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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report