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  
•       •       •

31895 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 3:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 479 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report