Our world would be soooo much better without these idiots.

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.

Seriously people, isn't there somewhere y'all can bicker without being interrupted by funny pictures?

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.

This should've been a Photoshop contest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Newsweak should just be renamed "The Niall Ferguson Looks Down At You Unwashed Masses" Weekly.

For some reason, the phrase "Muslim World Uprisings" from that article has me feeling...armageddonish.

Thread has me laughing so hard, need to go torch a few buildings.

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

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.

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.




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.

/oblig

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

/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,

whidbey: legitimate

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

This thread has it all, photoshop, captions (ow my balls), muslim rage. I hope it goes all night.

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

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..

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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...

Looks like I may have to update this old thing ...

I'm outraged because that POS Newsweek is still around.

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

Yup.

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.

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."

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.

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

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

/vomiting too

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.

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

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

"This is an outrage!"

"Lol why you mad tho?"