due to the persecution of his people in the homeland, well, it would still be worse than your Aunt Petunia’s one-woman show down at the community center, but I doubt quite so many otherwise sane people, and possibly even Raging Bee, would so gleefully toss him under the bus.

What I find astonishing in the raging butterflies comments is the obvious lack of logic. Let us assume that bee considers herself a feminist. According to her argument, that any insult repeated justifies a violent reaction….I guess you can see where that leads?…so a husband pestered and insulted by his wife has the right to at least beat her, but in an extreme case he can kill her and that according to the raging beetle is completely justified, because insults can only be avenged with blood.

Is she stupid or just uncommonly moronic?

Chiroptera @:

That the courts in the US have ruled that the essential characteristic is an explicit exhortation for people to commit violence (is that an over-simplification?) seems to me like an artificial distinction.

It seems like a necessary one to me. Otherwise, I could go to jail for telling you “Arglebargle! Blah de blah, Meow!”I could go to jail for telling you “nice to see you!” if my intent was to cause you to go kill someone and you did in fact go out and killed someone in response. Heck, I could go to jail for putting a voodoo curse on you, in which I try to incite you to do something illegal. Do you really want to go back to a system that criminalizes witchcraft?

What you are basically saying is that speech content doesn’t matter, only the intention to incite violence. If intent is there, speech can be completely different from a direct call to commit a crime and its still incitement.

Now, I’m fine with intent being one component of the legal assessment of criminality, but I don’t think it should be the sole component. Speech content needs to matter, too. The content of the speech has to be reasonably related to directing someone or encouraging someone to commit a crime, otherwise, its not incitement. “Moslems are evil and Mohammed was a pedophile” is not reasonably related to “Go out and kill the US Ambassador to Libya.”

Chiroptera @252:

If someone plants a shoebox believing it contains a bomb in a post office but it turns out to be empty, is that prosecutable (assuming the facts can be proven in court)?

IANAL but I believe US courts use the ‘reasonable person’ standard, and the reasonable person standard is quite a bit tighter than Bee’s idea of ‘people in turmoil.’ The current standard assumes a fairly good background knowledge of current events, history, science, understanding of the context in which events occurred and decent reading/listening comprehension skills. Thus, voodoo curses are not prosecutable as attempted murder because a reasonable person (in the legal sense) understands that they don’t work.

Obviously, not every actual living, breathing, individual meets the legal ‘reasonable person’ standard, so this standard will inevitably result in “outliers” – cases where someone interprets speech in a manner that a legal ‘reasonable person’ would not. That, I think, is a general summary of what is happening here. The people rioting took this speech to be direct incitement to violence. But a U.S.-legal reasonable person would not. So the filmmakers are not culpable.

“So what am I missing? What makes Innocence of Muslims so special?”

What makes it special to those that seem to defend censorship – and that what prosecution of free speech means in the end –

is the fact? that the movie was not produced by some atheists, but by adherents of a different religious belief.

I cannot find any other reason behind the convoluted and illogical arguments brought forward by some.

There is a certain irony to invoking the “reasonable person” standard when discussing deliberate attempts to bypass reason and appeal directly to emotion.