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.

(LA Times)   Taking filmmakers into custody for questioning, complete with perp walk: another thing that's perfectly okay when your guy is in charge but was an outrageous Orwellian crushing of dissent beforehand   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 409
    More: Asinine, muslims, perp walk, Los Angeles County, innocent  
•       •       •

3541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2012 at 3:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-15 10:23:29 AM
[Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]
 
2012-09-15 10:26:35 AM
FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.


So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-15 10:30:22 AM
If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.
 
2012-09-15 10:32:39 AM

St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]


Voluntary as in "come with us or we might accidentally leave your real name and address where the local bin-crazypantses can find it".
 
2012-09-15 10:33:31 AM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Voluntary as in "come with us or we might accidentally leave your real name and address where the local bin-crazypantses can find it".


If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.
 
2012-09-15 10:41:24 AM

St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.


So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?
 
2012-09-15 10:41:47 AM

St_Francis_P: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Voluntary as in "come with us or we might accidentally leave your real name and address where the local bin-crazypantses can find it".

If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.


If you're on probation and half the damned sheriffs in the state show up to request your presence at an interview downtown, you're probably not going to hesitate to volunteer
 
2012-09-15 10:44:41 AM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?


Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank, so they may look at it a little harder.
 
2012-09-15 10:49:24 AM
He looks like a real hero.
latimesblogs.latimes.com
 
2012-09-15 10:50:02 AM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?


of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.
 
2012-09-15 10:50:44 AM

St_Francis_P: Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank


Nobody died because of this prank.

They died because they had the bad fortune to be living their lives in the midst of religious batshiattery that will use any pretext for murder, or make one up if there's none at hand.
 
2012-09-15 10:56:29 AM

Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.


If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.
 
2012-09-15 10:58:18 AM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank

Nobody died because of this prank.

They died because they had the bad fortune to be living their lives in the midst of religious batshiattery that will use any pretext for murder, or make one up if there's none at hand.


Yeah, motive is totally irrelevant.
 
2012-09-15 11:03:08 AM

ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.


Because?
 
2012-09-15 11:04:48 AM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.


hey, chaos happened. powerful political people have taken notice. of course, if a proper scapegoat can be found...well that solves everything, doesn't it? so we've got someone here, a film maker, who's got a parole issue. he's got a funny sounding name. maybe he's not 'the guy' who started it all but hey, he's close enough. so we arrest him, put him in isolation and hit him with a ton of charges while we sort out just how to frame the story.
 
2012-09-15 11:05:12 AM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank

Nobody died because of this prank.

They died because they had the bad fortune to be living their lives in the midst of religious batshiattery that will use any pretext for murder, or make one up if there's none at hand.


Actually, it's looking like Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, using the riots as cover to get close to the embassy, but don't let that get in the way of your xenophobic rants.
 
2012-09-15 11:05:43 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.

Because?


because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.
 
2012-09-15 11:17:42 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

hey, chaos happened. powerful political people have taken notice. of course, if a proper scapegoat can be found...well that solves everything, doesn't it? so we've got someone here, a film maker, who's got a parole issue. he's got a funny sounding name. maybe he's not 'the guy' who started it all but hey, he's close enough. so we arrest him, put him in isolation and hit him with a ton of charges while we sort out just how to frame the story.


It is how it works, though. If he had been on probation for a possession charge and pissed off the DA by writing a letter to the editor biatching about local politics, something similar may have happened. I'm not agreeing with the actions of the authorities in this situation and I'll say that given the situation this is significantly more severe than my other example, but we've given so much leeway to authority that this is no surprise.
 
2012-09-15 11:20:29 AM

Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.


It seems so.
 
2012-09-15 11:28:40 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.


Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.
 
2012-09-15 11:32:59 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.

Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.


its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

this whole thing is surreal.
 
2012-09-15 11:37:52 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.


We covered this yesterday. But since you seemed to have missed it, take 21 minutes of your life to get an education. The first minute is all you will need but the remaining 20 is very enlightening too.
 
2012-09-15 11:44:36 AM

Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!


I'm sorry, did this guy not produce an anti-Islam video? I'm not seeing a correlation between the two things, here. It's not like the Muslim world is rioting because this guy's video was nice to Muslims. Additionally, if he did violate parole by uploading this video to the Internet, what's so surreal about that?
 
2012-09-15 11:46:06 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.

We covered this yesterday. But since you seemed to have missed it, take 21 minutes of your life to get an education. The first minute is all you will need but the remaining 20 is very enlightening too.


I'll tell you this one time:

Speech has consequences. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say or produce, don't do it. Criticism is not censorship. Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal. This is Communication 101 stuff.
 
2012-09-15 11:54:03 AM
Seems like your typical coward.
 
2012-09-15 11:54:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

I'm sorry, did this guy not produce an anti-Islam video? I'm not seeing a correlation between the two things, here. It's not like the Muslim world is rioting because this guy's video was nice to Muslims. Additionally, if he did violate parole by uploading this video to the Internet, what's so surreal about that?


no, he worked on a film project. a bunch of muslims (radicals all) in another country decided on their own that the film was 'anti-muslim'. but rather than writing a stern letter to the editor, they felt it more important to go out and murder a few people because hey - a wicked put down on a film review blog just wasn't gonna cut it in their universe.

But we're not gonna punish the actual murderers. no, we're going to punish the film crew. Because the first amendment is for wimps, and the people of this country only pay lip service to our own bill of rights.
 
2012-09-15 11:55:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I'll tell you this one time:

Speech has consequences. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say or produce, don't do it. Criticism is not censorship.


That goes without saying...EXCEPT in the case of official censure or oppression.

cameroncrazy1984: if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal.


Thank you John McCollum.
 
2012-09-15 12:00:23 PM

Weaver95: no, he worked on a film project. a bunch of muslims (radicals all) in another country decided on their own that the film was 'anti-muslim'.


How do you just decide a movie is anti-muslim or not? Either it is, or it isn't. Trying to say that this guy isn't the cause of all of this crap is weasely at best.

Dancin_In_Anson: That goes without saying...EXCEPT in the case of official censure or oppression.


Parole violation isn't either of those things.
 
2012-09-15 12:00:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 'll tell you this one time:

Speech has consequences. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say or produce, don't do it. Criticism is not censorship. Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal. This is Communication 101 stuff.


If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat. those people might be angry. they might go out and hurt other people. they might even murder someone because of my words....and I would STILL do it. in fact that would be the ONLY reason for doing it.

And the laws of this country, the laws of the United States say I can do this...and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
 
2012-09-15 12:01:30 PM

Weaver95: But we're not gonna punish the actual murderers. no, we're going to punish the film crew. Because the first amendment is for wimps, and the people of this country only pay lip service to our own bill of rights.


I missed this the first time around. How do you plan on "punishing the murderers"?

Additionally, do you think the riots would have still happened had this film not been made? No? Sounds like a primary cause to me. Thirdly, is a parole violation worth punishing or not?
 
2012-09-15 12:01:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: no, he worked on a film project. a bunch of muslims (radicals all) in another country decided on their own that the film was 'anti-muslim'.

How do you just decide a movie is anti-muslim or not? Either it is, or it isn't.


it's not my job to decide if a movie is offensive to someone else. my job would be to make a movie and sell it. if you get offended - hey, have at it. not my problem.
 
2012-09-15 12:02:29 PM

Weaver95: If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat.


Then you must be prepared for the consequences if they don't react the way you intend for them to react. Man up and admit that you made a mistake in producing something that you knew they would see as anti-Muslim, and that Americans died because of it.
 
2012-09-15 12:03:14 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: no, he worked on a film project. a bunch of muslims (radicals all) in another country decided on their own that the film was 'anti-muslim'.

How do you just decide a movie is anti-muslim or not? Either it is, or it isn't.

it's not my job to decide if a movie is offensive to someone else. my job would be to make a movie and sell it. if you get offended - hey, have at it. not my problem.


It is entirely your problem if you are so negligent in your production that four Americans die in reaction to it. That is 100% on you.
 
2012-09-15 12:03:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: But we're not gonna punish the actual murderers. no, we're going to punish the film crew. Because the first amendment is for wimps, and the people of this country only pay lip service to our own bill of rights.

I missed this the first time around. How do you plan on "punishing the murderers"?

Additionally, do you think the riots would have still happened had this film not been made? No? Sounds like a primary cause to me. Thirdly, is a parole violation worth punishing or not?


we found Bin Laden, i'm sure we could find a couple of murderers in libya.

As for the rest - i'll go in order

1. I have no idea
2. depends on the political situation.
 
2012-09-15 12:04:33 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I'll tell you this one time:

Speech has consequences. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say or produce, don't do it. Criticism is not censorship.

That goes without saying...EXCEPT in the case of official censure or oppression.

cameroncrazy1984: if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal.

Thank you John McCollum.


This is what happens after decades of voting for "tough on crime" politicians. Rampant authoritarianism allows cops and DAs the power to selectively apply rules and seemingly don't have their judgement questioned whenever they step over the line. Outside of the fact that there's an international incident associated with this dude, this is no different than the cops pulling you over more often because you tapped the cief of police's daughter and didn't call her the next day. This how we live.
 
2012-09-15 12:04:57 PM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Voluntary as in "come with us or we might accidentally leave your real name and address where the local bin-crazypantses can find it".


This has been on the local news for the past few days...there are news crews camped outside of his house 24/7. Everyone in SoCal knows where this guy lives.

This asshole is a convicted felon who served time in county and federal prison for two different crimes. He's a threat to his community.
 
2012-09-15 12:05:57 PM

Weaver95: 1. I have no idea
2. depends on the political situation.


Let me answer hat for you:

1. No, because that's the central rallying point for the riots and
2. Laws aren't dependent on political situations. That's why we call it the "rule of law"
 
2012-09-15 12:06:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It is entirely your problem if you are so negligent in your production that four Americans die in reaction to it. That is 100% on you


Your words anger me. So much so that I am going to shoot my coworker because of it. Now if you will just go quietly with the nice policeman who will soon be knocking at your door....
 
2012-09-15 12:06:52 PM
If I make a film that incites hundreds of KKK members to storm and burn down black churches, are the authorities going to go "hey, that's not his fault that they decided to go do that"?

No, they're going to get me for incitement to riot.
 
2012-09-15 12:07:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: It is entirely your problem if you are so negligent in your production that four Americans die in reaction to it. That is 100% on you

Your words anger me. So much so that I am going to shoot my coworker because of it. Now if you will just go quietly with the nice policeman who will soon be knocking at your door....


Only if I tell you "Hey, your coworker is a douchebag. Someone should kill him. I mean literally, go kill him"
 
2012-09-15 12:07:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Then you must be prepared for the consequences if they don't react the way you intend for them to react. Man up and admit that you made a mistake in producing something that you knew they would see as anti-Muslim, and that Americans died because of it.


f*ck.

no.

again - if I force you to confront the flaws in your ideology, then how you handle that is on YOU, not me. As a writer, if I evoke an emotional response that forces you to confront yourself...then I've done my job. the consequences of that are that my books will sell, people will discuss what i've written and maybe someone will carry my thoughts and ideas forward. if YOU don't like it, then it's your problem...not mine.

that's how it works. what you seem to be advocating is censorship and theocracy. neither ideas fit well in this country.
 
2012-09-15 12:08:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Only if I tell you "Hey, your coworker is a douchebag


So now we're narrowing it down...
 
2012-09-15 12:08:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal.


You mean like gangsta rap and violent movies and video games? If they can show that those things lead to violence in the streets, the government can ban those things and punish the producers? Is that your view of the First Amendment?
 
2012-09-15 12:08:57 PM
I love this line of thinking, that speech has no consequences. I bet DIA is the kind of guy that would run into a black neighborhood and shout racist slogans and when a bunch of guys come out all pissed off he'll defend himself by saying "Hey, first amendment!"
 
2012-09-15 12:09:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: It is entirely your problem if you are so negligent in your production that four Americans die in reaction to it. That is 100% on you

Your words anger me. So much so that I am going to shoot my coworker because of it. Now if you will just go quietly with the nice policeman who will soon be knocking at your door....

Only if I tell you "Hey, your coworker is a douchebag. Someone should kill him. I mean literally, go kill him"


but that's not what happened here and you know it.
 
2012-09-15 12:09:34 PM

Weaver95: then how you handle that is on YOU, not me


He obviously doesn't have the self control.
 
2012-09-15 12:09:57 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal.

You mean like gangsta rap and violent movies and video games? If they can show that those things lead to violence in the streets, the government can ban those things and punish the producers? Is that your view of the First Amendment?


No, because Call of Duty isn't an explicitly pro-street-violence video game. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
 
2012-09-15 12:10:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I love this line of thinking, that speech has no consequences. I bet DIA is the kind of guy that would run into a black neighborhood and shout racist slogans and when a bunch of guys come out all pissed off he'll defend himself by saying "Hey, first amendment!"


actually, I suspect DIA would be heavily armed, so I think you need to rethink your scenario....
 
2012-09-15 12:11:19 PM
Protesters are now clashing with police in Australia outside our Consulate, according to Google. But...anti-protests were calmer in the ME this morning. So there's that.
 
2012-09-15 12:11:26 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: then how you handle that is on YOU, not me

He obviously doesn't have the self control.


that's how authoritarians think. or what passes for thinking for them anyways. I find that world view to be...painful.
 
2012-09-15 12:11:31 PM

Weaver95: again - if I force you to confront the flaws in your ideology, then how you handle that is on YOU,


Haven't I seen you in here talking about Anders Breivik? And Sarah Palin? And how much these whacko conservatives are responsible for inciting hate and violence in their speech? Are you now saying that somehow these people are now NOT responsible if something like Breivik happens here?
 
2012-09-15 12:12:26 PM

Weaver95: !"


So now your view is that it's okay to incite violence as long as you're heavily armed because nobody else in that scenario is likely to be either.
 
2012-09-15 12:13:39 PM

Weaver95: Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: then how you handle that is on YOU, not me

He obviously doesn't have the self control.

that's how authoritarians think. or what passes for thinking for them anyways. I find that world view to be...painful.


Personal responsibility includes accepting the consequences of your speech. If you don't want to be blamed for a well-documented phenomena of Muslims reacting to anti-Muslim propaganda by rioting, then don't make anti-Muslim propaganda.
 
2012-09-15 12:14:48 PM
Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat
 
2012-09-15 12:14:59 PM
Look. I'm not saying we should arrest anyone for making a film. What I am saying is that the guy is 100% responsible for the film and the consequences of it. Those consequences include the fact that four Americans are now dead. I hope he can live with that. I sure couldn't.
 
2012-09-15 12:16:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: again - if I force you to confront the flaws in your ideology, then how you handle that is on YOU,

Haven't I seen you in here talking about Anders Breivik? And Sarah Palin? And how much these whacko conservatives are responsible for inciting hate and violence in their speech? Are you now saying that somehow these people are now NOT responsible if something like Breivik happens here?


i'm saying that if I write a book [Android is great! Or how I learned to love open source and hate the Apple] and someone else gets SO ANGRY at my words that they go on a murder spree...then I'm merely responsible for being a good writer.

however, if I get on fox news and say 'this here is george tiller [show picture]. he lives at 123 mulberry lane, anytown maryland and he murders unborn children every day, gee it'd be a shame if he fell down some stairs and landed on a couple of bullets' well then...yeah, i'd expect i'd need a damn good lawyer.
 
2012-09-15 12:19:16 PM

cameroncrazy1984:
Personal responsibility includes accepting the consequences of your speech. If you don't want to be blamed for a well-documented phenomena of Muslims reacting to anti-Muslim propaganda by rioting, then don't make anti-Muslim propaganda.


no, if I write a book and someone gets mad about my words, then their response is on THEM, not me. I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.
 
2012-09-15 12:20:19 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.


Sadly it does.
 
2012-09-15 12:20:58 PM

Weaver95: i'm saying that if I write a book [Android is great! Or how I learned to love open source and hate the Apple] and someone else gets SO ANGRY at my words that they go on a murder spree...then I'm merely responsible for being a good writer.


If you make a movie that says "The prophet you believe in is a murderer and a philanderer" and the reaction to it by those believers is that four people are dead, you are not a good writer. You are a propagandist.

Apparently you do not believe in the power or consequences of speech.
 
2012-09-15 12:22:12 PM

Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.


No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.
 
2012-09-15 12:22:42 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Then you must be prepared for the consequences if they don't react the way you intend for them to react. Man up and admit that you made a mistake in producing something that you knew they would see as anti-Muslim, and that Americans died because of it.

f*ck.

no.

again - if I force you to confront the flaws in your ideology, then how you handle that is on YOU, not me. As a writer, if I evoke an emotional response that forces you to confront yourself...then I've done my job. the consequences of that are that my books will sell, people will discuss what i've written and maybe someone will carry my thoughts and ideas forward. if YOU don't like it, then it's your problem...not mine.

that's how it works. what you seem to be advocating is censorship and theocracy. neither ideas fit well in this country.


The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

The riots that resulted from the Muslims in the middle east getting riled up resulted in several people dying, including the US Ambassador to Libya.

The guy was on parole, and uploading that film to the internet violated the terms of his parole (although making the film in the first place did not)
 
2012-09-15 12:23:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Look. I'm not saying we should arrest anyone for making a film. What I am saying is that the guy is 100% responsible for the film and the consequences of it. Those consequences include the fact that four Americans are now dead. I hope he can live with that. I sure couldn't.


Is Karl Marx personally responsible for the millions of deaths at the hands of Josef Stalin? I find it odd that on a website where people mock and hurl insults at just about every faith and those who follow, with phrases like "sky wizard," and "imaginary friend," that you would condemn someone for expressing ideas critical of a faith. Is this really the first time Islamic extremists have overreacted to something? This is preposterous. And considering this whole film outrage is probably just a ruse, anyway makes it all the more pathetic that our government is letting these savages dictate the narrative.
 
2012-09-15 12:25:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal.

You mean like gangsta rap and violent movies and video games? If they can show that those things lead to violence in the streets, the government can ban those things and punish the producers? Is that your view of the First Amendment?

No, because Call of Duty isn't an explicitly pro-street-violence video game. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Innocence of Muslims

isn't explicitly pro-violence either. It just makes some people really mad because they don't like the message, that's all. What you're advocating is called a Heckler's Veto.
 
2012-09-15 12:26:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984:
If you make a movie that says "The prophet you believe in is a murderer and a philanderer" and the reaction to it by those believers is that four people are dead, you are not a good writer. You are a propagandist.


no, that means i'm an AWESOME producer. to make a film that had such an emotional impact....I wish I really WAS that good. the fact that I was able to create such a storm of emotions is the entire point of art - ANY art. film, pictures, books...the point of art is to provoke an emotional response. how you handle that response is on you, not me. my job is to provoke that response. once that happens, its up to you to decide what to do with it. Personally, I would hope that anything I created didn't result in a murder spree...but that's a personal opinion.

Apparently you do not believe in the power or consequences of speech.

oh I have great respect for the power of art to motivate people and generate emotional responses.
 
2012-09-15 12:26:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.


At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.
 
2012-09-15 12:26:58 PM

Nabb1: that you would condemn someone for expressing ideas critical of a faith.


I'm just saying that if you happen to criticize someone's faith, and do it in such a way as to insult their main prophet, don't go clutching your pearls if they react badly to it. You KNOW what they're gonna do. It's not like this is some great, mystifying reaction that has never happened before when someone insults Mohammed.
 
2012-09-15 12:27:26 PM
It is like those dickheads who burn flags.
I don't agree with it, I don't like it, but damned if I won't defend the constitutional right to do it.
This guy is an asshole, and his "work" has been used by some extremists to whip people into a frenzy, but this is still America and he is still free to say what he wants to say.

/The parole violation, I'm not so sure
//they got Capone for Income Tax fraud, right?
 
2012-09-15 12:27:37 PM

Weaver95: actually, I suspect DIA would be heavily armed, so I think you need to rethink your scenario....


Shiat! He's on to me!
 
2012-09-15 12:28:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.


sometimes the best way to start a dialogue is to shake people up, shock them out of their normal patterns of thinking.
 
2012-09-15 12:28:26 PM

SkinnyHead: Innocence of Muslims isn't explicitly pro-violence either. It just makes some people really mad because they don't like the message, that's all. What you're advocating is called a Heckler's Veto.


And no one, anywhere when they were making this video thought "hey, this could be a really bad idea, because of what happened with the Dutch cartoons!"

Nobody could've predicted that! Therefore there is no responsibility to think about the probable consequences of such actions!
 
2012-09-15 12:29:14 PM

Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.


Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"
 
2012-09-15 12:29:55 PM

King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.


i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:02 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.

sometimes the best way to start a dialogue is to shake people up, shock them out of their normal patterns of thinking.


Insulting a prophet of Islam is not one of those ways, obviously. Turned out to be the worst way to start a dialogue.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:16 PM

Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.


Ouch.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: that you would condemn someone for expressing ideas critical of a faith.

I'm just saying that if you happen to criticize someone's faith, and do it in such a way as to insult their main prophet, don't go clutching your pearls if they react badly to it. You KNOW what they're gonna do. It's not like this is some great, mystifying reaction that has never happened before when someone insults Mohammed.


Absolutely, but that's all on those people who react like barbarians. That sort of behavior has no place in modern civilization. Did Mormons burn down Broadway when "Book of Mormon" premiered? No, because the bulk of Mormons are not a bunch if thin-skinned zealots hell bent on dragging humanity back into the stone age.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"


you really don't get it, do you?
 
2012-09-15 12:30:44 PM

Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.


There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.
 
2012-09-15 12:31:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"


How would you have him "take responsibility"?
 
2012-09-15 12:32:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.


Yes, there is. Something wrong with THEM, not a free and open society where ideas can be put out there and either accepted or dismissed by the rest of us in a peaceable manner.
 
2012-09-15 12:32:24 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"

you really don't get it, do you?


No, I will never get why you advocate for people to say whatever they want without regard for the consequences of their actions. Rush is not responsible for anyone calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute. Nobody can blame him for right-wingers doing that because free speech somehow absolves him of the weight of his words.
 
2012-09-15 12:33:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.


then that's THEIR problem, not mine. you really can't understand that fact, can you?

huh. weird.
 
2012-09-15 12:34:44 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.

then that's THEIR problem, not mine. you really can't understand that fact, can you?

huh. weird.


If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.
 
2012-09-15 12:34:49 PM

MrBallou: Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat


It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.
 
2012-09-15 12:35:16 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"

you really don't get it, do you?

No, I will never get why you advocate for people to say whatever they want without regard for the consequences of their actions. Rush is not responsible for anyone calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute. Nobody can blame him for right-wingers doing that because free speech somehow absolves him of the weight of his words.


They are just words. And really, has Rush forced anyone to say those words? People may repeat him, but people repeat lots of things other people said first. Sounds to me like you have a problem merely with speech you don't like. Or speakers. People like you are why we need a First Amendment and staunch defenders of it.
 
2012-09-15 12:37:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984:
No, I will never get why you advocate for people to say whatever they want without regard for the consequences of their actions


I know. weird...but I think I believe you. of course, your views are an anathema to everything this country stands for and i'll fight you to your dying breath...but you've got a right to your authoritarian beliefs, even as offensive as they are to me and everything I believe.


. Rush is not responsible for anyone calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute. Nobody can blame him for right-wingers doing that because free speech somehow absolves him of the weight of his words.

Rush DID face consequences for those comments. a boycott that cost him several million bucks. he had a right to be an insulting prick, and customers had a right to organize a boycott. book it, done.
 
2012-09-15 12:37:14 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat

It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.


But it wouldn't be their fault! Those Americans would be dead this week anyway! Or something.
 
2012-09-15 12:38:08 PM

Weaver95: Rush DID face consequences for those comments. a boycott that cost him several million bucks. he had a right to be an insulting prick, and customers had a right to organize a boycott. book it, done.


So then why are you saying that these filmmakers should not face consequences either? Again, I'm not advocating for government censorship, here.
 
2012-09-15 12:38:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984:
If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.


actually, its on the people who committed the murders, not the film makers or actors.
 
2012-09-15 12:39:08 PM

Weaver95: Rush DID face consequences for those comments. a boycott that cost him several million bucks. he had a right to be an insulting prick, and customers had a right to organize a boycott. book it, done.


Exactly! That is how you respond. No embassies trashed and no one killed.
 
2012-09-15 12:39:55 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984:
If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.

actually, its on the people who committed the murders, not the film makers or actors.


I think we're spinning our wheels at this point.
 
2012-09-15 12:43:07 PM

GAT_00: It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-15 12:43:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: MrBallou: Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat

It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.

But it wouldn't be their fault! Those Americans would be dead this week anyway! Or something.


It isn't the most unreasonable way to try to sway an election. Dead soldiers in the past has tended to get people to vote Republican. It's utterly callous and hideous, so it's something I don't have any trouble imagining the GOP trying to win an election with. It's not like they actually care who dies, they just want dead Americans and riots.
 
2012-09-15 12:43:45 PM
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Christian Party?
 
2012-09-15 12:43:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Innocence of Muslims isn't explicitly pro-violence either. It just makes some people really mad because they don't like the message, that's all. What you're advocating is called a Heckler's Veto.

And no one, anywhere when they were making this video thought "hey, this could be a really bad idea, because of what happened with the Dutch cartoons!"

Nobody could've predicted that! Therefore there is no responsibility to think about the probable consequences of such actions!


"Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob." Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-135 (1992)
 
2012-09-15 12:44:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: Rush DID face consequences for those comments. a boycott that cost him several million bucks. he had a right to be an insulting prick, and customers had a right to organize a boycott. book it, done.

So then why are you saying that these filmmakers should not face consequences either? Again, I'm not advocating for government censorship, here.


yes, you ARE advocating government censorship. you're also being intellectually dishonest - the mob saw a movie, didn't like it...and murdered someone who just happened to be in the neighborhood. that's on the mob, not the film makers. the people who made the film are in the clear. you want someone to blame, blame the people who committed murder.

seriously - why can't you understand this? lets try it this way - if I run a red light, should I get a ticket or should Nabb1 get it? my view is that if I run a red light, then I should get the ticket. your view is that Nabb1 should get the ticket because I ran a red light. that's really what we're discussing.
 
2012-09-15 12:48:00 PM

GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: MrBallou: Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat

It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.

But it wouldn't be their fault! Those Americans would be dead this week anyway! Or something.

It isn't the most unreasonable way to try to sway an election. Dead soldiers in the past has tended to get people to vote Republican. It's utterly callous and hideous, so it's something I don't have any trouble imagining the GOP trying to win an election with. It's not like they actually care who dies, they just want dead Americans and riots.


i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-15 12:52:35 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: Rush DID face consequences for those comments. a boycott that cost him several million bucks. he had a right to be an insulting prick, and customers had a right to organize a boycott. book it, done.

So then why are you saying that these filmmakers should not face consequences either? Again, I'm not advocating for government censorship, here.

yes, you ARE advocating government censorship. you're also being intellectually dishonest - the mob saw a movie, didn't like it...and murdered someone who just happened to be in the neighborhood. that's on the mob, not the film makers. the people who made the film are in the clear. you want someone to blame, blame the people who committed murder.

seriously - why can't you understand this? lets try it this way - if I run a red light, should I get a ticket or should Nabb1 get it? my view is that if I run a red light, then I should get the ticket. your view is that Nabb1 should get the ticket because I ran a red light. that's really what we're discussing.


Well, I once made a film about running a red light. Goddamn traffic cameras.
 
2012-09-15 12:53:03 PM
No shiat eh?
 
2012-09-15 12:57:36 PM
I see the usual suspects are mad at me, and I completely understand why. You're worried I'm right.

But come on, this isn't unreasonable. Obama's biggest strength is foreign policy, and that's a traditional Republican strength. So let's weaken it: anti-American riots! That'll do the trick. But how do we do it? Of course, a movie about how Muhammad wasn't perfect. We know how the Arab world reacts. This response was completely predicable, with a little manipulating. Get some important clerics to see it, get some hotheads to rile people up, boom, riots. So of course some Republican group sponsors this. Depending on how it plays out, it could easily shift opinion against Obama, and all it would take would be a couple of dead Americans and a few million bucks. These people don't care about their fellow man, so the deaths are irrelevant to them, and they'll spend anything to get Obama out of the White House.

Now come on people, this isn't an unreasonable extrapolation. Might even explain why Romney ran so quickly to condemn it: he knew it was coming. He's just such an incredibly bad politician he muffed it.
 
2012-09-15 12:59:27 PM
The attack in Benghazi was apparently carried out out by alqaeda sympathizers, not in response to the video.

It's easier to lump all Muslims in all countries together but it doesn't produce an accurate picture of the world or help us solve our problems. If Americans can't be bothered with details like this how can we expect them to care about the difference between Terry Jones and the Pope?

Farkers can do better, anyway.
 
2012-09-15 01:00:53 PM

GAT_00: I see the usual suspects are mad at me


A more appropriate term would be extremely amused.
 
2012-09-15 01:03:22 PM
Jesus Christ, a thread where I agree with D_I_A and Skinnyhead. Somebody shoot me.

There's a difference between provocation and inducement - you can't (and shouldn't) be held accountable for what someone does simply because they're outraged by what you have to say. This guy is obviously a douchebag of the first degree and deserves all the scorn he's earned, but it's not like he was prowling around in Benghazi recruiting people to storm the consulate.
 
2012-09-15 01:04:04 PM

St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]


I wonder how many of the guys in gitmo were officially arrested
 
2012-09-15 01:07:01 PM

dethmagnetic: Jesus Christ, a thread where I agree with D_I_A and Skinnyhead. Somebody shoot me.

There's a difference between provocation and inducement - you can't (and shouldn't) be held accountable for what someone does simply because they're outraged by what you have to say. This guy is obviously a douchebag of the first degree and deserves all the scorn he's earned, but it's not like he was prowling around in Benghazi recruiting people to storm the consulate.


The people who funded him might have.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-15 01:07:46 PM
Dancin_In_Anson

The guy who did the offensive part(*) strikes me as the guy who pokes a stick into a yellowjacket nest a stirs up a swarm, as opposed to the guy who accidentally takes his lawnmower over one. So no sympathy from me. I also think Porsche Girl's father should be able to grab an Uzi and unload on some b-tards. And I've advocated occasional road shootings as a way to make traffic more polite.

(*) One article said the audio was overdubbed later, which means those taking revenge need to be careful to hit the right target rather than going after everybody involved.
 
2012-09-15 01:08:57 PM
i595.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-15 01:12:09 PM

GAT_00: Might even explain why Romney ran so quickly to condemn it: he knew it was coming.


W. Mitt Romney is a liar who'll say anything to get elected with no interest in serving his country, just in being the boss.

But the reason he was so quick to condemn the embassy statement is "Obama the apologizer" has been a GOP catch-phrase and central to his campaign from the beginning. He was desperate for a win and thought he had gold and was eager to hold it high for all to see. He's an ambitious clod who wants to win more than he wants to govern and sees the attack as an advantage in the election but there's no way he knew it would happen.
 
2012-09-15 01:13:29 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: [i595.photobucket.com image 221x228]


I don't mind being wrong here. It would be nice to find out that even Republicans aren't this evil. I just wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.
 
2012-09-15 01:20:22 PM

GAT_00: I see the usual suspects are mad at me


Uh, no, more like really entertained.

and I completely understand why. You're worried I'm right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No chance in hell.
 
2012-09-15 01:20:54 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984:
If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.

actually, its on the people who committed the murders, not the film makers or actors.



THIS!!!
 
2012-09-15 01:23:03 PM

GAT_00: I see the usual suspects are mad at me, and I completely understand why. You're worried I'm right.

But come on, this isn't unreasonable. Obama's biggest strength is foreign policy, and that's a traditional Republican strength. So let's weaken it: anti-American riots! That'll do the trick. But how do we do it? Of course, a movie about how Muhammad wasn't perfect. We know how the Arab world reacts. This response was completely predicable, with a little manipulating. Get some important clerics to see it, get some hotheads to rile people up, boom, riots. So of course some Republican group sponsors this. Depending on how it plays out, it could easily shift opinion against Obama, and all it would take would be a couple of dead Americans and a few million bucks. These people don't care about their fellow man, so the deaths are irrelevant to them, and they'll spend anything to get Obama out of the White House.

Now come on people, this isn't an unreasonable extrapolation. Might even explain why Romney ran so quickly to condemn it: he knew it was coming. He's just such an incredibly bad politician he muffed it.


I think it more likely that Team Romney was merely trying to take advantage of an opportunity - they saw the riots, figured 'hey, some americans got killed...we can use this against Obama!' and then proceeded to act like assholes about the whole thing. actually...I like your idea better. I really don't like the thought of Romney's people seeing the random deaths/murder of US citizens as a target of opportunity. I feel a bit better if this WAS part of some elaborate conspiracy. then at least there would be some illusion of control over it all. some hint of a greater plan. the alternative is to admit that Romney sees the death of US embassy personnel as a momentary advantage, then moved to feed off it while he could gain some measure of tactical advantage.
 
2012-09-15 01:24:44 PM
The guy is a convicted felon who was ordered to stay off of the Internet for five years. He clearly hasn't. I'm sure there's some other shiat they'd like to talk to him about, too. And he went in voluntarily.

But keep taking the side of the felon film producer who hired a soft porn director and tricked everyone involved. You right wingnuts are great at being on the wrong side of every single issue.
 
2012-09-15 01:38:05 PM

shower_in_my_socks: The guy is a convicted felon who was ordered to stay off of the Internet for five years. He clearly hasn't. I'm sure there's some other shiat they'd like to talk to him about, too. And he went in voluntarily.

But keep taking the side of the felon film producer who hired a soft porn director and tricked everyone involved. You right wingnuts are great at being on the wrong side of every single issue.


The guy may be an asshole. And his film may be a turd. But, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants. If you have a problem with that, then you are on the wrong side.
 
2012-09-15 01:40:33 PM

Nabb1: The guy may be an asshole. And his film may be a turd. But, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants. If you have a problem with that, then you are on the wrong side.



You didn't read any of my post, did you? He's a convicted felon, and part of his sentence was that he stay off of the Internet for a certain number of years. He has now posted a video to the Internet that has sparked deadly riots. You don't see a possible legal issue there that might make law enforcement want to at least have a conversation with him?
 
2012-09-15 01:40:42 PM
I must have mistakenly logged on to bizarrofark where there is civil and rational debate on the politics tab. Any chance you guys can make this a habit?
 
</modjack>
 
2012-09-15 01:46:10 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: The guy may be an asshole. And his film may be a turd. But, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants. If you have a problem with that, then you are on the wrong side.


You didn't read any of my post, did you? He's a convicted felon, and part of his sentence was that he stay off of the Internet for a certain number of years. He has now posted a video to the Internet that has sparked deadly riots. You don't see a possible legal issue there that might make law enforcement want to at least have a conversation with him?


How do you know he posted it to the Internet?
 
2012-09-15 01:46:33 PM

GAT_00: dethmagnetic: Jesus Christ, a thread where I agree with D_I_A and Skinnyhead. Somebody shoot me.

There's a difference between provocation and inducement - you can't (and shouldn't) be held accountable for what someone does simply because they're outraged by what you have to say. This guy is obviously a douchebag of the first degree and deserves all the scorn he's earned, but it's not like he was prowling around in Benghazi recruiting people to storm the consulate.

The people who funded him might have.


Terry Jones has a history of inciting Muslims to riot. He burned the Koran a couple of years ago, just to get them to riot.

/And every time he does...every time...atheists come to slobber his knob, when they should be wanting him to be dropped off in the middle of Libya.
 
2012-09-15 01:46:34 PM
ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.

You want to turn an American citizen over to terrorists? How about you go talk to Danny Pearl, motherfarker?

Even this vile perp-walked asstard has the full panoply of inalienable rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Let the courts of the law speak to him.

So go f*ck yourself. Twice. No, three times.
 
2012-09-15 01:47:29 PM

dugitman: I must have mistakenly logged on to bizarrofark where there is civil and rational debate on the politics tab. Any chance you guys can make this a habit?
 
</modjack>


I'll have to apologize for the group.
Bunch of savages out there.
 
2012-09-15 01:47:43 PM

Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!


Or, it's more like "If we don't get you out of here right now, you'll be murdered in the streets just like Theo van Gogh".
 
2012-09-15 01:47:53 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: The guy may be an asshole. And his film may be a turd. But, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants. If you have a problem with that, then you are on the wrong side.


You didn't read any of my post, did you? He's a convicted felon, and part of his sentence was that he stay off of the Internet for a certain number of years. He has now posted a video to the Internet that has sparked deadly riots. You don't see a possible legal issue there that might make law enforcement want to at least have a conversation with him?


oh sure! I mean...he's probably been online for a while but now that he's part of something that's attracted international attention, NOW we'll go after him for minor parole violations. Because hey - he's GUILTY of SOMETHING, right? we're not sure what he's done but f*ck man...lets give him the death penalty. oh, right - parole violation! yeah! lets make sure he gets raped in prison too. that'll show him!

USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-09-15 01:50:12 PM

Mentat: Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

Or, it's more like "If we don't get you out of here right now, you'll be murdered in the streets just like Theo van Gogh".


do you REALLY think that radical muslim terrorist organizations have infiltrated the US to the point where they can organize death squads here in our country? really?
 
2012-09-15 01:52:49 PM

crypticsatellite: How do you know he posted it to the Internet?



The fake name he was using was Sam Bacile, and that's the account name that the trailer was posted with. That's more than enough for the police to meet with him, considering he was convicted for committing felonies over the Internet, and was only staying out of prison on the agreement that he would not use the Internet. Dude has a pretty long rap sheet. And keep in mind he was not arrested and agreed to come in for questioning.
 
2012-09-15 01:53:02 PM

IlGreven: Terry Jones has a history of inciting Muslims to riot. He burned the Koran a couple of years ago, just to get them to riot.

/And every time he does...every time...atheists come to slobber his knob

...

? My perception-- Jones is considered a complete asshole by nearly everyone regardless of religion or lack thereof.
 
/apatheist
 
2012-09-15 01:54:13 PM
IlGreven 2012-09-15 01:46:33 PM

Terry Jones has a history of inciting Muslims to riot. He burned the Koran a couple of years ago, just to get them to riot.

/And every time he does...every time...atheists come to slobber his knob, when they should be wanting him to be dropped off in the middle of Libya.


THEN FOR FRAKS SAKE DROP TERRY JONES IN THERE!!

Shiat, you guys keep doing exactly the wrong farking thing!!
 
2012-09-15 01:55:33 PM

Weaver95: he's probably been online for a while but now



How would they have previously known that he was on the Internet? Think of all of the thousands of Internet fraud convicts out there that aren't supposed to use the Internet -- do you think law enforcement is following their every move to make sure they aren't slipping away into Internet cafes? The rest of your post is hyperbole that bears no resemblance to reality.
 
2012-09-15 01:59:19 PM
 
2012-09-15 02:00:47 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: he's probably been online for a while but now


How would they have previously known that he was on the Internet? Think of all of the thousands of Internet fraud convicts out there that aren't supposed to use the Internet -- do you think law enforcement is following their every move to make sure they aren't slipping away into Internet cafes? The rest of your post is hyperbole that bears no resemblance to reality.


oh i'm sure this guy has violated his parole a couple/few times. could I prove it in a court of law? probably not....but do I think it reasonable that he's violated his computer restrictions? oh hells yes. But nobody really cared about those restrictions, so long as he wasn't blatantly obvious about it. Now tho...NOW it's important because hey - people are mad! someone has to be blamed and well...hey. here's a guy with a possible parole violation. technically, he probably DID violate his parole restrictions in some way.

I find it fascinating that NOW these restrictions of his computer use are somehow important. nobody cared about it until now. probably wasn't even enforced. but hey, it's political. world wide, in fact. so lets crack down on the parole issue, right? because hey - NOW that people are paying attention, NOW those minor technical violations are important. they're THE most important thing in the history of ever, right?
 
2012-09-15 02:02:03 PM

Weaver95: Mentat: Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

Or, it's more like "If we don't get you out of here right now, you'll be murdered in the streets just like Theo van Gogh".

do you REALLY think that radical muslim terrorist organizations have infiltrated the US to the point where they can organize death squads here in our country? really?


Dude, a single guy walked up to Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam and shot him to death.
 
2012-09-15 02:04:14 PM

Mentat: Weaver95: Mentat: Weaver95: its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

Or, it's more like "If we don't get you out of here right now, you'll be murdered in the streets just like Theo van Gogh".

do you REALLY think that radical muslim terrorist organizations have infiltrated the US to the point where they can organize death squads here in our country? really?

Dude, a single guy walked up to Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam and shot him to death.


yeah, but here in the US, you're in a position to return fire....
 
2012-09-15 02:04:55 PM

Weaver95: But nobody really cared about those restrictions



I'll ask again: How would law enforcement have known before now that he was violating his probation? Even with this video, he was using a fake name not previously used in the other crimes that he's used fake names for. So what evidence do you have that the police knew he was violating his probation but didn't do anything until now? And why are you so outraged that upon realizing he was posting videos to the Internet, the police asked him to voluntarily meet with them for questioning, which he agreed to?
 
2012-09-15 02:06:03 PM
*sigh*

Once again I ave to agree with Weaver.

Yes, this guy is a shiat-stirring asshole who sees his own ideology as being superior enough to incite riots and endanger others. Ultimately, though, I can't think of anything more dangerous than using the force of the government to quell free speech regardless of the circumstances. Even the "'fire' in a crowded theater" is pretty weak to me. It allows too much discretion to limit speech.

I don't give two farks about this asshat, but the 1st Amendment is truly our best law.
 
2012-09-15 02:06:03 PM
Weav, what's going on with you?
 
2012-09-15 02:06:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: But nobody really cared about those restrictions


I'll ask again: How would law enforcement have known before now that he was violating his probation? Even with this video, he was using a fake name not previously used in the other crimes that he's used fake names for. So what evidence do you have that the police knew he was violating his probation but didn't do anything until now? And why are you so outraged that upon realizing he was posting videos to the Internet, the police asked him to voluntarily meet with them for questioning, which he agreed to?


you keep missing my point....in fact, you drove 20 miles around my point, then stopped for lunch and ignored your map that had my point circled and highlighted in big red marker.
 
2012-09-15 02:06:40 PM
*have
 
2012-09-15 02:06:57 PM

Mentat: do you REALLY think that radical muslim terrorist organizations have infiltrated the US to the point where they can organize death squads here in our country? really?

Dude, a single guy walked up to Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam and shot him to death.



And wasn't it reported earlier that this guy called the police a couple of days ago asking for protection? "Hello, I'm a felon who has violated my probation by posting an inflamatory video to the Internet that has gotten innocent Americans killed. Can you please help me?"

It's like the dude who calls the police to report the theft of his marijuana plants.
 
2012-09-15 02:07:28 PM

Weaver95: yeah, but here in the US, you're in a position to return fire....


That worked so well for Gabrielle Giffords.

I personally don't think the guy is responsible for what's happening. The only group I've seen more susceptible to conspiracy theories than poor Middle Eastern Muslims in American Tea Baggers. If it wasn't this, it would have been something else. But I also don't want some lone gunman taking matters into his own hands. If I were in charge, I would absolutely be putting the guy into protective custody no matter what I thought of him personally.
 
2012-09-15 02:08:35 PM

Weaver95: you keep missing my point....in fact, you drove 20 miles around my point, then stopped for lunch and ignored your map that had my point circled and highlighted in big red marker.



Just answer the question: What evidence do you have that the police previously knew he was violating his probation, but didn't do anything about it until now? That's the whole foundation for your point.
 
2012-09-15 02:08:52 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: The guy may be an asshole. And his film may be a turd. But, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants. If you have a problem with that, then you are on the wrong side.


You didn't read any of my post, did you? He's a convicted felon, and part of his sentence was that he stay off of the Internet for a certain number of years. He has now posted a video to the Internet that has sparked deadly riots. You don't see a possible legal issue there that might make law enforcement want to at least have a conversation with him?


Yes, I read it all, and no, there is no legal issue. At least not one that would get a prosecutor's case bounced out of court so hard it would leave a damage on the courthouse steps.
 
2012-09-15 02:09:27 PM

Mentat: Weaver95: yeah, but here in the US, you're in a position to return fire....

That worked so well for Gabrielle Giffords.

I personally don't think the guy is responsible for what's happening. The only group I've seen more susceptible to conspiracy theories than poor Middle Eastern Muslims in American Tea Baggers. If it wasn't this, it would have been something else. But I also don't want some lone gunman taking matters into his own hands. If I were in charge, I would absolutely be putting the guy into protective custody no matter what I thought of him personally.


I dunno. I don't think that he's in any danger. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's gonna get killed anyways. Hey, at least he isn't in new york...even odds on who would shoot him first - a muslim death squad or cops chasing down random suspects and shooting everyone they see on the street.
 
2012-09-15 02:10:20 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: you keep missing my point....in fact, you drove 20 miles around my point, then stopped for lunch and ignored your map that had my point circled and highlighted in big red marker.


Just answer the question: What evidence do you have that the police previously knew he was violating his probation, but didn't do anything about it until now? That's the whole foundation for your point.


you REALLY want to avoid the topics I raised, don't you? interesting.
 
2012-09-15 02:10:35 PM

Nabb1: Yes, I read it all, and no, there is no legal issue.



No legal issue with a felon violating his probation? GED in law, right?
 
2012-09-15 02:11:23 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Yes, I read it all, and no, there is no legal issue.


No legal issue with a felon violating his probation? GED in law, right?


its interesting how this is suddenly important now, when it wasn't important before.
 
2012-09-15 02:12:18 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Yes, I read it all, and no, there is no legal issue.


No legal issue with a felon violating his probation? GED in law, right?


He very well may be in violation of his probation, but this may be one of those cases where the discretion of the system should side with the 1st amendment. Besides, if he's allowed to use the internet fro work, wouldn't this film apply?
 
2012-09-15 02:12:26 PM

Weaver95: you REALLY want to avoid the topics I raised, don't you? interesting.



The topic you are raising is that the police only care about this guy because now people are pissed off and they have to do SOMETHING. That entire argument is based on the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED PREMISE that they already knew hew as violating his probation and did nothing.

A few minutes ago you were accusing us all of wanting him dead and raped in prison. I don't remember you being this unreasonable in the past.
 
2012-09-15 02:14:33 PM

doyner: He very well may be in violation of his probation, but this may be one of those cases where the discretion of the system should side with the 1st amendment.



That's fine. And he wasn't arrested. So it's possible the police and DA agree. I just find it strange that people here are going totally apeshiat because he voluntarily went in for questioning -- especially if it's true that he called the police a couple of days ago asking for help.
 
2012-09-15 02:16:28 PM

Weaver95: I dunno. I don't think that he's in any danger. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's gonna get killed anyways. Hey, at least he isn't in new york...even odds on who would shoot him first - a muslim death squad or cops chasing down random suspects and shooting everyone they see on the street.


That's a pretty naive view in my opinion, given the history of this sort of thing. We kind of let our guard down in America because our system has moderated the worst instincts of religious fundamentalists. We're so used to seeing angry emails and raging forum trolls that we forget that some people think this crap is worth killing over. In this country, it's incredibly easy to track someone down and kill them, given the openness of our society, but our citizenry by and large choose not to exploit that openness in that way.
 
2012-09-15 02:16:45 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: you REALLY want to avoid the topics I raised, don't you? interesting.


The topic you are raising is that the police only care about this guy because now people are pissed off and they have to do SOMETHING. That entire argument is based on the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED PREMISE that they already knew hew as violating his probation and did nothing.

A few minutes ago you were accusing us all of wanting him dead and raped in prison. I don't remember you being this unreasonable in the past.


no, its based on the fact that nobody seemed to care about his possible parole violation until the US embassy was attacked and this guy helped make the film that's being blamed as the root cause of the attack. NOW the cops care. prior to this, they had other things to do with their time.
 
2012-09-15 02:18:03 PM

Mentat: Weaver95: I dunno. I don't think that he's in any danger. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's gonna get killed anyways. Hey, at least he isn't in new york...even odds on who would shoot him first - a muslim death squad or cops chasing down random suspects and shooting everyone they see on the street.

That's a pretty naive view in my opinion, given the history of this sort of thing.



Not only that, but one of the people he worked on the film with told him he would be "the next Theo Van Gogh" and the guy basically said he was OK with that. It doesn't even take an organization -- just one pissed-off nut with a weapon.
 
2012-09-15 02:18:21 PM
I think it's been fairly well established that extremist Muslims act like children when their god or prophet are insulted. We know what will happen every time they get taunted in a high profile way: violence. It's pretty much automatic. It's great to say that people shouldn't act that way and to point to examples of followers of other religions that don't act that way, but the reality in this situation is that extremist Muslims DO act that way, regardless of whether they should.

This is akin to the child with a behavioral disorder that can't turn off his rage when teased. If kids tease the spastic kid just to watch the fireworks and the spastic kid causes damages to property or people, don't we punish those kids that teased him as well as the spastic kid?

This asshole knew what would happen after put up the video. He knew there would be violence. If it can be shown that he mae the video public for the express purpose of inciting this violence, or even if it was one of several goals, I don't believe it can be called protected speech.
 
2012-09-15 02:18:39 PM

shower_in_my_socks: doyner: He very well may be in violation of his probation, but this may be one of those cases where the discretion of the system should side with the 1st amendment.


That's fine. And he wasn't arrested. So it's possible the police and DA agree. I just find it strange that people here are going totally apeshiat because he voluntarily went in for questioning -- especially if it's true that he called the police a couple of days ago asking for help.


I could certainly see him feeling as though he needs police protection. Can't say he didn't bring it on himself though.

But no, I'm not going apeshiat or wishing him to DIAF. If he did DIAF I wouldn't be happy about it, but he would be reaping what he has sown.
 
2012-09-15 02:20:04 PM

Weaver95: no, its based on the fact that nobody seemed to care about his possible parole violation



HOW DID THEY KNOW PREVIOUSLY THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION? Prove to us right here that a month ago the police knew he was violating his probation.
 
2012-09-15 02:23:02 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Yes, I read it all, and no, there is no legal issue.


No legal issue with a felon violating his probation? GED in law, right?


No legal issue in terms of the film and any violence that resulted. I don't know what the terms of his probation are, or why you think they are suddenly so significant in this discussion. But, if you really want to argue legal issues with me, go ahead and put your big boy pants on, Atticus. Let's see what you've got.
 
2012-09-15 02:23:12 PM

Mentat: Weaver95: I dunno. I don't think that he's in any danger. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's gonna get killed anyways. Hey, at least he isn't in new york...even odds on who would shoot him first - a muslim death squad or cops chasing down random suspects and shooting everyone they see on the street.

That's a pretty naive view in my opinion, given the history of this sort of thing. We kind of let our guard down in America because our system has moderated the worst instincts of religious fundamentalists. We're so used to seeing angry emails and raging forum trolls that we forget that some people think this crap is worth killing over. In this country, it's incredibly easy to track someone down and kill them, given the openness of our society, but our citizenry by and large choose not to exploit that openness in that way.


if I were a muslim death squad...i'd be more afraid of this country than I would in my own. sure, you could track someone down fairly easy. you could probably even get a gun without much trouble. but...getting to your target and actually murdering them is another thing entirely. to the rest of the world, what scares the f*ck out of them about our society is the sheer chaos of it all. you don't know what's going to happen here - you could get pulled over by the cops, you could get shot in a completely random act of street violence. your target could be well protected. he could be home. he could be out somewhere. the neighbors can get suspicious, upload your license plate and face to the net and alert your target. the target could be better armed than you. his neighbors probably ARE better armed than you, and there is no way of knowing how they're gonna jump.

i'm more worried about catching a bullet from a cop than I am from any of the 40 odd death threats i've gotten over my fark comments made over the past couple/few years. muslim death squads? c'mon down! mind the speed traps on rt 81 though and whatever you do - DON'T go near three mile island on your way here!
 
2012-09-15 02:25:01 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: no, its based on the fact that nobody seemed to care about his possible parole violation


HOW DID THEY KNOW PREVIOUSLY THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION? Prove to us right here that a month ago the police knew he was violating his probation.


um...that's my point. they didn't care to check until AFTER this became news. i've only been hammering this home to you for 40 minutes now.
 
2012-09-15 02:26:03 PM

Weaver95: i'm more worried about catching a bullet from a cop than I am from any of the 40 odd death threats i've gotten over my fark comments made over the past couple/few years.


encrypted-tbn3.google.com
 
2012-09-15 02:29:53 PM

Nabb1: I don't know what the terms of his probation are



Well I do. So you're in luck!

He was banned from using the Internet after committing bank fraud to the tune of $790k. He may have also been banned from using false identities. He has now been publicly busted for doing both. So federal probation officials had him come in for questioning. Of course they would. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged. They're just doing their farking jobs, and people here are losing their minds over it.
 
2012-09-15 02:30:33 PM

Weaver95: they didn't care to check until AFTER this became news.



How do you know they weren't previously checking? He was using a fake name.
 
2012-09-15 02:30:55 PM

gameshowhost: 18 USC Sec. 2101


The federal statute against inciting a riot won't work.

"(b) As used in this chapter, the term "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." 18 USC 2102.

The film merely expressed ideas and beliefs, without advocating any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
 
2012-09-15 02:31:54 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: I don't know what the terms of his probation are


Well I do. So you're in luck!

He was banned from using the Internet after committing bank fraud to the tune of $790k. He may have also been banned from using false identities. He has now been publicly busted for doing both. So federal probation officials had him come in for questioning. Of course they would. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged. They're just doing their farking jobs, and people here are losing their minds over it.


Okay, well, that's all well and good. That doesn't change my opinion about the First Amendment issue we've all been debating and his supposed "responsibility" for the violence in the Middle East. Do you think he is culpable in that?
 
2012-09-15 02:33:54 PM

Weaver95: shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: no, its based on the fact that nobody seemed to care about his possible parole violation


HOW DID THEY KNOW PREVIOUSLY THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION? Prove to us right here that a month ago the police knew he was violating his probation.

um...that's my point. they didn't care to check until AFTER this became news. i've only been hammering this home to you for 40 minutes now.


Do you think it's possible that a parole officer doesn't have the resources to follow a parolee online and see if he's violating his parole?

In any case, do you think that, if a parole officer is made aware of the fact, by any means, that one of their parolees is violating their parole, that it might be their mandate to do something about it?
 
2012-09-15 02:34:01 PM

Nabb1: That doesn't change my opinion about the First Amendment issue we've all been debating and his supposed "responsibility" for the violence in the Middle East. Do you think he is culpable in that?



No, I don't. And that's not why he was questioned. So until they actually charge him with something related to inciting violence in the Middle East, I'm perfectly fine with probation officials enforcing probation terms.
 
2012-09-15 02:37:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: That doesn't change my opinion about the First Amendment issue we've all been debating and his supposed "responsibility" for the violence in the Middle East. Do you think he is culpable in that?


No, I don't. And that's not why he was questioned. So until they actually charge him with something related to inciting violence in the Middle East, I'm perfectly fine with probation officials enforcing probation terms.


I agree.
 
2012-09-15 02:38:56 PM

Nabb1: No, I don't. And that's not why he was questioned. So until they actually charge him with something related to inciting violence in the Middle East, I'm perfectly fine with probation officials enforcing probation terms.

I agree.



Holy shiat. Two farkers agreed on something. So do we all die in a black hole now?
 
2012-09-15 02:39:42 PM
Weaver95 2012-09-15 02:25:01 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Weaver95: no, its based on the fact that nobody seemed to care about his possible parole violation

HOW DID THEY KNOW PREVIOUSLY THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION? Prove to us right here that a month ago the police knew he was violating his probation.


um...that's my point. they didn't care to check until AFTER this became news. i've only been hammering this home to you for 40 minutes now.


upload.wikimedia.org

Haha, so you're insinuating PsiCorps SHOULD exist. Great!
Anyone for Minority Report on top of that?
 
2012-09-15 02:45:53 PM

Kittypie070: Haha, so you're insinuating PsiCorps SHOULD exist. Great!
Anyone for Minority Report on top of that?



The irony is that he's accusing the police of being some kind of Orwellian thugs, while at the same time criticizing them for not using intrusive Orwellian monitoring tactics.
 
2012-09-15 02:46:42 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: No, I don't. And that's not why he was questioned. So until they actually charge him with something related to inciting violence in the Middle East, I'm perfectly fine with probation officials enforcing probation terms.

I agree.


Holy shiat. Two farkers agreed on something. So do we all die in a black hole now?


Probably. The admins will probably nuke our accounts and all references to us.
 
2012-09-15 02:54:16 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: I don't know what the terms of his probation are


Well I do. So you're in luck!

He was banned from using the Internet after committing bank fraud to the tune of $790k. He may have also been banned from using false identities. He has now been publicly busted for doing both. So federal probation officials had him come in for questioning. Of course they would. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged. They're just doing their farking jobs, and people here are losing their minds over it.


Hell, they haven't even accused him of anything. He's on probation. TFA says they are checking to see if he uploaded anything. I don't believe they're going after him for using a pen name. They could very well take a look into his computer history and find he didn't upload anything.
 
2012-09-15 02:58:40 PM
Oh hey guys, what's...

*looks around*

*slowly backs out...*
 
2012-09-15 03:00:12 PM

SkinnyHead: gameshowhost: 18 USC Sec. 2101

The federal statute against inciting a riot won't work.

"(b) As used in this chapter, the term "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." 18 USC 2102.

The film merely expressed ideas and beliefs, without advocating any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.


That's what would be at issue - if the video falls under the umbrella "shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written yada etc" ... your opinion isn't a disposition.
 
2012-09-15 03:04:24 PM
This whole situation is a mess and there are so many questions:

1) Who is really behind it?
Is it really just Terry Jones and this is merely his latest religious dick-waving, or is there someone/something more sinister going on? I'm usually not one to believe in conspiracies, but something about this stinks.. there's just too many 'coincidences.

2) Why THIS video? Why NOW?
Surely this isn't the first video on youtube derogatory towards Islam. I can't even imagine this to be the most inflammatory (I've seen the clips.. most of it is just.. dumb. Taken offense to this is like taking offensive to a drooling fat kid in a propeller beanie telling you "Heh heh.. your face is stupid".). Why the sudden obscene reaction that just happened to coincide with 9/11? As I understand it, the video has been up for a couple of months, too.
The only scenarios that make sense to me are a) a group was planning embassy/consulate attacks and dug out this obscure video as an excuse to get a mob with them and/or b) radical clerics/sensationalist media/political splinters took this and blew it out of proportion to drum up business.

As for my thoughts on things:
-even if the filmmaker violated his parole, I -hate- seeing people get railroaded, regardless of the reasons why. Crap like this puts all of our rights in danger.
-I think Terry Jones is a disgusting pile of puke, but he has yet to break a law
 
2012-09-15 03:07:47 PM

dr_blasto: FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.


So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?

 
2012-09-15 03:09:19 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: dr_blasto: FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?


Investigating probation violations is now Orwellian, i guess
 
2012-09-15 03:10:02 PM
Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a scarf over his face. He kept his hands in the pockets of a winter coat.

That's not a "perp walk", subby, he wasn't arrested, charged, handcuffed, etc. He was taken for an interview at the Sheriff's Office. Innocent people are taken down all of the time, even in police cars, so what more do you have?
 
2012-09-15 03:12:30 PM
They took the guns, they took the drugs, they took the money and now they've come for the free speech.
Hardly surprising.
 
2012-09-15 03:19:58 PM

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.

At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.


Shut up, savage.
 
2012-09-15 03:20:31 PM

way south: They took the guns, they took the drugs, they took the money and now they've come for the free speech.
Hardly surprising.


8/10

Concise, not pushy or over-th-top, both directed and non-specific, a little late in the thread, but otherwise a fine effort. I'll bet it'll work. Let's watch.
 
2012-09-15 03:20:41 PM
This thread is entirely comp[osed of people talking past each other disingenuously. Awesome.
 
2012-09-15 03:21:22 PM

BSABSVR: This thread is entirely comp[osed of people talking past each other disingenuously. Awesome.


Entirely?!?!?!?
 
2012-09-15 03:22:36 PM

The Bestest: This whole situation is a mess and there are so many questions:

1) Who is really behind it?
Is it really just Terry Jones and this is merely his latest religious dick-waving, or is there someone/something more sinister going on? I'm usually not one to believe in conspiracies, but something about this stinks.. there's just too many 'coincidences.

2) Why THIS video? Why NOW?
Surely this isn't the first video on youtube derogatory towards Islam. I can't even imagine this to be the most inflammatory (I've seen the clips.. most of it is just.. dumb. Taken offense to this is like taking offensive to a drooling fat kid in a propeller beanie telling you "Heh heh.. your face is stupid".). Why the sudden obscene reaction that just happened to coincide with 9/11? As I understand it, the video has been up for a couple of months, too.
The only scenarios that make sense to me are a) a group was planning embassy/consulate attacks and dug out this obscure video as an excuse to get a mob with them and/or b) radical clerics/sensationalist media/political splinters took this and blew it out of proportion to drum up business.

As for my thoughts on things:
-even if the filmmaker violated his parole, I -hate- seeing people get railroaded, regardless of the reasons why. Crap like this puts all of our rights in danger.
-I think Terry Jones is a disgusting pile of puke, but he has yet to break a law


"Ordinary Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis didn't come across the latest insults to their religion because they spent hours trolling YouTube for Californian political-porn provocations. It required broadcasting of the offending clips by Egypt's al-Nas network to trigger this week's anti-U.S. protests in Cairo, Benghazi, Sana'a and elsewhere. Al-Nas is owned by a Saudi businessman and promotes the extreme Salafist current within Islam, whose political adherents have emerged as a powerful challenger to the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's de facto ruling party." 

Political opportunists attacking from the right.
 
2012-09-15 03:22:49 PM

gameshowhost: SkinnyHead: gameshowhost: 18 USC Sec. 2101

The federal statute against inciting a riot won't work.

"(b) As used in this chapter, the term "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." 18 USC 2102.

The film merely expressed ideas and beliefs, without advocating any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

That's what would be at issue - if the video falls under the umbrella "shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written yada etc" ... your opinion isn't a disposition.


My opinion is usually as good as a disposition. I haven't heard anyone claim that the film specifically advocates rioting. Instead, the claim is that Muslims riot because the film is considered blasphemy to Islam.

"It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures." Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952)
 
2012-09-15 03:23:04 PM
This is BS. The guy made a movie that espoused his beliefs. Now, his beliefs may be racist/bigoted/whatever, but it is his right as an American to say what he believes. He doesn't lose that right because religious fundamentalists in some other country go completely unhinged when someone questions their worldview.

The problem here isn't the video, it's the reaction. It's crazy that news outlets worldwide were/are terrified to show a simple drawing of Mohammed. Every other religion in the world has their sacred idols/beliefs desecrated on a regular basis by artists/writers/whoever. The Muslim world needs to stop being such a bunch of sensitive pussies and deal with the fact that most people in the world don't hold their religious beliefs.
 
2012-09-15 03:23:55 PM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?


But that is decidedly not what he did. Next question.
 
2012-09-15 03:24:14 PM
I don't blame him for hating Muslims and wanting to yank their collective chain. I don't blame him for misusing his first amendment rights and crossing the line from free speech into license and incitement. I strongly object to his trying to pin the whole thing on the Jews by pretending to be Israeli. Don't we have enough problems? Why do Christians want to foment further antagonism against the Israelis/Jews in the Middle East? Frankly, I won't cry too much if the Coptic Christians end up bringing a pogrom down on themselves. It's the logical next step for the extremist element in Egypt, it's an internal matter that we can do nothing about except protest, probably none too strenuously,and frankly, they brought this on themselves.

I find it interesting that Romney/the repubs, for all their pointless and transparent saber-rattling and kvetching about Obama's "apology tour," and mishandling of the Arab Spring (what was he supposed to do? send in the Marines to shoot Egyptian civilians?), failed to make anything close to Obama's frankly ballsy statement ("I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy") that put the fear of Allah into the Egyptian government and squelched their tacit support for the rioters. Obama acted presidential, Romney et al acted like the whiny bullies they are.
 
2012-09-15 03:25:04 PM

Alphax: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.

At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Shut up, savage.


Make me, tough guy.
 
2012-09-15 03:25:05 PM

way south: They took the guns, they took the drugs, they took the money and now they've come for the free speech.
Hardly surprising.


Obviously they left some drugs behind for you to take. . .
 
2012-09-15 03:25:33 PM

way south: They took the guns, they took the drugs, they took the money and now they've come for the free speech.
Hardly surprising.

 

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-15 03:25:39 PM
I can't blame him directly for the violence caused, even if that was his goal. The people rioting/protesting are crazy, but no one has died in those. The deaths in Libya were an attack taking advantage of the situation, not directly caused by it.

I have no problems condemning his work as juvenile attention whoring meant to get exactly this reaction, while at the same time agreeing that he certainly has the full right to do it.

However, he agreed to the terms of his parole as part of being released. If he violated them, I think he certainly should be punished for that violation. To the example of if he had uploaded a video of his kids at the zoo, I think that if his crazy neighborhood moonbat saw and contacted the sheriffs office about it, he'd have the same situation he does now. Well with less cameras, but to assume that the DA would ignore a parole violation that's brought to their attention is a bit much.
 
2012-09-15 03:26:17 PM

way south: They took the guns, they took the drugs, they took the money and now they've come for the free speech.
Hardly surprising.


If he hadn't already been on probation for bank fraud with the stipulation that he not access the internet outside of approved means I'd say you might have a point. The video was pretty farked up and the consequences of making it are a tragedy but the question is whether this guy actually made it and, if so, violated the terms of his probation in doing so. So untwist your panties, chicken little.

Opening another can of worms, what's up with the "they took our guns"? I can walk out the door and buy just about anything I want short of an automatic weapon.
 
2012-09-15 03:26:25 PM
Coward. Show your face.
 
2012-09-15 03:27:09 PM

doyner: Yes, this guy is a shiat-stirring asshole who sees his own ideology as being superior enough to incite riots and endanger others.


Hell, the old hippie who wrote CLAPTON IS GOD on the walls of a London tube station 45 years ago has an ideology superior enough to incite riots in that part of the world.
 
2012-09-15 03:27:54 PM
Came to see rat-wingers white-knighting a career criminal.
Leaving, satisfied.
 
2012-09-15 03:28:19 PM

Gulper Eel: doyner: Yes, this guy is a shiat-stirring asshole who sees his own ideology as being superior enough to incite riots and endanger others.

Hell, the old hippie who wrote CLAPTON IS GOD on the walls of a London tube station 45 years ago has an ideology superior enough to incite riots in that part of the world.


I don't disagree. He got exactly what he wanted.
 
2012-09-15 03:31:05 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.

sometimes the best way to start a dialogue is to shake people up, shock them out of their normal patterns of thinking.


Deliberately inciting someone to murder is evil. You are on the side of evil people now, trying to protect them for a ridiculous warped version of an otherwise valuable principle. Maybe you should rethink how far the principle actually applies, because you are essentially in the same area that says "my freedom means I must be able to wave a knife around in the area of other people, and it is up to them to get out of the way" 

/and no, doing something about someone inciting murder doesn't mean you ignore the people that committed the murder either - there can be more than one person to blame for a crime, but they are already being tracked down by the Libyan authorities
 
2012-09-15 03:31:52 PM

jso2897: Came to see rat-wingers white-knighting a career criminal. drop in some meaningless drivel.
Leaving, satisfied.

 
2012-09-15 03:32:21 PM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

hey, chaos happened. powerful political people have taken notice. of course, if a proper scapegoat can be found...well that solves everything, doesn't it? so we've got someone here, a film maker, who's got a parole issue. he's got a funny sounding name. maybe he's not 'the guy' who started it all but hey, he's close enough. so we arrest him, put him in isolation and hit him with a ton of charges while we sort out just how to frame the story.

It is how it works, though. If he had been on probation for a possession charge and pissed off the DA by writing a letter to the editor biatching about local politics, something similar may have happened. I'm not agreeing with the actions of the authorities in this situation and I'll say that given the situation this is significantly more severe than my other example, but we've given so much leeway to authority that this is no surprise.


A guy who violates probation in a way that brings attention to himself usually does get taken back into custody by the people whose attention he garnered. Most times there's not a media horde to document it, but most times the public isn't clamoring to see what happens to the person.

/next
 
2012-09-15 03:32:24 PM

jso2897: Came to see rat-wingers white-knighting a career criminal.
Leaving, satisfied.


Hollywood's been white-knighting Roman Polanski for 40 years. Can't the rest of us have a bit of self-righteous fun?
 
2012-09-15 03:33:25 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Ordinary Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis didn't come across the latest insults to their religion because they spent hours trolling YouTube for Californian political-porn provocations. It required broadcasting of the offending clips by Egypt's al-Nas network to trigger this week's anti-U.S. protests in Cairo, Benghazi, Sana'a and elsewhere. Al-Nas is owned by a Saudi businessman and promotes the extreme Salafist current within Islam, whose political adherents have emerged as a powerful challenger to the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's de facto ruling party." 

Political ...


Thanks for the link. Good read.
 
2012-09-15 03:34:21 PM

OMFG!!! A GUY WHO VIOLATED HIS PAROLE WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN IN TO BE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!!!!


IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!11!
 

i159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-15 03:35:24 PM

Lionel Mandrake: OMFG!!! A GUY WHO VIOLATED HIS PAROLE WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN IN TO BE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!!!!

IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!11! 

[i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100]


Well, he did blame the Jews.
 
2012-09-15 03:37:22 PM

Weaver95: if I were a muslim death squad...i'd be more afraid of this country than I would in my own. sure, you could track someone down fairly easy. you could probably even get a gun without much trouble. but...getting to your target and actually murdering them is another thing entirely. to the rest of the world, what scares the f*ck out of them about our society is the sheer chaos of it all. you don't know what's going to happen here - you could get pulled over by the cops, you could get shot in a completely random act of street violence. your target could be well protected. he could be home. he could be out somewhere. the neighbors can get suspicious, upload your license plate and face to the net and alert your target. the target could be better armed than you. his neighbors probably ARE better armed than you, and there is no way of knowing how they're gonna jump.


Jack Ruby walked into a crowded police station and shot Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself carried a sniper rifle into a book depository and assassinated the President. Sirhan Sirhan walked into a crowded hotel and shot Bobby Kennedy. John Hinkley Jr. shot President Reagan in broad daylight as he was getting out of his car. Jared Lee Loughner walked up behind Gabrielle Giffords at a supermarket and shot her in the head. Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down on a motel balcony. Scott Roeder gunned down George Tiller at Tiller's church.

But somehow, a jihadist with murder on his mind is going to be intimidated by the chaos of American culture? Yeah, ok.
 
2012-09-15 03:37:44 PM

Gulper Eel: jso2897: Came to see rat-wingers white-knighting a career criminal.
Leaving, satisfied.

Hollywood's been white-knighting Roman Polanski for 40 years. Can't the rest of us have a bit of self-righteous fun?


[notsureifserious.jpg]

This situation is fun for you?
 
2012-09-15 03:39:06 PM

Gulper Eel: They died because they had the bad fortune to be living their lives in the midst of religious batshiattery that will use any pretext for murder, or make one up if there's none at hand.


Are you aware how conspiracy laden countries like Egypt are? And where they get most of their batshiattary?

Yep... Glenn Beck. RightWingWatch. WND. The whole far right "Hillary Clinton is letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over the world" idiots.

Yeah. Didn't think you would place any blame on the sources...
 
2012-09-15 03:40:24 PM

zenobia: dr_blasto: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

hey, chaos happened. powerful political people have taken notice. of course, if a proper scapegoat can be found...well that solves everything, doesn't it? so we've got someone here, a film maker, who's got a parole issue. he's got a funny sounding name. maybe he's not 'the guy' who started it all but hey, he's close enough. so we arrest him, put him in isolation and hit him with a ton of charges while we sort out just how to frame the story.

It is how it works, though. If he had been on probation for a possession charge and pissed off the DA by writing a letter to the editor biatching about local politics, something similar may have happened. I'm not agreeing with the actions of the authorities in this situation and I'll say that given the situation this is significantly more severe than my other example, but we've given so much leeway to authority that this is no surprise.

A guy who violates probation in a way that brings attention to himself usually does get taken back into custody by the people whose attention he garnered. Most times there's n ...


It's almost as if it is a bad idea to AW when you're on probation or parole.
 
2012-09-15 03:40:29 PM
DIAF, subby You are pathetic individual.
 
2012-09-15 03:41:11 PM

Weaver95: But we're not gonna punish the actual murderers. no, we're going to punish the film crew.


The U.S. is sending more spies, Marines and drones to Libya, trying to speed the search for those who killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but the investigation is complicated by a chaotic security picture in the post-revolutionary country and limited American and Libyan intelligence resources.

Link
 
2012-09-15 03:42:28 PM
Let me get this straight...

Danish man makes cartoon of Mohammed - terrorists target HIM SPECIFICALLY. Not his country.

Idiot in America makes a stupid anti-Islam film - everyone blames America.

Hmmmmmmmmmm......
 
2012-09-15 03:45:46 PM

Nabb1: GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: MrBallou: Think he'll spill on who it was that instigated and bankrolled this? It could open up a very interesting can of worms.

/Adjusts tinfoil hat

It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.

But it wouldn't be their fault! Those Americans would be dead this week anyway! Or something.

It isn't the most unreasonable way to try to sway an election. Dead soldiers in the past has tended to get people to vote Republican. It's utterly callous and hideous, so it's something I don't have any trouble imagining the GOP trying to win an election with. It's not like they actually care who dies, they just want dead Americans and riots.

[i2.photobucket.com image 157x88]


Nixon did some fuctup shiat during Vietnam to keep the war going and subsequently help his bid for presidency. Doesn't sound so far fetched something like this, does it?
 
2012-09-15 03:45:55 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

I see I missed the initial shiat flinging portion of this thread. Hate coming in late :(
 
2012-09-15 03:46:52 PM
This asshat pulled off a very "successful" troll of fundamentalist muslims. He knew exactly what he was doing and it lead directly to the deaths of our people over seas. He is a complete cock munch for doing it, but he didn't do anything illegal. No matter how much we disagree with what this guy said, as Americans, we should all stand behind his right to say it.
 
2012-09-15 03:46:59 PM

doyner: Lionel Mandrake: OMFG!!! A GUY WHO VIOLATED HIS PAROLE WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN IN TO BE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!!!!

IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!11! 

[i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100]

Well, he did blame the Jews.


That might just get him a cabinet position with our Israel-hating half-breed muslin Dear Leader
 
2012-09-15 03:48:33 PM

topnacho: This asshat pulled off a very "successful" troll of fundamentalist muslims. He knew exactly what he was doing and it lead directly to the deaths of our people over seas. He is a complete cock munch for doing it, but he didn't do anything illegal. No matter how much we disagree with what this guy said, as Americans, we should all stand behind his right to say it.


So what's his Fark handle?
 
2012-09-15 03:48:38 PM
I don't like this creep and I hope he gets some of his own rotten karma back at him. I'm saying that right now.

i1.kym-cdn.com

But, what's gonna happen when Islamic Rage Boy and his drogues decide to use this new-found power to dictate what other people can and cannot do on their own soil? As I mentioned, what if they decide to declare a global War on Porn? What if they demand all females wear a burqua and that they don't want any females anywhere to be allowed to read?

www.barenakedislam.com

We just going to knuckle under and say
i0.kym-cdn.com
otherwise the big bad islamists are gonna go into another murderous tantrum?

I don't think I'm overdramatizing here. I actually do see a slippery slope event in the making.
 
2012-09-15 03:49:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: OMFG!!! A GUY WHO VIOLATED HIS PAROLE WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN IN TO BE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!!!!

IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!11! 

[i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100]


He also maintained multiple identities. I'm sure somewhere in one of them or in tax law at some point he violated some law.
 
2012-09-15 03:50:24 PM
Question:

Let's turn this around. Let's say, oh, Iran paid him to make these films, knowing it would incite violence against Americans:

(I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED).

If it did, does that change anything?

If so, why? Isn't freedom of speech freedom of speech?
 
2012-09-15 03:52:27 PM
Meanwhile, behind the scenes at you local political campaign office, the opponents biography is prepared

2.bp.blogspot.com 



/Using and abusing film for propaganda is as old as film itself
 
2012-09-15 03:53:28 PM

TV's Vinnie: I don't think I'm overdramatizing here. I actually do see a slippery slope event in the making.


While I don't think we're anywhere near the point of caving into such pressure, you're right to at least have back-in-the-mind concerns.

"At the same time we need to reach a balance between freedom of expression and to maintain respect for other peoples' beliefs."

When asked whether he thought the US should change its laws governing freedom of speech laws, he replied: "I think we need to work out something around this because we cannot wait and see this happen again."
 
2012-09-15 03:53:36 PM

Felgraf: Question:

Let's turn this around. Let's say, oh, Iran paid him to make these films, knowing it would incite violence against Americans:

(I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED).

If it did, does that change anything?

If so, why? Isn't freedom of speech freedom of speech?


Because one is an act of a private citizen and the other is the action of a nation-state?
 
2012-09-15 03:54:16 PM

SkinnyHead: gameshowhost: SkinnyHead: gameshowhost: 18 USC Sec. 2101

The federal statute against inciting a riot won't work.

"(b) As used in this chapter, the term "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." 18 USC 2102.

The film merely expressed ideas and beliefs, without advocating any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

That's what would be at issue - if the video falls under the umbrella "shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written yada etc" ... your opinion isn't a disposition.

My opinion is usually as good as a disposition. I haven't heard anyone claim that the film specifically advocates rioting. Instead, the claim is that Muslims riot because the film is considered blasphemy to Islam.

"It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures." Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952)


See now? That's a good argument. I'm proud of you.

/although the 'my opinion is usually as good as a disposition' made me spit out my lemon water...
 
2012-09-15 03:55:25 PM
Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing. Wait, no, it is not so hard to believe since this is Fark.

I looked at the trailer for this movie (link) and it is horrifically bad... I mean, "Hands of Manos" bad.

I don't like Bill Maher but what he said in response to the muslims screaming about South Park still applies...

"When South Park got threatened last week by Islamists, incensed at their depiction of Mohammed, serves, or should serve, as a reminder to all of us that our culture isn't just different than one that makes death threats to cartoonists - it's better!"
 
2012-09-15 03:56:07 PM

GAT_00: Lionel Mandrake: OMFG!!! A GUY WHO VIOLATED HIS PAROLE WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN IN TO BE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!!!!

IT'S NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!11! 

[i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100][i159.photobucket.com image 100x100]

He also maintained multiple identities. I'm sure somewhere in one of them or in tax law at some point he violated some law.

TV's Vinnie: I don't like this creep and I hope he gets some of his own rotten karma back at him. I'm saying that right now.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 200x240]

But, what's gonna happen when Islamic Rage Boy and his drogues decide to use this new-found power to dictate what other people can and cannot do on their own soil? As I mentioned, what if they decide to declare a global War on Porn? What if they demand all females wear a burqua and that they don't want any females anywhere to be allowed to read?

[www.barenakedislam.com image 300x451]

We just going to knuckle under and say
[i0.kym-cdn.com image 272x233]
otherwise the big bad islamists are gonna go into another murderous tantrum?

I don't think I'm overdramatizing here. I actually do see a slippery slope event in the making.


You aren't being overly dramatic. If we string this guy up, even over a parole violation, we're farked. I'm a little disturbed by the number of (otherwise very reasonable) people in this thread that are willing to throw this guy to the dogs just because he was used as a tool by the GOP to try and make our guy look bad.
 
2012-09-15 03:56:41 PM

verbal_jizm: I think it's been fairly well established that extremist Muslims act like children when their god or prophet are insulted. We know what will happen every time they get taunted in a high profile way: violence. It's pretty much automatic. It's great to say that people shouldn't act that way and to point to examples of followers of other religions that don't act that way, but the reality in this situation is that extremist Muslims DO act that way, regardless of whether they should.

This is akin to the child with a behavioral disorder that can't turn off his rage when teased. If kids tease the spastic kid just to watch the fireworks and the spastic kid causes damages to property or people, don't we punish those kids that teased him as well as the spastic kid?

This asshole knew what would happen after put up the video. He knew there would be violence. If it can be shown that he mae the video public for the express purpose of inciting this violence, or even if it was one of several goals, I don't believe it can be called protected speech.


This, right here. The results of publishing something like this in pretty much any medium are entirely, boringly predictable.

People's lives were always going to be endangered directly as a consequence - yes, it's a crying shame that people of any faith react this way but to pretend that they don't is just naive.

Actually it's jejune, it's full of jejunosity.
 
2012-09-15 03:57:57 PM

jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.


I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?
 
2012-09-15 03:58:39 PM

Felgraf: Question:

Let's turn this around. Let's say, oh, Iran paid him to make these films, knowing it would incite violence against Americans:

(I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED).

If it did, does that change anything?

If so, why? Isn't freedom of speech freedom of speech?


Well, if he did it for profit, it may be violating some law about doing business with Iran...if such a thing exists or would apply
 
2012-09-15 03:59:33 PM
The only people who have done anything worthy of being condemned or arrested would be the violent protesters who need to have to explained to them that they will accept that people can say whatever nasty thing comes to mind about any religion.

If ever increasingly larger shows of force are what is required before they will accept that then that's fine.
 
2012-09-15 03:59:36 PM

dr_blasto: FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?


It's some kind of violation of his free speech rights, which kick into play the moment he does something "edgy" or "controversial" that sparks riots around the globe but IT'S HIS RIGHT GODDAMN IT!!!! and anyone who says otherwise for any reason is an evil fascist.
 
2012-09-15 04:00:25 PM

jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing. Wait, no, it is not so hard to believe since this is Fark.


Everyone is the asshole in this situation.
 
2012-09-15 04:00:46 PM

dethmagnetic: Jesus Christ, a thread where I agree with D_I_A and Skinnyhead. Somebody shoot me.


I was wondering why everyone I passed today had goatees. Damn transporter, someone should fix that thing.
 
2012-09-15 04:03:03 PM

randomjsa: The only people who have done anything worthy of being condemned or arrested would be the violent protesters who need to have to explained to them that they will accept that people can say whatever nasty thing comes to mind about any religion.

If ever increasingly larger shows of force are what is required before they will accept that then that's fine.


Ah yes.. removing a splinter with a jackhammer.
 
2012-09-15 04:03:18 PM

balloot: This is BS. The guy made a movie that espoused his beliefs. Now, his beliefs may be racist/bigoted/whatever, but it is his right as an American to say what he believes. He doesn't lose that right because religious fundamentalists in some other country go completely unhinged when someone questions their worldview.

The problem here isn't the video, it's the reaction. It's crazy that news outlets worldwide were/are terrified to show a simple drawing of Mohammed. Every other religion in the world has their sacred idols/beliefs desecrated on a regular basis by artists/writers/whoever. The Muslim world needs to stop being such a bunch of sensitive pussies and deal with the fact that most people in the world don't hold their religious beliefs.


So I take it that if you were reviewing Die Hard 3, the reason the bad guy wanted Bruce Willis to walk through Harlem wearing nothing but a sign with the N word was really just about expressing his personal opinion. That character could not have had any motivation towards, say, getting someone hurt with that sign, in that location? That people never use stochastic processes in implementing some violent intent?

This guy would get a 1st amendment pass from me if he was merely being a anti-islamic jerkwad. But there's some evidence supporting the idea that there could have been a plan with violence as a goal. That seems a key element of whether the intent crosses a legal line or not. A intent to cause violence, not just not caring if violence might occur. Specifically seeking it.

If hypothetically WBC were stupid enough to let hard evidence get out that they were going to keep ramping things up until someone threw a punch, then hell yes I wouldn't mind seeing them get charged with inciting a riot. It would indicate their intent, and the fact that some poor chump might fall for it (and be in the wrong) and let them play victim doesn't get a two-wrongs-make-a-right pass.
 
2012-09-15 04:03:32 PM

doyner: BSABSVR: This thread is entirely comp[osed of people talking past each other disingenuously. Awesome.

Entirely?!?!?!?


Altogether

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-15 04:04:24 PM

Gyrfalcon: dr_blasto: FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?

It's some kind of violation of his free speech rights, which kick into play the moment he does something "edgy" or "controversial" that sparks riots around the globe but IT'S HIS RIGHT GODDAMN IT!!!! and anyone who says otherwise for any reason is an evil fascist.


Truly. As with some other farker's analogy above, had he only uploaded pictures of his kids at the zoo, would this have been a problem?

Really, if he were on probation that required him to stay the fark off the internet and had only done zoo movies, we wouldn't know who he is and he may still have been busted for a probation violation. But, in this instance, he hadn't AW'd himself to infamy with some shiat-ass movie-ish thing so he wouldn't be a headline.
 
2012-09-15 04:04:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?


Indeed.

Let's pretend you like to poke bears with a stick. You have a 30' long pole and you go around to bear's dens and poke them with sticks--you're never hurt, and it's pretty funny to see the bears wake up all angry and growling. There's no law against poking bears, and although sometimes people deride you for harassing innocent animals, there's really no harm to it.

Until one day you go to your favorite bear cave, your 30' long stick in hand, and there's a bear sleeping there...and next to it, a 2-year old who's wandered away from home. People are anxiously gathered around, and they beg you not to poke the bear this time. "F*ck it," you say, "I always poke the bears, and nothing bad has ever happened, and anyway it's my right to poke the bear if I want to." So you poke the bear, it wakes up furious and this time eats the baby.

Can you honestly say that the bear-poker is not at fault for his actions in causing the baby's death? He didn't kill the baby, the bear did that. He didn't put the baby near the bear, the mom did that. And he had a right to do what he did, it wasn't illegal and nothing bad had ever happened before. But isn't it clear that sometimes your right to poke a bear is outweighed by the rights of others?
 
2012-09-15 04:05:53 PM

randomjsa: The only people who have done anything worthy of being condemned or arrested would be the violent protesters who need to have to explained to them that they will accept that people can say whatever nasty thing comes to mind about any religion.

If ever increasingly larger shows of force are what is required before they will accept that then that's fine.


That's a great idea. Smash 'em. If that doesn't work, smash 'em some more.

If you can't get that square peg through that round hole, then you are clearly not smashing it hard enough.
 
2012-09-15 04:07:04 PM
Sad to see a number of people here (who would probably consider themselves good liberals) favoring censorship and suggesting we punish the people who made a crappy movie. There is no such thing in public life as a right not to be offended and, frankly, this film is likely just a convenient excuse to stir up the usual childish and thuggish behavior we often see in that part of the world. Islamists have an astounding ability to be offended by things. Screw them.

Islam, like all major monotheisms, is full of stupidity, bigotry, misogony, and immorality. It just happens to be the faith that causes the rest of the world the most trouble right now. There is nothing sacred about Islam and we have the right to say so. We also have the right to say that the Koran, like the New Testament, is a laughably stupid book that is never going to be shielded from ridicule. I've read the thing. Ludlum novels are more worth your time. And that's saying something.

People were murdered over Salman Rushdie's book in 1989 and the western response was pathetic. Same thing with the Danish cartoons. Enough already. We have to choose free speech and free expression over the fake outrage and hurt feelings of the faithful.
 
2012-09-15 04:07:48 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He looks like a real hero.
[latimesblogs.latimes.com image 600x336]


The LA Times is burying the lede here. They've arrested the Invisible Man!
 
2012-09-15 04:07:57 PM

Gyrfalcon: It's some kind of violation of his free speech rights, which kick into play the moment he does something "edgy" or "controversial" that sparks riots around the globe but IT'S HIS RIGHT GODDAMN IT!!!! and anyone who says otherwise for any reason is an evil fascist.


I don't think he should be punished based on t he "edgy" content of what he uploaded, I just think he should get the standard punishment for violating the terms of his parole, if he in fact did so.

FTA: "He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him."
 
2012-09-15 04:08:34 PM
Gyrfalcon:

Favorited: Bear Poker
 
2012-09-15 04:11:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: randomjsa: The only people who have done anything worthy of being condemned or arrested would be the violent protesters who need to have to explained to them that they will accept that people can say whatever nasty thing comes to mind about any religion.

If ever increasingly larger shows of force are what is required before they will accept that then that's fine.

That's a great idea. Smash 'em. If that doesn't work, smash 'em some more.

If you can't get that square peg through that round hole, then you are clearly not smashing it hard enough.


When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
2012-09-15 04:13:29 PM

Botkin of the Yard: Sad to see a number of people here (who would probably consider themselves good liberals)...


It's really kind of a pussy thing to do to call out "some people"

Get a sack and address someone directly.
 
2012-09-15 04:13:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?



Hmmm, no, can't agree there.

Is the film-maker an asshole? Yes, sure, no argument there from me. But he has every right to post/share his so-called "film" if he wants to here, just as that doofus down in Florida has every right to barbecue Korans (or Bibles, or Torahs, or even L Ron Hubbard Scientology books!) all he wants.

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I saw the "poking a bear with a stick analogy" here too. That's totally wrong. The bear has no moral responsibility not to kill or maim anyone. It's a freaking bear.

These savages are supposed to be human beings, and should be held to a higher standard: i.e. you can't just go batshiat insane and go slaughtering people if you feel your religion is offended.
 
2012-09-15 04:14:31 PM

tomWright: Meanwhile, behind the scenes at you local political campaign office, the opponents biography is prepared

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 380x275] 



/Using and abusing film for propaganda is as old as film itself


Faust got used for something other that a religious cautionary tale/morality play?
 
2012-09-15 04:14:52 PM

HighOnCraic: Gyrfalcon: It's some kind of violation of his free speech rights, which kick into play the moment he does something "edgy" or "controversial" that sparks riots around the globe but IT'S HIS RIGHT GODDAMN IT!!!! and anyone who says otherwise for any reason is an evil fascist.

I don't think he should be punished based on t he "edgy" "shiatty,poorly executed and awful" content of what he uploaded, I just think he should get the standard punishment for violating the terms of his parole, if he in fact did so.

FTA: "He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him."


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2012-09-15 04:16:52 PM
Violating parole should be punished. Unless the guy violating parole pissed off some extremists, then the government should alter its behavior in response to violent extremists and herald him as a hero.
 
2012-09-15 04:18:34 PM
Hate speech and inciting riots is above and beyond "freedom of speech". Send them over to Egypt with a one-way ticket, and if they can get back to the states alive, they can stay.



There is nothing else to say.
 
2012-09-15 04:18:43 PM
Lionel Mandrake Botkin of the Yard: Sad to see a number of people here (who would probably consider themselves good liberals)...

It's really kind of a pussy thing to do to call out "some people"

Get a sack and address someone directly.


Well, given that you responded with being addressed directly, I guess there was no need to choose an individual target. There are quite a few who made childish and silly comments. I suppose yours can now be added to that proud list.
 
2012-09-15 04:19:22 PM

Botkin of the Yard: Sad to see a number of people here (who would probably consider themselves good liberals) favoring censorship and suggesting we punish the people who made a crappy movie. There is no such thing in public life as a right not to be offended and, frankly, this film is likely just a convenient excuse to stir up the usual childish and thuggish behavior we often see in that part of the world. Islamists have an astounding ability to be offended by things. Screw them.

Islam, like all major monotheisms, is full of stupidity, bigotry, misogony, and immorality. It just happens to be the faith that causes the rest of the world the most trouble right now. There is nothing sacred about Islam and we have the right to say so. We also have the right to say that the Koran, like the New Testament, is a laughably stupid book that is never going to be shielded from ridicule. I've read the thing. Ludlum novels are more worth your time. And that's saying something.

People were murdered over Salman Rushdie's book in 1989 and the western response was pathetic. Same thing with the Danish cartoons. Enough already. We have to choose free speech and free expression over the fake outrage and hurt feelings of the faithful.


Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.
 
2012-09-15 04:19:53 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?

Indeed.

Let's pretend you like to poke bears with a stick. You have a 30' long pole and you go around to bear's dens and poke them with sticks--you're never hurt, and it's pretty funny to see the bears wake up all angry and growling. There's no law against poking bears, and although sometimes people deride you for harassing innocent animals, there's really no harm to it.

Until one day you go to your favorite bear cave, your 30' long stick in hand, and there's a bear sleeping there...and next to it, a 2-year old who's wandered away from home. People are anxiously gathered around, and they beg you not to poke the bear this time. "F*ck it," you say, "I always poke the bears, and nothing bad has ever happened, and anyway it's my right to poke the bear if I want to." So you poke the bear, it wakes up furious and this time eats the baby.

Can you honestly say that the bear-poker is not at fault for his actions in causing the baby's death? He didn't kill the baby, the bear did that. He didn't put the baby near the bear, the mom did that. And he had a right to do what he did, it wasn't illegal and nothing bad had ever happened before. But isn't it clear that sometimes your right to poke a bear is outweighed by the rights of others?


But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin
 
2012-09-15 04:20:16 PM

King Something: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Then you must be prepared for the consequences if they don't react the way you intend for them to react. Man up and admit that you made a mistake in producing something that you knew they would see as anti-Muslim, and that Americans died because of it.

f*ck.

no.

again - if I force you to confront the flaws in your ideology, then how you handle that is on YOU, not me. As a writer, if I evoke an emotional response that forces you to confront yourself...then I've done my job. the consequences of that are that my books will sell, people will discuss what i've written and maybe someone will carry my thoughts and ideas forward. if YOU don't like it, then it's your problem...not mine.

that's how it works. what you seem to be advocating is censorship and theocracy. neither ideas fit well in this country.

The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

The riots that resulted from the Muslims in the middle east getting riled up resulted in several people dying, including the US Ambassador to Libya.

The guy was on parole, and uploading that film to the internet violated the terms of his parole (although making the film in the first place did not)



Looks like Weaver took off before he read this post. Which is too bad because he could have saved himself a lot of time trying to argue his ridiculous points about this being "thought-provoking art" and "protected by the First Amendment."
 
2012-09-15 04:21:13 PM
Alphakronik: Hate speech and inciting riots is above and beyond "freedom of speech". Send them over to Egypt with a one-way ticket, and if they can get back to the states alive, they can stay.

Hate speech? How exactly do you define that? And which of your betters should be chosen to decide when prior restraint is okay?
 
2012-09-15 04:21:40 PM

gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin


No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.
 
2012-09-15 04:27:19 PM
Boy, have I got news for the clerics and Arab-Springers who just now seem to have discovered the internet and youtube: You're gonna be protesting 'till the sun burns out, unless you grow some thicker skin. I'm guessing there are thousands of youtube videos denouncing Islam. There are whole web sites devoted to condemning the prophet as a pedophile, a thief, and a murderous rampaging bastage who promotes slavery and rape. Not to mention news sites, blogs and social networks in multiple languages with comments that say the same things. Must be in the millions by now.

Maybe in a couple of years, they'll look back at all this and think "Whoo-hoo, were we a bunch of idiots to go apeshiat over that stupid video or what?"
 
2012-09-15 04:28:06 PM
Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.
 
2012-09-15 04:28:09 PM

doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.


A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.
 
2012-09-15 04:28:51 PM

jenlen: s the film-maker an asshole? Yes, sure, no argument there from me. But he has every right to post/share his so-called "film" if he wants to here, just as that doofus down in Florida has every right to barbecue Korans (or Bibles, or Torahs, or even L Ron Hubbard Scientology books!) all he wants.

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.


I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.
 
2012-09-15 04:31:04 PM
If there is any karma in the world someone will use their free speech rights to make a web site with pictures of him, his current address, criminal record, and any other information they can dig up about him legally.
 
2012-09-15 04:32:31 PM

Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.


If the guy actually gets charged with something and it feels trumped up, I'll be concerned.

Isn't also possible that this is a way of protecting the guy's life (and of those adjacent to him) without seeming like they're protecting him? This could be a diplomatic sleight of hand meant to buy time for the situation to cool.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:18 PM

Nabb1: doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.

A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims people who go into a murderous rage when intentionally offended animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.


FIFY.

Nice broad brush, BTW.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:23 PM

doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.


Of course no analogy is perfect; I was merely pointing out where his was seriously flawed. He could have made the same argument about the moral culpability of the act w/o changing the idea of "constitutionally protected right" to "no law preventing".

/for the record - i agree that the 'filmmaker' - and i use that term loosely - acted extremely irresponsibly
//i'm always amazed by how some people forget that rights bear commensurate responsibilities
 
2012-09-15 04:33:29 PM

Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.


These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:32 PM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.


It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.
 
2012-09-15 04:35:53 PM

PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.


So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?
 
2012-09-15 04:36:02 PM

Mrtraveler01:

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.


Yeah, I suppose so.

I've just seen way too many people posting online, laying most of the blame on this film. Yet, I've also seen links where they ask some of the rioters in Libya about the film, and they respond "What film are you speaking of?" o_O

Seems to me any excuse to riot / riot at the drop of a hat/ cartoon / film. Not how civilized people should act.
 
2012-09-15 04:37:04 PM

Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.


Why would Allah need defending?
 
2012-09-15 04:37:53 PM

Nabb1: doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.

A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.


As a general proposition, I agree. However the USA has a lengthy, documented history of M.E. upheaval, resource plundering, and reckless killing of innocents in the pursuit of the aforementioned. It's ridiculous to cast them in a light where they're supposed to have a never-ending tolerance for being on the butt-end of our faux "liberty" to destroy others' natural and legal rights.
 
2012-09-15 04:40:46 PM

Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?


You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.
 
2012-09-15 04:41:56 PM

Botkin of the Yard: Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.


Well, okay....but then by your own logic, any politician, for instance, who says something outrageous and horribly offensive can in fact offer as his apology "I'm sorry you took my statements the wrong way." Isn't that fair? You're saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the person hearing the statement; whether it's some politician claiming there's "legitimate rape" OR a filmmaker exercising his right to blast religion. Both are equally offensive to someone--therefore, in both cases, it's the offended person who needs to get a thicker skin, realize that people can say whatever they want, and just move on with life. Ergo, telling a rape victim "You should have thought of that before you went to the bar!" is neither offensive nor morally wrong, even if she subsequently kills herself. You can just say "Hey, I was just saying what I thought, it's HER FAULT that she took it the wrong way!" My view is, no, it's yours too, because you could have kept your mouth shut, now, couldn't you?

The point I'm trying to make here is if you are aware you're saying something to an audience you know is inclined to overreact, you better do so with the realization your remarks are going to cause that reaction. And if society says "Nope, you're not responsible for anything stemming from your comments--it's all the fault of the other person who misheard you," then we might as well give up on having a decent society.
 
2012-09-15 04:43:01 PM
This guy did not start any riots or kill anyone. All he (supposedly) did was make a film. Even if the intention was to get all the batshiat theists to do their thing, the blame lies with those who did the violence. Religious people need to grow the fark up and stop being so damn thin-skinned. No, not just muslims.

Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

(once discussed my lack of faith with a muslim colleague. it dawned on him that I thought mohammed had made the whole thing up. he obviously disagreed but was not offended)

/no, I haven't seen this film
//not gonna either
 
2012-09-15 04:45:21 PM

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it.


Cunning plan.
 
2012-09-15 04:45:28 PM

doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?


www.millionaireplayboy.com
Indeed.

I say Allah is a faulty god. One of his followers should show his outrage at me by setting fire to a girl scout troop or something.
 
2012-09-15 04:47:17 PM

Smackledorfer: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.


Pretty much. Had this dude nit been a criminal serving out a sentence, well, he likely would be sitting in his house worried some nutter fundamentalist was going to come blow him up. Maybe he's better off, lol.

And, lest we forget, they're only investigating whether did any actions to violate probation. If he didn't, they'll have to let him go.
 
2012-09-15 04:47:50 PM

orclover: doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?

[www.millionaireplayboy.com image 400x250]
Indeed.

I say Allah is a faulty god. One of his followers should show his outrage at me by setting fire to a girl scout troop or something.


The truth, it would seem to me, is that quick-to-anger followers are as insecure as a god that needs worship to feel good about himself.
 
2012-09-15 04:48:02 PM

jenlen: Mrtraveler01:

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.

Yeah, I suppose so.

I've just seen way too many people posting online, laying most of the blame on this film. Yet, I've also seen links where they ask some of the rioters in Libya about the film, and they respond "What film are you speaking of?" o_O

Seems to me any excuse to riot / riot at the drop of a hat/ cartoon / film. Not how civilized people should act.


Oh, yeah, which is why I suggested people are mostly decent outside of a mob.

Reminds me of the WTO riots in Seattle some years back...this douchebag kid was asked by a reporter if he even knew what the WTO conference was about. "I have no f*cking idea. I'm just here for the riot." Some people just like throwing rocks.
 
2012-09-15 04:49:57 PM

dr_blasto: Smackledorfer: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.

Pretty much. Had this dude nit been a criminal serving out a sentence, well, he likely would be sitting in his house worried some nutter fundamentalist was going to come blow him up. Maybe he's better off, lol.

And, lest we forget, they're only investigating whether did any actions to violate probation. If he didn't, they'll have to let him go.


And I'll add that he is going to have to live with his conscience no matter what happens. If he made his crappy video with the intent of embarrassing and insulting muslims but didnt intend for murder, he's going to have to live with that.
 
2012-09-15 04:50:22 PM

jenlen: Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?


Hmmm, no, can't agree there.

Is the film-maker an asshole? Yes, sure, no argument there from me. But he has every right to post/share his so-called "film" if he wants to here, just as that doofus down in Florida has every right to barbecue Korans (or Bibles, or Torahs, or even L Ron Hubbard Scientology books!) all he wants.

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I saw the "poking a bear with a stick analogy" here too. That's totally wrong. The bear has no moral responsibility not to kill or maim anyone. It's a freaking bear.

These savages are supposed to be human beings, and should be held to a higher standard: i.e. you can't just go batshiat insane and go slaughtering people if you feel your religion is offended.


The protesters didn't kill. The local branch of al qaeda showed up during a protest to do that.
 
2012-09-15 04:50:36 PM

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.


This would be too effective and permanent. Which is why it will never happen. If we stop being scared of muslims, we might notice how farked up it is around us. Notice how we mostly forgot about the national budget this week?
 
2012-09-15 04:52:36 PM
I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.
 
2012-09-15 04:56:29 PM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the Feds that question.
 
2012-09-15 04:57:26 PM

bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.


Your concern is noted.

I hate radicals of all religions whether they be Christian or Muslim. That doesn't mean I think one religion is inferior to the other.

Any other strawmen today?
 
2012-09-15 04:58:17 PM

Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?


Technically, I said fundamentalists are lower than animals. You can get an animal to change their beliefs far more easily than a fundamentalist. If jihadists are looking to get butthurt over something there's much better fodder available than anything I've said here.
 
2012-09-15 04:59:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He looks like a real hero.


Not just anyone's hero. The GOP's hero. s
 
2012-09-15 04:59:37 PM

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.


What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.
 
2012-09-15 05:01:20 PM

gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.


It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.
 
2012-09-15 05:02:09 PM

Mrtraveler01: bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.

Your concern is noted.

I hate radicals of all religions whether they be Christian or Muslim. That doesn't mean I think one religion is inferior to the other.

Any other strawmen today?


Sorry to have offended thee. Don't go torchin' an embassy over it.

/lighten up, Francis?
 
2012-09-15 05:03:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.

Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.


Heckler's veto isn't the same as creating a clear and PRESENT danger. That clip was released quite some time ago.
 
2012-09-15 05:04:13 PM

bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.


Personally, I don't think it's a first amendment issue, since I don't think he should be punished for the content of the film. But if he violated the terms of his parole to distribute it, he should get the standard slap on the wrist for doing so.

/But I guess the point of this thread was supposed to be how this is bad news . . . for Obama. Or something.
 
2012-09-15 05:05:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: Botkin of the Yard: Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.

Well, okay....but then by your own logic, any politician, for instance, who says something outrageous and horribly offensive can in fact offer as his apology "I'm sorry you took my statements the wrong way." Isn't that fair? You're saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the person hearing the statement; whether it's some politician claiming there's "legitimate rape" OR a filmmaker exercising his right to blast religion. Both are equally offensive to someone--therefore, in both cases, it's the offended person who needs to get a thicker skin, realize that people can say whatever they want, and just move on with life. Ergo, telling a rape victim "You should have thought of that before you went to the bar!" is neither offensive nor morally wrong, even if she subsequently kills herself. You can just say "Hey, I was just saying what I thought, it's HER FAULT that she took it the wrong way!" My view is, no, it's yours too, because you could have kept your mouth shut, now, couldn't you?

The point I'm trying to make here is if you are aware you're saying something to an audience you know is inclined to overreact, you better do so with the realization your remarks are going to cause that reaction. And if society says "Nope, you're not responsible for anything stemming from your comments--it's all the fault of the other person who misheard you," then we might as well give up on having a decent society.


Politicians, and others, often use exactly that sort of lame non-apology.

Your rape victim example is the sort of speech I would consider morally objectionable and offensive. It's not criminal though. Killing people because you're mad about a book, cartoon, or movie is criminal behavior.

Salman Rushdie knew The Satanic Verses would offend some. He certainly did not expect what happened but, either way, we have not held him responsible for the murder and violence that happened after the book was published. Our society does not appear to have been judged a lost cause since then.
 
2012-09-15 05:07:01 PM

doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?


Ask those nutcases who are trashing our embassies.
 
2012-09-15 05:08:24 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?

You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.


That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.
 
2012-09-15 05:08:39 PM

dr_blasto: gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.

It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.


Honestly, we (the US) aren't the problem here. the Time article linked upthread notes that much of this current crisis is being caused by our good buddies the Saudis (always, always follow the money, folks.

As far as our Mideast policy in general, like it or not we're stuck there, and we'll always be stuck there so long as we're married to oil and Israel.
 
2012-09-15 05:09:12 PM

Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?

You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.

That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.


And, for clarification: I do not believe all Muslims are savages. Just the ones engaging in all this violence.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:44 PM

HighOnCraic: bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.

Personally, I don't think it's a first amendment issue, since I don't think he should be punished for the content of the film. But if he violated the terms of his parole to distribute it, he should get the standard slap on the wrist for doing so.

/But I guess the point of this thread was supposed to be how this is bad news . . . for Obama. Or something.


I don't know. I, like Weaver, would like to know the extent of his violations. It just seems rather bizarre to go after him now if he were already violating them in the first place. The timing just seems... weird to me. But if he's guilty of that then he'll face the penalty for it I guess.

/everything is bad news for fartbongo, or so it seems. Will still vote for him though.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:47 PM
Look, I don't care whether what he did gets the blame or not for a bunch of crazy people going out and murdering. That doesn't matter to me. If he's arrested for violating his probation/parole, then guess what? He deserves it. Not because of any of the content, but because he violated the terms of his probation/parole.

If you've ever been on probation or parole, you know you do everything possible to avoid attracting attention to yourself. I was on probation for a year; that year, I didn't have a speeding ticket, littering citation or even a parking ticket. Because the moment you stick out in the slightest, is the moment you'll probably spend a weekend in jail.

Think of it this way: Imagine the guy was, instead of uploading stupid videos on the internet that look worse than ICP's "Big Money Rustla's", driving on the interstate alone in his car. When his probation says "You cannot drive a car unsupervised. Some drunken dick-chute crosses the median and plows into another car and he swerves out of the way, hitting a guardrail. When the cop shows up to do his report, he will most likely check (either by running licenses or asking the question) on the parole/probation status of those involved who do not yet need medical attention.

The officer notices that our guy was not supposed to be driving unsupervised. At this point, he pretty much has to bring the guy in. Even if you don't believe he had anything to do with the huge accident that killed people, and even if you think everyone should be allowed to drive unsupervised... he broke the agreement he made, which he had to follow if he didn't wanna be in jail/prison. Fault is irrelevant; what matters is he broke the rules, and something happened that made him visible to police. This is also why parolees and probationers are explicitly warned to avoid purposeless vehicular travel even within the area they're allowed to move freely-- any random thing can happen to make you visible to police, when your presence extends outside the private realm.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:51 PM
I absolutely protect this asshole's right to be inflammatory. That right must be protected at all costs.

We need to be honesst here. I say this as someone with Muslim neighbors, coworkers, and friends, who understands that the insane bullshiat in the Middle East doesn't represent all Muslims. The religion being fostered in the mid-east is every bit as sick and bastardized as the anti-science, anti-women religion being fostered in the south. It is more directly dangerous, because it actively and clearly leads to people being hurt and killed. Islamists in the Middle East need to have a major adjustment of attitude and thought before we can have any hope for peace there. They are poor, easily riled up, and farking insane zealots.

That said, there is nothing we can do to stop them from being that way. We can act in many ways to ensure our own safety, but there is no. farking. Way. To "fix" them. They will not be converted. They will not be bombed into compliance, and entertaining thoughts of such makes us demonstrably worse than them in terms of sheer number of casualties. We cannot save the region from itself. Obama can't do it. Romney can't do it.

Unfortunately, films like this do not help the process. They must still be legal and able to be made, but we can't deny that they're asshole things to do.

When you're in a very dry forest and there's a hornet's nest above a tree, what is the right course of action? You walk around the trees nearby. You can't hit the hornet's nest with a stick, because you'll be stung. You can't burn the hornet's nest, because doing so will cause the entire forest to catch fire. Your only reasonable course of action is to leave it alone. Getting pissed off at hornets is no way to fix the problem. If those hornets start stinging you near your home, go nuts with the spray and make sure they can't touch you. In the dry forest, though, you can't stop them from doing what they do.

/The hornets aren't all Muslims, just the crazy ones in the Middle East who do this shiat.
 
2012-09-15 05:12:13 PM

ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.


Yeah, fark you. He has freedom of speech here.
 
2012-09-15 05:12:35 PM
The guy has the right to make the film, no matter how provocative.

The protesters also have the right to protest the film, en masse, and call for the makers of the film to be beheaded, request a change in laws to make films of this type illegal, and request that their government force the U.S. out of their country as long as they do not run afoul of any trespassing laws or cause property damage. And, as far as any evidence suggests, the majority of protesters are doing just that.

Bottom-line, if you truly support free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to request government redress, you will make sure that our government does not violate the rights of the film-maker to make films, and do your utmost to ensure that the government of the protesters do not act in ways to prevent the non-violent protestors to be heard as well, even when they ask for things that are unreasonable, repulsive or ridiculous.
 
2012-09-15 05:13:30 PM

Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.


Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.
 
2012-09-15 05:19:34 PM

ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.


Normally, I am one that would rather not see the cry-baby Muslims get their way when someone makes fun of their pweshush prophet... But having SEEN the video I am sympathetic. It's a crime against film-making is what it is. There is no artistic merit to it whatsoever.

I can abide seeing some jokes against religions if it's funny or has a point, this piece of shiat movie had neither. It was simply made to offend.
 
2012-09-15 05:20:15 PM
Looks like there's some question of whether on not this is the right guy; but if it is, I'm ok with a reckless endangerment charge. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2012-09-15 05:20:55 PM

Bloody William: The religion being fostered in the mid-east is every bit as sick and bastardized as the anti-science, anti-women religion being fostered in the south.


This is where you lost me. Kansas, anyone? Indiana? Central Pennsylvania? Idaho?

Please make your point without dickish regionalism.
 
2012-09-15 05:22:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"


Wow, you are a moran. What do you think he should do to take responsibility?
 
2012-09-15 05:23:46 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.

Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.


Indeed, thanks, I am referring only to the fundamentalists/radicals/jihadis or whatever the word de jour is that describes the people who are moved to violence by slights against their god.
 
2012-09-15 05:24:06 PM

Oerath: Looks like there's some question of whether on not this is the right guy; but if it is, I'm ok with a reckless endangerment charge. Nothing more, nothing less.



So you are ok with throwing out the first amendment? Got it. I hope you never exercise your first amendment rights, lest you get in trouble.
 
2012-09-15 05:26:21 PM

The Bestest: dr_blasto: gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.

It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.

Honestly, we (the US) aren't the problem here. the Time article linked upthread notes that much of this current crisis is being caused by our good buddies the Saudis (always, always follow the money, folks.

As far as our Mideast policy in general, like it or not we're stuck there, and we'll always be stuck there so long as we're married to oil and Israel.


That makes no sense. We've chosen to participate in a problematic game, filled with blowback, when we've always had legitimate alternatives. We're responsible for taking the lazy path.

/chucks solar panels off of white house, guffaws, sells arms to terrorists
 
2012-09-15 05:28:20 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you're on probation and half the damned sheriffs in the state show up to request your presence at an interview downtown, you're probably not going to hesitate to volunteer


If you're getting death threats on your phone and have a pile of reporters outside your door watching the increasing swarm of protestors, you might be particularly inclined to volunteer to those damned sheriffs in hopes that arrest would include protective custody.
 
2012-09-15 05:29:17 PM

doyner: Bloody William: The religion being fostered in the mid-east is every bit as sick and bastardized as the anti-science, anti-women religion being fostered in the south.

This is where you lost me. Kansas, anyone? Indiana? Central Pennsylvania? Idaho?

/Considers PA a part of the south at this point outside of Philly or Pittsburgh.
//Grew up outside of Philly or Pittsburgh.

Please make your point without dickish regionalism.


Okay, the south, the midwest, my own redneck home state, and anywhere else the statement applies.
 
2012-09-15 05:29:19 PM

The Bestest: This whole situation is a mess and there are so many questions:

1) Who is really behind it?
Is it really just Terry Jones and this is merely his latest religious dick-waving, or is there someone/something more sinister going on? I'm usually not one to believe in conspiracies, but something about this stinks.. there's just too many 'coincidences.

2) Why THIS video? Why NOW?
Surely this isn't the first video on youtube derogatory towards Islam. I can't even imagine this to be the most inflammatory (I've seen the clips.. most of it is just.. dumb. Taken offense to this is like taking offensive to a drooling fat kid in a propeller beanie telling you "Heh heh.. your face is stupid".). Why the sudden obscene reaction that just happened to coincide with 9/11? As I understand it, the video has been up for a couple of months, too.
The only scenarios that make sense to me are a) a group was planning embassy/consulate attacks and dug out this obscure video as an excuse to get a mob with them and/or b) radical clerics/sensationalist media/political splinters took this and blew it out of proportion to drum up business.

As for my thoughts on things:
-even if the filmmaker violated his parole, I -hate- seeing people get railroaded, regardless of the reasons why. Crap like this puts all of our rights in danger.
-I think Terry Jones is a disgusting pile of puke, but he has yet to break a law


THIS. Perfectly put. This guy sounds like a jerk, but I refuse to believe he was planning anything like this when he made his amateur hour video. How could he? If he could predict the future like that, he'd be doing a lot more with his life than bank fraud and make home movies. There's all kinds of stuff on Youtube, doubtless including a ton of anti-Islamic videos. If it hadn't been this one, whoever orchestrated the attacks could have found something else, and then whoever made *that* video would have been "responsible" for everything that's happened so far. The rioters and murderers are responsible for the riots and murders, nobody else.
 
2012-09-15 05:29:21 PM

machoprogrammer: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: At least you've found a way to take the high ground about suppressing speech to placate a bunch of savages.

Please explain where asking someone to take some farking responsibility for their actions for once is "suppressing speech"

Wow, you are a moran. What do you think he should do to take responsibility?


That's the funny thing. Most authoritarians, like cameroncrazy1984 here, can't logically come up with anything that should be done about him making that crappy little film, or force him to take responsibility for things beyond his control (IE another human being). But something should be done arrrggghhh!!!
 
2012-09-15 05:29:22 PM

Bloody William: Unfortunately, films like this do not help the process. They must still be legal and able to be made, but we can't deny that they're asshole things to do


I disagree, kinda. Listen, everyone is getting really up in arms about the rioting and whatnot, understandably, but there is a silver lining: what we are seeing is the last gasp, a death rattle, of the old culture coming head to head with modern technology. The internet will change the Middle-East, it will expose young Muslims to modern thinking, and cause them to re-think Islam.

One hundred and fifty years ago, in America, we had riots over what Bible to use in Philadelphia schools, now, no one would dream of rioting for such a stupid reason. Islam is where Christians were a few hundred years ago, but now, the internet is going to accelerate their decline, it's going to expose Muslims to other cultures, other religions, and a lot of tits, too. The young Muslims will, in a very short time, look like the modern American young Christian, going to church twice a year, and doing whatever the hell the want the rest of the year. These films, and all the other anti-Muslim videos on Youtube, will make this process easier. Sure, it will piss off the old people, but the young people are going to see them and realize they've been fed a bunch of nonsense.
 
2012-09-15 05:30:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.

We covered this yesterday. But since you seemed to have missed it, take 21 minutes of your life to get an education. The first minute is all you will need but the remaining 20 is very enlightening too.

I'll tell you this one time:

Speech has consequences. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of what you say or produce, don't do it. Criticism is not censorship. Additionally, if your speech leads directly to bodily harm in another, it is illegal. This is Communication 101 stuff.


Speech that leads directly to bodily harm includes calling upon a crowd to riot, harm others, destroy property, etc.

That does not include posting a youtube video that some may find blasphemous. Do you propose a Supreme Court reading of the 1st Amendment that does not protect speech that induhviduals may find blasphemous?

If that is how you understand free speech, then you are inadvertantly supporting the type of Constitutional interpretation that would greatly benefit our homegrown Christian fundamentalists that are actively pursuing theocracy.
 
2012-09-15 05:30:58 PM

Gyrfalcon: Well, okay....but then by your own logic, any politician, for instance, who says something outrageous and horribly offensive can in fact offer as his apology "I'm sorry you took my statements the wrong way." Isn't that fair? You're saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the person hearing the statement; whether it's some politician claiming there's "legitimate rape" OR a filmmaker exercising his right to blast religion. Both are equally offensive to someone--therefore, in both cases, it's the offended person who needs to get a thicker skin, realize that people can say whatever they want, and just move on with life. Ergo, telling a rape victim "You should have thought of that before you went to the bar!" is neither offensive nor morally wrong, even if she subsequently kills herself. You can just say "Hey, I was just saying what I thought, it's HER FAULT that she took it the wrong way!" My view is, no, it's yours too, because you could have kept your mouth shut, now, couldn't you?

The point I'm trying to make here is if you are aware you're saying something to an audience you know is inclined to overreact, you better do so with the realization your remarks are going to cause that reaction. And if society says "Nope, you're not responsible for anything stemming from your comments--it's all the fault of the other person who misheard you," then we might as well give up on having a decent society.



This, in a nutshell. Choosing to have a legal system that errs on the side of freedom of expression still leads to a system that must, occasionally, err. The virtue doesn't lie in protecting the hateful or even the merely banal because it has some kind of residual value; it's in protecting it because that's the only way to preserve all the good stuff and still keep to a rule-of-law standard.

The asshats in question deserve a good cockpunching for this little stunt, even if it's not really the government's place to administer it. This in no way lessens the responsibility of rioters, violent protestors and political terror opportunists; to suggest that there's only a certain finite amount of blame to be passed around after any given event is silly.

(Being the kind of idiot who not only violates a parole but does so in a blatant and potentially public manner is its own issue. That's not an extenuating circumstance, it's a Smoking Gun tagline.)
 
2012-09-15 05:37:07 PM

RyogaM: I disagree, kinda. Listen, everyone is getting really up in arms about the rioting and whatnot, understandably, but there is a silver lining: what we are seeing is the last gasp, a death rattle, of the old culture coming head to head with modern technology. The internet will change the Middle-East, it will expose young Muslims to modern thinking, and cause them to re-think Islam.


I'd feel a lot better about that if they weren't already showing a propensity for using the internet to view sites that spread absurd conspiracies.
 
2012-09-15 05:37:42 PM

Weaver95: If I could write a book or produce something that I knew would cause someone on the other side of the globe to confront their own failures and expose weaknesses in their ideology...I'd do it in a heartbeat. those people might be angry. they might go out and hurt other people. they might even murder someone because of my words....and I would STILL do it. in fact that would be the ONLY reason for doing it.


If you knowingly agitate a group of people that are known to be prone to violence when offended and third parties end up dead as a result, you bear some moral responsibility for the outcome even if your actions were 100% legal.

And the laws of this country, the laws of the United States say I can do this...and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

Doesn't make your actions any less assholish.
 
2012-09-15 05:38:29 PM

RyogaM: Bloody William: Unfortunately, films like this do not help the process. They must still be legal and able to be made, but we can't deny that they're asshole things to do

I disagree, kinda. Listen, everyone is getting really up in arms about the rioting and whatnot, understandably, but there is a silver lining: what we are seeing is the last gasp, a death rattle, of the old culture coming head to head with modern technology. The internet will change the Middle-East, it will expose young Muslims to modern thinking, and cause them to re-think Islam.

One hundred and fifty years ago, in America, we had riots over what Bible to use in Philadelphia schools, now, no one would dream of rioting for such a stupid reason. Islam is where Christians were a few hundred years ago, but now, the internet is going to accelerate their decline, it's going to expose Muslims to other cultures, other religions, and a lot of tits, too. The young Muslims will, in a very short time, look like the modern American young Christian, going to church twice a year, and doing whatever the hell the want the rest of the year. These films, and all the other anti-Muslim videos on Youtube, will make this process easier. Sure, it will piss off the old people, but the young people are going to see them and realize they've been fed a bunch of nonsense.


I agree with your points, but not with the process. We can't compromise our own principles of free speech to make this process easier. We can't directly make this process easier except for not bombing them. Unless you think these films help the process, which they....... might? I mean, there are a lot of factors we might not have considered. But right now, it's just picking at a scap it seems. Either way, we're pretty much dealing with something that has to happen without us forcing it.
 
2012-09-15 05:44:15 PM

Bloody William: Unless you think these films help the process, which they....... might?


That's my whole point. These films will help, in the long term, and we should not compromise our free speech principles, even it that were not true.
 
2012-09-15 05:51:43 PM
FTFA: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. July 15, 2012: Whitmore told The Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

FTFA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California was reviewing whether Nakoula, who has been convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the Internet.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.


OK, so he's only being questioned, not charged with any crime, and what he's being questioned about is a possible probation violation. And I'm supposed to be outraged... why?
 
2012-09-15 05:52:52 PM

Lorelle: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Voluntary as in "come with us or we might accidentally leave your real name and address where the local bin-crazypantses can find it".

This has been on the local news for the past few days...there are news crews camped outside of his house 24/7. Everyone in SoCal knows where this guy lives.

This asshole is a convicted felon who served time in county and federal prison for two different crimes. He's a threat to his community.


This.

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the fact that the dude was banned from the Internet as part of his parole for a TOTALLY unrelated issue. Clearly this person has no respect for his community or for others and will use any access to the public to defraud and manipulate others in any way he can. He's proven he can't exist in society without doing harm, even if you completely ignore the deaths--he lied to the people involved in the movie, which shows he knew he was doing something bad and just didn't care.

Dude needs to be locked up or, if he has dual citizenship, deported.
 
2012-09-15 05:53:04 PM

PopularFront: Biological Ali: Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.

Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.

Indeed, thanks, I am referring only to the fundamentalists/radicals/jihadis or whatever the word de jour is that describes the people who are moved to violence by slights against their god.


Sure, but you say, by equating upsetting them with poking a bear, that they are animals. So, if you are speaking of them in an inflammatory manner, and they get upset and hurt people, do you feel responsibility? I don't think you would be any more responsible than the makers of that stupid film that has them up and arms. I'm sorry that insults to their religion make them feel the need to be violent, but that's their problem, not ours, and we should not ask people to quiet criticism of their faith, even if that criticism is inflammatory. I expect them, as human beings in this day and age, to be able to handle that. You equate them with animals and would ask us to restrain or think twice about simply criticizing them in speech.
 
2012-09-15 05:53:55 PM

RyogaM: Bloody William: Unfortunately, films like this do not help the process. They must still be legal and able to be made, but we can't deny that they're asshole things to do

I disagree, kinda. Listen, everyone is getting really up in arms about the rioting and whatnot, understandably, but there is a silver lining: what we are seeing is the last gasp, a death rattle, of the old culture coming head to head with modern technology. The internet will change the Middle-East, it will expose young Muslims to modern thinking, and cause them to re-think Islam.

One hundred and fifty years ago, in America, we had riots over what Bible to use in Philadelphia schools, now, no one would dream of rioting for such a stupid reason. Islam is where Christians were a few hundred years ago, but now, the internet is going to accelerate their decline, it's going to expose Muslims to other cultures, other religions, and a lot of tits, too. The young Muslims will, in a very short time, look like the modern American young Christian, going to church twice a year, and doing whatever the hell the want the rest of the year. These films, and all the other anti-Muslim videos on Youtube, will make this process easier. Sure, it will piss off the old people, but the young people are going to see them and realize they've been fed a bunch of nonsense.


The key difference being that - simultaneously - a world superpower with a differing religious background wasn't subverting our politics, taking our natural resources and killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens (yes we had to occasionally deal with some English, French, Canadian and Mexican farkery but those were incomparable compared to the M.E.-USA relationship).

Point being that it's not really a religious thing; it's about limited resources and human lives.
 
2012-09-15 06:01:57 PM
Investigating a probation violation isnt being arrested for filmmaking, but I digress.

To whom it may concern,

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.
 
2012-09-15 06:05:19 PM

dr_blasto: FTA: On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

So, they're looking into a probation violation related to his agreement to only use computers connected to the web for pre-approved work. Dude agreed to those terms for probation; if he's the butthole that uploaded his crappy videos, then he violated probation. If not, they'll let him go. What's the problem?


Because conservative Christians are trying to make this asshole a martyr - "they're violating his right to free speech!" Never mind that he has a criminal record, probably violated his parole, committed fraud and may have violated copyright law, and in doing so contributed to the death of a U.S. ambassador. He's a lying, cheating fark who is somehow now on "the side of right" because he pissed off Muslims by constructing a fraud, whole cloth, mere weeks before a Presidential election for the apparent purpose of incitement.

Never mind that he's actually being investigated for the parole violation, hasn't been arrested, and actually went in voluntarily - the assholes trying to make this guy a martyr aren't big on the truth to begin with, and will back just about anybody that satisfies the demands of their ideology.
 
2012-09-15 06:06:27 PM

gameshowhost: The key difference being that - simultaneously - a world superpower with a differing religious background wasn't subverting our politics, taking our natural resources and killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens (yes we had to occasionally deal with some English, French, Canadian and Mexican farkery but those were incomparable compared to the M.E.-USA relationship).

Point being that it's not really a religious thing; it's about limited resources and human lives.


Good point. I think it's both a religious and what you said. I'm still optimistic.
 
2012-09-15 06:07:06 PM

Nabb1: PopularFront: Biological Ali: Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.

Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.

Indeed, thanks, I am referring only to the fundamentalists/radicals/jihadis or whatever the word de jour is that describes the people who are moved to violence by slights against their god.

Sure, but you say, by equating upsetting them with poking a bear, that they are animals. So, if you are speaking of them in an inflammatory manner, and they get upset and hurt people, do you feel responsibility? I don't think you would be any more responsible than the makers of that stupid film that has them up and arms. I'm sorry that insults to their religion make them feel the need to be violent, but that's their problem, not ours, and we should not ask people to quiet criticism of their faith, even if that criticism is inflammatory. I expect them, as human beings in this day and age, to be able to handle that. You equate them with animals and would ask us to restrain or think twice about simply criticizing them in speech.


I don't even understand the analogy of this film maker poking a bear, or hitting a hornets nest with a stick. The correct analogy would be him yelling at the bear from 10,000 miles away. Same with the hornets nest. And he really didn't even yell in any particular direction. It's like the old commercial of 'we've replaced Ted's regular coffee with Folgers crystals, let's see if he notices anything'. He just threw something up on the internet, and that's really it. Nothing more. Peoples violent reactions were their own.

It makes no sense to equate free speech with an act of violence (ie poking the bear, hornets nest, etc) yet I see that happen a lot in these threads.
 
2012-09-15 06:12:38 PM

mathmatix:

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.


uhhh... what? Do you really believe that? So, what is he supposed to do in answer for his free speech? Your above statement cancels itself out. You're basically saying "You have the right to free speech, but really you don't." No buts. You either want free speech, or don't. Which do you want?
 
2012-09-15 06:13:03 PM

PopularFront: If there is any karma in the world someone will use their free speech rights to make a web site with pictures of him, his current address, criminal record, and any other information they can dig up about him legally

, and show him having gay sex with the prophet Mohammed.
 
2012-09-15 06:14:46 PM

mathmatix: Investigating a probation violation isnt being arrested for filmmaking, but I digress.

To whom it may concern,

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.


Yep. He has every right to make and distribute this movie. But, if he's on probation and those conditions prohibit unauthorized computer use, he has to answer for that.
 
2012-09-15 06:17:02 PM

Nabb1: PopularFront: Biological Ali: Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.

Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.

Indeed, thanks, I am referring only to the fundamentalists/radicals/jihadis or whatever the word de jour is that describes the people who are moved to violence by slights against their god.

Sure, but you say, by equating upsetting them with poking a bear, that they are animals. So, if you are speaking of them in an inflammatory manner, and they get upset and hurt people, do you feel responsibility? I don't think you would be any more responsible than the makers of that stupid film that has them up and arms. I'm sorry that insults to their religion make them feel the need to be violent, but that's their problem, not ours, and we should not ask people to quiet criticism of their faith, even if that criticism is inflammatory. I expect them, as human beings in this day and age, to be able to handle that. You equate them with animals and would ask us to restrain or think twice about simply criticizing them in speech.


The subtle (not really) difference here is that the people protesting the film wouldn't protest the statement that PopularFront made. They might protest your embellishments to it, but that's a separate matter.
 
2012-09-15 06:22:16 PM

bedtundy: mathmatix:

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.

uhhh... what? Do you really believe that? So, what is he supposed to do in answer for his free speech? Your above statement cancels itself out. You're basically saying "You have the right to free speech, but really you don't." No buts. You either want free speech, or don't. Which do you want?


I think it's pretty clear. If you slander me, the government won't stop you, but you may owe me money. If you write a book with lies, the government won't stop you, but you may lose the respect of the publishing community and never get another book deal again. If you go out of your way to create a hateful film, and the film just happens to result in rioting, then people may call you a coont, refuse to associate with you. Even your own government may say, "Hey, he's free to make a movie all he wants, but we think he's an ass to do so." You may even have to live with other people using their freedom of speech to camp outside your door, with signs calling for you to be beheaded. (May run afoul of some laws against threatening behavior and intimidation, your jurisdiction may vary.) None of the above violates his freedom of speech, and is what should occur in this case, for the most part.
 
2012-09-15 06:23:41 PM
There will be NO compromise on the First Amendment!!

NONE WHATSOEVER.
 
2012-09-15 06:24:25 PM

bedtundy: mathmatix:

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.

uhhh... what? Do you really believe that? So, what is he supposed to do in answer for his free speech? Your above statement cancels itself out. You're basically saying "You have the right to free speech, but really you don't." No buts. You either want free speech, or don't. Which do you want?


The guy is on parole. As a condition, he can't use a computer for unauthorized work. If he did that to upload this video, he is in violation and should pay the penalty. The First Amendment doesn't enter into it.

Just like the 21st amendment allows me to drink alcohol. However, if I'm on parole and part of those conditions is no alcohol, they can charge me with parole violation.

Am I going too fast for you?
 
2012-09-15 06:40:21 PM

RyogaM: gameshowhost: The key difference being that - simultaneously - a world superpower with a differing religious background wasn't subverting our politics, taking our natural resources and killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens (yes we had to occasionally deal with some English, French, Canadian and Mexican farkery but those were incomparable compared to the M.E.-USA relationship).

Point being that it's not really a religious thing; it's about limited resources and human lives.

Good point. I think it's both a religious and what you said. I'm still optimistic.


I try to be optimistic. Really, I do. But as it turns out, I'm not optimistic. :-/
 
2012-09-15 06:49:01 PM
Stupidity begets stupidity begets stupidity.
 
2012-09-15 07:22:03 PM

Weaver95: if I were a muslim death squad...i'd be more afraid of this country than I would in my own. sure, you could track someone down fairly easy. you could probably even get a gun without much trouble. but...getting to your target and actually murdering them is another thing entirely. to the rest of the world, what scares the f*ck out of them about our society is the sheer chaos of it all. you don't know what's going to happen here - you could get pulled over by the cops, you could get shot in a completely random act of street violence. your target could be well protected. he could be home. he could be out somewhere. the neighbors can get suspicious, upload your license plate and face to the net and alert your target. the target could be better armed than you. his neighbors probably ARE better armed than you, and there is no way of knowing how they're gonna jump.

i'm more worried about catching a bullet from a cop than I am from any of the 40 odd death threats i've gotten over my fark comments made over the past couple/few years. muslim death squads? c'mon down! mind the speed traps on rt 81 though and whatever you do - DON'T go near three mile island on your way here!


I think he's in danger of some "lone gunman" taking advantage of his lack of personal security (he's not rich or connected enough to be protected). Moreover the article describes him as "keeping his hands in his pockets," as in, "not handcuffed" which makes a difference.
 
2012-09-15 07:31:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.

then that's THEIR problem, not mine. you really can't understand that fact, can you?

huh. weird.

If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.


Doesn't the second, coordinated attack at the safe house break the link between those four deaths and the movie [trailer]? Would the terrorists not have attacked on the anniversary of 9/11 without the protests taking place?
 
2012-09-15 07:41:10 PM

dr_blasto: gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.

It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.


Based on the consensus here on Fark, they should just get over it and stop being such whining babies. It's entirely their fault if they want to overreact about things.
 
2012-09-15 07:42:25 PM
He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -- and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Bears repeating. This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.
 
2012-09-15 07:43:40 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: Might even explain why Romney ran so quickly to condemn it: he knew it was coming.

W. Mitt Romney is a liar who'll say anything to get elected with no interest in serving his country, just in being the boss.

But the reason he was so quick to condemn the embassy statement is "Obama the apologizer" has been a GOP catch-phrase and central to his campaign from the beginning. He was desperate for a win and thought he had gold and was eager to hold it high for all to see. He's an ambitious clod who wants to win more than he wants to govern and sees the attack as an advantage in the election but there's no way he knew it would happen.


Unless a former Blackwater exec was working for Mitt's campaign and he ordered it. We're through the looking glass here, sheeple.
 
2012-09-15 07:48:29 PM
keep telling yourself your government and the media is going to expose whom is really behind the movie.

bwahaha!
 
2012-09-15 08:06:14 PM
A mublishes ofadman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb and on the web that if you dial the number and enter a touchtone code it will explode.

Some idiot decides its a hoax and says to his iPhone

"Siri, dial 1-202-555-6789 extension 666"

Boom.

But its not any part his fault. He just said some words. Freedom of speech. No exceptions.
 
2012-09-15 08:07:32 PM

GAT_00: It really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Koch brothers or some other Republican group bankrolled this.


That's still in doubt?
 
2012-09-15 08:09:30 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.

then that's THEIR problem, not mine. you really can't understand that fact, can you?

huh. weird.

If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.

Doesn't the second, coordinated attack at the safe house break the link between those four deaths and the movie [trailer]? Would the terrorists not have attacked on the anniversary of 9/11 without the protests taking place?


I think al-Jazeerah reported that protests had in fact been planned at several Embassies on that date--one chooses to do protests at times and locations important to one's foes, after all. And I'm sure a terrorist attack could have been planned. BUT...one thing terrorist groups need more than ANYTHING else is the support and allegiance of the people they claim to represent. One thing they need to create that is a flashpoint that gets the average person--who doesn't support the terrorists, doesn't want to support them, or even associate with them--angry and riled up at the opponent and create at least an appearance of a groundswell of support.

So any protest was probably quite legitimate and brought in people with some legitimate grievances. An obvious rocket attack or bombing could well have alienated the crowds, since it would have been a unilateral attack by a marginal group nobody really wants to be part of. However, throw in something that will inflame the crowd--like a movie purporting to attack Islam--then any slight action is enough to kick the crowd over into a mob. Result, the terrorists get what they want, a seemingly spontaneous riot against Amrika, the filmmaker gets what HE wants, all kinds of publicity for his crappy movie, the politicians and media get what they want, an endless source of talking points for the next week or so.

It's why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-09-15 08:10:02 PM
"A mublishes ofadman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb and on the web"

that was supposed to be "a madman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb an publishes on the web"

dammit
 
2012-09-15 08:19:46 PM

Gyrfalcon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: King Something:
The guy made and distributed the video for the express purpose of getting the Muslims in the middle east riled up and rioting, not to try to convince them to confront the flaws in their ideology.

i'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment...but even if true, so what? there's nothing wrong with riling people up, forcing them to confront their beliefs.

There's something very wrong when riling those people up leads to people being killed.

then that's THEIR problem, not mine. you really can't understand that fact, can you?

huh. weird.

If he had said nothing, four Americans would 100% be alive today. Yeah, it's all on them. Right.

Doesn't the second, coordinated attack at the safe house break the link between those four deaths and the movie [trailer]? Would the terrorists not have attacked on the anniversary of 9/11 without the protests taking place?

I think al-Jazeerah reported that protests had in fact been planned at several Embassies on that date--one chooses to do protests at times and locations important to one's foes, after all. And I'm sure a terrorist attack could have been planned. BUT...one thing terrorist groups need more than ANYTHING else is the support and allegiance of the people they claim to represent. One thing they need to create that is a flashpoint that gets the average person--who doesn't support the terrorists, doesn't want to support them, or even associate with them--angry and riled up at the opponent and create at least an appearance of a groundswell of support.

So any protest was probably quite legitimate and brought in people with some legitimate grievances. An obvious rocket attack or bombing could well have alienated the crowds, since it would have been a unilateral attack by a marginal group nobody really wants to be part of. However, throw in something that will inflame the crowd--like a movie purporting to attack Islam--then any slight action is enough to kick the crowd over into a mob. Result, the terrorists get what they want, a seemingly spontaneous riot against Amrika, the filmmaker gets what HE wants, all kinds of publicity for his crappy movie, the politicians and media get what they want, an endless source of talking points for the next week or so.

It's why we can't have nice things.


I agree with pretty much everything you said, but that is par for the course. What troubles me is if the mob was so angry, why did they carry the ambassador to the hospital? Albeit I don't know who those people carrying him were, I was just under the impression that the turrists used the protesters as cover to get in close without raising alarm. I guess we will have to wait until the credible first-hand accounts come out, if any at all. We also need to find out how they got all riled up now, since this trailer has been on the internet for a while now.
 
2012-09-15 08:22:45 PM

Weaver95: that's how it works. what you seem to be advocating is censorship and theocracy. neither ideas fit well in this country.


Where have you been lately?
 
2012-09-15 08:28:49 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but that is par for the course. What troubles me is if the mob was so angry, why did they carry the ambassador to the hospital? Albeit I don't know who those people carrying him were, I was just under the impression that the turrists used the protesters as cover to get in close without raising alarm. I guess we will have to wait until the credible first-hand accounts come out, if any at all. We also need to find out how they got all riled up now, since this trailer has been on the internet for a while now.


Probably because, as I said way up top, people are mostly decent when you get them out of the mob. Seeing someone in need of help often shakes people out of the mob mentality--Hey! He's hurt! I better help him!--and turns them back into people. The mob was angry, yes, but over something they have no personal stake in.

Although I don't for a second discount your theory that the protest was used for cover. But an angry mob as cover for violence is better than a peaceful crowd as a cover, since in the second case it's pretty easy to determine where the violence came from. But that means for the terrorists that once the mob is turned back into people, the crowd isn't going to support them any more.
 
2012-09-15 08:33:32 PM

RyogaM: I think it's pretty clear. If you slander me, the government won't stop you, but you may owe me money. If you write a book with lies, the government won't stop you, but you may lose the respect of the publishing community and never get another book deal again. If you go out of your way to create a hateful film, and the film just happens to result in rioting, then people may call you a coont, refuse to associate with you. Even your own government may say, "Hey, he's free to make a movie all he wants, but we think he's an ass to do so." You may even have to live with other people using their freedom of speech to camp outside your door, with signs calling for you to be beheaded. (May run afoul of some laws against threatening behavior and intimidation, your jurisdiction may vary.) None of the above violates his freedom of speech, and is what should occur in this case, for the most part.


I am prettty sure that calling for him specifically to be beheaded outside of his door would constitute intimidation, which is not covered by the first amendment.

Vlad_the_Inaner: A mublishes ofadman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb and on the web that if you dial the number and enter a touchtone code it will explode.

Some idiot decides its a hoax and says to his iPhone

"Siri, dial 1-202-555-6789 extension 666"

Boom.

But its not any part his fault. He just said some words. Freedom of speech. No exceptions.


Question: Are you unaware that setting up a bomb is illegal? Madman would get in trouble for the bomb, but not for the web site.
 
2012-09-15 08:36:14 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.


Yeah, because parole officers in LA with huge caseloads and massive paperwork hassles have as their first priority...snooping around YouTube all day. Here's the typical scenario:

Stoltze: How many guys are you watching right now?

Gibson: I don't even know, to be honest with you. 133. Yeah, it can be frustrating sometimes. ... Especially lately, they seem to count on the fact that they can kind of ignore what you tell them to do a little bit because it's going to take you so long to notice that they're not doing it.


And yet with all the violent felons and other dirtballs they have in their typical caseloads, plus all the other former state inmates dumped on them just last year, they did locate this filmmaker doofus with remarkable speed...while upstate in Berkeley the parole system took two farking decades to find that a paroled sex offender had Jaycee Dugard penned up in his back yard.

The most likely reason this guy was "voluntarily" taken in is because the powers that be demanded a scalp.
 
2012-09-15 08:40:01 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What troubles me is if the mob was so angry, why did they carry the ambassador to the hospital? Albeit I don't know who those people carrying him were, I was just under the impression that the turrists used the protesters as cover to get in close without raising alarm.


From what I've read, not everyone at the scene was a terrorist or a protester.

Libya's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said up to 10 Libyan security personnel were also killed or wounded in the violence.

Link
 
2012-09-15 08:51:11 PM

Gyrfalcon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but that is par for the course. What troubles me is if the mob was so angry, why did they carry the ambassador to the hospital? Albeit I don't know who those people carrying him were, I was just under the impression that the turrists used the protesters as cover to get in close without raising alarm. I guess we will have to wait until the credible first-hand accounts come out, if any at all. We also need to find out how they got all riled up now, since this trailer has been on the internet for a while now.

Probably because, as I said way up top, people are mostly decent when you get them out of the mob. Seeing someone in need of help often shakes people out of the mob mentality--Hey! He's hurt! I better help him!--and turns them back into people. The mob was angry, yes, but over something they have no personal stake in.

Although I don't for a second discount your theory that the protest was used for cover. But an angry mob as cover for violence is better than a peaceful crowd as a cover, since in the second case it's pretty easy to determine where the violence came from. But that means for the terrorists that once the mob is turned back into people, the crowd isn't going to support them any more.


I wasn't on Fark a decade ago, so I don't want to echo the phrase that still makes me sick to this day when I think about how it was used to quell free speech and opinions against invading Iraq, but you are right about the angry mob aiding the terrorists in their attack, and if they were angered by this film...

/I like run-on sentences
 
2012-09-15 08:54:32 PM
well, if this was a masterminded psyops plan, it was genius for the shiatstorm it started on so many levels

not surprised the govt wants to know more from this guy
 
2012-09-15 08:59:46 PM
FWIW, here's what the bishop at the filmmaker's church had to say:

Serapion said in a statement that the diocese "strongly rejects dragging the respectable Copts of the Diaspora in the latest production of an inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam. The producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions. The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives."

Serapion added: "Holistically blaming the Copts for the production of this movie is equivalent to holistically blaming Muslims for the actions of a few fanatics. Even though Christians often face persecution, injustice and calls for open attacks over the airwaves, we reject violence in all its forms."

Link
 
2012-09-15 09:01:49 PM

HighOnCraic: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What troubles me is if the mob was so angry, why did they carry the ambassador to the hospital? Albeit I don't know who those people carrying him were, I was just under the impression that the turrists used the protesters as cover to get in close without raising alarm.

From what I've read, not everyone at the scene was a terrorist or a protester.

Libya's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said up to 10 Libyan security personnel were also killed or wounded in the violence.

Link


You are correct, thank you for the link.
 
2012-09-15 09:11:40 PM

St_Francis_P: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank, so they may look at it a little harder.




No, people died because some crazy as shiat radical Islamsists shot rocket propelled grenades into the building they were inhabiting.
 
2012-09-15 09:13:24 PM

St_Francis_P: [Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]


This is *yawn* an outrage.
 
2012-09-15 09:17:29 PM

machoprogrammer: "Siri, dial 1-202-555-6789 extension 666"

Boom.

But its not any part his fault. He just said some words. Freedom of speech. No exceptions.

Question: Are you unaware that setting up a bomb is illegal? Madman would get in trouble for the bomb, but not for the web site.




Did you notice the hypothetical involved another person than the madman? Its pretty much a trivial exercise to assign fault to the madman. Virtually everyone will assign blame to him. And the web site wasn't at issue. Assume the madman owned the site if it simplifies it for you. But is that the sole blame?

But what about the idiot who decided to tell his phone to follow the madman's instructions? That is not the same guy as the madman How about if it was a sociopath (different individual from the original madman) who merely saw an opportunity to kill in what he might think was an untraceable way? Would those people free from all responsibility? The only action they are taking in the hypothesis is saying "Siri dial..." Neither of those proposed hypothetical 3rd parties planted the bomb or conspired to do anything. They just said some words. First Amendment, right?
 
2012-09-15 09:32:18 PM
Here's the part I don't understand:

"He added that he was a Coptic Christian - followers of the faith from Egypt - and said the film's director supported the concerns of Copts and their treatment by Muslims."

Link

Did he really think that Muslims would see this film and think, "Hey, maybe we should be nicer to the Coptic Christians!"?
 
2012-09-15 09:37:25 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?

Indeed.

Let's pretend you like to poke bears with a stick. You have a 30' long pole and you go around to bear's dens and poke them with sticks--you're never hurt, and it's pretty funny to see the bears wake up all angry and growling. There's no law against poking bears, and although sometimes people deride you for harassing innocent animals, there's really no harm to it.

Until one day you go to your favorite bear cave, your 30' long stick in hand, and there's a bear sleeping there...and next to it, a 2-year old who's wandered away from home. People are anxiously gathered around, and they beg you not to poke the bear this time. "F*ck it," you say, "I always poke the bears, and nothing bad has ever happened, and anyway it's my right to poke the bear if I want to." So you poke the bear, it wakes up furious and this time eats the baby.

Can you honestly say that the bear-poker is not at fault for his actions in causing the baby's death? He didn't kill the baby, the bear did that. He didn't put the baby near the bear, the mom did that. And he had a right to do what he did, it wasn't illegal and nothing bad had ever happened before. But isn't it clear that sometimes your right to poke a bear is outweighed by the rights of others?


Yes, with freedom comes responsibility. Besides, the guy was told it would be a probation violation if he had a stick.
 
2012-09-15 09:40:53 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Freedom of speech. No exceptions.


Really? No copyright or trademark? No insider trading laws? No right to recover for defamation? No problem with distributing classified material? No exceptions at all?

Gulper Eel: And yet with all the violent felons and other dirtballs they have in their typical caseloads, plus all the other former state inmates dumped on them just last year, they did locate this filmmaker doofus with remarkable speed...while upstate in Berkeley the parole system took two farking decades to find that a paroled sex offender had Jaycee Dugard penned up in his back yard.

The most likely reason this guy was "voluntarily" taken in is because the powers that be demanded a scalp.


You're obviously confused by the difference between parole and probation. Just as obviously, you've never represented people facing charges for probation violations (I have) so you're unfamiliar with the typical level of supervision typical for people on probation.
 
2012-09-15 09:43:34 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: We also need to find out how they got all riled up now, since this trailer has been on the internet for a while now.


It's not a secret.

The original trailer of Innocence of Muslims was posted to YouTube by Bacile in July, but never gained attention until last week when it was translated into Arabic and linked to by an Egyptian-American Copt Morris Sadek in an Arabic-language blog post. Around that same time, Koran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones began promoting the film to practically no effect in the U.S. But it did gain the attention of a Glenn Beck-style TV pundit in Egypt: Sheikh Khalad Abdalla, a host on the Islamist satellite-TV station al-Nas. On Sept. 8, Abdullah lit the match that set this entire international incident in motion and broadcast an offensive clip of the trailer in which a man playing Muhammad calls a donkey "the first Muslim animal."
 
2012-09-15 09:56:17 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.


The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?
 
2012-09-15 09:57:57 PM

Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?


There's no issue there. It was a probation violation. Game over.
 
2012-09-15 09:58:52 PM

BMulligan: Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?

There's no issue there. It was a probation violation. Game over.


(Assuming he's found guilty of the probation violation, that is. Until then, he enjoys the legal presumption of innocence.)
 
2012-09-15 10:02:58 PM

BMulligan: BMulligan: Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?

There's no issue there. It was a probation violation. Game over.

(Assuming he's found guilty of the probation violation, that is. Until then, he enjoys the legal presumption of innocence.)


What are you people insinuating? That he shouldn't have been detained and questioned? There is probably cause. Got another thing to piss and moan about?
 
2012-09-15 10:04:31 PM

BMulligan: Really? No copyright or trademark? No insider trading laws? No right to recover for defamation? No problem with distributing classified material? No exceptions at all?


people have taken that position in this thread and others. My example was intended to be a counter example to those people, since the issues you have mentioned have already been raised, and seemingly dismissed. (apparently because Christophe Hitchens is more of an authority on the subject than SCOTUS could ever be)
 
2012-09-15 10:06:07 PM

Achi11es: BMulligan: BMulligan: Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?

There's no issue there. It was a probation violation. Game over.

(Assuming he's found guilty of the probation violation, that is. Until then, he enjoys the legal presumption of innocence.)

What are you people insinuating? That he shouldn't have been detained and questioned? There is probably cause. Got another thing to piss and moan about?


I think you quoted the wrong person. I'm agreeing with you.
 
2012-09-15 10:08:41 PM
Nobody should be defending this asshole, except an attorney. He violated probation, and did something monumentally stupid at the same time. Sucks to be him.
 
2012-09-15 10:14:18 PM

BMulligan: You're obviously confused by the difference between parole and probation. Just as obviously, you've never represented people facing charges for probation violations (I have) so you're unfamiliar with the typical level of supervision typical for people on probation.


That may be, but from my understanding, both parole and probation officers nationwide have biatched about excessive caseloads...and it's bad in LA. Caseloads for probation officers as high as 1000 (PDF, page 3).

LA County was sued over it three years ago, the ACLU took note, and more recently the criminal-justice system state and countywide has been dealing with budget cuts.

I do know enough of they system to know that the officers' time spent dealing with clients with mental health or addiction issues is a lot greater than it would be for somebody who did time for fraud. The jails are overcrowded, and so the priority is to keep the closest eye on the most dangerous who are at the greatest risk to violate.

In other words, is the grifter going to be their top priority? Really?

It strains credibility to think that an overburdened law enforcement system would have found out about this filmmaker's activities so quickly unless there was tremendous political pressure brought to bear.
 
2012-09-15 10:14:51 PM

BMulligan: Achi11es: BMulligan: BMulligan: Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?

There's no issue there. It was a probation violation. Game over.

(Assuming he's found guilty of the probation violation, that is. Until then, he enjoys the legal presumption of innocence.)

What are you people insinuating? That he shouldn't have been detained and questioned? There is probably cause. Got another thing to piss and moan about?

I think you quoted the wrong person. I'm agreeing with you.


I wanted to capture all of the handles and see what the hell the problem was.
 
2012-09-15 10:28:49 PM

Gulper Eel: In other words, is the grifter going to be their top priority? Really?


Absolutely. Grifters are generally sociopaths, and their pathology leads them to believe they are smarter than the people assigned to supervise them, so they think they can get away with anything. They receive some of the most intense supervision.
 
2012-09-15 10:29:31 PM

bedtundy: mathmatix:

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility. You may have the rights as guaranteed in the constitution, but that doesnt mean you dont have to answer for your words/actions.

uhhh... what? Do you really believe that? So, what is he supposed to do in answer for his free speech? Your above statement cancels itself out. You're basically saying "You have the right to free speech, but really you don't." No buts. You either want free speech, or don't. Which do you want?


It means you are responsible for your actions/words. I dont know how to be more clear.

.
 
2012-09-15 10:38:28 PM

abb3w:
If you're getting death threats on your phone and have a pile of reporters outside your door watching the increasing swarm of protestors, you might be particularly inclined to volunteer to those damned sheriffs in hopes that arrest would include protective custody.


He went into hiding right after his interview. Like, he didn't even go back home. I heard that on the news earlier.
 
2012-09-15 10:44:37 PM

Gulper Eel: It strains credibility to think that an overburdened law enforcement system would have found out about this filmmaker's activities so quickly unless there was tremendous political pressure brought to bear.


The story has been in the news for a few days now--his name became associated with the film fairly quickly. The cops had been outside his house for a couple of days already.

As outrage over the anti-Muslim film "Innocence of Muslims" spreads across the Middle East, police were sent to the California home of the many they identified as the producer of the film, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who according to authorities is frightened for his life.

Sheriff's deputies were sent to the Cerritos, California home of Nakoula, 55, Thursday to protect him and his family, a senior law enforcement official told ABC News. According to a sheriff, the police were at Nakoula's home overnight Thursday but have now left, as media reports identifying him as the man behind "Innocence of Muslims," and listing his address, have circulated.

According to California law enforcement officials, Nakoula, who is also known to authorities as Bacily Nakoula, was frightened for his life and "scared of retaliation" against his family.

Sheriffs from the Cerritos police station were sent to his home to keep Nakoula safe and to provide a uniformed presence to assist the members from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, official reports said.

Link
 
2012-09-15 10:46:05 PM

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: Maybe not; but people died because of this little prank

Nobody died because of this prank.

They died because they had the bad fortune to be living their lives in the midst of religious batshiattery that will use any pretext for murder, or make one up if there's none at hand.


I know, man. Not like we've been giving Israel a blank check or caused thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
 
2012-09-15 10:50:40 PM

The Bestest: dr_blasto: gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.

It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.

Honestly, we (the US) aren't the problem here. the Time article linked upthread notes that much of this current crisis is being caused by our good buddies the Saudis (always, always follow the money, folks.

As far as our Mideast policy in general, like it or not we're stuck there, and we'll always be stuck there so long as we're married to oil and Israel.


We're a problem so long as we insist on being the 800-lb gorilla in the region. We farked up Iran. Us. We made 1979 happen. Britain with the British mandate farked the rest. We should leave it alone, we should deal with the price of energy and say fark it. I'm tired of dead Marines. Seriously, we need to let it go and deal with it. I've known way too many good people who've died for what? Supporting more dictators? Cheap oil? farkem. Make friends with europe and brazil, stay where there's trees.
 
2012-09-15 11:02:04 PM

BMulligan: Grifters are generally sociopaths, and their pathology leads them to believe they are smarter than the people assigned to supervise them


It's not a question of smarts or being a sociopath. You don't need a pathology to think "hmm...one probation officer, coupla hundred cases, I can get away with this."

As for grifters being watched like a hawk...about that. The video was uploaded two months ago, and nobody took notice until the shiatstorm started.

HighOnCraic: The story has been in the news for a few days now--his name became associated with the film fairly quickly.


For that we can thank the Associated Press Infidel Dog Location Service.

I doubt the local authorities are happy they have to take time (and money) to babysit this guy because somebody in Washington is leaning on them.
 
2012-09-15 11:16:59 PM

Gulper Eel: For that we can thank the Associated Press Infidel Dog Location Service.


At last, we've discovered who the REAL villains are in all this!

/sarc
 
2012-09-15 11:18:36 PM
This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day
 
2012-09-15 11:29:51 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: We also need to find out how they got all riled up now, since this trailer has been on the internet for a while now.

It's not a secret.

The original trailer of Innocence of Muslims was posted to YouTube by Bacile in July, but never gained attention until last week when it was translated into Arabic and linked to by an Egyptian-American Copt Morris Sadek in an Arabic-language blog post. Around that same time, Koran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones began promoting the film to practically no effect in the U.S. But it did gain the attention of a Glenn Beck-style TV pundit in Egypt: Sheikh Khalad Abdalla, a host on the Islamist satellite-TV station al-Nas. On Sept. 8, Abdullah lit the match that set this entire international incident in motion and broadcast an offensive clip of the trailer in which a man playing Muhammad calls a donkey "the first Muslim animal."


Excellent article, thank you. Seems to be hinting at copycats of the video in the future there at the end. I wonder how soon until the first is uploaded?
 
2012-09-15 11:30:34 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: "A mublishes ofadman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb and on the web"

that was supposed to be "a madman sets up a cellphone controlled bomb an publishes on the web"

dammit


I, uh, liked the first version better.
 
2012-09-15 11:32:18 PM

beta_plus: This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day


Interestingly enough, there was only one liberal in this thread who strongly opposed you guys unrelentingly. It was surprising how many people agreed.
 
2012-09-15 11:33:00 PM

beta_plus: This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day


[trollingusedtomeansomething.jpg]
 
2012-09-15 11:49:19 PM

beta_plus: This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day


Aww, suckit. This isn't lib/con shiat, no matter how hard you try to make it that way.

There's exactly two issues.

Probation violation possibly and crazy people manipulated by shiat-ass worldview. This isn't about free speech-you conservative 'tough on crime' brethren made sure of that decades ago. Our relentless dickong around in other nations affairs took care of the rest.
 
2012-09-15 11:57:10 PM

Gulper Eel: The video was uploaded under an assumed name two months ago, and nobody took notice until the shiatstorm started.


I helpfully provided the important part you left out.
 
2012-09-15 11:57:41 PM

Gulper Eel: BMulligan: Grifters are generally sociopaths, and their pathology leads them to believe they are smarter than the people assigned to supervise them

It's not a question of smarts or being a sociopath. You don't need a pathology to think "hmm...one probation officer, coupla hundred cases, I can get away with this."

As for grifters being watched like a hawk...about that. The video was uploaded two months ago, and nobody took notice until the shiatstorm started.

HighOnCraic: The story has been in the news for a few days now--his name became associated with the film fairly quickly.

For that we can thank the Associated Press Infidel Dog Location Service.

I doubt the local authorities are happy they have to take time (and money) to babysit this guy because somebody in Washington is leaning on them.


A lot of probationers don't even have actual "probation officers" any more. As long as the offense was reasonably minor (i.e. not a violent felony), they get a little card, like an ATM card, and can check in weekly at a computer kiosk at any probation office. All they have to do to stay off the radar is hit the kiosk on time and not have any "negative contacts" with police officers. After that, they can mostly do what they like.

Given the nature of this guy's crime, I'll lay you even odds he was a computer check-in and hasn't seen his probation officer since it was granted. So he probably felt there was no risk in uploading his dumbass little film until his buddy decided it would be a good thing to translate it into Arabic.
 
2012-09-16 12:00:23 AM

Weaver95: And the laws of this country, the laws of the United States say I can do this...and there is nothing you can do to stop me.


I can do thousands of things to stop you. I'm not the U.S. government.
 
2012-09-16 12:45:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: A lot of probationers don't even have actual "probation officers" any more. As long as the offense was reasonably minor (i.e. not a violent felony), they get a little card, like an ATM card, and can check in weekly at a computer kiosk at any probation office. All they have to do to stay off the radar is hit the kiosk on time and not have any "negative contacts" with police officers. After that, they can mostly do what they like.


Maybe that's how it works in your jurisdiction, but not in mine. In Washington state, one is placed on either active or inactive supervision, a decision that is based mostly on the results of the intake interview with Dept. of Corrections. Anyone with priors (such as this knucklehead) will most likely be on active supervision, which includes periodic visits (usually weekly, occasionally biweekly) to one's supervising officer. This is where the UAs happen, and where the offender is expected to produce required documents (community service attendance, AA/NA attendance, school or work records, etc.). This isn't the most important part of active supervision, though. The most important part is the random visits to the offender at his home, along with home inspections and searches. Now, obviously, what with the state budget being slashed, fewer offenders receive this sort of supervision than once was the case, but I'm pretty sure that a guy with two fraud convictions would get the full spa treatment.
 
2012-09-16 01:58:39 AM

BMulligan: Gyrfalcon: A lot of probationers don't even have actual "probation officers" any more. As long as the offense was reasonably minor (i.e. not a violent felony), they get a little card, like an ATM card, and can check in weekly at a computer kiosk at any probation office. All they have to do to stay off the radar is hit the kiosk on time and not have any "negative contacts" with police officers. After that, they can mostly do what they like.

Maybe that's how it works in your jurisdiction, but not in mine. In Washington state, one is placed on either active or inactive supervision, a decision that is based mostly on the results of the intake interview with Dept. of Corrections. Anyone with priors (such as this knucklehead) will most likely be on active supervision, which includes periodic visits (usually weekly, occasionally biweekly) to one's supervising officer. This is where the UAs happen, and where the offender is expected to produce required documents (community service attendance, AA/NA attendance, school or work records, etc.). This isn't the most important part of active supervision, though. The most important part is the random visits to the offender at his home, along with home inspections and searches. Now, obviously, what with the state budget being slashed, fewer offenders receive this sort of supervision than once was the case, but I'm pretty sure that a guy with two fraud convictions would get the full spa treatment.


Yeah, but you're in Washington. California is so strapped for cash we're closing courthouses and have probation caseworkers with 500-600 probationers on their caseload. And no money to hire more. I interned at the Long Beach office once, and the PO even said it was totally impossible for her to keep up even on paper with her probationers. Nevermind any kind of periodic visit or random home check. They had to assume the probationer was behaving unless there was evidence otherwise.
 
2012-09-16 02:39:18 AM

Achi11es: Danish man makes cartoon of Mohammed - terrorists target HIM SPECIFICALLY. Not his country.


I suppose that's true if you ignore this:

Four months later, Muslims protested across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.[2][3]
 
2012-09-16 04:17:07 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.


I guess the law and order party isn't so law and order.
 
2012-09-16 04:18:02 AM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.

Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.

its more like someone ran into a crowded theater and shouted 'Cherry pie!'. then a riot happened. then after the riot happened, the state cops went 3 towns over and arrested a kid from a different movie theater for selling popcorn and plan on blaming the riots on him. Because hey - f*ck you, that's why!

this whole thing is surreal.


Only if you knew yelling "cherry pie" would lead to violence.
 
2012-09-16 04:22:03 AM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would consider religious fanatics going out and murdering people over my book(s) to be a mark of honor. that means that my talent as a writer was able to reach them, force them to really think about what I said and how if affects them.

No, reaching them would include opening a dialogue, not blatantly accusing their prophet of committing mortal sins. But apparently you believe in a baser level of discourse than I do.

sometimes the best way to start a dialogue is to shake people up, shock them out of their normal patterns of thinking.


You don't actually farking think portraying Mohamed as a blood-thirsty, gay, pedo is actually "opening a dialogue". You are just being a douche.
 
2012-09-16 07:54:46 AM

Gulper Eel: jso2897: Came to see rat-wingers white-knighting a career criminal.
Leaving, satisfied.

Hollywood's been white-knighting Roman Polanski for 40 years. Can't the rest of us have a bit of self-righteous fun?


Of couse, and I did not mean to imply otherwise, my good man.
 
2012-09-16 08:33:27 AM

Gulper Eel: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

Yeah, because parole officers in LA with huge caseloads and massive paperwork hassles have as their first priority...snooping around YouTube all day. Here's the typical scenario:

Stoltze: How many guys are you watching right now?

Gibson: I don't even know, to be honest with you. 133. Yeah, it can be frustrating sometimes. ... Especially lately, they seem to count on the fact that they can kind of ignore what you tell them to do a little bit because it's going to take you so long to notice that they're not doing it.

And yet with all the violent felons and other dirtballs they have in their typical caseloads, plus all the other former state inmates dumped on them just last year, they did locate this filmmaker doofus with remarkable speed...while upstate in Berkeley the parole system took two farking decades to find that a paroled sex offender had Jaycee Dugard penned up in his back yard.

The most likely reason this guy was "voluntarily" taken in is because the powers that be demanded a scalp.


Newsflash: cops are overworked and busy, they should focus on the most heinous crimes. But when you drive past a trooper with a taillight out, while thumbing your nose at them, guess what
 
2012-09-16 08:37:28 AM

Lithanus: herrDrFarkenstein: This is your hero conservatards. A parolee con-man too stupid to realize that parole officers look at the internet too.

The consensus, even among conservatives, is that he's a jackass. I've seen very few defending his speech as such. The issue isn't whether his opinion has merit, the issue is whether he should have the right to state it. Got another straw man to knock down?


I thought apologizing for this film was being sympathetic to terrorists and those who hate America. That's what the democratically chosen standard bearer of American conservatism told me. Also the Fark threads full of glass parking lots and pig blood - not to mention RedState etc.

You and your racist friends ...
 
2012-09-16 09:30:38 AM

Mentat: Achi11es: Danish man makes cartoon of Mohammed - terrorists target HIM SPECIFICALLY. Not his country.

I suppose that's true if you ignore this:

Four months later, Muslims protested across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.[2][3]


I suppose you would be correct if any of the protests originated with the calling for the film makers head only. Idiot.
 
2012-09-16 09:31:26 AM
Now, I don't know why more people aren't curious about this, but I will throw this out there -

This seems like an awful lot of effort to go through just to release a video like this. I think what the government is actually investigating right now is that they are trying to make a determination if this was some sort of false flag operation.

Because really, once some of the weirdness came out about this situation, I have to admit that this is the first place my mind went to - mainly because this doesn't pass occums razor. Too much trickery and deception going on for just run of the mill xenophobia and racism, which is frankly, in abundant supply... right?
 
2012-09-16 10:22:07 AM

dr_blasto: beta_plus: This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day

Aww, suckit. This isn't lib/con shiat, no matter how hard you try to make it that way.

There's exactly two issues.

Probation violation possibly and crazy people manipulated by shiat-ass worldview. This isn't about free speech-you conservative 'tough on crime' brethren made sure of that decades ago. Our relentless dickong around in other nations affairs took care of the rest.


Yeah, keep trying to blame the conservatives on this one. You know, the same conservatives who ordered the bombing of Libya in 2011.
 
2012-09-16 10:22:41 AM
I think sometime in the next couple of weeks I'm going to make a video that will offend muslims so much their heads will explode before they even get a chance to start rioting.
 
2012-09-16 10:37:42 AM
mythblogogy.files.wordpress.com

Somehow this feels appropriate..
 
2012-09-16 10:46:53 AM

beta_plus: dr_blasto: beta_plus: This whole clusterfark is lovely. Liberals and the Democrat party aren't even pretending anymore that they believe in free speech. Only in speech that helps them.

If this was a guy who had made fun of Christian fundamentalism they'd be cheering at the top of their lungs.

/I though America was the land of freedom of expression
//this is a very sad day

Aww, suckit. This isn't lib/con shiat, no matter how hard you try to make it that way.

There's exactly two issues.

Probation violation possibly and crazy people manipulated by shiat-ass worldview. This isn't about free speech-you conservative 'tough on crime' brethren made sure of that decades ago. Our relentless dickong around in other nations affairs took care of the rest.

Yeah, keep trying to blame the conservatives on this one. You know, the same conservatives who ordered the bombing of Libya in 2011.


I'm holding the conservatives responsible for the crazy authoritarian "tough on crime" bullshiat and the erosion of rights that makes it easy for your government to cyber-stalk you whenever they feel the urge.
 
2012-09-16 11:03:38 AM

beta_plus: Yeah, keep trying to blame the conservatives on this one. You know, the same conservatives who ordered the bombing of Libya in 2011 1986.

 
2012-09-16 11:20:23 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: i'm saying that if I write a book [Android is great! Or how I learned to love open source and hate the Apple] and someone else gets SO ANGRY at my words that they go on a murder spree...then I'm merely responsible for being a good writer.

If you make a movie that says "The prophet you believe in is a murderer and a philanderer" and the reaction to it by those believers is that four people are dead, you are not a good writer. You are a propagandist.

Apparently you do not believe in the power or consequences of speech.


Apparently you believe muslims are incapable of choice.
 
2012-09-16 12:15:16 PM
Subby is a farking retard with zero reading comprehension.

Investigation of possible parole violations, dumbshiat.
 
2012-09-16 02:54:01 PM
static.ddmcdn.com

target="_blank">BMulligan: beta_plus: Yeah, keep trying to blame the conservatives on this one. You know, the same conservatives who ordered the bombing of Libya in 2011 1986

1801.
 
2012-09-16 08:35:31 PM
While we're arresting douche-backwash, hack film-makers, for parole violations, can we round up this stain?
www.addictinginfo.org
 
2012-09-16 09:28:20 PM
The Obama administration is squelching free speech to save their own a$$. The security of these embassies was Hilliary's responsibility and she failed. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Yeah, how's that working out for ya? The State Department was given warning three days prior that something like this would happen. No Marines at compound to protect the Ambassador...... And everybody's focusing on this filmmaker??????????

Obama Administration EPIC FAIL.
 
2012-09-16 09:46:50 PM

tony41454: Ignorant troll derp.


You are an ignorant derpy troll. I award you 1.873/10 points.
 
2012-09-17 12:57:47 AM

tony41454: The Obama administration is squelching free speech to save their own a$$. The security of these embassies was Hilliary's responsibility and she failed. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Yeah, how's that working out for ya? The State Department was given warning three days prior that something like this would happen. No Marines at compound to protect the Ambassador...... And everybody's focusing on this filmmaker??????????

Obama Administration EPIC FAIL.


Folks, this is what happens when you become a far-right wing teabagger idiot. You will believe literally anything.
 
2012-09-17 01:32:12 PM
This is such an Orwellian nightmare that Obama should be instantly impeached. Oh wait, it's not.

A Southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed and released Saturday by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriff's station, authorities said.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was interviewed for about half an hour at the station shortly after 12 a.m. in his hometown of Cerritos, Calif., said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County sheriff's department.

After that, deputies dropped Nakoula off at an undisclosed location.

"He is gone. We don't know where he went," Whitmore said. "He said he is not going back to his home."

Federal officials are investigating whether Nakoula, who has been convicted of financial crimes, has violated the terms of his five-year probation. If so, a judge could send him back to prison.

Nakoula went voluntarily to the station, wearing a coat, hat, scarf and glasses that concealed his appearance. His home has been besieged by media for several days.

Whitmore said Nakoula was not handcuffed and the heavy apparel was his idea.


http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20120915/NEWS/120915015/-Innocen c e-Muslims-filmmaker-Nakoula-Basseley-Nakoula-released-avoids-besieged- home

/Subby will remain outraged, nonetheless.
 
Displayed 409 of 409 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report