Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, religious tolerance, American Living  
•       •       •

7664 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 7:49 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-09-14 05:43:31 PM  
19 votes:
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.
2012-09-14 06:27:32 PM  
10 votes:
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.
2012-09-14 08:05:45 PM  
7 votes:

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.


THIS THIS THIS!
A thousand times THIS.

Let me just point something out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

That right there was seen by a LOT of Christians as horribly sacrilegious and disrespectful.But did you see those offended riot, burn down buildings, and murder people? No... why? because the people involved didn't have the impulse control of terminally ADD afflicted Chimps riding on an overdose of caffeine pills.

The author was indeed a freaking idiot. You protect speech... all speech, even the shiat that makes people angry. Why? Because otherwise you give in to the bullies, to the small minded xenophobes, to the dictators and evil people. Instead we should be rounding up the protestors to find out what priests, imams, terrorists or whatever (whoever) are inciting them and start charging them with inciting others to riot and kill.
2012-09-14 04:22:48 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2012-09-14 08:18:23 PM  
4 votes:

BMFPitt: Threads like these serve as a stark reminder of how just many of our fellow Americans would be thrilled to throw away one of our most sacred freedoms for the sake of a little perceived security or butthurt.



They never thought.

The First Amendment represents THE most important right that any people that hope to remain "free" should preserve: The ability to discuss, share views and ideas and stay informed without fear of government censorship / reprisal.

The Second Amendment represents the ability of the people to protect the First.

Remove these and the rest is worthless.
2012-09-14 07:59:51 PM  
4 votes:
This is not like shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's like uploading a video of a fire to youtube and telling people in a theater that it exists.
2012-09-14 04:24:22 PM  
4 votes:
I don't think that guy should be put in jail at all. He exercised his 1st Amendment rights and he's got every right to. The government should not infringe that right.

But that doesn't mean we should be obligated to protect him.
2012-09-14 04:19:59 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2012-09-14 08:06:57 PM  
3 votes:
Threads like these serve as a stark reminder of how just many of our fellow Americans would be thrilled to throw away one of our most sacred freedoms for the sake of a little perceived security or butthurt.
2012-09-14 04:20:02 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-09-14 11:59:49 PM  
2 votes:

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.


The most unintelligent, misguided statement is saying this is like yelling FIRE in a movie theater or BOMB in an airport. Nobody was forced to watch or even acknowledge this movie... the film maker may be an absolute asshat but that's his right and he's entitled to it just like so many of the same people here who use Christianity as their punching bag. So I guess if Christians want the bashing to stop all they have to do is promise a violent retaliation on innocent people and follow through with it? Are you people who are calling for arrest or punishment of the film maker also going to defend Christians and blame victims should they choose the same course?

Christians can now threaten violence and you all will defend them..next the Jews, maybe the gays, maybe the immigrants?

It is the precise goal of terrorism to enforce your will on others by threat of violence and cowardice and that is exactly what so many here are defending??

It's sad how many people here think a man should be punished for exercising his rights. Why is Islam off limits but not Christianity?

So you must logically also blame THEO VAN GOGH for his brutal murder...and had South Park aired you'd also blame Trey & Matt had they been attacked? So you must have also JUST AS VOCALLY supported and agreed with that CENSORSHIP?

Innocent farkin people are being killed over words...you're ok with that? People who had NOTHING to do with the film.
2012-09-14 09:02:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:26:01 PM  
2 votes:

cookiefleck: At this point, certain groups will basically use any excuse to kill Americans.



Do they hate us for our freedums?

Funny, but we always wind up killing magnitudes more of them than they do of us - and on THEIR soil - and then we wonder act all buthurt and puzzled when they don't like us.

Such a puzzler, already.
2012-09-14 08:13:32 PM  
2 votes:
I find the way the John Stewart ridicules Christianity offensive. So he should be arrested and put in jail; I guess that goes for the majority of farkers as well.
2012-09-14 08:10:09 PM  
2 votes:

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
2012-09-14 07:57:05 PM  
2 votes:
Everything causes riots (it seems) if you insult Islam. I realize not all Muslims react that way, but it *seems* like that religion has more problems (per capita) than most.
2012-09-14 07:56:43 PM  
2 votes:
You know how the wingnuts talk about leftists being awfully generous with other people′s money? Well, this filmmaker is being awfully courageous with other people′s lives.
2012-09-14 07:53:42 PM  
2 votes:

St_Francis_P: 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.

Playing devil's advocate, if he intended to cause riots etc., that's shading into yelling fire territory.


Yeah, not really. Regardless as to what he intended, the guy uploaded a low-budget video to YouTube. That's it. People can choose to watch it or not, it's not like he broke into Comcast and forced it on to everyone's TV set.
2012-09-14 06:34:56 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Playing devil's advocate, if he intended to cause riots etc., that's shading into yelling fire territory.
2012-09-14 05:59:37 PM  
2 votes:
free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.
2012-09-14 04:35:38 PM  
2 votes:

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.


But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.
2012-09-15 08:56:07 PM  
1 vote:
i.dailymail.co.uk

I hope some of the farkers here are happy. Let's start rounding up everybody responsible for anything that a death cult of perpetually angry and violent camel farkers find offensive. While this guy is a GIANT ASSHOLE who most likely expected all this outrage he broke no laws and there is no reason for him to be escorted by a bunch of sheriff's deputies anywhere. The day we start restricting the rights we hold most sacred in a misguided attempt to quell the outrage of a bunch of bassakwards violent zealots who have wished us all dead long before some year old cheesy youtube clip surfaced is the day we officially fold our hand and all this pro American Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Right, and free society rhetoric becomes nothing more than just that, rhetoric.
2012-09-15 02:11:58 PM  
1 vote:
I think this film should be protected by free speech. I just think free speech needs to change to if you are purposefully antagonizing a select group of people you should have to make that statement where the repercussions are felt by YOU, and not others.

The problem with free speech is that there are a lot of people that hide behind their walls spewing crap like the video and then hide behind free speech. If you know you are producing something that will cause a small group of people prone to excessive violence to attack people, then you should feel the backlash for it, NOT people that are directly working to do the opposite.

I have two wishes. One Italy reopens the Colosseum. Two we throw all the war hawk politicians from all of the countries, and all of the violent religious fanatics into the Colosseum and let them sort out their differences how they want to, do what you preach you wanted to go to war well there you go. Leave the rest of the world in peace. Most people do not want war. Most people don't care that you are a different religion. It is a minority that ruins shiat for everyone else.


Fark off religious extremists from all religions and fark off enabling war hawk politicians. That only want war when they are directly detached from it.
2012-09-15 12:23:59 PM  
1 vote:
Okay, we have had enough "Fire in a theater" statements to burn down every cineplex in North America. There is a difference between yelling Fire! in a theater and this movie.

It's this:

"FIRE! ARRGH, IT BURNS! I CAN'T BREATH! YOU ARE GOING TO BURN TO DEATH IF YOU DON'T GET OUT THAT DOOR RIGHT NOW! SHOVE AND TRAMPLE ANYONE WEAKER THAN YOU OR YOU ARE DEAD!"

vs:

"FIRE SUCKS! AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS THE SUCKIEST PERSON IMAGINABLE AND A BIG POOPYHEAD! ALSO, YOU HAVE SEX WITH YOUR MOMMA, WHO IS ALSO FAT!"

One is an immediate threat to your life, the other is an insult to your beliefs. Is the difference clear now? 

/you big poopyheads
2012-09-15 11:33:02 AM  
1 vote:

herrDrFarkenstein: The filmmakers should not go to jail. But somebody should quickstart a website that tracks their daily locations with surveyor's marks, and has helpful international translations of travel instructions to that location so anybody can share the inspiration of their work I suggest starting the translations in alphabetical order: Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani ...


really? im a psycho with a short fuse and a willingness to travel long distances and i dont like your idea in any way shape or form. being mentally unstable im likely to do just about anything.

and since i dont like what you have just said, i think your location should be similarly broadcast for equally unstable individuals such as myself to easily track you down and do mentally unstable things to you.

still an advocate for that idea now?
2012-09-15 10:44:32 AM  
1 vote:
What I find disturbing is that people actually believe that one low-budget movie was the direct cause of the rioting and murders on the other side of the planet, that just happen to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11. The author of this article may ''speak as a tenured professor" but I, speaking as a soldier who did his time in the sandbox and came back a disabled vet, can tell you that the whole 'we are offended' thing is bullshiat. In the culture over there, 'mob mentality' rules; anything you do with enough people at your back is justified in the eyes of the law. That's why getting gang-raped is a crime over there: if a dozen men rape a woman, clearly that woman must have done something wrong because there's 12 of them and 1 of her. These people will jump at any opportunity to join a mob, and if this movie had never existed they would have just found something else.
I also feel that people are 'being cautious' because it's Islam. Here's my evidence: When someone in Norway killed 77 people, mostly teenagers, and blamed Muslims and homosexuals for his attacks, did anyone call for Muslims and homosexuals to be held accountable for those killings? If he had named specific Muslims and homosexuals, would those people be facing articles saying that those individuals should be in jail? No, we focused exclusively on the actions of the person, not the group he claimed was responsible. At this point I can't tell if the decision to blame the film maker is out of a need to place blame somewhere and his is the only name attached, or if it's just laziness because publicly blaming someone makes for lots of page views and ad revenue.
I strongly disagree with the author of this article, however I went over there to fight for his right to express himself. Seeing people using the rights I fought to protect in an attempt to deny those rights to others makes me feel ashamed of the behavior of my fellow countrymen.
- Robert Patrician. US Army 2006-2010, medically discharged from injuries sustained in Iraq.
2012-09-15 10:04:10 AM  
1 vote:

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.


You should read a history book or two. Your claim that those two areas were peaceful areas with no hate towards America prior to us going there are pretty ignorant.
2012-09-15 09:12:47 AM  
1 vote:
Anybody calling for any kind of legal repercussions for the guy who made this film is part of the problem. He should be shamed and looked down upon, but fark anyone who think she shouldn't be allowed to say it.
2012-09-15 08:34:18 AM  
1 vote:

mrlewish: Boojum2k: Exactly. If the film had asked people to attack U.S. embassies, it would have been a crime. Fortunately, insulting religion is still protected speech.

No, sorry you don't get the prize.

The people we are dealing with are firmly in the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and us having particular views on rights and protections is not only just not accepted by these people it is actually beyond their comprehension.


If they hate us so much,why use the invention that we created (internet)? Seems to me if we just go ahead and cut their access there wouldn't be a problem.

/Could we even if it wasn't a pretend solution?
2012-09-15 07:14:32 AM  
1 vote:

batcookie: So keep talking about what I'm supposedly talking about.


batcookie: But they do have the "human beings are all farking stupid" excuse, so there's that...

2012-09-15 07:05:25 AM  
1 vote:

batcookie: .... Where the hell did you get that out of anything I said? You're just making stuff up now. I'm opposed to violence, be it from a muslim or a christian.


Well, maybe the fact that you are apologizing for them. Saying that "human beings are all farking stupid" is an excuse. So you believe that is a valid excuse to be violent.  You are de facto openly supporting the violence by excusing it.
2012-09-15 06:50:46 AM  
1 vote:

batcookie: The fact that you don't wish to see it in Christians as well is your problem, dude.


Your the bigot defending religious violence. That is your problem.
2012-09-15 06:43:17 AM  
1 vote:

batcookie: ut they do have the "human beings are all farking stupid" excuse, so there's that...


Christians don't riot across multiple nations and kill people everytime some shiatty piece of art insults Jesus or a bible is burned, or a teddy bear gets names after a prophet.

No one is buying your apologetics. No one.
2012-09-15 04:57:28 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Thank you. This x 1000. Also, every time those peaceful ninnies kill a bunch of people who don't believe precisely like they do they just ensure more interest in whatever it is they are currently feeling all stabby about. Like Rushdie - never heard of him until he was targeted, I never saw a Dutch cartoon that I know of until the ones that offended them so bad they want to decapitate the cartoonist, and now the first I heard anything about this movie was that American's are (yet again) being targeted and murdered because we don't believe exactly like they do.
2012-09-15 02:48:51 AM  
1 vote:
Was the movie responsible for rioting?

Cartoons depicting Mohammad caused rioting.
Someone suggesting that Islam is a violent religion caused rioting.

In other words, anything can cause rioting in the Middle East. They don't actually need a reason to riot. Some Imam just needs to work a group into a frenzy over something we consider trivial and the fun begins.
2012-09-15 02:24:29 AM  
1 vote:
I've been watching these threads and I can't take it anymore. Here's my opinion, speaking as someone who served in the United States Army for four years until I was injured in Iraq. I've dealt with this culture and seen how the 'mob mentality' is culturally accepted as justification for any action.
It's time to take the gloves off. The next time an embassy gets 'stormed', we evacuate our people, let the crowd of attackers gather around the building to celebrate, and then white phosphorous bomb the crowd that is on the US soil within the embassy grounds. A hundred agonizingly mummified corpses around the embassy (Which will be incredibly photogenic) will send a clear message: You fark with the United States, you will die a slow painful agonizing death. We've seen how they react to "We want to be your friends and help you." Geneva convention does NOT apply to them.
Go ahead and try to attack the embassy of any other country in the world and see if you survive. We're trying to 'be nice' to a group of people that have absolutely no interest in playing nice. They're not even really mad at the United States, they're just going with whatever socially acceptable reason there is to murder and pillage. These are the 'people' that went on pillaging sprees from a Dutch newspaper comic.

Of course, no politician will do something like this. That will be the downfall of our country, soft people wanting soft politicians to tell them soft lies about how everything is going to be fine and that 'freedoms will be restored after the crisis has passed.'
2012-09-15 01:41:43 AM  
1 vote:
But when Christians complained about "Piss Christ" and the shiat covered statue of the Virgin Mary, art designed to offend, they were ignored, called fascists and told to grow up. and stop whining. Make a film that offends Muslims these SAME people scream OMG jail the MFer and take away his right to free speech! Ya gotta love Farkers.
2012-09-15 01:21:15 AM  
1 vote:
Free speech is free speech. We don't change that because some scum of the earth thugs start rioting. You send over a few thousand marines and you kick a little ass. We will continue to battle these little minded countries forever on religious freedoms.

Just remember that security and freedom are on opposite sides of a scale. Whenever security goes up, freedom goes down, and vice versa. If you are swayed to give up your freedoms so easily, you should probably read 1984 and Brave New World.They will give you an idea of what the world may be like when the security seriously outweighs the freedom.

If nothing else, they are great reads.
2012-09-14 11:43:20 PM  
1 vote:

boozehat: sirrerun: Extremists who are looking for an excuse to riot or kill can be set off by anything.
The muslims are very selective sometimes about what does and doesn't "offend" them.

That said, Sambecile is a cowardly cock POS who should have died in place of that diplomat (and the others).

It's one thing to criticize Islam's (and other religions') real excesses and ridicule Muslim holy cows, but this guy went way out of his way to provoke unstable people, all while hiding behind both anonymity and the West's proud free speech traditions.

While he may not be legally liable for those deaths, he certainly is morally culpable (and hopefully civilly responsible in a wrongful death suit). 

Fark him.

I actually took a different take on the 14 minutes of the film I saw. I thought it was like a real-world "Team America". I would like to see the entire thing. Fairly entertaining in my book.


Yeap this. I watched a bit and thought "this looks like a cheezy middle eastern postal 2"

they are rioting over this turd?
2012-09-14 11:26:55 PM  
1 vote:
If they threw people in jail for being deliberately offensive, there would be no Fark comments section.
2012-09-14 11:13:03 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I don't want you in a foxhole with me.

No sensible person would get in one with you either, I suspect.
Don't mistake my disgust for Islam to be unique; I regard all religions as delusion.
In the foxhole, you don't want someone who's worried about the afterlife.

That's precisely why I wouldn't want you. I'd never be able to certain who you'd shoot first: The "enemy", me or yourself.

You may have a point there.
But really, I don't think we're all that far apart. A liberal is just someone who's never been mugged.


I'm not a liberal. I'm as conservative as can be without being a born again Baptist. And I think you're flat out crazy, Son.
2012-09-14 11:10:26 PM  
1 vote:

BSABSVR: hbk72777: The part where you aid "there is a line you can cross". No sir, there isn't, and that's why what you said was contradictory.

You are wrong. There is in fact speech that is not protected, such as libel and slander. He did not say anything contradictory at all.


Then Mohammad may have a case. He should take it to court. Oh, he died several hundred years ago? Too bad.
2012-09-14 11:00:08 PM  
1 vote:
Given all the outrage and the liberal angst over someone with the stones to piss off a large swath of ignorant fundies I am gonna have to see this film!
2012-09-14 10:59:52 PM  
1 vote:

HaveBeerWillTravel: Agent Nick Fury: HotIgneous Intruder: Agent Nick Fury: I'm proud of you, American Trooper.

You are, of course, free to fark yourself.

Like Clint said - I really can't do that.

What? Your not a big, brawly bouncer like the other apologist - kicking ass, taking names - real fricking tough guys?

What will you do when they come knocking on your door.

It was an analogy, guy who took his name from an imaginary comic book badass. Calm down.

It's pretty clear that you regard Islam as a disease, so we're not gonna get anywhere with this conversation. Don't hate you, but don't see the point in the two of us banging our heads against the wall, either. Take care.


I'm an adult and comic books were never a part of my cultural underpinning, so there's that.
I don't think Islam is a disease. I think religion, all of it, is mental illness.
The jihadis are just especially sick farks.
2012-09-14 10:55:51 PM  
1 vote:

HaveBeerWillTravel: atomicmask: HaveBeerWillTravel: atomicmask: HaveBeerWillTravel: 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.

The right to free speech is nigh limitless. Apparently, so is the ability to disavow the consequences of exercising that right.

This entire conversation is daffy to begin with because it's becoming more and more apparent that the entire "movie" thing was a canard, at least with regards to the Libyan incident, but if you insist:

Don't you pretend for one goddamn minute that the stupid movie wasn't an irresponsible, ill-considered piece of crap. The goals were to rile up the base and piss off the "enemy." When the underpinnings of your entire argument about that enemy is that they are irrational savages incapable of reasonable discourse, you cannot sit there when violence results and claim innocence. If you have the barest shreds of intellectual honesty you CANNOT make that argument. You are an irresponsible provacatuer and blood is on your hands. You have "made your point," as it were. And when you spin this incident involving maybe a couple hundred people into an indictment of a billion, you are as deluded as the filmmaker and complicit in their bullshiat.

But you keep farking that chicken, buddy.

I guess the difference between Myself and others like me, and you...is that I expect said stupid savages (muslims) to stop behaving like such and actually be a religion of peace, while you just expect them to be irrational savages forever and do nothing about it.

Bottom line, they are humans, they are responsible for rioting. They have a choice, it is the same choice all of us have when something that makes us angry happens...1) behave like a violent nutjob 2) call the person a farker and move on.

They choose option 1. No one forces them to. No one forbids them from walking away besides themselves. This is not the responsibility of the western world to give them a kind ...


So who decides what dickish behavior is?

With each changing administration, depending on which party is in office, the definition of being a dick changes.

Right now, if I were president, your giving me permission to arrest Bill Mahr for being a dick.

But, after my eight years in office (I would be re-elected), and after the eight years of my VP (we did a really good job and she rode my coattails), a Democrat takes office and puts Ted Nugent in jail for being a dick.

Sounds a lot like China if you ask me.
2012-09-14 10:54:32 PM  
1 vote:

Your Average Witty Fark User: 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.

You've got shiat for brains. It's entirely analogous. Republicans (generally) love to run around screaming "b-b-b-ut free speech!), when there are already limits to your speech, and for good reason.

This guy should be tried for murder, that's what he should be tried for. You should be tried for being stupid.


Watch out folks, the derp is strong in this one.
2012-09-14 10:46:07 PM  
1 vote:

I'll wager that the majority of rioting Muslims haven't even seen the video. It's just an excuse to riot against the U.S.

It's kinda like Cinco de Mayo. It's not really celebrated in Mexico, but it's a good excuse for Americans to drink, even if they don't really know what it's about.

2012-09-14 10:44:17 PM  
1 vote:
My next door neighbor said something that I didn't like.

Step 1) I beat the crap out of him, then called the cops.
Step 2) Now he's sitting in jail.
Step 3) Profit.
2012-09-14 10:34:42 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: Agent Nick Fury: And in every country I've been treated extremely well (though it was twenty years ago and Karachi was pretty much a dunghole).

Then you didn't meet the right people who tried to kill you.
They probably wanted your money and so were nice to you.


Well I was military so when you say "the right people" you probably mean Raul, your tour guide.

I'm sure he showed you the seedy side of Casablanca and you and your SO held each others hand so tight it felt like they would burst!

But then you saw a DKNY handbag in a store window and sighed in relief, knowing that everything would be okay in the end.

I'm proud of you, American Trooper.
2012-09-14 10:29:00 PM  
1 vote:

gameshowhost: Let's keep pretending that we haven't been meddling in the region - both economically and politically - for decades


And? We've had troops in Europe since June 6, 1944.
2012-09-14 10:28:35 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: NOBODY can tell me -- or any other reasonable person -- that this WAS NOT intended to piss off as many Muslims as possible and possibly incite murderous thoughts and/or actions.
The video is here.


So farking what? By that logic, the jury shouldn't have been allowed to declare Rodney King's attackers "not guilty" since they should have known it was gonna mean a bunch of Koreans were going get lynched by the blacks.

You're either for freedom of speech, or you're a bad person. or an ignorant peasant far away from here that should be carefully and respectfully treated with batons and tear gas until a minimum cultural understanding has been met.
2012-09-14 10:26:34 PM  
1 vote:
Let's keep pretending that we haven't been meddling in the region - both economically and politically - for decades, creating an utter shiatstorm just waiting to strike back at us, and determine that Islam is the lone cause of said shiatstorm rather than being nothing more than a convenient rallying cry. It would be most helpful if we forgot what bin Laden, et al. mention(ed) about the decades-long devastation we cause(d) in the M.E.; that way we can throw cet. par. to the wind and focus on Mooslims as the lone variable, making our analysis so easy that even a Teabagger can do it.
2012-09-14 10:26:01 PM  
1 vote:

atomicmask: Who gives a shiat if it was intended to offend muslims. MUSLIMS have the choice to not riot. You keep acting like they are animals..I admit they behave like animals...but they are human despite all actions. THEY HAVE THE CHOICE TO NOT RIOT. THEY CAN GO "oh well we are mad, but big deal, fark you buddy" but instead they go all murder burn and rape. THEY MAKE THE CHOICE.


I'm starting to think that some folks here would apologize to the man who raped their wife because she was crying too loudly.
2012-09-14 10:24:25 PM  
1 vote:

TheDumbBlonde: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: HotIgneous Intruder: Hate speech = pissing off the hornets on purpose.

Accusing any group of people of being hornets lessens the people you are choosing to "protect" from free speech.

I understand and that doesn't really bug me much.
Have you been to the Middle East?

WTF difference does that make?


Probably none to you because you don't seem to understand that cultural understanding comes with experience, for instance perhaps having met some Muslims on their own turf. But no, just defend jihadis as you would Unitarians and leave it at that.
Newsflash for you sister. When Islam arrives on your doorstep, you'll know it and you probably won't like it.
2012-09-14 10:17:40 PM  
1 vote:
FTFA: "While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right."

Yes, actually, they do. Because it is a right. To use human rights from Wikipedia; (Human) Rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being

I do not have to censor myself in order to placate a bunch of talking monkey throwbacks who think one book is all you need to get through life. Fark their book, their religion, their propensity towards violence, their culture, their heritage and their opinions. Internet is serious business.

I hope they fire this ridiculous whore. She has no business teaching anything.

www.aboveaverage.com
2012-09-14 10:16:23 PM  
1 vote:

Kaybeck: gilgigamesh: Ambivalence: free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.

*sigh*

Sigh all you like but he's exactly right.

Speech has power. That's why the 1st amendment exists, so people who are threatened by powerful speech can't suppress it.

Taking shiat about Mohammed has power. The creator of the video was aware of this and knowingly wielded that power in a manner that he knew would cause destruction and chaos.

With power comes responsibility. He wielded that power as a weapon. It was irresponsible and there needs to face repercussions for it.



and YOU can GTFO of my country, too, dirtbag. Free speech: you're either for it, or you're not a real American. Go live in Britain or Mexico or something. Stop making excuses for ignorant savages and trying to cut down everyone else's freedom of expression while you're breathing my air.
2012-09-14 10:01:15 PM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: TheDumbBlonde: LordJiro: Not only did this dipshiat put the lives of every American in the Middle East in danger, but he put the lives of his actors in danger...actors who thought they were doing a completely different film.

I don't think he should be arrested, but I'm glad his real name was released. I doubt he'll be so much of a shiat-stirrer now that he can't hide behind a pseudonym, while putting innocents in danger.

Making a movie, writing a book, compsosing a song, penning an article...none of these things justify violence.

Hucking a rock at a wasp nest in the neighbor's yard doesn't justify the neighbor's kids getting stung. But you're still an asshole who knew what he was doing.


So Muslims are on the mental level of insects? Wow. I mean, really, wow. Here I've been giving them the consideration of human beings, somewhat more irrational than most but explainable by a less civilized society, but they should be treated as dangerous bugs instead? Yikes!
2012-09-14 10:00:54 PM  
1 vote:
BEING AN ASSHOLE IS LEGAL IN AMERICA!!!!

Actually, it's one of the reasons this country is great.
2012-09-14 09:59:08 PM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: TheDumbBlonde: LordJiro: Not only did this dipshiat put the lives of every American in the Middle East in danger, but he put the lives of his actors in danger...actors who thought they were doing a completely different film.

I don't think he should be arrested, but I'm glad his real name was released. I doubt he'll be so much of a shiat-stirrer now that he can't hide behind a pseudonym, while putting innocents in danger.

Making a movie, writing a book, compsosing a song, penning an article...none of these things justify violence.

Hucking a rock at a wasp nest in the neighbor's yard doesn't justify the neighbor's kids getting stung. But you're still an asshole who knew what he was doing.


No, that is not it either. it is more like Drawing a picture of the wasps and writing "Homos" above it then taping it onto your fridge, then one of the wasps notices and decides to rile up all the other wasps because it is against wasp religion to draw the prophet mohornet (Stings be apon him). Then you all decide you are going to sting to death the bee keeper who is there to help and sort out bee problems between humanity and the wasp world, also eventually convert or overthrow human society because hornets will dominate the world.

that is more what its like.
2012-09-14 09:57:56 PM  
1 vote:
I think offensive/hateful speech should be banned. I find it offensive/hateful that some are advocating arbitrary limits on speech they don't like. We should ban and arrest them from expressing their opinion starting with this professor
2012-09-14 09:51:17 PM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: Not only did this dipshiat put the lives of every American in the Middle East in danger, but he put the lives of his actors in danger...actors who thought they were doing a completely different film.

I don't think he should be arrested, but I'm glad his real name was released. I doubt he'll be so much of a shiat-stirrer now that he can't hide behind a pseudonym, while putting innocents in danger.


Making a movie, writing a book, compsosing a song, penning an article...none of these things justify violence.
2012-09-14 09:47:35 PM  
1 vote:
Not only did this dipshiat put the lives of every American in the Middle East in danger, but he put the lives of his actors in danger...actors who thought they were doing a completely different film.

I don't think he should be arrested, but I'm glad his real name was released. I doubt he'll be so much of a shiat-stirrer now that he can't hide behind a pseudonym, while putting innocents in danger.
2012-09-14 09:40:05 PM  
1 vote:
More and more often I find myself, while very often liberal on issues, very much not wanting to be associated with "liberals."
2012-09-14 09:37:48 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: willfullyobscure: With all due respect, go fark yourself, biatch. And get the fark out of America you evil, facist coont. you feel that way? LEAVE.

Taliban USA?

/Got a gun and a truck?


I'm actually a high-powered white collar worker from the Northeast that runs in some pretty sophisticated circles. Brie and art and whatnot. Bought local corn at Whole Foods tonight and I don't cut my sons' hair, I know a Kennedy or two.

But yes, of course I have a gun. Its not easy to get the permits and licenses in my area, but I had no trouble, thanks to knowing the right folks.

Anyway, my statement stands. fark this asshole straight in the ear if she's going to advocate against the moral bedrock of this country, which is inviolable individual liberty in speech, association, religion, the press and the right to redress. She's not a real American, as far as I'm concerned, because she doesn't share those values, and she should get the hell out and live somewhere they allow the government to tell you what to say. I suggest...Libya.
2012-09-14 09:34:30 PM  
1 vote:

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Insulting Muhammad gives the imams more ammo. It feeds the culture war. It creates an 'Us versus Them' dynamic. And it feeds on itself, which one can see simply from the fact that 'troll them some more' is the first reaction people are having to this.


Doesn't matter in the least. If the imams can't find a reason to jump ugly with the civilized world, they invent one.

If it's publicity they'd like, we can give them that, hopefully in the form of a news story that begins "A Predator drone strike this morning killed an imam closely tied to" etcetera.
2012-09-14 09:17:34 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


You mean he disagreed on the term 'Creator' that may be so but not for many of the signers.

But I would also say that the main traction of the anti-slavery movement was based on the fact the word Creator meant God.
2012-09-14 09:16:09 PM  
1 vote:

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 09:11:05 PM  
1 vote:
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 09:09:28 PM  
1 vote:
Sambecile's re-editing and over-dubbing proves intent.
2012-09-14 08:48:18 PM  
1 vote:

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 08:43:44 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-09-14 08:40:35 PM  
1 vote:

bingo the psych-o: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Link

They were warned. And did nothing. And on the anniversary of 9-11, no one in this administration could connect two dots with a crayon and lock down our embassy(s). Words fail to describe the fail.

Our governments only failing is not acknowledging that Islam has very serious issues when it comes to violence. I don't know why it's tolerated.


imageshack.us
Gee, lets review......
2012-09-14 08:37:38 PM  
1 vote:

Ambivalence: free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.


So if Mormons riot tomorrow over the Broadway play "The Book of Mormon" you believe the producers of that show should be immediately incarcerated, correct?
2012-09-14 08:31:30 PM  
1 vote:
He should not get in trouble for what he said.

He SHOULD get in trouble for misrepresenting what sort of film it was to the performers, and thus putting their lives and safety at serious risk.
2012-09-14 08:23:30 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-09-14 08:21:13 PM  
1 vote:

Indubitably: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nice, now we get to witness the libderp brigade proclaim that the 1st amendment is under review and the replay officials are under the hood. *cue the Bud Light commercial*

I don't know what was in this stupid 'movie', and quite honestly, I don't care. The attacks on US embassies and it's citizens has fark all to do with a piece of Youtube crap. But do keep farking that chicken. She's about to cum any minute. November cannot get here fast enough.

Wow.

Could you spew more smelly-ugly vitriol, please?

Clean up your discourse, sir.

I know you can and do.


This thread will speak for itself. As for my discourse, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of my 'discourse'. Anyone, ANYONE who thinks for one effing second that these attacks are
the result of a piece of Youtube video is 1. not paying attention. 2. Not educated enough to read all the accounts of so many who have said 'what movie?', 3. Like smoking Obamas pole so much, they have no other need for input and are beyond hope. You don't sound gay, so you're a #1. Wake up.
2012-09-14 08:16:29 PM  
1 vote:

ferretman: I find the way the John Stewart ridicules Christianity offensive. So he should be arrested and put in jail; I guess that goes for the majority of farkers as well.


I didn't know the Green Lantern liked to ridicule Christianity.
2012-09-14 08:10:00 PM  
1 vote:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nice, now we get to witness the libderp brigade proclaim that the 1st amendment is under review and the replay officials are under the hood. *cue the Bud Light commercial*

I don't know what was in this stupid 'movie', and quite honestly, I don't care. The attacks on US embassies and it's citizens has fark all to do with a piece of Youtube crap. But do keep farking that chicken. She's about to cum any minute. November cannot get here fast enough.


Wow.

Could you spew more smelly-ugly vitriol, please?

Clean up your discourse, sir.

I know you can and do.
2012-09-14 08:09:13 PM  
1 vote:

BMFPitt: Threads like these serve as a stark reminder of how just many of our fellow Americans would be thrilled to throw away one of our most sacred freedoms for the sake of a little perceived security or butthurt.


For a nation full of rugged individualists, we sure are pants-pissingly scared of shiat.
2012-09-14 08:05:52 PM  
1 vote:
Nice, now we get to witness the libderp brigade proclaim that the 1st amendment is under review and the replay officials are under the hood. *cue the Bud Light commercial*

I don't know what was in this stupid 'movie', and quite honestly, I don't care. The attacks on US embassies and it's citizens has fark all to do with a piece of Youtube crap. But do keep farking that chicken. She's about to cum any minute. November cannot get here fast enough.
2012-09-14 08:03:14 PM  
1 vote:
fark ALL YOU LOSER COWARDS, I HOPE YOU ALL DIE FROM CHOKING ON A GIANT DISEASED DICK
2012-09-14 07:59:09 PM  
1 vote:
Professors are usually a bit more clever than that. *reads article*

Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religious studies

Ah, that explains the idiocy.
2012-09-14 07:55:40 PM  
1 vote:
Obviously he doesn't value free speech.
2012-09-14 04:40:15 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: St_Francis_P: Nabb1: 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.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.

What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?

Yeah, sorry, that was supposed to come across as adding to your same point, but it looks contradictory. My bad. I've had a rough day.


No problem, I didn't mean to snipe.
2012-09-14 04:39:02 PM  
1 vote:

St_Francis_P: Nabb1: 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.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.

What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?


Yeah, sorry, that was supposed to come across as adding to your same point, but it looks contradictory. My bad. I've had a rough day.
2012-09-14 04:38:08 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: 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.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.


What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?
2012-09-14 04:32:13 PM  
1 vote:

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


Shot to hell in about 1 minute.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report