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.

(Huffington Post)   Newsweek's new 'THIS IS AN OUTRAGE' cover   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 479
    More: Spiffy, Newsweek, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, opinion pieces, Mr. Carter, cults  
•       •       •

31899 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 3:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-17 11:47:19 AM  
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch
 
2012-09-17 12:02:03 PM  
Read the #MuslimRage hashtag that Newsweek stupidly tried to promote. So funny.
 
2012-09-17 12:03:55 PM  
img.dailymail.co.uk

img.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-09-17 12:14:42 PM  
Hi. We are farking crazy ass Muslims, completely out of control and losing our shiat over something stupid, but don't you dare publish a picture of us completely losing our shiat over something stupid, or we will totally lose our shiat.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:17 PM  
For some reason, the phrase "Muslim World Uprisings" from that article has me feeling...armageddonish.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:39 PM  
well it's time to investigate newsweek... This freedom of speech and press thing has obviously gone too far.
 
2012-09-17 12:20:46 PM  
Newsweak should just be renamed "The Niall Ferguson Looks Down At You Unwashed Masses" Weekly.
 
2012-09-17 12:24:52 PM  
So if they published a picture of muslims sitting in a peace circle singing Kumbaya, would they start sitting in a peace circle singing Kumbaya? I wanna see how far we can stretch this 'Muslim see, Muslim do' attitude
 
2012-09-17 12:29:57 PM  

BunkyBrewman: [img.dailymail.co.uk image 468x256]

[img.dailymail.co.uk image 468x421]


"This is an outrage!"

"Lol why you mad tho?"
 
2012-09-17 12:30:48 PM  
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.
 
2012-09-17 12:31:17 PM  
An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.
 
2012-09-17 12:32:51 PM  
Well, just paste a picture of Muhamed over any angry Muslims you have photos of before you publish them.
Problem solved.

Farking 13th century assholes.

Nothing a bulldozer and a watercooled leadspitter couldn't solve, finally.
 
2012-09-17 12:33:12 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 12:35:21 PM  
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 12:36:48 PM  
Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).
 
2012-09-17 12:38:10 PM  

Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
 
2012-09-17 12:39:38 PM  
Provocative? Sure. Timely? Definitely. Deserving of harsh criticism? Nope.

Moving along....
 
2012-09-17 12:45:54 PM  
Newsweek before the 21st century:

graphics8.nytimes.com

Newsweek 2012:

roblorinov.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-17 12:49:34 PM  
Maybe they are protesting a Black President.  I'm just saying that neither Libya, Pakistan, nor Egypt have black presidents.  It could be the source of all their rage.
 
2012-09-17 12:52:16 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 12:52:45 PM  
i253.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 12:54:26 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 12:57:15 PM  
www.barenakedislam.com
 
"Everyone who hates USA put one hand in the air, wave it around like you just don't care."
 
2012-09-17 12:57:54 PM  

Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.


No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.
 
2012-09-17 12:58:51 PM  
i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:02:46 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:03:06 PM  
Islam has had a stick up their ass since at least the 7th century.
 
2012-09-17 01:06:01 PM  
i420.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:07:03 PM  
This thread has serious potential...

/ not a bookmark
 
2012-09-17 01:07:48 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:09:38 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch


sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.


Double THIS.
 
2012-09-17 01:11:50 PM  

Diogenes: Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch

sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.

Double THIS.


You know who else lied about citizenship to gain public office?
 
2012-09-17 01:13:58 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:14:22 PM  
Damn I love this thread.
 
2012-09-17 01:14:34 PM  
Some say this is an Islamic reformation.  I think it's just the Islamic world's version of the 60's with crappy music.
 
2012-09-17 01:15:35 PM  

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 600x408]


alternatively: "home base, you can't shoot me"
 
2012-09-17 01:17:18 PM  

Aarontology: Diogenes: Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch

sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.

Double THIS.

You know who else lied about citizenship to gain public office?


Oooooooo......*wrinkles brow*......dammit! I know this one......
 
2012-09-17 01:18:00 PM  

thomps: I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 600x408]

alternatively: "home base, you can't shoot me"



Heh.  I like that.
 
2012-09-17 01:19:45 PM  
64.136.20.22
 
2012-09-17 01:27:21 PM  
i258.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:27:32 PM  

Diogenes: Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch

sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.

Double THIS.


Neither of those statements is correct. She argued to limit immigration from countries with Islamic governments, and when she was elected to Parliament, she had been granted Dutch citizenship. Her citizenship was stripped after it became known that she had made false statements in her asylum application.
 
2012-09-17 01:31:38 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:33:50 PM  

give me doughnuts: Neither of those statements is correct. She argued to limit immigration from countries with Islamic governments, and when she was elected to Parliament, she had been granted Dutch citizenship. Her citizenship was stripped after it became known that she had made false statements in her asylum application.


Okay so let me amend that:

She immigrated to the Netherlands from Somalia but wants to limit immigration from Islamic countries, like Somalia. She lied on her asylum application to become a citizen, made it into Parliament, and was stripped of her citizenship. So I find her just as vile as I originally stated.
 
2012-09-17 01:37:14 PM  

brap: [i253.photobucket.com image 575x779]


Ugh, man. At least being forced to eat lutefisk is something worth rioting over.

/vomiting too
 
2012-09-17 01:38:44 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 01:39:03 PM  

Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.


Shockingly we're trying diplomacy. And while these idiots reacting this way is inexcusable, we know what it's going to happen and shouldn't expect much else.

Looking at it another way...I've got a relative that's a bit racist. He made some somewhat offensive comments in front of some friends, particularly offensive to one. He's got a right to say what he likes, but I called him on it because it was offensive not only to my guests but to me as well. I could have easily tried to laugh it off and sweep it under the rug, but I likely would have lost a friend. Just because he can say something doesn't make it right.
 
2012-09-17 01:48:45 PM  

give me doughnuts: Diogenes: Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch

sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.

Double THIS.

Neither of those statements is correct. She argued to limit immigration from countries with Islamic governments, and when she was elected to Parliament, she had been granted Dutch citizenship. Her citizenship was stripped after it became known that she had made false statements in her asylum application.


So just to be clear

1) She wasn't just generally against immigration after she immigrated she was against immigration SPECIFICALLY from the types of place she had just immigrated from.

2) She didn't lie about her citizenship in order to be elected to parliament, she lied in order to get citizenship so she should be elected to parliament.

I will make the necessary edits to the reasons that she is total shiatbag. ie change a couple of prepositions, leaving her shiatbag rating unchanged at total farking shiatbag.
 
2012-09-17 01:57:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 01:57:41 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 02:11:32 PM  

bdub77: Newsweek before the 21st century:

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x265]

Newsweek 2012:

[roblorinov.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]


Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.
 
2012-09-17 02:12:22 PM  

Demetrius: Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.

Shockingly we're trying diplomacy. And while these idiots reacting this way is inexcusable, we know what it's going to happen and shouldn't expect much else.

Looking at it another way...I've got a relative that's a bit racist. He made some somewhat offensive comments in front of some friends, particularly offensive to one. He's got a right to say what he likes, but I called him on it because it was offensive not only to my guests but to me as well. I could have easily tried to laugh it off and sweep it under the rug, but I likely would have lost a friend. Just because he can say something doesn't make it right.


Yeah, I thought of a reply to this, but then looking at the rest of the thread, I think I'm just going to call it an agreement to disagree and watch this thing get awesome. We've had dozens of threads picking apart the speech issue.

You want any popcorn?
 
2012-09-17 02:13:00 PM  
i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 02:18:50 PM  
64.136.20.22
 
2012-09-17 02:22:01 PM  
s11.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 02:31:48 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


yeah, your dad definitely ruined it for everyone.
 
2012-09-17 02:34:04 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.



It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff.  We cancelled.
 
Which sucks, because I like having a paper magazine with good but somewhat lighter political/national/world news content.  Everything has turned either to crap or is far to heavy and detailed for sitting on the toilet quick reading.
 
2012-09-17 02:39:13 PM  

downstairs: Coco LaFemme: Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff.  We cancelled.
 
Which sucks, because I like having a paper magazine with good but somewhat lighter political/national/world news content.  Everything has turned either to crap or is far to heavy and detailed for sitting on the toilet quick reading.


That was my problem with reading The Atlantic, my ass was numb and sore by the time I finished an article.
 
2012-09-17 02:49:29 PM  
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-17 02:53:23 PM  
I love this thread so much.
 
2012-09-17 02:56:40 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:00:44 PM  
On a serious note: if folks don't understand by now that there is a lot of resentment about policies and actions over the last 75 years in regard to the Middle East by folks from the West, then a single article isn't really going to dispel or educate that degree of any self awareness or sense of history.

Look at the dismantling of Iran's greatest democracy, authored by Western powers, and reinstallation of the Shah after being deposed. Look at Afghanistan's cynical use to oust the Russians, and consequent abandonment. Look at the plight of the Palestinians--who, to be quite fair, were just not quite as quick off the gate to get their own chunk of pie as the Jews were; and to be fair, they didn't have backers with quite as deep pockets. Look at Libya. Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look at how we've encouraged the most radical elements, when it suited our purposes, and how quick we have been to disavow them. Look at the policies that the US has advocated publicly, and then sandbagged when it came time to real negotiations.

There are folks in the Middle East who will NEVER trust a damn thing ANYONE from the US government says in policy, and were our roles reversed, we wouldn't either. Why are so many angry? They actually paid attention in history...
 
2012-09-17 03:04:36 PM  
i420.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:17:00 PM  
This thread has potenital.

Don't quit on me now, you farks!!
 
2012-09-17 03:18:42 PM  
i1202.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:21:00 PM  
Remember, Muslims are violent, angry people.

encrypted-tbn1.google.com

i1.trekearth.com
 
2012-09-17 03:22:34 PM  

vernonFL: Remember, Muslims are violent, angry people.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 273x184]

[i1.trekearth.com image 800x533]


booooring! make them fart or something and then get back to us.
 
2012-09-17 03:24:17 PM  

vernonFL: Remember, Muslims are violent, angry people.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 273x184]

[i1.trekearth.com image 800x533]


Boo this man! BOO!
 
2012-09-17 03:25:48 PM  

vernonFL: Remember, Muslims are violent, angry people.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 273x184]

[i1.trekearth.com image 800x533]



Ever hear of Muhamad Ali?  Made a living beating people up.  A few happy photos of people (probably happy at the fact that some Westerner lost their car keys) does not make up for a lifetime of rope a dope.
 
2012-09-17 03:28:38 PM  
I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.
 
2012-09-17 03:28:39 PM  

I_C_Weener: vernonFL: Remember, Muslims are violent, angry people.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 273x184]

[i1.trekearth.com image 800x533]


Ever hear of Muhamad Ali?  Made a living beating people up.  A few happy photos of people (probably happy at the fact that some Westerner lost their car keys) does not make up for a lifetime of rope a dope.


they're probably smiling because muslim president barack obama keeps murdering people with drone strikes.
 
2012-09-17 03:29:54 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.


you should take better care of your nutsack if it looks like a muslim dude's bearded face.
 
2012-09-17 03:30:57 PM  
Dude on the left:

MAH BALLS!
 
2012-09-17 03:31:33 PM  

thomps: Timmy the Tumor: I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.

you should take better care of your nutsack if it looks like a muslim dude's bearded face.



Off to redo a pic
 
2012-09-17 03:31:45 PM  
I see this meme delivering for a loooooong time.

also the other guy looks like he smelled a bad fart.
 
2012-09-17 03:32:24 PM  
Why can't we just say "fine, go fark yourselves" and completely stay out of the Middle East's bidness as much as possible?

Oh right, oil. Damn.
 
2012-09-17 03:33:42 PM  

xynix: [imageshack.us image 581x679]


Pure gold! LOL!
 
2012-09-17 03:33:44 PM  
i260.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:34:24 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 03:35:11 PM  

Demetrius: Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.

Shockingly we're trying diplomacy. And while these idiots reacting this way is inexcusable, we know what it's going to happen and shouldn't expect much else.

Looking at it another way...I've got a relative that's a bit racist. He made some somewhat offensive comments in front of some friends, particularly offensive to one. He's got a right to say what he likes, but I called him on it because it was offensive not only to my guests but to me as well. I could have easily tried to laugh it off and sweep it under the rug, but I likely would have lost a friend. Just because he can say something doesn't make it right.


Just because someone said something doesnt mean you can loot riot and kill either...
 
2012-09-17 03:35:21 PM  
Week 1: Muslim Outrage cover photo
Week 2: Cover photo of protests of previous cover photo
...
 
2012-09-17 03:35:34 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:37:39 PM  

kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).


I see where you're going with this...and as much as you disagree with it, our reasons for doing it (going to war) were still better than "you talked about my sky wizard and it hurt my feelings so I need to kill someone."
 
2012-09-17 03:38:18 PM  
i.imgur.com

MUSLIM RAGE! MUSLIM RAGE I KILL ANY INFIDEL FOLKS I LAY MY MOTHERFARKING EYES ON!
 
2012-09-17 03:39:10 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.


No, beard wax. They can have beard competitions, and then farkers can dismiss them for being hipsters. It's a win-win-win.
 
2012-09-17 03:40:01 PM  

Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.

Shockingly we're trying diplomacy. And while these idiots reacting this way is inexcusable, we know what it's going to happen and shouldn't expect much else.

Looking at it another way...I've got a relative that's a bit racist. He made some somewhat offensive comments in front of some friends, particularly offensive to one. He's got a right to say what he likes, but I called him on it because it was offensive not only to my guests but to me as well. I could have easily tried to laugh it off and sweep it under the rug, but I likely would have lost a friend. Just because he can say something doesn't make it right.

Yeah, I thought of a reply to this, but then looking at the rest of the thread, I think I'm just going to call it an agreement to disagree and watch this thing get awesome. We've had dozens of threads picking apart the speech issue.

You want any popcorn?


Fill me up!
 
2012-09-17 03:40:14 PM  
I have never seen such a group of people that have not mentally grown up past a 8 year old. Seriously, the guy on the left looks like someone told him there's no santa.
 
2012-09-17 03:40:25 PM  

Demetrius: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.


Nutting out over someone else's free speech does not mean you're not an asshole.
 
2012-09-17 03:41:20 PM  

LeroyBourne: I have never seen such a group of people that have not mentally grown up past a 8 year old. Seriously, the guy on the left looks like someone told him there's no santa.


i thought you were talking about the thread for a second there.
 
2012-09-17 03:41:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Read the #MuslimRage hashtag that Newsweek stupidly tried to promote. So funny.


Yup.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 03:42:01 PM  
I'm outraged because that POS Newsweek is still around.
 
2012-09-17 03:42:01 PM  
images107.fotki.com
 
2012-09-17 03:42:26 PM  
That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...
 
2012-09-17 03:42:45 PM  
Looks like I may have to update this old thing ...

i1222.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:43:19 PM  

Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...



Feel that whoosh as the thread went right over your head?
 
2012-09-17 03:43:23 PM  
Our world would be soooo much better without these idiots.
 
2012-09-17 03:43:29 PM  
Maybe we just need to translate into Arabic: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

The religion of peace doesn't seem to get what we teach every kindergarten kid.

Sheesh...
 
2012-09-17 03:44:09 PM  
can we get off oil so we can go back to not caring about these places all the time?

I want the middle east to go back to being a place of learning and exotic ladies.

/religion should never rise above soda loyalty in terms of importance.
//yea, I tried jesus once, but budda is just tastier. I keep a little of everything in the fridge in case of guests.
 
2012-09-17 03:44:20 PM  

kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).


This is what happens when you huff paint kids.
 
2012-09-17 03:45:14 PM  

xxmedium: [i.imgur.com image 850x452]

MUSLIM RAGE! MUSLIM RAGE I KILL ANY INFIDEL FOLKS I LAY MY MOTHERFARKING EYES ON!


What's a Nubian?
 
2012-09-17 03:46:11 PM  
i260.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 03:46:27 PM  

I_C_Weener: Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...


Feel that whoosh as the thread went right over your head?


just moderate the thread and delete my post if you don't feel that it is on topic...
 
2012-09-17 03:46:47 PM  
This thread is full of win. Thanks for making my day, everyone. I'll be checking back.
 
2012-09-17 03:46:51 PM  

thomps: LeroyBourne: I have never seen such a group of people that have not mentally grown up past a 8 year old. Seriously, the guy on the left looks like someone told him there's no santa.

i thought you were talking about the thread for a second there.


No, most of us here have a sense of humor. And I'm digging the shoops, keep em coming.
 
2012-09-17 03:47:05 PM  
The Photoshops are coming in fast and furious. Awesom-O 3000.

Keep me awake at work for a couple more hours? kthxbye
 
2012-09-17 03:47:18 PM  
WHO IS JOHN GALT?

i.huffpost.com
www.treknicalities.com
 
2012-09-17 03:48:24 PM  

SuperT: can we get off oil so we can go back to not caring about these places all the time?

I want the middle east to go back to being a place of learning and exotic ladies.

/religion should never rise above soda loyalty in terms of importance.
//yea, I tried jesus once, but budda is just tastier. I keep a little of everything in the fridge in case of guests.


You would have to go back to pre islamic days....

/i see what you did there
 
2012-09-17 03:48:40 PM  

LeroyBourne: I have never seen such a group of people that have not mentally grown up past a 8 year old. Seriously, the guy on the left looks like someone told him there's no santa.


This is what happens when you take nomadic tribes of sheep herders living in the bronze age and try to bring them into the modern age within the span on a century.
 
2012-09-17 03:49:39 PM  

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 480x338]


I'm in love with you today.
 
2012-09-17 03:49:53 PM  
My wife wanted new windows for our anniversary. I thought those were expensive, but I guess buying Newsweek for your wife to get cover articles was a lot more expensive eh Niall?
 
2012-09-17 03:49:53 PM  
I think being outraged is like a sport over there. Someone ought to sell tickets.
 
2012-09-17 03:50:11 PM  
Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin.
 
2012-09-17 03:50:21 PM  

gilgigamesh: [i260.photobucket.com image 575x779]


My secretary just walked in and thought I was having a seizure. Awesome.
 
2012-09-17 03:50:25 PM  

Headso: I_C_Weener: Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...


Feel that whoosh as the thread went right over your head?

just moderate the thread and delete my post if you don't feel that it is on topic...



Can't moderate a thread and post in it.  Plus, it isn't off topic as much as off the pulse of the posters in thread.  Thank you for posting, please enjoy the remainder of your posting experience.
 
2012-09-17 03:50:51 PM  
Meh, all the cool kids have a subscription to The Economist.
 
2012-09-17 03:51:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).

I see where you're going with this...and as much as you disagree with it, our reasons for doing it (going to war) were still better than "you talked about my sky wizard and it hurt my feelings so I need to kill someone."


Which reasons? Lining Halliburton's coffers with gold from our treasury? Giving Cheney, GWB and company a way to test their dumbass theories about geopolitics by letting them secure a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Mideast? Allowing GWB to avenge the assassination attempt on his dad so he could feel like a man instead of a boy? And its not like the people calling for the invasion didn't tap into the religious fears and fervor of America's Christians to get what they wanted.
 
2012-09-17 03:51:38 PM  

Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...


American Social Conservatives and Islamic Fundamentalists Are Both Equally Bad, so let Libyans murder American Diplomats!
 
2012-09-17 03:51:53 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 480x338]

I'm in love with you today.



Some days you are the George Carlin, others you are the Dane Fife.  :)
 
2012-09-17 03:52:04 PM  

beta_plus: Your right to free speech expression ends where my feelings embassy begins.


/not really disagreeing with you, just wanted to make a pithy comment
 
2012-09-17 03:52:31 PM  
I am crying I am laughing so hard. Good work guys.
 
2012-09-17 03:53:01 PM  
When criticized, Newsweek has argued that it is trying to start conversations and run sharp-elbowed opinion pieces by people from across the political spectrum.

Wow. That's the textbook definition of "trolling"....
 
2012-09-17 03:53:08 PM  
trollcats.com
 
2012-09-17 03:54:01 PM  

beta_plus: Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...

American Social Conservatives and Islamic Fundamentalists Are Both Equally Bad, so let Libyans murder American Diplomats!


Who the hell says we should let Libyans murder American diplomats? Your making up crazy things people didn't say.
 
2012-09-17 03:54:38 PM  

kbronsito: Silly Jesus: kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).

I see where you're going with this...and as much as you disagree with it, our reasons for doing it (going to war) were still better than "you talked about my sky wizard and it hurt my feelings so I need to kill someone."

Which reasons? Lining Halliburton's coffers with gold from our treasury? Giving Cheney, GWB and company a way to test their dumbass theories about geopolitics by letting them secure a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Mideast? Allowing GWB to avenge the assassination attempt on his dad so he could feel like a man instead of a boy? And its not like the people calling for the invasion didn't tap into the religious fears and fervor of America's Christians to get what they wanted.


Wow, you really are a CPS grad.

/CAKE IS A LIE!!
 
2012-09-17 03:54:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 03:54:58 PM  
i.imgur.com

Why don't they just go 2 out of 3?

/Idon'tgetit
 
2012-09-17 03:55:08 PM  

MBooda: WHO IS JOHN GALT?
[i.huffpost.com image 575x779]
[www.treknicalities.com image 300x227]


I thought that guy looked familiar.
 
2012-09-17 03:55:15 PM  

mr lawson: Our world would be soooo much better without these idiots.


These idiots running Newsweek? I agree.
 
2012-09-17 03:55:25 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 03:55:47 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 03:56:14 PM  
Whenever people react like this it shows their inability to understand how the rest of the world makes decisions.
The American people think: "oh those wacky fundies are breaking stuff again and making a lot of noise"
Future and current politicians think :"Let's go ahead and move these countries to the top of the "Who we are going to bomb next" list."

It is like constantly repeating cycles.
 
2012-09-17 03:56:14 PM  
I love this thread so much.
 
2012-09-17 03:56:46 PM  

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 600x408]


t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-17 03:57:04 PM  

Joe Blowme: SuperT: can we get off oil so we can go back to not caring about these places all the time?

I want the middle east to go back to being a place of learning and exotic ladies.

/religion should never rise above soda loyalty in terms of importance.
//yea, I tried jesus once, but budda is just tastier. I keep a little of everything in the fridge in case of guests.

You would have to go back to pre islamic days....

/i see what you did there


even in the early islamic era they kept the knowledge of the greeks and romans(and added to it) safe from potato headed bookburners in europe. I feel like we need to return the favor.
 
2012-09-17 03:57:41 PM  
Why doesn't somebody tell these guys: pubic hair doesn't belong on your chin.
 
2012-09-17 03:57:52 PM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-17 03:57:58 PM  
soonerpsycho.com
 
2012-09-17 03:58:37 PM  
wikipedia: The Last Temptation of Christ

Attack on Saint Michel theater, Paris


On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[8][9] The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged,[9] and reopened 3 years later after restoration.
...
The leader of Christian Solidarity, a Roman Catholic group that had promised to stop the film from being shown, said, "We will not hesitate to go to prison if it is necessary."[9]

The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right National Front to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[8] Lefebvre had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church on July 2, 1988. Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[8] At least nine people believed to be members of the Catholic fundamentalist group were arrested.[8]
 
2012-09-17 03:59:38 PM  
The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.
 
2012-09-17 04:01:42 PM  

whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.


Nah, not mad. I just feel sorry for your fear.
 
2012-09-17 04:01:51 PM  
The guy on the left has his balls caught in a chair.
 
2012-09-17 04:02:07 PM  
s13.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:02:42 PM  

mark12A: Meh, all the cool kids have a subscription to The Economist.

Foreign Policy

, biatches!
 
2012-09-17 04:03:04 PM  

whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.


Not conservative humor. More like gallows humor. We laugh so we don't cry..
 
2012-09-17 04:03:08 PM  

whidbey: the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.


What hook is he on other than being afraid of the unacceptable violence?
 
b3x
2012-09-17 04:03:13 PM  
trolling muslims is a bit to easy ...
 
2012-09-17 04:03:33 PM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 04:04:43 PM  
i594.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:04:45 PM  

Virtual Pariah: The guy on the left has his balls caught in a chair.


yeah one of those old school lawn chairs with the plastic straps...
 
2012-09-17 04:05:07 PM  
s18.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:05:51 PM  

hubiestubert: On a serious note: if folks don't understand by now that there is a lot of resentment about policies and actions over the last 75 years in regard to the Middle East by folks from the West, then a single article isn't really going to dispel or educate that degree of any self awareness or sense of history.

Look at the dismantling of Iran's greatest democracy, authored by Western powers, and reinstallation of the Shah after being deposed. Look at Afghanistan's cynical use to oust the Russians, and consequent abandonment. Look at the plight of the Palestinians--who, to be quite fair, were just not quite as quick off the gate to get their own chunk of pie as the Jews were; and to be fair, they didn't have backers with quite as deep pockets. Look at Libya. Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look at how we've encouraged the most radical elements, when it suited our purposes, and how quick we have been to disavow them. Look at the policies that the US has advocated publicly, and then sandbagged when it came time to real negotiations.

There are folks in the Middle East who will NEVER trust a damn thing ANYONE from the US government says in policy, and were our roles reversed, we wouldn't either. Why are so many angry? They actually paid attention in history...



Shut up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
/Be like Texas. Ban critical thinking.
 
2012-09-17 04:06:39 PM  
Dumbass contractors forgot to install shields on a small exhaust port!
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-17 04:06:59 PM  

Jekylman: mark12A: Meh, all the cool kids have a subscription to The Economist.

Foreign Policy, biatches!



Free minds, free markets monkeyFARMAZ!
 
2012-09-17 04:07:09 PM  

Corvus: beta_plus: Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...

American Social Conservatives and Islamic Fundamentalists Are Both Equally Bad, so let Libyans murder American Diplomats!

Who the hell says we should let Libyans murder American diplomats? Your making up crazy things people didn't say.


Yes, because I'm sure you would be saying "We need to be sensitive to American Social Conservatives feelings" if they even peacefully protested against a youtube video mocking Christianity.

/you're not even trying anymore to pretend that you believe in free speech for all
//just the people who help you win elections
 
2012-09-17 04:07:14 PM  

Headso: whidbey: the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

What hook is he on other than being afraid of the unacceptable violence?


Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly, but he must also make some kind of atonement involving the raising or donating of millions of dollars either from the proceeds of the movie or his own personal savings to Muslim causes, and then he would also have perform some kind of high-profile community service event in addition to it.
 
2012-09-17 04:07:24 PM  

sweetmelissa31:


So much win
 
2012-09-17 04:07:44 PM  
This thread has it all, photoshop, captions (ow my balls), muslim rage. I hope it goes all night.
 
2012-09-17 04:08:26 PM  

whidbey: Headso: whidbey: the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

What hook is he on other than being afraid of the unacceptable violence?

Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly, but he must also make some kind of atonement involving the raising or donating of millions of dollars either from the proceeds of the movie or his own personal savings to Muslim causes, and then he would also have perform some kind of high-profile community service event in addition to it.


Man, you were trolling and I bit on it. For shame.
 
2012-09-17 04:08:37 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:09:42 PM  

Virtual Pariah: More like gallows humor. We laugh so we don't cry..


That should be one of the Fark hash-tags that have now
 
2012-09-17 04:10:41 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.

Nah, not mad. I just feel sorry for your fear.


No fear here. Just rightly pissed that bigotry and hatred get a free pass under the monicker of "free speech."
 
2012-09-17 04:11:00 PM  

whidbey: Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly


Pretty sure the movie trailer was intended to be inflammatory, I don't think the people who made it would think they have to apologize considering offending people was the goal of the whole thing...
 
2012-09-17 04:11:47 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:11:57 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Headso: whidbey: the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

What hook is he on other than being afraid of the unacceptable violence?

Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly, but he must also make some kind of atonement involving the raising or donating of millions of dollars either from the proceeds of the movie or his own personal savings to Muslim causes, and then he would also have perform some kind of high-profile community service event in addition to it.

Man, you were trolling and I bit on it. For shame.


Snagged by the ole reverse-Skookum, eh? It happens.
 
2012-09-17 04:11:59 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Headso: whidbey: the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

What hook is he on other than being afraid of the unacceptable violence?

Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly, but he must also make some kind of atonement involving the raising or donating of millions of dollars either from the proceeds of the movie or his own personal savings to Muslim causes, and then he would also have perform some kind of high-profile community service event in addition to it.

Man, you were trolling and I bit on it. For shame.


Why is that a troll? That's exactly what he should be made to do. Bonus: with some kind of judicial order backing it up.
 
2012-09-17 04:12:00 PM  
Something isn't sitting right with me. The internet is full of anti-muslim stuff. I don't really need to go looking for it, I just know that it's there. Just a google search away. This was a pissant effort, doomed to the internet. How did they grok on this? Why didn't these riots happen on any other day when there was other (likely better and more acceptable to the west) material out there?
 
2012-09-17 04:13:07 PM  

Headso: whidbey: Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly

Pretty sure the movie trailer was intended to be inflammatory, I don't think the people who made it would think they have to apologize considering offending people was the goal of the whole thing...


Well, it sounds like you're willing to let him off the hook, then. I don't think he should be.
 
2012-09-17 04:13:22 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:13:45 PM  

dcigary: When criticized, Newsweek has argued that it is trying to start conversations and run sharp-elbowed opinion pieces by people from across the political spectrum.

Wow. That's the textbook definition of "trolling"....


I need to brew another pot of coffee. I read that as "sharp-kneed opinion pieces" and wondered how the hell Studman got a job writing for Newsweek and how anyone could tell 'cause Muslim chicks wear burquas anyway.

/it's way too late to be feeling this tired
//or way too early
 
2012-09-17 04:15:48 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.

Nah, not mad. I just feel sorry for your fear.

No fear here. Just rightly pissed that bigotry and hatred get a free pass under the monicker of "free speech."


Then you don't understand free speech.

The stupid film trailer is EXACTLY the sort of thing that free speech is designed to protect.

Popular or uncontroversial speech doesn't need protection. Our freedom of speech protections were designed to safeguard the kinds of speech that really rub people the wrong way.
 
2012-09-17 04:15:55 PM  

whidbey: Headso: whidbey: Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly

Pretty sure the movie trailer was intended to be inflammatory, I don't think the people who made it would think they have to apologize considering offending people was the goal of the whole thing...

Well, it sounds like you're willing to let him off the hook, then. I don't think he should be.


It'd be kinda hypocritical if I suddenly started being upset about people taking a shiat on social conservatives and their backward ways.
 
2012-09-17 04:16:17 PM  

gilgigamesh: It happens.


Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?
 
2012-09-17 04:16:46 PM  
Obviously the Libyans who were holding up signs saying "We would like show that as Libyans we do not support on the actions committed by these criminals. USA, we are sorry and we will say it one thousand times over. Our apologies will never be enough, but the Libyan people will always be grateful for you since you were the first to stand by us in our fight for freedom and hopefully you will continue supporting us." wouldn't sell much.
 
2012-09-17 04:17:37 PM  

fireclown: This was a pissant effort, doomed to the internet. How did they grok on this? Why didn't these riots happen on any other day when there was other (likely better and more acceptable to the west) material out there?


1) The actual attacks was not tied to the movie--they were Al-Qaeda efforts.

2) The protests started up with asshole right-wing opinion show jackholes in Eqypt who like to stir shiat up to create media power bases for themselves. The most important being a jackhole by the name of Khaled Abdallah. Al-Jazeera's got stuff on him. He's an Islamist 'Michael Savage' type.
 
2012-09-17 04:18:03 PM  

I'll give this a go:


i1099.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:18:06 PM  
s17.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:19:17 PM  

Headso: whidbey: Headso: whidbey: Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly

Pretty sure the movie trailer was intended to be inflammatory, I don't think the people who made it would think they have to apologize considering offending people was the goal of the whole thing...

Well, it sounds like you're willing to let him off the hook, then. I don't think he should be.

It'd be kinda hypocritical if I suddenly started being upset about people taking a shiat on social conservatives and their backward ways.


Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.
 
2012-09-17 04:19:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Read the #MuslimRage hashtag that Newsweek stupidly tried to promote. So funny.


"Lose your kid in airport. Can't yell for him because his name is Jihad. #MuslimRage"
"Having the best hair day. Nobody even knows. #MuslimRage"
"The waiter didn't tell me it was pork. So mad I dropped my glass of wine. #MuslimRage"
"Ramadan in Iceland when days last 23 hours. #MuslimRage"
"My camel refuses to wear a seatbelt. #MuslimRage"

I laughed and laughed.
 
2012-09-17 04:19:40 PM  

whidbey:
So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


Yes.
I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value.
 
2012-09-17 04:19:46 PM  

beta_plus: Corvus: beta_plus: Headso: That one guy is acting like someone just ran over his kid. Weird how social conservatives love to get all dramatic like that, everything is a huge outrage, stupid movies, arugula, cartoons, mustard...

American Social Conservatives and Islamic Fundamentalists Are Both Equally Bad, so let Libyans murder American Diplomats!

Who the hell says we should let Libyans murder American diplomats? Your making up crazy things people didn't say.

Yes, because I'm sure you would be saying "We need to be sensitive to American Social Conservatives feelings" if they even peacefully protested against a youtube video mocking Christianity.

/you're not even trying anymore to pretend that you believe in free speech for all
//just the people who help you win elections


Often I have said on Fark people shouldn't paint all Christians for the stupidity of the right wing social Christians.


Where have I said anything about limiting free speech here?



Dude the lefties here a mocking the Muslims who are protesting now (and Newsweek too) if you got your head out of you ass long enough you'd realize that.

You should put up or shut up instead of making up arguments no one even made.

It's stupid to pain an entire group for what a small group of them does, Muslim, Christian, Atheists or whomever. Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it ok to pretend everyone else is a superficial idiot like you.
 
2012-09-17 04:20:22 PM  

eraser8: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.

Nah, not mad. I just feel sorry for your fear.

No fear here. Just rightly pissed that bigotry and hatred get a free pass under the monicker of "free speech."

Then you don't understand free speech.

The stupid film trailer is EXACTLY the sort of thing that free speech is designed to protect.

Popular or uncontroversial speech doesn't need protection. Our freedom of speech protections were designed to safeguard the kinds of speech that really rub people the wrong way.



Here, here.  And I thought we'd never agree again.
 
Protection from government or government coerced chilling effects.  But not protection from the consequences of voicing a stupid opinion.
 
Maybe Whidbey thinks that Salman Rushdie needs to apologize too.  Or Bill Maher.  Or any number of people regardless of the quality of their speech simply because it might upset someone.
 
2012-09-17 04:21:06 PM  

fireclown: Something isn't sitting right with me. The internet is full of anti-muslim stuff. I don't really need to go looking for it, I just know that it's there. Just a google search away. This was a pissant effort, doomed to the internet. How did they grok on this? Why didn't these riots happen on any other day when there was other (likely better and more acceptable to the west) material out there?


If memory serves correct, it was mostly ignored, until someone translated it into Arabic and sent it to news companies in the middle east (Egypt I think).

A google search could probably flesh that out a bit, but that is what I remember reading.
 
2012-09-17 04:21:28 PM  
Some Farkers took their awesome pills today. You've made my Monday. Thank you!

The "this is an outrage" guy has the grossest teeth i've ever had the misfortune to see. What is wrong with them teeths?!
 
2012-09-17 04:21:31 PM  

beta_plus: /you're not even trying anymore to pretend that you believe in free speech for all


Please how did I do this exactly? Where have I talked about removing people's free speech?

This should be funny watching you change the subject, like you guys always do when asked to back up your made up shiat.
 
2012-09-17 04:21:37 PM  

walkerhound: I'll give this a go:


[i1099.photobucket.com image 575x779]


+1.
 
2012-09-17 04:21:37 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 04:22:05 PM  
Once you know the real story of the guy on the right in that picture, he's much more of a sympathetic character.

You see, he's the maintenance guy for a local building. And of course they're trying to keep costs low, so they don't pay him as much as he's worth and they don't give him any budget at all to try to keep everything up. But it's a tough economy and he's just glad to have a job at all so he can feed his family. Anyway, they woke him up last night a little before 2 in the morning saying the basement is flooding. And instead of telling them that of course it's flooding, you haven't let me fix the damned pipes even though I've been warning you for the last two years, he rushes over to deal with it. So he fixes the pipes (and you know that the hardware shop owner was a real cheerful guy at 4 in the morning!) and manages to get it all cleaned up by around noon. So after ten hours ankle deep in water that jerk on the second floor complains that the paint is looking a little worn in the stairwell. And he bites back the angry response he wants to give because if he can just touch up the paint real quick, then he's leaving for the day.

So now, after all that, he gets to go back home and he walks out planning the rest of the day. He'll be able to rest, maybe take a short nap. And his wife's cousin Ahmed, who always wants to talk about something he's angry about (lately it's some internet video), has said he won't be staying with them the next couple days, so that's great news. And his wife told him that as a "thank you" for his patience with Ahmed she's going to make him a special dinner. He's hoping it's her meatloaf. You know, she makes a delicious meatloaf. With some mashed potatoes on the side, it's a life-changing experience. Okay, the potatoes aren't the best, but her gravy makes up for it. Even the prophet probably didn't get gravy that good. And then, after he's gotten a nap and a good dinner, maybe they can send the kids over the neighbor's house to play so he and his wife can have some alone time. Even after almost 14 years of marriage, she's still got an incredible body. It's been too long since they were able...

And then the sound of gunfire makes him look around. Without meaning too, he's walked out into the middle of some crowd shouting about something or the other. And now some westerner with a khaki vest and a camera is sticking the camera in his face.

And that's how Newsweek ended up with that picture.
 
2012-09-17 04:22:34 PM  

whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.


So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?
 
2012-09-17 04:22:48 PM  

whidbey: So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


Yes. I think exactly that. People say stuff that offends me everyday. I know full well that within 200 miles of where I sit there is a neo-nazi site putting up videos explaining why blacks and jews are inferior beings. Code Pink still survives, Ward Churchill is still out there somewhere, and God only knows what is going on in San Francisco or Hattisburg MS. Someone has a youtube declaring Jihad on Swedes. Horrible, dreadful, offensive stuff.

And I'm not burning a Got-damn thing. I rail about it to my GF and my cat. I type snarky screeds into comment threads. Because that's how you handle this stuff. That video has no real value, other than the weird spectacle of gay porn guys doing low budget bible epics. That's not the point. Killing people over someones effing youtube video is the point.
 
2012-09-17 04:23:06 PM  

loki see loki do: whidbey:
So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.
I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value.


Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."
 
2012-09-17 04:24:06 PM  

downstairs: Coco LaFemme: Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff.  We cancelled.
 
Which sucks, because I like having a paper magazine with good but somewhat lighter political/national/world news content.  Everything has turned either to crap or is far to heavy and detailed for sitting on the toilet quick reading.


That was the merger with The Daily Beast you detected. It's barely been any better than a tabloid since then.
 
2012-09-17 04:24:31 PM  
hiding behind some imaginary freedom of speech is pathetic.

if you cross the line, you will get hurt, that's how the real world works.
 
2012-09-17 04:24:42 PM  

kidsizedcoffin: fireclown: Something isn't sitting right with me. The internet is full of anti-muslim stuff. I don't really need to go looking for it, I just know that it's there. Just a google search away. This was a pissant effort, doomed to the internet. How did they grok on this? Why didn't these riots happen on any other day when there was other (likely better and more acceptable to the west) material out there?

If memory serves correct, it was mostly ignored, until someone translated it into Arabic and sent it to news companies in the middle east (Egypt I think).

A google search could probably flesh that out a bit, but that is what I remember reading.


Yeah basically. The Christian extremists doofus in the US got help from a extremist Muslim doofus there to make it popular to whip up a frenzy. Smart shiat head. They are using his anti-Muslim video to whip up even more extreme Islam.
 
2012-09-17 04:24:51 PM  

Somacandra: fireclown: This was a pissant effort, doomed to the internet. How did they grok on this? Why didn't these riots happen on any other day when there was other (likely better and more acceptable to the west) material out there?

1) The actual attacks was not tied to the movie--they were Al-Qaeda efforts.

2) The protests started up with asshole right-wing opinion show jackholes in Eqypt who like to stir shiat up to create media power bases for themselves. The most important being a jackhole by the name of Khaled Abdallah. Al-Jazeera's got stuff on him. He's an Islamist 'Michael Savage' type.


This is what really happened.
Multiplied by an islamic shiatload of two bit mullahs who rev the guys up every Friday night.
And a bunch of insecure 'leaders' of islamic countries too afraid to say anything otherwise to their overly rioty constituencies.
"The West' and the Great Satan USA are too valuable of scapegoats (along with Israel) to let slip away fromt hose selfsame jerks because the one thing that really brings 'em all together is a good common hatred.
 
2012-09-17 04:25:44 PM  

whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."


Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?
 
2012-09-17 04:25:51 PM  

fireclown: whidbey: So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes. I think exactly that. People say stuff that offends me everyday. I know full well that within 200 miles of where I sit there is a neo-nazi site putting up videos explaining why blacks and jews are inferior beings. Code Pink still survives, Ward Churchill is still out there somewhere, and God only knows what is going on in San Francisco or Hattisburg MS. Someone has a youtube declaring Jihad on Swedes. Horrible, dreadful, offensive stuff.

And I'm not burning a Got-damn thing. I rail about it to my GF and my cat. I type snarky screeds into comment threads. Because that's how you handle this stuff. That video has no real value, other than the weird spectacle of gay porn guys doing low budget bible epics. That's not the point. Killing people over someones effing youtube video is the point.


You're talking about our country. Good luck telling people in other countries where they don't have free speech to "get over it."

And while the violence is unacceptable, we have the responsibility to deal with Jones here in the West. Saying it's OK free speech is bullshiat, considering that he used that free speech to incite violence.

Sounds very much like the "fire in a crowded theater" ruling.
 
2012-09-17 04:26:00 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:26:10 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?


Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.
 
2012-09-17 04:26:42 PM  

Apos: Damn I love this thread.


I know! I'm sitting alone in a restaurant, cracking up laughing and getting those glances I occasionally get when I sit alone in a restaurant and read Fark.

And this is a bookmark.
 
2012-09-17 04:27:11 PM  
Angry, in and at their pants.

www.gunslot.com
 
2012-09-17 04:28:18 PM  

whidbey: loki see loki do: whidbey:
So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.
I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value.

Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."


fark a duck, that old thing?
 
2012-09-17 04:28:57 PM  

whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


While I didn't see the movie, I can't believe it is remotely close to exceeding the protections of the first amendment.

As for those kwazy Muslims, I think this is more complicated than offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos. People in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia have legitimate grievances against the west in general, and against Obama in particular.

But let's just say they muddy their message when they make it about religion, and go on a rampage about offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos.

As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.
 
2012-09-17 04:29:01 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."
 
2012-09-17 04:29:02 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?

Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.


Some movie that's not in wide release and has about 14 minutes up on YouTube? I guess that will be like six bucks or something.
 
2012-09-17 04:29:15 PM  
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:30:21 PM  

gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.


[citation please]
 
2012-09-17 04:30:31 PM  

whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


Yes.

I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar. Fourteen minutes of nauseating twaddle designed to instill anger. It is a puerile, dangerous and fundamentally idiotic video.

But it is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

/Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can ban it.
 
2012-09-17 04:30:34 PM  

gilgigamesh: whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

While I didn't see the movie, I can't believe it is remotely close to exceeding the protections of the first amendment.

As for those kwazy Muslims, I think this is more complicated than offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos. People in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia have legitimate grievances against the west in general, and against Obama in particular.

But let's just say they muddy their message when they make it about religion, and go on a rampage about offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos.

As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.


While I certainly do not disagree, I'm saying we have an obligation to condemn efforts like Jones' movie. And I don't mean just a "strongly worded letter." B*tch should suffer for it, publicly.
 
2012-09-17 04:30:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:31:23 PM  
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-17 04:31:39 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."


That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?
 
2012-09-17 04:32:23 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


OK, he's definitely trolling us.

I'm starting to feel like a fish that gets thrown back, only to look at the lure 5 seconds later and say, "Hot damn! Free worm!"

*bows to the master*
 
2012-09-17 04:32:30 PM  

Frosted Flake: whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.

I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar. Fourteen minutes of nauseating twaddle designed to instill anger. It is a puerile, dangerous and fundamentally idiotic video.

But it is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

/Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can ban it.


Well, it wouldn't do any good to ban it here, anyway. Banning it isn't the issue. Recognizing that someone is doing his part to ensure a bad situation become worse is much more the case.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:34 PM  

Frosted Flake: I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar.


I've actually seen Ishtar, so I find your claim hard to believe.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:49 PM  

optimus_grime: hiding behind some imaginary freedom of speech is pathetic.

if you cross the line, you will get hurt, that's how the real world works.


um, you do realize that it just means you are free to say what you want...and the government won't throw you in jail or infringe on your rights for saying it?

it never has offered anymore protection than that.

I am free to say you are an idiot. I am not free from you getting mad on drooling on your computer.


/snark
 
2012-09-17 04:35:07 PM  

Corvus: gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.

[citation please]


[citation provided]
 
2012-09-17 04:36:06 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:37:00 PM  

whidbey: Well, it wouldn't do any good to ban it here, anyway. Banning it isn't the issue. Recognizing that someone is doing his part to ensure a bad situation become worse is much more the case.


What would do good is recognizing that the actions of a small group don't necessarily represent the actions of a much larger populace. Since we can only control what we ourselves recognize, we need to realize that "lives in middle east" != "i like to storm embassies."


I'm looking in your direction, Newsweek.
 
2012-09-17 04:37:06 PM  

gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*


Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?
 
2012-09-17 04:37:13 PM  
img.dailymail.co.uk

♫ ♩ ♬ Hakuna Matata...what a wonderful phrase!
 
2012-09-17 04:37:58 PM  

Nabb1: Timmy the Tumor: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?

Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.

Some movie that's not in wide release and has about 14 minutes up on YouTube? I guess that will be like six bucks or something.




that'sthejoke.gif
 
2012-09-17 04:38:37 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


that has to be trolling, come on, he is suggesting using a socially conservative religious law to make someone apologize for making fun of social conservatives.
 
2012-09-17 04:38:40 PM  
s12.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:39:26 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."

That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?


Swing at what, exactly? The movie is obscene. You're welcome to disagree.
And I already stated the issue isn't about banning it.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:10 PM  
i1222.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:40:13 PM  

whidbey: gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*

Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?


Hot damn! Free wor-...

Hey. Waaaiiit a minute.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:23 PM  
This has been one of the most radical threads I've read in a while. All the Newsweek covers are cracking me up. Let's make this a thing... Too good.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:24 PM  

Headso: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

that has to be trolling, come on, he is suggesting using a socially conservative religious law to make someone apologize for making fun of social conservatives.


I guess you didn't read my reply. Read it again. And no, this isn't a troll.
 
2012-09-17 04:42:41 PM  
i253.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:43:53 PM  

Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.


Which American leader(s) apologized for our Constitutional rights?
 
2012-09-17 04:44:36 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."

That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?

Swing at what, exactly? The movie is obscene. You're welcome to disagree.
And I already stated the issue isn't about banning it.


Have you even seen the thing in its entirety? Is it a porn film? Because if not, the Miller test really is inapplicable. It appears that you're just calling something "obscene" because a bunch of people who freak right the f*ck out about just about anything on a regular basis freaked right the f*ck out about this (and, in all likelihood, this film is just a red herring for a coordinated, planned series of attacks and not a spontaneous bit of outrage). People post inflammatory comments in FARK religion threads all the damned time.
 
2012-09-17 04:44:46 PM  

Coco LaFemme: bdub77: Newsweek before the 21st century:

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x265]

Newsweek 2012:

[roblorinov.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]

Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


for those that don't know Tina Brown now runs Newsweek. i too let my subscription go.
 
2012-09-17 04:44:48 PM  

gilgigamesh: Corvus: gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.

[citation please]

[citation provided]


Wow nice Guardian article. Got anything more reliable like the Weekly World news? So tell me how do we know the first responders/funeral civilians where the primary target not a mistake or collateral damage? Not one part in the article did they have proof of that they just assumed anyone who got hit was the actual target which is not true.

Also this statement:

- a practice that inexcusably continues despite revelations that the Obama administration has redefined "militants" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"


Is an out and out lie. Obama is using the same definition as before and that isn't it. If they have information otherwise they are not defined as "militants". SO they are lying in this article.

Do you have an article that isn't lying up and down? And not from a paper that is the Fox news of the UK?
 
2012-09-17 04:45:28 PM  

hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]


I'd fatwah all over that.
 
2012-09-17 04:46:05 PM  

kbronsito: Silly Jesus: kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).

I see where you're going with this...and as much as you disagree with it, our reasons for doing it (going to war) were still better than "you talked about my sky wizard and it hurt my feelings so I need to kill someone."

Which reasons? Lining Halliburton's coffers with gold from our treasury? Giving Cheney, GWB and company a way to test their dumbass theories about geopolitics by letting them secure a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Mideast? Allowing GWB to avenge the assassination attempt on his dad so he could feel like a man instead of a boy? And its not like the people calling for the invasion didn't tap into the religious fears and fervor of America's Christians to get what they wanted.


Yep. While stupid, all of those (except the Christian end times excuse) are better in my book than "random person I don't know in some state in some country that I've never been to made a shiatty movie about my imaginary friend."
 
2012-09-17 04:47:01 PM  

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 360x480]


thread closed.
 
2012-09-17 04:48:53 PM  
s13.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:49:00 PM  
You know, we have the ability to identify computer by their source IP address to identify their country.

It would not be that hard for Google, LiveLeak, Youtube, Bing etc to have a simple Inappropriate Content Report button with a Blasphemy option served to countries with Muslim state faiths so when they see something that offends them, they can hit the button and it goes away... for those countries. No one from those countries would be able to see that content once the Blasphemy card has been played.

Google, LiveLeak, etc could even go a step further and announce that the poster of the blasphemy will be severely punished (unspoken: by having all his content unable to be seen in Muslim countries).

Somehow, I don't think this will be sufficient. The "outrage" is an excuse, not a cause.
 
2012-09-17 04:49:13 PM  

downstairs: It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff. We cancelled.


it almost went belly up, Jon Meacham left and Tina Brown came on board.
 
2012-09-17 04:50:33 PM  

plausdeny: It would not be that hard for Google, LiveLeak, Youtube, Bing etc to have a simple Inappropriate Content Report button with a Blasphemy option served to countries with Muslim state faiths so when they see something that offends them, they can hit the button and it goes away... for those countries. No one from those countries would be able to see that content once the Blasphemy card has been played.


I doubt that any of the protestors actually saw the movie. They heard from someone that such a film was made.
 
2012-09-17 04:50:36 PM  
Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab. 
 
2012-09-17 04:51:07 PM  

eraser8: I've actually seen Ishtar, so I find your claim hard to believe.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:51:20 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."


Tyler Perry is farked.
 
2012-09-17 04:53:04 PM  
This is one of the best threads in a while....very impressive, spontaneous 'Photo-Shop' thread!
 
2012-09-17 04:53:07 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 04:55:49 PM  
s8.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:57:22 PM  
tg3k.com
 
2012-09-17 04:58:14 PM  

I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.


THIS. Thanks to all of you who contributed. I have laughed a lot this afternoon. I wish I had your skillz with the Photoshop.
 
2012-09-17 04:58:57 PM  
s10.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 05:00:14 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 05:03:08 PM  

whidbey: loki see loki do: whidbey:
So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.
I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value.

Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."


"I know it when I see it" ?
 
2012-09-17 05:05:10 PM  

Corvus: Do you have an article that isn't lying up and down? And not from a paper that is the Fox news of the UK?


The Guardian is now the Fox News of the UK? Holy shiat man
 
2012-09-17 05:06:58 PM  
I've forwarded this entire thread to Aljazerra and what is purported to be an AQ-linked website.

Let's see what happens.
 
2012-09-17 05:08:07 PM  
HOW DARE YOU SAY WE ARE ANGRY PEOPLE! WE KILL YOU!
 
2012-09-17 05:08:10 PM  

Nabb1: Have you even seen the thing in its entirety? Is it a porn film? Because if not, the Miller test really is inapplicable. It appears that you're just calling something "obscene" because a bunch of people who freak right the f*ck out about just about anything on a regular basis freaked right the f*ck out about this (and, in all likelihood, this film is just a red herring for a coordinated, planned series of attacks and not a spontaneous bit of outrage). People post inflammatory comments in FARK religion threads all the damned time.


Look. the statement was made that "there's no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value."

I responded with an example of one. The basic principle applies to Jones' movie as well. Yes, it would take a court to settle it, but the case is there.

Again, not the issue.
 
2012-09-17 05:08:35 PM  
This should've been a Photoshop contest.
 
2012-09-17 05:08:43 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 05:09:21 PM  
Link

If this makes you angry, something was going to get to you sooner or later. The YouTube comments are comedy gold.
 
2012-09-17 05:10:31 PM  
i237.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 05:10:52 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: Have you even seen the thing in its entirety? Is it a porn film? Because if not, the Miller test really is inapplicable. It appears that you're just calling something "obscene" because a bunch of people who freak right the f*ck out about just about anything on a regular basis freaked right the f*ck out about this (and, in all likelihood, this film is just a red herring for a coordinated, planned series of attacks and not a spontaneous bit of outrage). People post inflammatory comments in FARK religion threads all the damned time.

Look. the statement was made that "there's no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value."

I responded with an example of one. The basic principle applies to Jones' movie as well. Yes, it would take a court to settle it, but the case is there.

Again, not the issue.


What case? The Miller case has to do with sexually explicit material. Here, read this from NPR.
 
2012-09-17 05:11:20 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 05:14:15 PM  

Whole Wheat: Link

If this makes you angry, something was going to get to you sooner or later. The YouTube comments are comedy gold.


Wow. That is almost unwatchable. Not because it is offensive, but because it is just plain bad.
 
2012-09-17 05:14:18 PM  

Nabb1: What case? The Miller case has to do with sexually explicit material. Here, read this from NPR.


All right, I guess you've decided to not actually discuss whether we have a right as a society to deal with the kind of malfeasance Jones unleashed with "the Innocence of Muslims."

At any rate, you've hardly grasped the point I made.
 
2012-09-17 05:14:23 PM  
i35.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 05:16:10 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: What case? The Miller case has to do with sexually explicit material. Here, read this from NPR.

All right, I guess you've decided to not actually discuss whether we have a right as a society to deal with the kind of malfeasance Jones unleashed with "the Innocence of Muslims."

At any rate, you've hardly grasped the point I made.


didn't you say that there was a case to be made against him? Based on what then? Also, Jones is promoting the video NOW. The violence came before he got his stupid little hands in the mix
 
2012-09-17 05:17:12 PM  

xxmedium: [i.imgur.com image 850x452]

MUSLIM RAGE! MUSLIM RAGE I KILL ANY INFIDEL FOLKS I LAY MY MOTHERFARKING EYES ON!


What's a Nubian?
 
2012-09-17 05:17:22 PM  

I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.


Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.
 
2012-09-17 05:18:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 05:18:43 PM  

Tigger: give me doughnuts: Diogenes: Voiceofreason01: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with all due respect to what she went through as a child, is kind of a biatch

sweetmelissa31: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: immigrated to the Netherlands, fought against immigration to the Netherlands for everyone else. Also lied about being a Dutch citizen to become member of parliament. F*ck her.

Double THIS.

Neither of those statements is correct. She argued to limit immigration from countries with Islamic governments, and when she was elected to Parliament, she had been granted Dutch citizenship. Her citizenship was stripped after it became known that she had made false statements in her asylum application.

So just to be clear

1) She wasn't just generally against immigration after she immigrated she was against immigration SPECIFICALLY from the types of place she had just immigrated from.

2) She didn't lie about her citizenship in order to be elected to parliament, she lied in order to get citizenship so she should be elected to parliament.

I will make the necessary edits to the reasons that she is total shiatbag. ie change a couple of prepositions, leaving her shiatbag rating unchanged at total farking shiatbag.


You are right. She should have told the truth on her asylum application so she could be deported back to Somalia to live with the family that had her vagina cut out. What a farking count. How dare she try to stop islamofascists from turning Holland from a free and tolerant country into another 3rd world shiat hole.
 
2012-09-17 05:20:17 PM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 05:20:31 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 05:21:06 PM  

Nabb1: Whole Wheat: Link

If this makes you angry, something was going to get to you sooner or later. The YouTube comments are comedy gold.

Wow. That is almost unwatchable. Not because it is offensive, but because it is just plain bad.


So is it "Manos: Hands of Fate" bad or "Twilight" bad?

/time to get the Rifftrax dudes in on this whole thing for epic hilarity
 
2012-09-17 05:21:44 PM  

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.


The only reason we shouldn't be ridiculing THOSE people is because it is so obvious and should go without saying.
I think you just hopped the line between that rational "what sort of moral responsibility do people who produce this sort of material have knowing the response it will likely provoke" and went straight to apologist for murder over a YouTube video
 
2012-09-17 05:22:16 PM  

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.


Yes, if you respond to a film that makes a statement about a religion by acting violent, rioting, murdering, then yes, you deserve ridicule. The filmmaker may deserve ridicule for a bad film, but the people acting like savages are far more in the wrong. And you said that this filmmaker should be forced to apologize and make restitution via court order. I've grasped your point, perhaps more so than you have grasped it. If you want to respond to this filmmaker's idiocy, you do so in a peaceful manner. You do not engage in violence and you do not have a court order him to pay restitution.
 
2012-09-17 05:22:16 PM  

skullkrusher: whidbey: Nabb1: What case? The Miller case has to do with sexually explicit material. Here, read this from NPR.

All right, I guess you've decided to not actually discuss whether we have a right as a society to deal with the kind of malfeasance Jones unleashed with "the Innocence of Muslims."

At any rate, you've hardly grasped the point I made.

didn't you say that there was a case to be made against him? Based on what then? Also, Jones is promoting the video NOW. The violence came before he got his stupid little hands in the mix


I guess it's time to restate the obvious again:

Jones made the movie. It can be successfully argued that the movie, whether seen or not, was the catalyst behind the recent violence. Yes I know there were other factors.

We have a responsibility on this end, in our country and our society, to take this moviemaker Jones to task. The movie can be judged obscene based on previous court cases, and the "clear and present danger" clause can also be used.

Jones' free speech is not absolute if the offensive contents of his movie invokes violence against our way of life.
 
2012-09-17 05:22:22 PM  

whidbey: legitimate


www.agileproductdesign.com
 
2012-09-17 05:23:16 PM  
s16.postimage.org


/i am thankfully free to say and post that
//you are free to get really mad at me
///then I am free to make fun of you for getting mad
////you are not free to kill me
//oh, and lighten up, francis,
 
2012-09-17 05:23:48 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

Yes, if you respond to a film that makes a statement about a religion by acting violent, rioting, murdering, then yes, you deserve ridicule. The filmmaker may deserve ridicule for a bad film, but the people acting like savages are far more in the wrong. And you said that this filmmaker should be forced to apologize and make restitution via court order. I've grasped your point, perhaps more so than you have grasped it. If you want to respond to this filmmaker's idiocy, you do so in a peaceful manner. You do not engage in violence and you do not have a court order him to pay restitution.


Whatever dude. Weener's shoops were in characteristically poor taste and that's why I love him. The least you can do is be honest.
 
2012-09-17 05:24:43 PM  

busy chillin': [s16.postimage.org image 500x677]


/i am thankfully free to say and post that
//you are free to get really mad at me
///then I am free to make fun of you for getting mad
////you are not free to kill me
//oh, and lighten up, francis,


Nice to know you condone the right to incite violence.

Oh and that shop was uncalled for. I should report you.
 
2012-09-17 05:24:45 PM  

whidbey: Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 05:24:55 PM  

L33t Squirrel: Nabb1: Whole Wheat: Link

If this makes you angry, something was going to get to you sooner or later. The YouTube comments are comedy gold.

Wow. That is almost unwatchable. Not because it is offensive, but because it is just plain bad.

So is it "Manos: Hands of Fate" bad or "Twilight" bad?

/time to get the Rifftrax dudes in on this whole thing for epic hilarity


Troll 2 bad.
 
2012-09-17 05:26:07 PM  

Somacandra: whidbey: Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country.

[i.imgur.com image 360x480]


Perfectly done.
 
2012-09-17 05:26:51 PM  

Somacandra: whidbey: Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country.

[i.imgur.com image 360x480]


Just noting the shops from the self-professed conservative(s) really did have a mean-spirited bent to them. Coincidence?
 
2012-09-17 05:27:28 PM  

busy chillin': [s16.postimage.org image 500x677]


/i am thankfully free to say and post that
//you are free to get really mad at me
///then I am free to make fun of you for getting mad
////you are not free to kill me
//oh, and lighten up, francis,


L o L (qaeda)
 
2012-09-17 05:27:45 PM  

whidbey: busy chillin': [s16.postimage.org image 500x677]


/i am thankfully free to say and post that
//you are free to get really mad at me
///then I am free to make fun of you for getting mad
////you are not free to kill me
//oh, and lighten up, francis,

Nice to know you condone the right to incite violence.

Oh and that shop was uncalled for. I should report you.


Yeah, freedom is scary, we should get rid of it.

It was kinda sorta called for.
 
2012-09-17 05:28:07 PM  

vudukungfu: Well, just paste a picture of Muhamed over any angry Muslims you have photos of before you publish them.
Problem solved.

Farking 13th century assholes.

Nothing a bulldozer and a watercooled leadspitter couldn't solve, finally.


vudukungfu i like most of your posts but this one i like extra hard.
 
2012-09-17 05:28:30 PM  

whidbey: Jones made the movie. It can be successfully argued that the movie, whether seen or not, was the catalyst behind the recent violence. Yes I know there were other factors.


Where did you see that he made the movie?

whidbey: Jones' free speech is not absolute if the offensive contents of his movie invokes violence against our way of life.


oh, so like a fiery political speech that leads to the shutdown of financial institutions and commerce as people react to it? People certainly have a degree of moral culpability when they engage in activities they have a reasonable suspicion will lead to violence (assuming they are not directly inciting violence). However, a law against such a thing would have a pretty significant impact on the sort of speech which leads to change.
 
2012-09-17 05:28:40 PM  

whidbey: The movie can be judged obscene based on previous court cases, and the "clear and present danger" clause can also be used.


Your killin' me, Smalls.
 
2012-09-17 05:29:15 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: The movie can be judged obscene based on previous court cases, and the "clear and present danger" clause can also be used.

Your You're killin' me, Smalls.


FTFM
 
2012-09-17 05:29:45 PM  

walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]


So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?
 
2012-09-17 05:30:04 PM  
I like how newsweek pretty much admits to trolling with their covers.

There is some good meme material in here though
 
2012-09-17 05:30:50 PM  
Crazed Palestinian Gunman Angered By Stereotypes

HEBRON, WEST BANK-In an emotionally charged press conference Monday, crazed Palestinian gunman Faisal al Hamad expressed frustration over the stereotyping of his people.

"As a crazed Palestinian gunman, I feel hurt by the negative portrayal of my people in the media," said al Hamad, 31, a Hebron-area terrorist maniac. "None of us should have to live with stereotyping and ignorance."

He then began screaming and firing into a busload of Israeli schoolchildren.

"It hurts that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, people still make assumptions about other people," al Hamad said. "We should not rely on simple generalizations. Each crazed Palestinian gunman is an individual."
 
2012-09-17 05:32:17 PM  

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.


I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?
 
2012-09-17 05:32:55 PM  

Repo Man: Crazed Palestinian Gunman Angered By Stereotypes


if laughing so hard I got tears in my eyes is wrong, I don't want to be right.
 
2012-09-17 05:33:02 PM  

hinten: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?


you took a break from Fark and forgot some stuff about people?
 
2012-09-17 05:34:56 PM  

whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?


Apples and oranges those are.
 
2012-09-17 05:34:56 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 05:34:56 PM  

Somacandra: whidbey: Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country.

[i.imgur.com image 360x480]


Bravo.
 
2012-09-17 05:36:12 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 05:37:44 PM  
'MUSLIM RAGE' Cover Draws Angry Protest

Is there anything that doesn't draw angry protests from these people?
 
2012-09-17 05:39:29 PM  

whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?


A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.
 
2012-09-17 05:40:56 PM  
i259.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 05:43:18 PM  

whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.


really? who cares? Who cares if it was 2 hours of the Koran being shiat on, pissed on,and burned while 2 girls 1 cup dances around it and shiats all over the place? Is that cause to kill anyone? The only reason anyone gives a damn about that dumb shiat unseen movie is because the nutcases over there have used it as an excuse to do what they already do, and that is hate america. They don't want to be our friends, so I simply say fark em.
 
2012-09-17 05:43:24 PM  

Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.


Using speech to express a political opinion which criticizes the First Amendment is no good?
 
2012-09-17 05:43:48 PM  
This thread is so full of win
 
2012-09-17 05:44:15 PM  
I have no more sympathy for these idiots than I do for American conservatives who want to carve out an exception to the First Amendment in order to criminalize burning the American flag.
 
2012-09-17 05:44:23 PM  
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 05:44:23 PM  

whidbey: Just noting the shops from the self-professed conservative(s) really did have a mean-spirited bent to them. Coincidence?


Actually, I didn't really notice any serious political bias one way or the other. Maybe its there and I'm not seeing it. Newsweek is already rightly getting a ton of crap for its sensationalist cover from people far better placed than any of us. Maybe a little humor isn't so bad.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 05:44:55 PM  

busy chillin':

Nice to know you condone the right to incite violence.

Oh and that shop was uncalled for. I should report you.

Yeah, freedom is scary, we should get rid of it.

It was kinda sorta called for.


Yeah, if only that were the point I were making.
 
2012-09-17 05:45:45 PM  

abhorrent1: Is there anything that doesn't draw angry protests from these people?


There is no one that they get along with. From the Israelis and Americans to the Chinese and Filipinos. They are outraged by everyone.

Even other Muslims
 
2012-09-17 05:46:00 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: [i.imgur.com image 575x779]


3....2...1...WE HAVE META-RECURSION.

REPEAT, WE NOW HAVE META-RECURSION.
 
2012-09-17 05:46:18 PM  
Achmed before picture?
 
2012-09-17 05:46:56 PM  
Nice counterpoint photos of Muslim "rage" here: Link
 
2012-09-17 05:47:23 PM  
s18.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 05:50:09 PM  

skullkrusher: hinten: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?

you took a break from Fark and forgot some stuff about people?


I refuse to use Favorite with notes because I find it hard to believe that you can capture someone with a one-liner. Of course I am wrong. Fark is the playground of one dimensional characters.
 
2012-09-17 05:51:10 PM  

whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?


So you believe that if anyone anywhere in the world says something I don't like, it's cool for me to just start killing whoever is handy? Way to stand up for free speech and civilized behavior you spineless twit.
 
2012-09-17 05:51:40 PM  

Somacandra: whidbey: Just noting the shops from the self-professed conservative(s) really did have a mean-spirited bent to them. Coincidence?

Actually, I didn't really notice any serious political bias one way or the other. Maybe its there and I'm not seeing it. Newsweek is already rightly getting a ton of crap for its sensationalist cover from people far better placed than any of us. Maybe a little humor isn't so bad.

[i.imgur.com image 360x480]


Wasn't really talking about the covers. They are pretty funny.
 
2012-09-17 05:52:06 PM  

whidbey: busy chillin':

Nice to know you condone the right to incite violence.

Oh and that shop was uncalled for. I should report you.

Yeah, freedom is scary, we should get rid of it.

It was kinda sorta called for.

Yeah, if only that were the point I were making.


Keep doing whatever it is you are doing.

/I'm just here for the lulz
 
2012-09-17 05:52:24 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: [i.imgur.com image 575x779]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 05:52:30 PM  

the_foo: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

So you believe that if anyone anywhere in the world says something I don't like, it's cool for me to just start killing whoever is handy? Way to stand up for free speech and civilized behavior you spineless twit.


Way to take my comment and make it into a generalized piece of nonsense. Get back to me when you have a real reply.
 
2012-09-17 05:53:14 PM  

hinten: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?


He forgot to log out of his account when he was at the Apple Store.
 
2012-09-17 05:54:27 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?

Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.


You mean 50% of nothing? You really think someone will pay money for that crappy video? Or do you mean from the donations that are pouring in from like minded individuals?
 
2012-09-17 05:55:03 PM  

hinten: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?


Why is calling out a bunch of intentionally disingenuous photoshops while at the same time respecting the irreverent "humor" of the person posting them "being an ass?"

And in case you noticed, I'm kind of pissed off that the idea that we bear some burden of responsibility for sh*tstains like Jones and his movie. Sorry if you don't feel like being part of the discussion.
 
2012-09-17 05:55:03 PM  

the_foo: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

So you believe that if anyone anywhere in the world says something I don't like, it's cool for me to just start killing whoever is handy? Way to stand up for free speech and civilized behavior you spineless twit.


These people have something similar to the Stockholm Syndrome. They live in fear of terrorism (the captors) -- then they start seeing the world as the captors do.
 
2012-09-17 05:56:39 PM  

Nabb1: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

Apples and oranges those are.


Again, I really don't expect you to seriously discuss this anymore.

You're fine with giving Jones a pass for making a movie that incites riots, I'm not. I explained why.
The least you could acknowledge the merit of the argument.
 
2012-09-17 05:57:08 PM  

Somacandra: i.imgur.com


Haha. I just realized I put Time in there instead of Newsweek.

/should've gone with Bachmann...
 
2012-09-17 05:57:26 PM  

Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.


Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?
 
2012-09-17 06:00:43 PM  
As many others have pointed out . . .

When I was growing up (60's), we had three weekly news magazines in the house.

1. Time
2. US News and World Report
3. Newsweek

We were taught to read all three, and create a word salad removing the most inflammatory left and right wing buzzwords. This resulting stew had at least a reasonable chance at being both a factual report and a reasoned analysis.

Now I read none of the above, simply because of garbage like this. Sadly, there are no solidly good news outlets these days. My scanning (not in any particular order):

New York Times
Los Angeles Times (off-again, on-again)
BBC
PBS
NPR
Al Jazeera (English Edition)

This means local and regional news takes a hit, unless I want to wade through the cesspool that is the Orange County Register or the even more sensationalist local news channels.

It's yet another example of a race to the bottom.

You know, if 1/2 of Americans didn't demonize education and critical thinking, this wouldn't be a problem. However, that's another rant.
 
2012-09-17 06:01:04 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 06:02:47 PM  

skullkrusher: whidbey: Jones made the movie. It can be successfully argued that the movie, whether seen or not, was the catalyst behind the recent violence. Yes I know there were other factors.

Where did you see that he made the movie?


Whoever made it. I'll concede that it sounds like more than just one person made it.

whidbey: Jones' free speech is not absolute if the offensive contents of his movie invokes violence against our way of life.

oh, so like a fiery political speech that leads to the shutdown of financial institutions and commerce as people react to it? People certainly have a degree of moral culpability when they engage in activities they have a reasonable suspicion will lead to violence (assuming they are not directly inciting violence). However, a law against such a thing would have a pretty significant impact on the sort of speech which leads to change.


Again, I ask you to consider the "clear and present danger" clause regarding the limitations of free speech.
 
2012-09-17 06:03:35 PM  

whidbey: Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.

Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?


No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.
 
2012-09-17 06:05:04 PM  
I just wonder how long before you see American fundies on the cover of newsweek doing the same thing.

You remove education and critical thinking skills from a population, you get a mob.
 
2012-09-17 06:05:59 PM  

EatTheWorld: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

really? who cares? Who cares if it was 2 hours of the Koran being shiat on, pissed on,and burned while 2 girls 1 cup dances around it and shiats all over the place? Is that cause to kill anyone? The only reason anyone gives a damn about that dumb shiat unseen movie is because the nutcases over there have used it as an excuse to do what they already do, and that is hate america. They don't want to be our friends, so I simply say fark em.


Yeah well I don't. Unlike you, I believe that the people who made the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" should have to atone for what they have done.

Free speech has consequences. All of us should not have to pay the price for a couple of bigot's stupid offensive movie.
 
2012-09-17 06:06:08 PM  
we should blame all religious people christians
 
2012-09-17 06:06:21 PM  

whidbey: Whoever made it. I'll concede that it sounds like more than just one person made it.


wow... that is one... obvious concession.. You mean he didn't act all the parts, direct, shoot and produce the entire movie?????

asshat.

skullkrusher: No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.


read that again, asshat.
 
2012-09-17 06:08:27 PM  

whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?


What words intended in incite violence might look like
 
2012-09-17 06:08:51 PM  

whidbey: Again, I ask you to consider the "clear and present danger" clause regarding the limitations of free speech.


Do you think the media is at fault for giving so much attention to Jones, et al.? I would guess that there are a number of movies out there that would cause more outrage if the media were to promote them like they did this one. 

To think if they had one good look at Fark
 
2012-09-17 06:09:00 PM  

skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.


Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.
 
2012-09-17 06:09:01 PM  

whidbey: Yeah well I don't. Unlike you, I believe that the people who made the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" should have to atone for what they have done.

Free speech has consequences. All of us should not have to pay the price for a couple of bigot's stupid offensive movie.


ok, ya sure it does. But what road do you want to go down? anything said or done that upsets these jihadists has to be curbed or punished by the government?? unamerican to say the least...
 
2012-09-17 06:09:24 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Somacandra: i.imgur.com

Haha. I just realized I put Time in there instead of Newsweek.

/should've gone with Bachmann...


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 06:10:30 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Somacandra: i.imgur.com

Haha. I just realized I put Time in there instead of Newsweek.

/should've gone with Bachmann...

[i47.tinypic.com image 482x635]


Ah, damn it! I didn't even put the right text there.
 
2012-09-17 06:10:37 PM  

whidbey:
Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


lol, you can't possibly believe that
 
2012-09-17 06:10:41 PM  
Outrage over outrage.

Will these people ever be self-conscious enough to know how farking stupid they look?
 
2012-09-17 06:11:02 PM  

Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like


Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.
 
2012-09-17 06:11:29 PM  

whidbey: Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.

Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?


Could you be more disingenuous? Limits on free speech come into play when someone advocates violence, not when they say something that pisses people off. The position you're attempting to defend would allow the most violent, in-bred morons in the world to decide what is an acceptable topic for discussion.
 
2012-09-17 06:12:02 PM  

give me doughnuts: xxmedium: [i.imgur.com image 850x452]

MUSLIM RAGE! MUSLIM RAGE I KILL ANY INFIDEL FOLKS I LAY MY MOTHERFARKING EYES ON!

What's a Nubian?


They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be give me doughnuts!
 
2012-09-17 06:12:23 PM  

whidbey: skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.

Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


No, it isn't. Any more than an imam giving a speech about how America is waging war on Muslim people.

I get the partial culpability angle, I really do. It's just nuts to pretend that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the makers of a YouTube video rather than those murdering because it or that we should do something legally to prevent it from happening
 
2012-09-17 06:12:38 PM  
i am going to purchase some beer. you know, beer is offensive to muslims? you know that whidbey?? don't you?
 
2012-09-17 06:13:02 PM  

GitOffaMyLawn: You know, if 1/2 of Americans didn't demonize education and critical thinking, this wouldn't be a problem. However, that's another rant.


I would subscribe to your newsletter!
 
2012-09-17 06:14:00 PM  

Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.

lol, you can't possibly believe that


Why not? Explain the difference to me.
 
2012-09-17 06:14:03 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Outrage over outrage.

Will these people ever be self-conscious enough to know how farking stupid they look?


and they're not even getting pussy from all of their hard work. 

When I was young and dumb, I protested to get laid.

/then they protested...
 
2012-09-17 06:14:09 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Hi. We are farking crazy ass Muslims, completely out of control and losing our shiat over something stupid, but don't you dare publish a picture of us completely losing our shiat over something stupid, or we will totally lose our shiat.


/Could not have said that better myself. Outraged and killing, burning, etc..over a stupid movie that nobody cared about anyway, and now..outraged and killing and looting over pictures of your previous retardation. Rinse..repeat.
 
2012-09-17 06:14:17 PM  

whidbey: skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.

Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. There are nothing alike, you don't know the origins of that phrase, that case, or why this isn't like that AT ALL.

/These are the kind of people who miss ALL of the MAT questions on standardized tests -- functionally literate but so lacking in reasoning and logic skills that they test somewhere below baboons.
 
2012-09-17 06:15:05 PM  

busy chillin': [s16.postimage.org image 500x677]


/i am thankfully free to say and post that
//you are free to get really mad at me
///then I am free to make fun of you for getting mad
////you are not free to kill me
//oh, and lighten up, francis,


You made me laugh.
 
2012-09-17 06:15:16 PM  

whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like

Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.


It's basically a formal declaration of the war.
 
2012-09-17 06:15:36 PM  

the_foo: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

Could you be more disingenuous? Limits on free speech come into play when someone advocates violence, not when they say something that pisses people off.


I really don't see the difference here. Jones et al had to had known of the consequences of putting out something that blatantly offensive and capable of stirring up more violence.
 
2012-09-17 06:16:17 PM  

GitOffaMyLawn: You know, if 1/2 of Americans didn't demonize education and critical thinking, this wouldn't be a problem. However, that's another rant.


You forgot Reuters and McClatchy.
 
2012-09-17 06:16:31 PM  

Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like

Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.

It's basically a formal declaration of the war.


I'm done with that. It's not even the same thing as the disingenuous movie I'm talking about. Not even close.
 
2012-09-17 06:18:12 PM  

whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like

Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.

It's basically a formal declaration of the war.

I'm done with that. It's not even the same thing as the disingenuous movie I'm talking about. Not even close.


Oh Noes! How'd the goalposts get way over there?
 
2012-09-17 06:19:02 PM  

EatTheWorld: whidbey: Yeah well I don't. Unlike you, I believe that the people who made the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" should have to atone for what they have done.

Free speech has consequences. All of us should not have to pay the price for a couple of bigot's stupid offensive movie.

ok, ya sure it does. But what road do you want to go down? anything said or done that upsets these jihadists has to be curbed or punished by the government?? unamerican to say the least...


The "road I want to go down" is getting some of you to acknowledge that we have a responsibility as a society to address the irresponsibility of the filmmakers who made the movie.

I can't even get you to do that. Is inciting violence protected by free speech?

I say "no."
 
2012-09-17 06:19:59 PM  

whidbey: Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.

Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?


If inciting violence consists of expressing an opinion that is unacceptable to the person threatening to become violent, then yes. It would be cowardly to let Muslim clerics dictate how we are to treat their religion in our media. As Nadine Strossen said many years ago, "You have no right to not be offended."
Whoever doesn't like it can not watch, listen to, or read it.
 
2012-09-17 06:20:17 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: AdolfOliverPanties: Hi. We are farking crazy ass Muslims, completely out of control and losing our shiat over something stupid, but don't you dare publish a picture of us completely losing our shiat over something stupid, or we will totally lose our shiat.

/Could not have said that better myself. Outraged and killing, burning, etc..over a stupid movie that nobody cared about anyway, and now..outraged and killing and looting over pictures of your previous retardation. Rinse..repeat.


If there wasn't a movie, their handlers would find something else to get them outraged about. The movie is just and excuse to protest. Their underlying reason for this protest is the same reason they hate anyone else (Indians, Chinese, Filipino, Russians, etc.) they aren't Muslim or Muslim "enough".
 
2012-09-17 06:21:08 PM  

Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like

Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.

It's basically a formal declaration of the war.

I'm done with that. It's not even the same thing as the disingenuous movie I'm talking about. Not even close.

Oh Noes! How'd the goalposts get way over there?


Oh Noes! You're going to keep clinging to the same stupid example I tossed out as irrelevant.
Bonus: No free speech in the Colonial Times when it was written.

The honorable thing is to stick to the topic, and specifically, the movie "The Innocence of Muslims."
There is nothing you're going to compare it to.
 
2012-09-17 06:21:52 PM  

whidbey: clear and present danger" clause


Nope, Clear and Present Danger does not apply either

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.


Wikipedia
 
2012-09-17 06:22:17 PM  

whidbey: EatTheWorld: whidbey: Yeah well I don't. Unlike you, I believe that the people who made the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" should have to atone for what they have done.

Free speech has consequences. All of us should not have to pay the price for a couple of bigot's stupid offensive movie.

ok, ya sure it does. But what road do you want to go down? anything said or done that upsets these jihadists has to be curbed or punished by the government?? unamerican to say the least...

The "road I want to go down" is getting some of you to acknowledge that we have a responsibility as a society to address the irresponsibility of the filmmakers who made the movie.

I can't even get you to do that. Is inciting violence protected by free speech?

I say "no."


You do not have the right to not be offended.

/by your logic I'd be justified in hitting you just because I disagree with you
 
2012-09-17 06:22:46 PM  

Repo Man: whidbey: Repo Man: whidbey: walkerhound: whidbey: legitimate

[www.agileproductdesign.com image 330x282]

So you don't believe that the people rioting have any real reason for lashing out at Jones' movie or for that matter, the West's foreign policy?

A discussion about legitimate grievances about our foreign policy? That's fine. Telling us that our First amendment freedoms are unacceptable, and will have to be rescinded? No, not fine.

Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

If inciting violence consists of expressing an opinion that is unacceptable to the person threatening to become violent, then yes. It would be cowardly to let Muslim clerics dictate how we are to treat their religion in our media. As Nadine Strossen said many years ago, "You have no right to not be offended."
Whoever doesn't like it can not watch, listen to, or read it.


Yeah that works just fine.

In the United States. Not really in the countries in question where the majority of the protesters are from, though. I really don't understand why this point is lost so easily.
 
2012-09-17 06:22:46 PM  

whidbey: Jones made the movie.


Here's where whidbey gives away the troll.

The dopes arguing that there's some sort of First Amendment thing in all this are being typically paranoid, but you went a bit far.
 
2012-09-17 06:24:43 PM  

whidbey: I'm kind of pissed off that the idea that we bear some burden of responsibility for sh*tstains like Jones


"We" don't.
 
2012-09-17 06:26:42 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I can't even get you to do that. Is inciting violence protected by free speech?

I say "no."

You do not have the right to not be offended.

/by your logic I'd be justified in hitting you just because I disagree with you


Yeah well good luck trying to teach a streetful of angry protesters a free logic lesson.

I still have a problem that you refuse to acknowledge that we have a social responsibility to deal with people whose "free expression" intentionally causes violence to happen.
 
2012-09-17 06:27:39 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: whidbey: Jones made the movie.

Here's where whidbey gives away the troll.

The dopes arguing that there's some sort of First Amendment thing in all this are being typically paranoid, but you went a bit far.


Just knock it off.
 
2012-09-17 06:29:25 PM  
whidbey:

I still have a problem that you refuse to acknowledge that we have a social responsibility to deal with people whose "free expression" intentionally causes violence to happen.

As a society we are no more responsible for Jones than we are for you making comments in a fark thread.
 
2012-09-17 06:30:19 PM  

Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: clear and present danger" clause

Nope, Clear and Present Danger does not apply either

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

Wikipedia


Pretty sure the violence regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" happened right away, not at some "indefinite future time."

Not sure why you feel the need to flat-out dismiss it altogether, nonetheless.
 
2012-09-17 06:33:04 PM  

whidbey: Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: clear and present danger" clause

Nope, Clear and Present Danger does not apply either

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

Wikipedia

Pretty sure the violence regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" happened right away, not at some "indefinite future time."

Not sure why you feel the need to flat-out dismiss it altogether, nonetheless.


Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?
 
2012-09-17 06:33:09 PM  

Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey:

I still have a problem that you refuse to acknowledge that we have a social responsibility to deal with people whose "free expression" intentionally causes violence to happen.

As a society we are no more responsible for Jones than we are for you making comments in a fark thread.


Your opinion.

Also, my comments aren't anywhere in the same ballpark as the movie. Even my most inflammatory comments would be deleted, and if they weren't, hardly anyone would see them, let alone attack embassies over.

I'm not sure if I want you to try again. This is hopeless.
 
2012-09-17 06:34:34 PM  

whidbey: Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey:

I still have a problem that you refuse to acknowledge that we have a social responsibility to deal with people whose "free expression" intentionally causes violence to happen.

As a society we are no more responsible for Jones than we are for you making comments in a fark thread.

Your opinion.

Also, my comments aren't anywhere in the same ballpark as the movie. Even my most inflammatory comments would be deleted, and if they weren't, hardly anyone would see them, let alone attack embassies over.

I'm not sure if I want you to try again. This is hopeless.


Just as you feel that we should be responsible is your opinion.
 
2012-09-17 06:34:58 PM  
 
2012-09-17 06:36:31 PM  

Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: clear and present danger" clause

Nope, Clear and Present Danger does not apply either

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

Wikipedia

Pretty sure the violence regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" happened right away, not at some "indefinite future time."

Not sure why you feel the need to flat-out dismiss it altogether, nonetheless.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?


The filmmakers didn't care what the consequences were, honestly. That's far worse.
 
2012-09-17 06:37:13 PM  

whidbey: Just knock it off.


What? You're being factually inaccurate and exaggeratedly unreasonable.

Just because folks like Nabb1 are all like "oh noes, the State Department is gonna take away my free speech" doesn't give you an excuse.

/but if you're having fun, whatever
 
2012-09-17 06:37:16 PM  

Ass_Master_Flash: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?


He re-edited and redubbed the video to be offensive. NO grand jury or jury would disagree.
 
2012-09-17 06:38:53 PM  
This thread lost all of its



i478.photobucket.com



And got too


i478.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 06:41:04 PM  

whidbey: Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: Ass_Master_Flash: whidbey: clear and present danger" clause

Nope, Clear and Present Danger does not apply either

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

Wikipedia

Pretty sure the violence regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" happened right away, not at some "indefinite future time."

Not sure why you feel the need to flat-out dismiss it altogether, nonetheless.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?

The filmmakers didn't care what the consequences were, honestly. That's far worse.


But it does not meet the requirement for an exemption to the first amendment.

So, if you want there to be consequences for Jones, they can't be federally administered. You can choose not to see his film or pay for his services, but no law, directly related to the film, has been broken. (the probation thing notwithstanding)
 
2012-09-17 06:42:58 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: whidbey: Just knock it off.

What? You're being factually inaccurate and exaggeratedly unreasonable.

Just because folks like Nabb1 are all like "oh noes, the State Department is gonna take away my free speech" doesn't give you an excuse.

/but if you're having fun, whatever


No, it's actually kind of disturbing to me that pretty much everyone here is content to leave the filmmakers like Jones off the hook, as I stated when I came in. If that's "lulzy" to you, fine.
 
2012-09-17 06:44:16 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Ass_Master_Flash: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?

He re-edited and redubbed the video to be offensive. NO grand jury or jury would disagree.


I doubt you can prove that he made this film with the express intent to cause riots in the middle east. That would be the standard you would have to meet.

Unless you have psychic powers like the Amazing Creskin or something like that. In which case, can I get the next 6 and the mega for the CA lottery?
 
2012-09-17 06:44:57 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Somacandra: i.imgur.com

Haha. I just realized I put Time in there instead of Newsweek.

/should've gone with Bachmann...

[i47.tinypic.com image 482x635]


i1222.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 06:45:45 PM  

whidbey: The "road I want to go down" is getting some of you to acknowledge that we have a responsibility as a society to address the irresponsibility of the filmmakers who made the movie.

I can't even get you to do that. Is inciting violence protected by free speech?

I say "no."



I say it is. I don't feel the movie is irresponsible.At all. Haven't seen but 5 minutes of it, but it's just a movie. And not even by James Cameron.... it is THEIR problem. We have drawn the line, and you can say what you want outside of yelling fire in a theater, where public safety is endangered, but the line stops there. You think they say nice things about other people's gods? NO THEY DON'T! So again, I say fark em
 
2012-09-17 06:46:36 PM  

Ass_Master_Flash: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended it?

The filmmakers didn't care what the consequences were, honestly. That's far worse.

But it does not meet the requirement for an exemption to the first amendment.

So, if you want there to be consequences for Jones, they can't be federally administered. You can choose not to see his film or pay for his services, but no law, directly related to the film, has been broken. (the probation thing notwithstanding)


Honestly, I'd like to see a court decide that, but ultimately I'm not even going to disagree with it.

It seems as if the law ultimately protects the kind of bigotry seen in the movie, particularly if said bigotry either caused or was a significant factor in a series of incidents shortly after knowledge of the movie came to bear.

To me, that's wrong, even if the ducks are in a row legally.

And honestly, I don't see much of a reprisal from the people. Not in this country, anyway.
So the filmmakers are off scot-free, despite the consequences of their actions. Amazing.
 
2012-09-17 06:50:14 PM  

EatTheWorld: I say it is. I don't feel the movie is irresponsible.At all. Haven't seen but 5 minutes of it, but it's just a movie. And not even by James Cameron.... it is THEIR problem. We have drawn the line, and you can say what you want outside of yelling fire in a theater, where public safety is endangered, but the line stops there.


Pretty sure a lot of people's public safety was endangered after the making of that movie. You don't think so?
 
2012-09-17 06:51:55 PM  

digistil: Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.

Which American leader(s) apologized for our Constitutional rights?


I too would like to see a quote of a US official who "apologized".
 
2012-09-17 06:52:19 PM  
The First Amendment quite explicitly protects the right to say that any religion is rubbish, even in the context of a very poorly made film.
 
2012-09-17 06:55:10 PM  

whidbey: Pretty sure a lot of people's public safety was endangered after the making of that movie. You don't think so?


are you farking kiddine me????? misleadingly yelling there is a gunman or a fire in a crowded theater in real life is indeed a threat to safety. That movie, NO ONE MADE THEM WATCH IT ASSHAT!
 
2012-09-17 06:55:28 PM  

whidbey: incite


"Go kill an American!" --inciting violence

"Muslims are a bunch of sandy-vagina'd pedophile worshippers." --a derogatory statement of fact or opinion, NOT an incitation of violence no matter how much sand some people may have in their vaginas regarding their pedophile prophet

Seriously, the fact that you continue to insist the two are equatable marks you as an idiot or a persistent troll.
 
2012-09-17 06:56:14 PM  
If the shoe fits. You know... while they aren't throwing it at someone because they believe in something about the bottoms of their feet and such nonsense.
 
2012-09-17 06:57:10 PM  
anyone who believes the youtube video is responsible for this is a dim-witted tool being used by the muslim propagandists.

this includes our administration.
 
2012-09-17 06:57:21 PM  
Epic thread is epic.
 
2012-09-17 06:58:19 PM  

EatTheWorld: whidbey: Pretty sure a lot of people's public safety was endangered after the making of that movie. You don't think so?

are you farking kiddine me????? misleadingly yelling there is a gunman or a fire in a crowded theater in real life is indeed a threat to safety. That movie, NO ONE MADE THEM WATCH IT ASSHAT!


In this case, they didn't even have to watch it. The fact that it existed, and contained the objectionable material was enough.

/turn off the capslock, skippy
 
2012-09-17 07:00:06 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: whidbey: incite

"Go kill an American!" --inciting violence

"Muslims are a bunch of sandy-vagina'd pedophile worshippers." --a derogatory statement of fact or opinion, NOT an incitation of violence no matter how much sand some people may have in their vaginas regarding their pedophile prophet

Seriously, the fact that you continue to insist the two are equatable marks you as an idiot or a persistent troll.


Not either, but again it's obvious that no one in here has the least bit of understanding of what the consequences of that movie were. Including you.
 
2012-09-17 07:00:58 PM  
s9.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 07:01:18 PM  

fusillade762: I too would like to see a quote of a US official who "apologized".


here. The white house can deflect, lay blame on the embassy or whatever, but we apologized before the shiat even hit the fan

The U.S. embassy in Cairo put out the following statement early Tuesday:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

The Cairo embassy was bombarded with criticism for not defending free speech when responding to acts of violence. Later on Tuesday, an American was killed at the U.S. consulate in Libya by rioting Muslims upset over the previously mentioned anti-Islam film.
 
2012-09-17 07:03:57 PM  

whidbey: In this case, they didn't even have to watch it. The fact that it existed, and contained the objectionable material was enough.


Is that the world you want to live in? Where a movie unseen is enough to upset the mooslims and therefore we can't go there? isn't that like the terrorists win?
 
2012-09-17 07:07:23 PM  
and to be honest, do we really blame this on a movie? And is Katherine Bigalow next?
 
2012-09-17 07:08:15 PM  

whidbey: ArcadianRefugee: whidbey: incite

"Go kill an American!" --inciting violence

"Muslims are a bunch of sandy-vagina'd pedophile worshippers." --a derogatory statement of fact or opinion, NOT an incitation of violence no matter how much sand some people may have in their vaginas regarding their pedophile prophet

Seriously, the fact that you continue to insist the two are equatable marks you as an idiot or a persistent troll.

Not either, but again it's obvious that no one in here has the least bit of understanding of what the consequences of that movie were. Including you.


What is the storyline of the movie that would incite this kind of rage in Americans or French or British or Danish or German?
Showing anything that is illegal (pick a legal system from any country) is not allowed.
 
2012-09-17 07:09:30 PM  

whidbey: ArcadianRefugee: whidbey: incite

"Go kill an American!" --inciting violence

"Muslims are a bunch of sandy-vagina'd pedophile worshippers." --a derogatory statement of fact or opinion, NOT an incitation of violence no matter how much sand some people may have in their vaginas regarding their pedophile prophet

Seriously, the fact that you continue to insist the two are equatable marks you as an idiot or a persistent troll.

Not either, but again it's obvious that no one in here has the least bit of understanding of what the consequences of that movie were. Including you.


You sound concerned. Maybe you should burn down a building.
 
2012-09-17 07:10:17 PM  

whidbey: EatTheWorld: whidbey:

In this case, they didn't even have to watch it. The fact that it existed, and contained the objectionable material was enough.


Which is why they can fark off. Bunch of violent savages looking for any reason to kill someone. Yeah, it's a stupid, offensive video. Get over it. Quit being such a bunch of insecure pussies about your religion.

/you can go with them, we were having a fine time in here until your BS
 
2012-09-17 07:17:31 PM  
whidbey:
I don't really want to comment on your "we need to punish and publicly shame anyone who does anything that 51% of us don't like" angle, because it doesn't deserve comment if you don't see the problems with that policy yourself, but I do want to help you get your facts straight.

"The Innocence Of Muslims" is not a film by Jones. The only connection between the movie and Jones is that Jones jumped to support it as soon as it became an issue with Muslims. He did not finance, produce, write, direct, edit, act in, or was involved in any other way with the movie. The movie was made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula under the alias Sam Bassiel. Here is the casting call for it.

Regarding this statement:

Pretty sure the violence regarding the "Innocence of Muslims" happened right away, not at some "indefinite future time."
You're "pretty sure" huh? That's nice. The casting call went out in July 2011. Production started by August '11. I can't find a date of completion, but the one and only public showing was in Hollywood to an estimated crowd of 10 people. On July 2 '12 the English language 14-minute clip was uploaded to Youtube. The Arabic-language clip was uploaded in "early September" and shown on Egyptian TV on September 8th, and riots broke out on September 11th. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they mean when they say "indefinite future time" between mid-2011 and September 2012.
 
2012-09-17 07:17:48 PM  

vernonFL:


Oh I like this one.
 
2012-09-17 07:19:36 PM  

the_foo: /you can go with them, we were having a fine time in here until your BS

.
it was good until asshat came along... This crazy whitbuy actual believes americans should be punished, by the government, for a movie. Can't imagine what he thinks of conservatives like me.

thanks for showing us modern US liberalism at it's best douchebey
 
2012-09-17 07:21:36 PM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."


Every one of your posts in this thread meet that definition.
 
2012-09-17 07:21:37 PM  
Here's another question for whidbey to ponder:

Why aren't American Muslims rioting over the movie? What do they understand that foreign Muslims don't understand?
 
2012-09-17 07:23:15 PM  
Meanwhile, in countries that have no First Amendment: Atheist Activist Arrested for Blasphemy in Egypt
 
2012-09-17 07:24:43 PM  
a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
 
2012-09-17 07:30:37 PM  

novusordo: Why aren't American Muslims rioting over the movie?


and thank allllah for that too! I make jokes about women because of what might happen... I could be that guy inside from Repo Man 's link
 
2012-09-17 07:31:43 PM  
SHIAT! I mean DON'T make fun of women.

/stupid buttons :/
 
2012-09-17 07:33:16 PM  
I guess the mooslims have got some things under wraps.. AMIRITE?

/love the ladies :)
 
2012-09-17 07:34:23 PM  
The idea that he should be judicially punished for making a stupid, racist piece of crap film is quite dumb. People do not have a right to "not be offended", nomatter how hard certain special interest groups are pushing for it.
 
2012-09-17 07:43:57 PM  

whidbey: No, it's actually kind of disturbing to me that pretty much everyone here is content to leave the filmmakers like Jones off the hook,


a. Jones didn't make the video - stop saying he did and stop calling it a film
2. Did they break a law? What do you propose to do, other than the ridiculous things you've already said?

/50% of proceeds, that was precious
 
2012-09-17 07:45:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: [i259.photobucket.com image 562x517]


Thank you - farkers were getting way too serious in here.
 
2012-09-17 07:51:50 PM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-09-17 07:52:47 PM  

whidbey: it's obvious that no one in here has the least bit of understanding of what the consequences of that movie were


It's not a movie.

And seriously, if you're not trolling - blow it out your ass with your holier than thou. You're claiming some sort of moral superiority when you can't even be bothered to get a handle on the basic facts. Just because pretty much all of us think you're an idiot for thinking we should make the video producers stand on a street corner wearing a "I'm sorry" sign you think we're ignorant of the death and destruction that followed the press release about the video. Get bent.
 
2012-09-17 07:56:52 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com

/oblig
 
2012-09-17 07:57:02 PM  
i1139.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 08:03:16 PM  

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 588x535]


What in the blue hell is that on the far left? man? Woman? Bieber???
 
2012-09-17 08:05:34 PM  

whidbey: skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.

Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


Where would a video of a naked woman in a hijab eating bacon while slaughtering a cow fall
on the freedom of expression scale?
 
2012-09-17 08:10:06 PM  

digitalrain:
Where would a video of a naked woman in a hijab eating bacon while slaughtering a cow fall
on the freedom of expression scale?


That falls under "implausible", for "naked woman in a <article of clothing>".
 
2012-09-17 08:10:57 PM  

Melvin Lovecraft: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 512x395]

/oblig


biatch put that cat in the Newsweek cover or else
 
2012-09-17 08:21:53 PM  
I'm still waiting for the Tim Tebow version. I'll check back after the Bronco game
 
2012-09-17 08:22:45 PM  

whidbey: gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*

Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?


If Jones commits a crime, we'll deal with the crime.

The Last Temptation of Christ is free speech. Burning a flag is free speech. Burning a book, any book, is also free speech. Free speech is not a crime.
 
2012-09-17 08:23:14 PM  
i49.tinypic.com

Seriously people, isn't there somewhere y'all can bicker without being interrupted by funny pictures?
 
2012-09-17 08:24:05 PM  

ciberido: whidbey: gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*

Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?

If Jones commits a crime, we'll deal with the crime.

The Last Temptation of Christ is free speech. Burning a flag is free speech. Burning a book, any book, is also free speech. Free speech is not a crime.


Neither is skateboarding.
 
2012-09-17 08:32:07 PM  

whidbey: Zulu_as_Kono: whidbey: Just knock it off.

What? You're being factually inaccurate and exaggeratedly unreasonable.

Just because folks like Nabb1 are all like "oh noes, the State Department is gonna take away my free speech" doesn't give you an excuse.

/but if you're having fun, whatever

No, it's actually kind of disturbing to me that pretty much everyone here is content to leave the filmmakers like Jones off the hook, as I stated when I came in. If that's "lulzy" to you, fine.


It's not lulzy in the slightest. I saw maybe 10min of the film and I wanted to go scrub myself
off in the shower with a brill-o pad afterwards. It was a repulsive, offensive and mean spirited
video with no redeeming value whatsoever. It was so awful that he had to go in and dub
parts in afterward to transform the character of "George" to "Mohammed", etc... because he
knew there was no way any self respecting actor would go along with his "vision" willingly.

But was it the intent of the film maker to incite violence? I don't know. To offend? Yes. To
convey the fact that he despises Islam? Yes. But I don't know that he made the video with
the thought that "If I make this, mooslims everywhere will get mad and riot and be violent
and make everyone hate them!"

Just sayin'
 
2012-09-17 08:33:13 PM  
*Checks to see if article was crossed to the 'Politics' tab.

How did that jackhole find his way here?
 
2012-09-17 08:36:00 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 08:36:21 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.


Oh, yes. I LOL'd
 
2012-09-17 08:37:02 PM  

vabeard: *Checks to see if article was crossed to the 'Politics' tab.

How did that jackhole find his way here?


Hey! I'm right here you know! You could at least use the preferred nomenclature "knucklehead".
 
2012-09-17 08:38:08 PM  

hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]


I want that shirt! I'll take the blonde as well.
 
2012-09-17 08:43:56 PM  
Time to contribute something I guess.  
.
i49.tinypic.com 

/One day it will be funny. To someone. Somewhere. Probably someone incontinent, at that.
 
2012-09-17 08:47:40 PM  

EatTheWorld: the_foo: /you can go with them, we were having a fine time in here until your BS
.
it was good until asshat came along... This crazy whitbuy actual believes americans should be punished, by the government, for a movie. Can't imagine what he thinks of conservatives like me.

thanks for showing us modern US liberalism at it's best douchebey


Don't go lumping someone without common sense in with regular liberals. The concept of being "liberal" is to believe that everyone has the same right to speak. May not agree with you, but you have the right to say it.

We don't want that line of thought attributed to us either.

Whidbey is walking a dangerous path in that once you start editing out what someone considers offensive, the range of opinion becomes narrower and narrower and speech grinds to a halt.
That's not a functional society model.
 
2012-09-17 08:50:21 PM  

hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]


So where is the photo of the Pakistani motel clerk in Kansas with the Fark Your Jeebus T-shirt?
 
2012-09-17 08:54:53 PM  

AngryWhiteMale: hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]

I want that shirt! I'll take the blonde as well.


http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

You might like some of the women folk there too.
 
2012-09-17 08:57:41 PM  

novusordo: digitalrain:
Where would a video of a naked woman in a hijab eating bacon while slaughtering a cow fall
on the freedom of expression scale?

That falls under "implausible", for "naked woman in a <article of clothing>".


No, the hijab is just the head scarf part. The burka is is the neck to ankles sack that muslim women wear.
 
2012-09-17 09:14:39 PM  
For Newsweeks new outrage photo I give you FARK! Which gives you Huffington Post. Which brings you Newsweek! In a screen shot from a chrome browser running on a powerbook. Man, that's more reach arounds than I can count.

i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 09:30:17 PM  

optimus_grime: hiding behind some imaginary freedom of speech is pathetic.

if you cross the line, you will get hurt, that's how the real world works.


Our line was crossed when they killed a diplomat in cold blood.
 
2012-09-17 09:35:30 PM  
I guess we shouldn't say anything which might offend someone like this:

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Because, ya know, he might kill somebody. 

/He's not any crazier than they are.
 
2012-09-17 09:50:33 PM  
s7.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 09:54:44 PM  

whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey: Voiceofreason01: whidbey:
Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

What words intended in incite violence might look like

Pretty sure that's just a list of grievances. Better luck with some ridiculous false analogy next time.

It's basically a formal declaration of the war.

I'm done with that. It's not even the same thing as the disingenuous movie I'm talking about. Not even close.

Oh Noes! How'd the goalposts get way over there?

Oh Noes! You're going to keep clinging to the same stupid example I tossed out as irrelevant.
Bonus: No free speech in the Colonial Times when it was written.

The honorable thing is to stick to the topic, and specifically, the movie "The Innocence of Muslims."
There is nothing you're going to compare it to.


Quimby or whatever your name is, why haven't you addressed the thousands of Muslims being killed in Syria? No protests there, huh? Does someone need to make movie about it and release it over the internet for the Muslim world to be outraged enough?
 
2012-09-17 10:30:05 PM  

xynix: [imageshack.us image 581x679]


I'm laughing so hard I'm choking to death. AHHHHhhhhhh......
 
2012-09-17 10:30:48 PM  

whidbey: skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.

Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


The rioting and violent twattery is occurring outside of the US. Not in the jurisdiction to attempt a general case against the asshole who made the film.

The widows of the dead Americans might have a case for wrongful death, but it would be a real stretch.
 
2012-09-17 10:37:44 PM  

downstairs: Coco LaFemme: Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff.  We cancelled.
 
Which sucks, because I like having a paper magazine with good but somewhat lighter political/national/world news content.  Everything has turned either to crap or is far to heavy and detailed for sitting on the toilet quick reading.


I get The Week - culls all the papers and mags for reporting on a variety of issues here and abroad. The longest piece is 2 pages and is at the back of the magazine. Good crosswords too!
 
2012-09-17 11:04:02 PM  

whidbey: Pretty sure it's obvious that he not only needs to apologize publicly, but he must also make some kind of atonement involving the raising or donating of millions of dollars either from the proceeds of the movie or his own personal savings to Muslim causes, and then he would also have perform some kind of high-profile community service event in addition to it.



i47.tinypic.com

The full length monty python movie Life of Brian mercilessly mocked and ridiculed the entire story of the life of Jesus from birth to death. Including ridiculing any claim of divinity. I think it's sad that some people in here openly want to outlaw this movie, so that they can bow to terrorism.

Whidbey better lock up John Cleese too. Lol.

/No embassy sieges or pan-national riots from christians over it, BTW. Despite it being shown worldwide in several languages for over 30 years.
 
2012-09-17 11:05:42 PM  
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 11:10:03 PM  
Oddly, some strangely misinformed person in a thread yesterday was trying to make the claim that christians riot and attack embassies the same way muslims do in reaction to such mockery. It was bizarre how passionately he insisted it was true.
 
2012-09-17 11:15:35 PM  

tomcatadam: Time to contribute something I guess.  
.
[i49.tinypic.com image 575x779] 

/One day it will be funny. To someone. Somewhere. Probably someone incontinent, at that.


Best one yet!
 
2012-09-17 11:18:33 PM  

slimfast: [i49.tinypic.com image 575x779]


BOOOOOO!!!
 
2012-09-17 11:29:07 PM  

EatTheWorld: [imageshack.us image 575x779]


Walter, what's a vaginia...?
 
2012-09-17 11:33:24 PM  

whidbey: ArcadianRefugee: whidbey: incite

"Go kill an American!" --inciting violence

"Muslims are a bunch of sandy-vagina'd pedophile worshippers." --a derogatory statement of fact or opinion, NOT an incitation of violence no matter how much sand some people may have in their vaginas regarding their pedophile prophet

Seriously, the fact that you continue to insist the two are equatable marks you as an idiot or a persistent troll.

Not either, but again it's obvious that no one in here has the least bit of understanding of what the consequences of that movie were. Including you.


Whid's dude, your comments come up in 'generally smart comment' green, but you are seriously jumping the shark here. to the point that dumb fark 'comments in grey' brigade is actually appearing more intelligent by comparison. That is not good.

You have no ethical or legal leg to stand on here.

None. Zip. Zero.

From a legal standpoint, it's not even close. Saying something you think, hell, know, is going to piss someone off is not anywhere near the same thing as urging people to commit immediate acts of violence. The fact you would think this should be anywhere near a court is farked up.

If you want to go the route of saying 'we' (americans, humans in general, whomever) should roundly call this guy out as an arsehole, and not patronize his product,fine. The answer to bad speech is more speech, not silence. And you simply cannot make the standard for acceptable speech the lowest common denominator possible reactions from others.

That thinking provides what the law would call a "perverse incentive". Ie, anybody who wants to shut down any speech just has to get violent and boom, your formulation of resposibility means the author should be put in jail.

And you can't tailor US law to accommodate foreign sensibilities. French & German law prohibit Nazi garb and speech, UK has notoriously plaintiff friendly defamation laws, (and these are countries relatively close to our culture), you wanna start bowing to the whims of every nutbag country that has fundie assholes that maight riot b/c we 'allow' our women to wear bikinis, or artists to draw Mohammed, whatever other cave man shiat they think is a legit reason to kill?

You don't want that. Really. You don't.
 
2012-09-17 11:58:42 PM  
You know what really offends the Prophet?

Day-glo football uniforms.
 
2012-09-18 12:00:12 AM  
whidbey: skullkrusher: Do you have the "right" to incite violence with your words or media?

No, you don't. However, to suggest that we limit freedom of expression because of how some savages will react is downright farking unAmerican.

Again, how far does that "freedom of expression" go? I can't cry "fire" in a public theater.

"The Innocence of Muslims" is doing exactly that.


Oh geez, you really believe that don't you? Allah damnit
 
2012-09-18 12:11:15 AM  
I just watched the video. It's mildly amusing. Sort of the way a bad Mel Brooks movie still draws titters.

I dont see how anyone could be offended by this. And the idea that it's creator should be punished is absurd.
 
2012-09-18 12:31:19 AM  
And whidbey proves once again that he is just some retarded smarmy troll.
 
2012-09-18 01:02:45 AM  
Outrage? I thought this was the daily outrage from Michelle Malkin.

I am disappoint.
 
2012-09-18 01:09:56 AM  

arobb00: I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 588x535]

What in the blue hell is that on the far left? man? Woman? Bieber???


Perez Hilton
 
2012-09-18 01:11:09 AM  

Betep: AngryWhiteMale: hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]

I want that shirt! I'll take the blonde as well.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

You might like some of the women folk there too.


I looked through some of the links on that site, and they make the rioting middle east look sane and rational.
 
2012-09-18 01:13:08 AM  
Absolutely a bookmark.
 
2012-09-18 01:29:15 AM  

thomps: Timmy the Tumor: I think we should send a sh*tload of beard trimmers over there as humanitarian aid. Maybe if all of these guys' faces didn't look like nutsacks, they would be in a better mood.

you should take better care of your nutsack if it looks like a muslim dude's bearded face.


That there's funny, and I don't care who ya are.

6,471 interweb points for you
 
2012-09-18 01:46:04 AM  

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: The magazine covers are kind of funny, the "conservative humor" in here is somewhat offensive, but really, the unacceptable violence from the Muslim community does not get the sh*thead who made the movie off the hook.

Sorry if that makes a few of you mad.

Nah, not mad. I just feel sorry for your fear.

No fear here. Just rightly pissed that bigotry and hatred get a free pass under the monicker of "free speech."


Just what would it take for you to come to the realization that "some guy made a movie, I need to kill somebody" is a non-sequitur?
 
2012-09-18 02:07:21 AM  

hinten: skullkrusher: hinten: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.

Because we're supposed to laugh and make captions for the "hijinks" of people exercising legitimate grievances at offensive material produced from this country. They're the ones we should be ridiculing. Got it.

I don't remember you being such an ass. What happened?

you took a break from Fark and forgot some stuff about people?

I refuse to use Favorite with notes because I find it hard to believe that you can capture someone with a one-liner. Of course I am wrong. Fark is the playground of one dimensional characters.


Says you, Mr. Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo
 
2012-09-18 02:24:47 AM  

violentsalvation: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."

Every one of your posts in this thread meet that definition.


Oouch. That's gonna leave a mark
 
2012-09-18 02:26:36 AM  
This thread, with the shoops and the comments, easily ranks in the top 10, with I'm so scared, oil hits the anus, hot cocoa sampler box, Miss Georgia contestants, lipstick on kitty's ass, etc.
 
2012-09-18 02:28:45 AM  

WTF Indeed: Newsweak should just be renamed "The Niall Ferguson Looks Down At You Unwashed Masses Wogs" Weekly.


FTFY
 
2012-09-18 03:49:50 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Whid's dude, your comments come up in 'generally smart comment' green, but you are seriously jumping the shark here. to the point that dumb fark 'comments in grey' brigade is actually appearing more intelligent by comparison. That is not good.


OMG I'm farking quaking in my boots.

From a legal standpoint, it's not even close. Saying something you think, hell, know, is going to piss someone off is not anywhere near the same thing as urging people to commit immediate acts of violence. The fact you would think this should be anywhere near a court is farked up.

Your opinion.


That thinking provides what the law would call a "perverse incentive". Ie, anybody who wants to shut down any speech just has to get violent and boom, your formulation of resposibility means the author should be put in jail.


I said nothing of the kind. Reread my posts if you have any questions about my intention.

you wanna start bowing to the whims of every nutbag country that has fundie assholes that maight riot b/c we 'allow' our women to wear bikinis, or artists to draw Mohammed, whatever other cave man shiat they think is a legit reason to kill?

No, it looks like I "wanna start bowing" to the whims of Americans who want to protect the kind of bigotry presented in the film. At least if I want to fit in around here.

You aren't going to bully me, funny sounding alt. ;-p
 
2012-09-18 03:53:35 AM  
When it comes to over-reacting, it's a bit rich that Americans are getting their panties wadded at muslims.

You twats invaded two nations on false pretexts and are still there a decade on, countless thousands dead.

For what?

Maybe you should have rioted in the streets and got it out of your system rather than nodded sagely at blurry photos of baby food factories before invading a nation that had sweet FA to do with the issue that had you all upset.

Because you know that's kind of why these people are pissed at you. The religious aspect is significant but equally important is the fact that your nation demonstrates utter contempt towards muslims by invading muslim nations under the most pathetic of pretexts.

But hey, you've killed exponentially more of them than they have of you so I guess that validates your moral high ground, right?
 
2012-09-18 05:20:17 AM  
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-09-18 09:06:27 AM  
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-18 09:33:30 AM  
Thread has me laughing so hard, need to go torch a few buildings.
 
2012-09-18 11:12:21 AM  

cegorach: You twats invaded two nations on false pretexts and are still there a decade on, countless thousands dead.



Many here would agree with you about at least one nation, I certainly would. Though the occupation in Afghanistan wasn't under false pretexts, so I'll call you on that one. The Iraq war was very unpopular here after it became clear there were no WMD in Iraq. With Bush having historically low approval ratings. And now that Obama has control of predator drones he's like a kid who got a bb gun for Christmas. No bird in the neighborhood is safe, including American citizens. Though, like when Bush was president, I can only assume he has access to better information than I do.

So while I think you are only half-right, it is understandable that you think of all Americans as "twats". Just like most people consider all Germans to be twats for what their government did in WW2, or all Japanese, or all Chinese, or all Russians, or all Middle Easterners for constantly warring with their neighbors, etc. So I won't try to talk you down from your own self-perceived moral superiority.

Was the Iraq invasion a gross overreaction to bad intelligence, yes. Do I think tracking down Bin Laden in reaction to 3000 dead here was over reaction, no. Is attacking embassies and killing people over a movie or cartoon an overreaction, yes. I don't feel conflicted about those three answers.

The muslim world and the west have fundamentally deeply different concepts of civil rights. Americans have shown in the past we are willing to go to war with even each other over civil rights. Today as globalization increases and information travels virtually instantaneously, feelings are easier to hurt than ever before. If neither side wants to budge in what they consider "right", then conflict is inevitable. And when conflict happens between a small technologically stunted tribal people on one side, and the single largest most powerful industrial and military power in all recorded history on the other, then the outcome seems inevitable. I'm not saying that outcome is either right or wrong. It's just not that surprising or even unexpected.
 
2012-09-18 01:10:49 PM  

whidbey: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Whid's dude, your comments come up in 'generally smart comment' green, but you are seriously jumping the shark here. to the point that dumb fark 'comments in grey' brigade is actually appearing more intelligent by comparison. That is not good.

OMG I'm farking quaking in my boots.

From a legal standpoint, it's not even close. Saying something you think, hell, know, is going to piss someone off is not anywhere near the same thing as urging people to commit immediate acts of violence. The fact you would think this should be anywhere near a court is farked up.

Your opinion.


That thinking provides what the law would call a "perverse incentive". Ie, anybody who wants to shut down any speech just has to get violent and boom, your formulation of resposibility means the author should be put in jail.

I said nothing of the kind. Reread my posts if you have any questions about my intention.

you wanna start bowing to the whims of every nutbag country that has fundie assholes that maight riot b/c we 'allow' our women to wear bikinis, or artists to draw Mohammed, whatever other cave man shiat they think is a legit reason to kill?

No, it looks like I "wanna start bowing" to the whims of Americans who want to protect the kind of bigotry presented in the film. At least if I want to fit in around here.

You aren't going to bully me, funny sounding alt. ;-p


OK,

1) It's not just "my opinion", it's the opinion of the Constitution as interpreted through 225 years of jurisprudence.

2) Bullying, really? That, in my opinion is some weak sauce.

3) Finally, the only issue that matters here:

You are having a severe disconnect between defending someones right to say something and the very different idea of actually defending what it actually said.

Nobody is defending this movie in and of itself, that woould be moronic (well, ok, this is fark, so there probabaly are a few trolls defending the message itself. but that's not the point). People are defending the right to make a movie, even if you disagree with it as bigoted garbage.

This guy sums it up well:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire
 
2012-09-18 01:21:09 PM  
xspblog.com

leave Whidbey alone!!!
 
2012-09-18 01:48:15 PM  
i168.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-18 02:30:31 PM  
This thread gets me all laughy
 
2012-09-18 04:34:34 PM  
aw dang.
 
2012-09-18 05:42:04 PM  

colon_pow: [xspblog.com image 448x336]

leave Whidbey alone!!!


LOL
 
Displayed 479 of 479 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report