If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   If there is anyone who values free speech, it's me, a tenured professor. That's why I think the producer of the Mohammed Youtube should be put in jail   (usatoday.com) divider line 474
    More: Dumbass, religious tolerance, American Living  
•       •       •

7641 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 7:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 08:47:51 PM  

give me doughnuts: Tickle Mittens: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

He lied to the performers, altered their performances, sure, why not arrest him for fraud. He seems to have done this with the intent of affecting US foriegn policy, that's sedition. Investigate him with the aim of building a case, given the auture's personal history of shenanigans it's entirely possible there are many other underlying or even unrelated crimes waiting to be discovered. If his speech brings attention to his misdeeds he's not being persecuted for his speech, but rather prosecuted for his actions. His speech brought the attention he wanted, along with inevitable consequences he foolishly didn't anticipate. If he wants to plead guilty to avoid extradition to Egypt, well that just saves the tax payers money.

What wuld he be extradited to Egypt for? What laws did he break in Egypt?


We can let them be the judge of tha, if they want to request extraditiont. I'm every bit as morally flexible as he is, and I'm willing to bend over backwards to prove it.
 
2012-09-14 08:48:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Depends what they got paid for and what was specified in the contract. What matters is what they agreed to in the contract.


When I was on screen for thirty seconds as a corpse I had to sign a thing absolving the company of responsibility if my grannie saw it and had a heart attack thinking it was real.
That's how specific performance contracts can be. It can make you feel better to think otherwise, but there you go.
/You should see the ones when you play a criminal in a reenactment on one of those "docudramas"
 
2012-09-14 08:49:06 PM  

cookiefleck: I think I heard on the news that this guy has a rap sheet and a pretty long list of aliases.


So does Snoop Dogg - what's your point?
 
2012-09-14 08:50:01 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: cookiefleck: I think I heard on the news that this guy has a rap sheet and a pretty long list of aliases.

So does Snoop Dogg - what's your point?


His nizzle is no fo shizzle, yo.
 
2012-09-14 08:51:03 PM  

Fool_Marquis: Calling "Mayday" three times over radio is an open call for disaster assistance. If the coast guard / air traffic controllers / whoever is on the other end of the radio is assisting your false claim, some other actual disaster may occur resulting in terrible consequences. People may die because of your actions.

Calling 911 a dozen times in an hour is similar to yelling Mayday, as police resources that could be used to help someone genuinely in need may be wasted on your stupid ass.

So, Given what we know about the situation in the middle east, how Islamic culture reacted to a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban (which someone else will post, i'm sure), and how easily their clerics are offended, and the extreme state of reactions that said offended clerics can provoke out of their followers: would making a movie about how Mohammed was a complete tool be a good idea? Could it cause people to get hurt? Would resources that could be better used elsewhere be diverted away from their intended cause as a direct result of this?


So Reno/Clinton should be legally responsible for the Oklahoma bombing since their management of Waco caused a lunatic militia, antigovernment nut to go off the deep end.
 
2012-09-14 08:52:06 PM  
My question is a matter of personal responsibility. Should the guy(s) that made the video be able to avoid the responsibility of their actions?

They purposely made a film they knew would be insulting to Muslims, and I think they were hoping for protests. Did they want to get people killed? Who really knows, but you could never prove that. But none the less, they made a point of trying to be as negative as possible, so I think they bear some responsibility for the results of their actions.

Besides, it is already known that Free Speech does not protect everybody from everything they say. How many libel lawsuits are there every year, and how many succeed?

I believe Freedom of Speech is indeed one of our greatest rights and privileges as Americans, but it is meant to encourage discussion, exchange of ideas and prevent other from restricting those discussions. When somebody uses it as a shield to launch an attack like this, then perhaps they don't deserve the right of free speech.
 
2012-09-14 08:52:22 PM  
This thread is the reason analogies are used on the LSAT to determine who gets into law school and who does not. This case has nothing to do with shouting fire in a theater. Nothing. The only reason people are citing that is because that is the only case most people can think of in which free speech might cause harm.

Justice Holmes said that in the context of FALSELY yelling fire, going to intent.

I think the re-edit of the video way beyond what the actors agreed to portray nails the intent part.
Time for PMITA prison for this joker.
 
2012-09-14 08:53:20 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Fool_Marquis: Calling "Mayday" three times over radio is an open call for disaster assistance. If the coast guard / air traffic controllers / whoever is on the other end of the radio is assisting your false claim, some other actual disaster may occur resulting in terrible consequences. People may die because of your actions.

Calling 911 a dozen times in an hour is similar to yelling Mayday, as police resources that could be used to help someone genuinely in need may be wasted on your stupid ass.

So, Given what we know about the situation in the middle east, how Islamic culture reacted to a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban (which someone else will post, i'm sure), and how easily their clerics are offended, and the extreme state of reactions that said offended clerics can provoke out of their followers: would making a movie about how Mohammed was a complete tool be a good idea? Could it cause people to get hurt? Would resources that could be better used elsewhere be diverted away from their intended cause as a direct result of this?

So Reno/Clinton should be legally responsible for the Oklahoma bombing since their management of Waco caused a lunatic militia, antigovernment nut to go off the deep end.


That play was already reviewed and upheld by the (libderp) officials. It cannot be re-reviewed.
 
2012-09-14 08:54:19 PM  

Fool_Marquis: Aarontology: King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.

Those aren't really analogous.

The analogy is this: Will the freely given speech, under normal circumstances, knowing the world as it is, cause a chaotic, potentially disastrous consequence?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede for the doors, potentially injuring or killing people.

Saying "Bomb" at an airport may (a) terrify travelers into a stampede, causing injuries and chaos, or (b) cause the TSA to tackle you violently to the ground, detain you, and give you a series of unwelcome deep cavity checks, which result in your anus bleeding.

Calling "Mayday" three times over radio is an open call for disaster assistance. If the coast guard / air traffic controllers / whoever is on the other end of the radio is assisting your false claim, some other actual disaster may occur resulting in terrible consequences. People may die because of your actions.

Calling 911 a dozen times in an hour is similar to yelling Mayday, as police resources that could be used to help someone genuinely in need may be wasted on your stupid ass.

So, Given what we know about the situation in the middle east, how Islamic culture reacted to a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban (which someone else will post, i'm sure), and how easily their clerics are offended, and the extreme state of reactions that said offended clerics can provoke out of their followers: would making a movie about how Mohammed was a complete tool be a good idea? Could it cause people to get hurt? Would resources that could be better used elsewhere be diverted away from their intended cause as a direct result of this?

Yes to all questions, catastrophic re ...


Utter bullshiat.

I can make and distribute a film with any content I like. (barring obvious crimes like snuff films) If it offends some murderous asshole, this is not my problem and not my fault. If said murderous asshole gets it in his head to go kill some random person because of my film, still not my fault.

I'm sorry that innocent people were killed by assholes. But the assholes' "reasons" for killing innocents interests me not at all. They are probably insane and should seek professional help.

What other people think of you (or your art) is none of your farking business.
 
2012-09-14 08:54:36 PM  
I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.
 
2012-09-14 08:55:23 PM  

LabGrrl: tenpoundsofcheese: Depends what they got paid for and what was specified in the contract. What matters is what they agreed to in the contract.


When I was on screen for thirty seconds as a corpse I had to sign a thing absolving the company of responsibility if my grannie saw it and had a heart attack thinking it was real.

That's how specific performance contracts can be. It can make you feel better to think otherwise, but there you go.

of course these contracts are filled with things that absolve the company of anything that can go wrong. And unless you are top talent, you get no creative control or damages if the creative direction makes you unhappy. They are VERY careful about protecting against that. "Oh no, my character wasn't as sympathetically portrayed as I want, so it is hurting my reputation".
/You should see the ones when you play a criminal in a reenactment on one of those "docudramas"

 
2012-09-14 08:56:05 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.


You get green, hope you like it.
 
2012-09-14 08:56:29 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: cookiefleck: I think I heard on the news that this guy has a rap sheet and a pretty long list of aliases.

So does Snoop Dogg - what's your point?


He may have started this as an attempt to part the members of a certain political party from their money and didn't think that this would cause an international chain of events.
 
2012-09-14 08:58:55 PM  

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.


So much this. And we're done here
 
2012-09-14 09:00:17 PM  

King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-14 09:00:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This thread is the reason analogies are used on the LSAT to determine who gets into law school and who does not. This case has nothing to do with shouting fire in a theater. Nothing. The only reason people are citing that is because that is the only case most people can think of in which free speech might cause harm.

Justice Holmes said that in the context of FALSELY yelling fire, going to intent.

I think the re-edit of the video way beyond what the actors agreed to portray nails the intent part.
no law school for you...yet. It depends what their contract said. If it was "three days of filming and you grant a right to use your image/performance for $1,000.", then it doesn't matter what the intent was. Besides, how would you even prove his intent? If the contract specified that it was a movie to "show Muslims in a positive and uplifting way", then yeah. Big problem for him. But I doubt that was the case.


Time for PMITA prison for this joker.
Maybe on those other accusations of false identities, etc.

 
2012-09-14 09:01:32 PM  

ditkaman: gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.

So much this. And we're done here


I have to agree.
 
2012-09-14 09:01:37 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.


Which is why if you threaten a cop, judge, officer of the court, federal agent, or the president you'll get cuffed and stuffed and "interviewed" and possibly/probably charged and convicted.

/derp.
 
2012-09-14 09:02:24 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This thread is the reason analogies are used on the LSAT to determine who gets into law school and who does not. This case has nothing to do with shouting fire in a theater. Nothing. The only reason people are citing that is because that is the only case most people can think of in which free speech might cause harm.

Justice Holmes said that in the context of FALSELY yelling fire, going to intent.

I think the re-edit of the video way beyond what the actors agreed to portray nails the intent part.
Time for PMITA prison for this joker.


Free speech for some, PMITA for others you disagree with. Got it. Leave this country now. Asshole.
 
2012-09-14 09:02:33 PM  

Slives: My question is a matter of personal responsibility. Should the guy(s) that made the video be able to avoid the responsibility of their actions?

They purposely made a film they knew would be insulting to Muslims, and I think they were hoping for protests. Did they want to get people killed? Who really knows, but you could never prove that. But none the less, they made a point of trying to be as negative as possible, so I think they bear some responsibility for the results of their actions.

Besides, it is already known that Free Speech does not protect everybody from everything they say. How many libel lawsuits are there every year, and how many succeed?

I believe Freedom of Speech is indeed one of our greatest rights and privileges as Americans, but it is meant to encourage discussion, exchange of ideas and prevent other from restricting those discussions. When somebody uses it as a shield to launch an attack like this, then perhaps they don't deserve the right of free speech.


Well son, I mean, you seem to be trying to make a pretty good point here, I mean, I give y'all credit for trying to pontificate what may be looked at as a reasonable arguement but you seem to have your brain cortexes all mushed up together, kinda like trying to fry cornmeal when it's to hot for the cornmeal to, how do they say, con-geel.

You see, this here country has rights and these rights ain't given to us by no individual or no government - that being the case, these rights can't be taken away thus by either of the afore mentioned parties.

Much as some of these New York City liberals might disagree, these rights in America are inalienable and bestowed upon us by what them same liberals refer to as the 'ghost in the sky'.

Now of course, most of these here liberals will argue that there ain't no such thing as this here 'God' person - until of course they demand these here rights for people who ain't even American.

Kinda makes you scratch your head, don't it?
 
2012-09-14 09:03:02 PM  

Slives: I believe Freedom of Speech is indeed one of our greatest rights and privileges as Americans, but


There is no "but" attached to freedom of speech, especially regarding people with a record of going into frothing murderous riots over a false rumor that Ahmed's third cousin's imam's next-door-neighbor's chiropractor has a son in Afghanistan who shares a last name with another guy who might have burned an owners manual to a 1994 Ford Escort that has the exact same number of pages as the Qu'ran.

For them there are no accommodations to be made on our part - in fact, they deserve further and more widespread ridicule.

I find it telling that we've figured out who the filmmaker is and yet we don't know the names of the imams who've been starting shiat under the pretext of this movie. How's about instead of the AP doing al-Qaeda's infidel-location work for them, maybe they track down these imams and those dumbshiats can feel what it's like having the target on their backs for a change.
 
2012-09-14 09:03:51 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Oh. I thought it was obvious.

Sambecile RE-EDITED the video from its original form to be offensive and to incite.
That spells intent to me.
INTENT.

No grand jury would disagree, either.


Bradenburg v Ohio.
 
2012-09-14 09:03:54 PM  

Slives: My question is a matter of personal responsibility. Should the guy(s) that made the video be able to avoid the responsibility of their actions?

They purposely made a film they knew would be insulting to Muslims, and I think they were hoping for protests. Did they want to get people killed? Who really knows, but you could never prove that. But none the less, they made a point of trying to be as negative as possible, so I think they bear some responsibility for the results of their actions.

Besides, it is already known that Free Speech does not protect everybody from everything they say. How many libel lawsuits are there every year, and how many succeed?

I believe Freedom of Speech is indeed one of our greatest rights and privileges as Americans, but it is meant to encourage discussion, exchange of ideas and prevent other from restricting those discussions. When somebody uses it as a shield to launch an attack like this, then perhaps they don't deserve the right of free speech.


You should lose your rights because your speech offends someone. If that were the case, Harry Reid should be in jail for his attack on Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years".
 
2012-09-14 09:05:03 PM  
The reason we want the guy to go away for a longass time is because antagonizing the Muslim world only makes their adjustment harder. And longer.

But if your response is 'they aren't going to get any better,' then YOU are the dick.
 
2012-09-14 09:05:27 PM  
I actually wonder what Rushdie has to say on this...
static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-09-14 09:05:58 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt:
But if your response is 'they aren't going to get any better,' then YOU are the dick.


And racist as fark, too.
 
2012-09-14 09:06:05 PM  

RevHate: violentsalvation: I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.

This is the first time I've 'logged in' in 4 years just to say that this quote is why America is awesome.

/seriously, I had 4 happy birthday messages waiting for deletion


Happy birthdays!
 
2012-09-14 09:06:12 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.

Which is why if you threaten a cop, judge, officer of the court, federal agent, or the president you'll get cuffed and stuffed and "interviewed" and possibly/probably charged and convicted.

/derp.


Being arrested for threats doesn't equal violence or death.

/double derp
 
2012-09-14 09:06:13 PM  
Why the fark do people still think that the film caused the attacks? It's already been reported that the attacks were independent of the films and the film release was used as a cover by militants as an excuse. There were protests, but protesting is fine and dandy. It's healthy, in fact.
 
2012-09-14 09:06:33 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: Much as some of these New York City liberals might disagree, these rights in America are inalienable and bestowed upon us by what them same liberals refer to as the 'ghost in the sky'.

Now of course, most of these here liberals will argue that there ain't no such thing as this here 'God' person - until of course they demand these here rights for people who ain't even American.

Kinda makes you scratch your head, don't it?


Jefferson called then natural human rights without dragging invisible imaginary sky creatures into it.
Simply by being a human being, we have inalienable rights that no other man can abridge or take.
 
2012-09-14 09:07:34 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.

Which is why if you threaten a cop, judge, officer of the court, federal agent, or the president you'll get cuffed and stuffed and "interviewed" and possibly/probably charged and convicted.

/derp.

Being arrested for threats doesn't equal violence or death.

/double derp


It might if you're an a-hole.
YMMV.
 
2012-09-14 09:07:39 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.


Yeah, this too..
 
2012-09-14 09:09:28 PM  
Sambecile's re-editing and over-dubbing proves intent.
 
2012-09-14 09:11:02 PM  

cookiefleck: TheDumbBlonde: I have a simple idea:

Nothing said by any man or group can justify violence or death.

Yeah, this too..


That, right there, is an example that sane people can agree on an idea, after taking a deep breath and refusing to assign blame for madness.
 
2012-09-14 09:11:05 PM  
Christians wondering how a cartoon could possibly piss muslims off so bad should remember that they were not long ago on a crusade against a chicken joint
 
2012-09-14 09:11:20 PM  
Hardline fanatics (of any stripe, Muslim, Christian or frikking Atheists) is like a festering infection. Tiptoeing around their sensitive feelings isn't doing anything to help clense it. It's regretable that people died, but I don't blame the movie..... Heck, I think bringing these maniacs out in the open can only make it easier to fix.
 
2012-09-14 09:12:07 PM  

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.


Difference is, not only are we not their parents, we've directly caused thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now go ahead and imagine exactly how touchy you'd be if another country invaded here and Canada, slaughtered their way through the countryside, and then mocked Jesus constantly.

Yeeeah.

/Obviously, the protesters should never have taken human life, but if you think this is about a Youtube vid, you're woefully undereducated.
 
2012-09-14 09:12:24 PM  

Shostie: Indubitably: Indubitably: Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?

The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)

Translated: the filmmakers are douchebags, but seriously?

I was listening to an NPR report on the protests/violence the other day. The correspondent noted that she hadn't been able to find a protester who had actually seen the YouTube clip.


I'm not surprised about that. Mucking around with religous material in anything other than a good light tends to get people riled up regardless of the content. Granted, it didn't cause any riots on this scale, but there were a bunch of harmless protests and boycotts and such when "Last Temptation of Christ" BEFORE anyone had had a chance to see it. And that was before the wackiness of the internet and FoxNews.

Oh wait, did I say harmless?

"On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned."
 
2012-09-14 09:12:30 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Shot to hell in about 1 minute.


That does nothing of the sort. Shouting "Fire" several times at the microphone during a speech about free speech is not the implicit context of the example. You cannot go to your local megaplex, run into theaters, and shout "Fire! Everyone get out now, there's a fire!". That is the spirit of the example, and that is not protected speech.

Hitchens implicitly narrowed the scope of speech being considered, and took a strong position against restricting that category. He only discussed speech of the form, "This is how I think reality is, and this is why." But, we can agree with that without thinking that speech should be entirely unrestricted. Some speech is known to be false and delivered at a time and place for the purpose of causing harm. That is what the "Fire!" yeller does, and that is what defamation is. Without defamation laws (which come in both criminal and civil flavors), people with grudges can destroy lives using nothing but their voice, by claiming someone did some terrible thing.

His speech was mostly legislation restricting specific propositions, and that I wholeheartedly agree should never happen. That is what legislation (or legistlations) would be doing, but we should not restrict the ability to express the view that the holocaust never happened, or that whites are superior, or that religions are bad, or anything of the sort. It is, I think, worth noting that the legitimate restrictions to speech never involve particular propositions. Neither the proposition that the theater is burning, nor is that person X molested child Y, are restricted. In fact, those propositions can, at times, be very important to express -- when they are true, or thought true.

That said, I think Hitchens' speech was quite wonderful. In particular, he makes the great point that not only should the speakers right to say what he believes be protected, but so too our right to hear it. We should not select people to decide what we can hear. My point is just that he doesn't make the case for entirely unrestricted speech, and I'm not even sure he meant to.
 
2012-09-14 09:12:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.



I agree with most of what you said, except for her keeping her piehole shut, I firmly believe she should be allowed to spew her ignorance everywhere she possibly can, that way when Penn sends me its annual fundraiser brochure I can send in clippings of her idiocy as the reason I no longer donate. Poor Ben franklin is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of the once mighty Penn stooping so low as to grant tenure to someone who should still be sitting in the slow learners section of a junior college.
 
2012-09-14 09:12:56 PM  

LazerFish: Christians wondering how a cartoon could possibly piss muslims off so bad should remember that they were not long ago on a crusade against a chicken joint


Wait, what?
 
2012-09-14 09:13:51 PM  

Sargun: Why the fark do people still think that the film caused the attacks? It's already been reported that the attacks were independent of the films and the film release was used as a cover by militants as an excuse. There were protests, but protesting is fine and dandy. It's healthy, in fact.


Because there are people here like to make excuses for murderous thugs who kill our Ambassador after torturing him and raping him.
Are you new here?
 
2012-09-14 09:14:06 PM  

LazerFish: Christians wondering how a cartoon could possibly piss muslims off so bad should remember that they were not long ago on a crusade against a chicken joint


Whaaaaaa???

If your serious about equating the two, your an idiot.

If you think Christians were on a crusade against a chicken joint you lack the reading and comprehension skills of a second grader.
 
2012-09-14 09:14:09 PM  

Boojum2k: LazerFish: Christians wondering how a cartoon could possibly piss muslims off so bad should remember that they were not long ago on a crusade against a chicken joint

Wait, what?

yeah, bad punctuation to say the least lol
 
2012-09-14 09:15:05 PM  

Tickle Mittens: give me doughnuts: Tickle Mittens: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

He lied to the performers, altered their performances, sure, why not arrest him for fraud. He seems to have done this with the intent of affecting US foriegn policy, that's sedition. Investigate him with the aim of building a case, given the auture's personal history of shenanigans it's entirely possible there are many other underlying or even unrelated crimes waiting to be discovered. If his speech brings attention to his misdeeds he's not being persecuted for his speech, but rather prosecuted for his actions. His speech brought the attention he wanted, along with inevitable consequences he foolishly didn't anticipate. If he wants to plead guilty to avoid extradition to Egypt, well that just saves the tax payers money.

What wuld he be extradited to Egypt for? What laws did he break in Egypt?

We can let them be the judge of tha, if they want to request extraditiont. I'm every bit as morally flexible as he is, and I'm willing to bend over backwards to prove it.


No, the U.S. government wll have to be te judge of it. Failure of dual criminality is a bar to extradition. If Egypt wants him for a specific crime, those actions will have to be considered a crime here, as well. And last time I looked, hurting Muslims feelings wasn't a crime in the U.S.
 
2012-09-14 09:15:15 PM  

violentsalvation: I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.


FIRE GOOD!
 
2012-09-14 09:15:33 PM  

PsiChick: gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.

Difference is, not only are we not their parents, we've directly caused thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now go ahead and imagine exactly how touchy you'd be if another country invaded here and Canada, slaughtered their way through the countryside, and then mocked Jesus constantly.

Yeeeah.

/Obviously, the protesters should never have taken human life, but if you think this is about a Youtube vid, you're woefully undereducated.


I thought you were a womens rights advocate?
 
2012-09-14 09:15:44 PM  

LazerFish: Christians wondering how a cartoon could possibly piss muslims off so bad should remember that they were not long ago on a crusade against a chicken joint


Good point!! I remember those deaths, the anal rapes, the violence and the burning of the chicken joints as if it were the day before yesterday.
 
2012-09-14 09:16:09 PM  

Pribar: Poor Ben franklin is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of the once mighty Penn stooping so low as to grant tenure to someone who should still be sitting in the slow learners section of a junior college.


That's the point of tenure. Protected speech.
Ouch.
 
2012-09-14 09:16:33 PM  
Agent Nick Fury: your an idiot.

What about my an idiot?
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report