By now, those who are interested are probably aware that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been identified as the film producer of Innocence of Muslims. This film has generated much outrage in the Islamic world and has provoked a lot of commentary from Arabic leaders. In the US, it has been reported that Nakoula is now afraid of retaliation from the Muslim world. While the partisans split hairs over whom has supported free speech enough, I think the more interesting question is what we do about Nakoula. Are we obligated to protect this man, a repeat criminal, from those who might want to exact revenge upon him?
I think we are. If free speech is to have any meaning, we need to be able to speak freely, but also without fear of retaliation. This does not mean we are to be free from verbal retaliation. What is often labeled as PC, is just having one’s claims challenged or criticized. No, I am talking about actual physical retaliation resulting in injury or death. For free speech to be free, we need to protect those who would be attacked for exercising their rights. While Nakoula’s film looks to be deliberately insulting, I don’t know their real intent and can only judge from the bit available online, it is still legal speech in the U.S.
What I cannot decide upon is the extent to which we are obligated to provide adequate protection. Do we need to provide him 24 hour protection for the rest of his life? For the next 10 years? How many people do we need to assign? One bodyguard? What if two attackers come? Do prior convictions for meth production, tax avoidance and bank fraud temper our willingness to pay? My first thought is that we should provide some extra protection for a set period of time, maybe a year or so. Beyond that, Nakoula’s protection should be adjusted based upon the threat level we are able to determine from local law enforcement and national intelligence efforts. Anyone else?
Well said. A reader of Glenn Reynolds compares Margaret Thatcher’s response to the death threats on Salman Rushdie to Obama’s response to Nakoula.
When Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa pronounced on him for a novel considered insulting to Islam, Margaret Thatcher immediately ordered a protective detail to be sent to Rushdie, who took him to an undisclosed secure location. They have been protecting him ever since. Bear in mind that Rushdie had been a severe and vocal critic and political opponent of Thatcher.
Compare and contrast to Obama and Holder’s treatment of Nakoula.
A good start would have been not exposing this man’s name and address, his family’s and his neighbors’ to the world so that jihadist killers easily find them. It seems our own government is encouraging a Theo van Gogh type murder.
I am not entirely clear on how he could have been arrested “in cognito” for breaking terms of his parole in today’s environment of press access to almost everything. That said, some degree of protection is reasonable and, may well be provided.
On a parallel path, free speech has clearly been deemed not applicable when one, for instance, screams fire in a crowded theater. The reason is that this irresponsible action endangers other’s lives. In what way is it not very similar to utter speech that one anticipates will lead to violence and injury of others? It seems different and, yet the outcome (death and injury) are the same as is the expectation of the utterer.
Give me a break. The only reason they give a shit about what he did is because they want to blame him for everything. If you believe this pablum from Obama and his gang you’re too gullible to make any intelligent comments, which you’ve proven by you comment here.
n what way is it not very similar to utter speech that one anticipates will lead to violence and injury of others?
Fuck no!! But, you’re obviously incapable of understanding the distinction. Think about the American Revolution and the speech that led up to it. You’re arguing against that, and the free speech that lead to the Civil War and the end of slavery. Your self imposed ignorance boggles the mind.
Edward – I find your line of reasoning and apparent lack of understanding of your own statements truly frightening. If you read the Constitution, you’ll not find any asterisks. Yes, you cite one elementary example, and there are a few others. But, the shallowness of your apparent misunderstanding of free speech is truly frightening. The very thought that we should tip-toe through life, fearing offending someone who might get violent because of something we said or a video me made is beyond patently absurd. Propaganda masters love people like you.
I support offending people and groups. Why shouldn’t we mock Scientology, Christianity, Islam, etc? They all have some pretty bizarre ideas in their belief systems. Of course, lately, Christians don’t go on murderous rampages when someone puts a crucifix in a bottle of piss. Maybe we should so Obama and all would stop trying to force Catholics to perform abortions.
Maybe you’ve never thought long enough and hard enough on questions of civil rights and appropriate behavior. Maybe you’re getting too old and don’t reason as well as you used to.
BTW – show me one direct quote of a rioter, looter, murderer in one of the incidents in Egypt or Libya who blames the video. For all the talk, I haven’t seen one yet. The Libyan president says it’s al Qaeda, not the film.
Dad, Your insistence on resorting to insult and argumentative positioning in pretty much all discussions really complicates the process of civil discussion. If you have ever read any of my entries regarding speech in the past, you should be aware that I advocate full and unrestricted speech with the limitation of that speech specifically advocating violence against others or the classic example of the crowded theater shout of “fire.” I find the Canadian “anti hate speech” laws to be abominable and a threat to continued freedom in that nation. I could go on but it should be clear that I do not support limited speech. It might also be clear outside the context of confrontational political discourse such as you enjoy to extreme that positing a question is not the same as advocating a position nor initiating a line of reasoning. May I suggest you stop imitating the “lords of the loud” and engage in civil discussion of which you have often been capable in the past.
All that said, I will attempt to pose my question once again. Perhaps one of our attorney members will respond and not simply resort to silly displays of temper tantrum.
My question was and remains, How is it different to make speech that one can reasonable expect to lead to violent reaction in which other persons may be expected to be injured than it is to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater? As I said before, it does seem different, yet the outcome is the same.
“it does seem different, yet the outcome is the same.”
My good Edward,
Let me see if I can resolve this for you.
Outside the voluntarily faithful (assuming they are getting what they want and vice versa) the radical Islamist response to criticism of the Prophet or other perceived slights to Him or relics of Islam is indistinguishable from that infinitely open-ended passive-aggression of the thought-species “If your thoughts and behavior do not conform to my will, you are aggressing against me and must be controlled or stopped by means I alone define”; this is the same species of thought structure that finds the non-endorsement of any given social eruction as “hate”.
Thus it is the case with the violently responsive passive-aggressive radical Islamist that it is he alone and not the citizen enjoying his free speech rights within their rightful jurisdiction (which may not in fact obtain elsewhere) who is in fact creating the burning theater and its consequent carnage out of his own passive-aggressive thought structure to which he hopes, as does any passive-aggressive, to break the remainder of the world.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
The Atlantic interviewed Yale law school professor Jack Balkin on exactly this question (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/that-anti-muhammad-film-its-totally-protected-by-the-1st-amendment/262324/). An excerpt (the first two paragraphs are Jack Balkin, and the middle one is the interviewer):
“The question is still whether Terry Jones is deliberately trying to incite a riot by promoting the speech at issue – and were his actions almost certain to have produced any resulting riot? The case is further complicated by the fact that the riots occur outside the United States. But let’s assume that where the riots occur makes no difference. The question would be, are his actions directed to causing the riots?
“Sounds like it would be pretty difficult to prove intent in court.
“The standard is designed to be difficult to prove. The point of the doctrine is to err on the side of protecting speech, even if it’s disgusting.”
“My question was and remains, How is it different to make speech that one can reasonable expect to lead to violent reaction in which other persons may be expected to be injured than it is to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater? ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet
It’s your fault, using your own logic, that I insult you. You offend me and my beliefs. I firmly believe that free speech is sacred, as sacred as any god. Obviously, you don’t even know the difference of being in a theater and interacting on an international level. Yelling “Fire!” in a theater doesn’t cause violence, for starters, it causes panic. The outcome is not the same. Again, the stupidity of your question boggles the mind.
But, if you don’t want to be insulted, don’t offend me. It’s your choice. BTW – I don’t give guidelines as to what offends me and what doesn’t. I make it up as I go along, just like the radical Muslims.
A commentor at Althouse made a good point – restricting freedom of speech leads to violence:
Rescinding free speech rights on topics which could lead to violence allows the violent to censor speech. Not only is this inappropriate, over the long term it would increase violence as everyone learned such a reaction would have the desired result.
Dad says, “Again, the stupidity of your question boggles the mind”
I believe it was Oliver Cromwell who once said, “I beg of you to consider the possibility that you may be in error.”
Consider reading the response of our moderator to the question. Questions serve a number of purposes including guiding discussion, seeking information, making a point, and others. You seem to only be able to consider one of these. Too bad, you are missing opportunity to add to the conversation rather than simply attempting a troll like attempt to anger me.
BTW – I watched a couple of minutes of the video, Initially I thought I was watching a commercial parodizing “West Side Story” as a man runs into the street shouting “Maria!!” I quit watching when i realized it was the actual “offensive” movie and appeared quite comical. Maybe it gets worse (better?) further on. It wasn’t of any better quality of this “Modern Day Jesus” video some of my son’s friends made a couple of years ago. We’re still waiting for the Christians to riot and kill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHSa5LyZEI&feature=plcp
Protecting him seems entirely reasonable to me. Sure, I like Salman Rushdie and his work better (I bought The Satanic Verses at the first opportunity, back when it came out, and quite enjoyed reading it), but even bigoted assholes deserve protection for their free speech rights. As for how much protection and for how long, I suppose it depends on the threat level.
“Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new, and I will show you only things evil and inhuman, such as the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
-Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos.
If you want to know the basic difference between Christianity and Islam, look at the first few centuries of their existence. Two centuries after Christ, the religion he founded was largely a faith of ‘slaves and women’, huddling persecuted in the catacombs, living by a code of strict pacifism, praying for their persecutors, and renowned across the empire for the holiness of their lifestyles and for their solidarity and charity. Two centuries after Muhammed, the faith he founded had swept from the Pamirs to the Pyrenees in a wild rampage of death and destruction, subduing the world to their will through barbarism, brutality and bloodshed.
That really tells the whole story, at least to me.
Of course, witless politically correct ideologues like Hugo Schwyzer and Matthew Yglesias seem to love Islam, probably because it’s the enemy of Christianity every bit as much as Planned Parenthood is.
H/A, from what I have seen of this movie it was a deliberate provocation, as you stated. However, provocation aside, there is nothing remotely illegal about the movie as such. The common example of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre the assumption is that the statement is false, and the shouter knows it to be false. This movie falls well within satire and parody, and political opinion.
As far as releasing Nakoula’s name, etc. Once it was clear after a cursory investigation that “Sam Bacile” was a pseudonym, the media feeding frenzy was on. This was a wierd story that just became a lot wierder. When you make a movie with a $5mil budget, there is still going to be a lot of paperwork, and public paperwork at that, filed. It was easy enough to track him down. Like a certain blogger from Louisiana, this Nakoula is a moral and physical coward. He (and his backers) knew and hoped his movie would get this reaction. What his motives were beyond this I don’t know. It seems he just wants and expects others to fight his battles for him. You are free to speak your mind. You are also free to jam your dick into the Disposall. In both cases, deal with the consequences yourself.
“Once it was clear after a cursory investigation that “Sam Bacile” was a pseudonym, the media feeding frenzy was on.”
Why did the federal government investigate the movie producer in the first place? Why was his name reported to the public? No crime was committed, what was the excuse to send FBI to investigate him?
Why? He suddenly became a very public person. This very public person was also on parole (also a public record) and was apparently is violation of his federal parole.
Hmm, it just hit me. This guy is a fraudster and con man. Remember “The Producers”?
My good Kim,
You seem to be implying that somehow not all of the investors’ reputed $5MM made its way into theatrical value on the silver screen, a serious charge one would have only the evidence of the trailer to evaluate, given that the – but perhaps I should not assume and only say a – full film does not seem to be extant.
Are you saying that Nakoula has used the political interests and itchy cash of naïfs to turn the Arab Spring into Springtime for Mohammed? But how could such a thing even be in the face of what is clearly instead a Götterdämmerung of fundamental values, both East and West? Cough.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
It’s a thought. I have no proof.
HM,
Given the context of the present discussion, my question seems doomed to be interpreted only in the context of the idiot Terry Jones and the creators of the film in question and the riots in Islamic countries that are, to some extent, a result of the film.
Perhaps we could address the issue more dispassionately were we to put the same question in a different context. Consider a case in which two neighbors have been feuding over one’s insistence on posting a large brightly lit crucifix in his front yard. The light causes discomfort for the neighbors and other distractions as well. At some point, one of the neighbors makes a public comment that he can reasonably expect to lead to violent reaction from the other neighbor. Perhaps, erecting a sign indicating disgust with the Roman Catholic church or, perhaps the crucifix owner erects a second one abutting upon the property. Either of the actions can reasonably be expected to lead to potentially violent reaction.However, the issue is whether these forms of speech are fully protected under the first amendment or, since the speech is arguably intended to lead to violence, should it be restricted?
Over the years, the concept of speech has gone far beyond simple making of words with one’s mouth or pen. Donating to candidates, art, burning flags, and a host of actions are protected under our first amendment. The question is not whether such protection is invaluable to our freedom, the question is when restrictions may be in order and, if so, when and under what circumstances? My mention of yelling fire in a theater is not intended to equate that action with any of the others but to make it clear that the Supreme Court has found at least one instance in which speech is rightfully restricted. Canada, as I mentioned in an earlier post has decided to make “hate” speech not permissible. That very questionable action has led to serious repercussions and one can only hope that, at some point, Canada will overturn that decision.
Under the Patriot Act, our federal government has taken a number of actions that inhibit speech. Perhaps the most significant of these is significant increase in monitoring of speech (digital messages). While the ACLU has protested against multiple aspects of that act, it remains in place and appears to be supported by both political parties. In New Mexico, a Christian photographer who refused to serve as photographer for a commitment ceremony for a gay couple has been sued and the case is now at the Supreme Court of NM. It involves the conflict between speech (photography), religion, and property rights. The case has been discussed extensively on Volokh’s blog. For those who believe these issues to be simple and unquestionable, I can only suggest further reading and thought may make clear just how complex and interrelated they are.
“In New Mexico, a Christian photographer who refused to serve as photographer for a commitment ceremony for a gay couple has been sued and the case is now at the Supreme Court of NM. It involves the conflict between speech (photography), religion, and property rights. ”
I ma not sure I see any conflict in this case between speech, religion and property rights. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Photographer’s free speech rights are violated.
Photographer’s religious rights are violated.
Photographer’s property rights are violated.
It’s pretty simple, actually.
Seemingly. However, the NM supreme court and a number of respected jurists do not appear to agree with you in that the case is going to that venue for consideration. Not being a lawyer, I asked about this. The photographer is operating a business and, as such, is expected to provide service to willing customers. This was quite clear, for example, in the civil rights legislations from the 50s and 60s. In the earlier cases, the issue was more overt in that the refused customers were of a different race. I really recommend reading the string on Volokh’s site since the discussion is quite thorough. My server is misbehaving or I could provide you a url. If you go to Volokh, it should be fairly easy to find the strings (there are several over the past several months).
Ed, I understand today’s liberal view of this case. My point was that on the basis of speech, religion and property rights as described in the US Constitution, the photographer is under no obligation to serve anyone. Clearly, the laws from the 1960ies are violating these rights.
Finally it is working again. Here is the url for one of the strings on this case, http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/16/your-name-in-lights/ Here is a response from one of the participants:
“1. You have a constitutional protection against the government taking your property. You don’t have, and have never had, constitutional protection against government laws that affect how you use your property. Of course, at some point “affect” crosses a line and becomes “take” but anti-discrimination laws are a long, long way from that line.
2. “Why would religion be exempt from coercion but property owners not exempt?” Because the First Amendment protects free exercise of religion, not the free conduct of businesses. Thus, for example, the Catholic Church’s view is that marriage is for life and for this reason the Catholic Church isn’t required to recognize civil divorces and is free to refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony for someone who has been previously married. That’s free exercise. Opening a taco stand and refusing to sell tacos to divorced people would be running a business, not free exercise of religion, even if the taco stand owner were a devout Catholic who genuinely believed that divorce was immoral. As with #1, the precise boundary between free exercise and running a business can get a bit blurry in certain close-to-the-line situations.
3. “On the other hand, laws were passed in that era coercing business owners to sell their property to customers of all races. Is there a difference in the case of LGBT customers?” I’m not sure what you mean when you ask “is there a difference.” If you’re asking whether there’s a constitutional difference between the standing of laws prohibiting racial discrimination and laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, then the answer (at least for state laws) is “no.” A state legislature is equally free to prohibit both forms of discrimination. Of course, whether a state legislature should do so is the subject of much argument. The status of federal anti-discrimination laws is a bit different as there are federalism-based arguments against such laws that don’t apply to state laws. If you’re asking why we don’t see widespread boycotts and sit-ins against businesses that discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation the way we saw such tactics against businesses that discriminate on the grounds of race, my guess would be that that’s because race is visible and usually obvious, while sexual orientation is largely invisible. Even if you don’t like gay people and don’t want to sell books, meals, clothing etc. to them, you aren’t going to interrogate your customers about their sexual orientation just to make sure you don’t inadvertently sell to the gay ones.
Also, we do occasionally see such tactics against businesses that discriminate against gay people. I vaguely recall a corporate law case from law school involving a boycott against Cracker Barrel restaurants after they announced some sort of “family values” policy which involved openly refusing to hire gay people and, incredibly, also included firing their existing gay employees. I remember our class was shocked, not just by the facts of the case, but by the fact that these events occurred in the early 1990s, long past the point at which people (or at least students at a highly ranked northeastern law school) would be willing to tolerate such discrimination. It was a corporate law case, not a discrimination case, because it involved some issue about trying to get a resolution in front of the shareholders for a vote, despite the opposition of the board of directors.” (I looked up the Cracker Barrel issue and found that the corporation had fired employees for being gay. Shareholders entered a resolution to change that policy. After a year or so of conflict, the board reversed the policy. That strikes me as how the system is supposed to work and occasionally does).
“You have a constitutional protection against the government taking your property. You don’t have, and have never had, constitutional protection against government laws that affect how you use your property.”
The question is not whether you are protected from the government laws that affect your property. The idea that the government can force you to use your property in the ways government sees fit is a new idea – and the one which is not supported by the constitution. Another easy defense of the property rights is the right of freedom of association. The government cannot force you to associate with people you don’t like – if the Constitution is followed.
“Because the First Amendment protects free exercise of religion, not the free conduct of businesses.”
There is some validity to this statement, but again, very limited. For example, it was agreed that the government can prohibit people from selling alcohol. It’s another thing entirely to demand people to violate their religious principles and do something. For example, is it constitutional to demand that business be open on Saturday – even though the owner is Jewish and religious law prohibits him from working on Saturday? Clearly, 1st Amendment protects him (just as freedom of association, property rights, etc.).
Anyway, from pure logic and reason, the laws which are used today violate our religious freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech and religious freedom. It’s a shame that few people care about the constitution.
I’m not aware of a law as such requiring businesses to be open on a particular time or day. It’s quite common however contract law at shopping malls and such.
My good Edward,
You are conflating and scrambling together a number of very different issues under the aegis of the simple English term “speech” – the responsibility of individuals for their own reactions to the speech (or body odor, or fashion sense, or tastes in song) of others and the government’s monitoring of speech (which in and of itself inhibits nothing) are but two examples.
Perhaps if you were to first sort out, untangle and distinguish these various, different issues as well as to articulate how and why they are very different even though we use the common word “speech” when discussing them you would reap more of the discussion you are seeking.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“The question is not whether such protection is invaluable to our freedom, the question is when restrictions may be in order and, if so, when and under what circumstances?” (ETH)
.
.
The film by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (IF there really IS a film, all anyone’s seen has reportedly been the 14 minute clip on YouTube) is NOT the cause of the violence in the Mideast, any more than the film by Vincent Van Gogh’s great-grand nephew (“Submission”) was the reason for his murder, nor any more than Planned parenthood’s actions caused the bombings by Eric Rudolph.
To even consider such causations is to assail civilization itself.
The ONLY culpability for the violence in the Mideast and elsewhere lies with the religious fanatics that commit murder under a banner of religiosity. There is no way to condemn Eric Rudolph without condemning his radical Islamist cohorts.
You’ve condemned Fred Phelps, so you SEEM to understand that ALL fault lies with the actor. That’s why contract killers are usually given much more sever sentences than the people who “hired” them. The law does not accept the view that X would not have killed victim Y had it not been for $500 from Z. That has been the case in innumerable such cases. Rae Caruth (the NFL player) who hired some goons to kill his pregnant fiancee was given 18 years to the shooter’s 35+ year sentence.
The “instigator” is NOT the issue.
If there were, we’d have crimes against things like “fighting words.”
A person can say anything they want to anyone….and they may have to fight as a result, BUT the law DOES NOT condone physical assault to a verbal response under any conditions….the offended party will NEED another affirmative defense.
In the current case there is NO recognizable “trigger” to the riots and killings by radical Muslims. In the case of the Libyan Embassy, that attack had apparently been planned well in advance to coincide with the 9/11 Anniversary.
The rest of the widespread attacks seem no more a reaction to this film than anything else, after all, this sort of thing is what radical Muslims generally do. Amidst literally thousands of such “riots” we’re going to blame three on burning Korans and a few more on a few movies?
NO, we’re not. That makes no sense.
When a given group react like that normatively (that is virtually all the time), it’s impossible to attribute cause in reverse, as in, “Ah, it must’ve been because of X or Y,”. . .more than likely, it’s just “because.” Because that’s what such people do.
Blaming a book or a movie for the idiotic and violent actions of people is as foolish as blaming guns for violent crime here in the USA, and who but the most severely mentally and emotionally challenged among us would do that?
Unlikely as it appears, we are mostly in agreement. Freedom of speech (as well as to congregate, worship, and publish news) are integral to freedom as human beings. However, there are some limits to freedoms. It is entirely reasonable to discuss what these limits are and how they should be enforced. In the absence of such discussion and clarification, we are left to having the limits set by Governor Romney, President Obama, and the Congress of the US. These are the people who brought the Patriot Act to us thus “protecting” us by weakening our Constitutional protections.
You mentioned that I “condemned” Fred Phelps. I do not remember condemning him but do believe him to be the epitome of evil in our society. I do remember stating that even he and his so called congregation of believers are engaging in protected speech. Likewise, the veterans, HOG members and others who blockade his group from funerals are perfectly within their rights of free speech as long as they simply form a non violent blockade and do not yield to the temptation to kick the shit out of him.
” Freedom of speech (as well as to congregate, worship, and publish news) are integral to freedom as human beings. However, there are some limits to freedoms. It is entirely reasonable to discuss what these limits are and how they should be enforced.” (ETH)
.
.
That is correct, BUT those “limits” MUST BE themselves as limited as is humanly possible.
To date, threatening speech, the theft of another’s copyrighted works/words are ILLEGAL. There are also sanctions against slander and incitement, BUT the bar for proving those are RIGHTFULLY very high. It is, for instance, almost impossible to get a conviction on slander/libel against a public figure, the bar is so high and incitement is also a difficult crime to prosecute and AGAIN “rightly so. We couldn’t even convict Al Sharpton of “incitement” in the case of the fire in Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem (http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/massacre-at-freddys-in-harlem-fire-fueled-by-anti-semitism-kills-8.html)
Neither Farrakhan or David Dukes, nor Khalid Mohammed have ever been convicted for “incitement”. . .THAT’S how high that bar is set!
And AGAIN “rightly so,” in my view.
Today, reports are linking the attacks on the Egyptian Embassy to the jailing of the “Blind Sheik” (Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman) and NOT this film.
The Libyan Embassy attack was reported earlier to have been planned well in advance to coincide with the Anniversary of 9/11.
It’s always wrong for Westerners to, in effect, anthropomorphize animals and lesser beings. We attribute our values and morality to savages at our own peril.
The typical “radical Muslim” needs no motivation to kill the “infidel,” such a blood lust is in their natures.
As a youth I studied the teachings of G I Gurdjieff and P D Ouspensky (Ouspensky’s “Talks With a Devil” is an outstanding work, so is “In Search of the Miraculous”), anyone, I am STILL convinced that Gurdjieff was essentially correct in asserting that, “While virtually all men are asleep, only a small percentage even have the capacity for true sentience. Some men are barely above the level of consciousness of lower animals, some are barely above the level of some plants…”
We are wrong to attribute things to people without first recognizing their basic level of functioning. Attributing higher reasoning skills to people who regularly engage in “honor killings,” throwing acid on family members who’ve “disgraced the family,” etc., is no different than anthropomorphizing a dog or an elephant.
I don’t know if the cause of the “Blind Sheik” triggered the Egyptian Embassy attack, or if the 9/11 Anniversary was the trigger for the Embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya.
I DO NOT however, believe this film was a contributing factor at all. Illiterate people rarely watch films. . .even 14 minute trailers and if they do, their understanding of it would barely be above that of a dog’s or cat’s.
We in the West somehow find it comforting to believe that “People are the same the world over,” when in fact, people aren’t the same even right here at home!
In short, I think it’s dangerous for us to engage in so much “naval gazing,” based largely on the fanciful notion that “radical Muslims” need some trigger for violent action, when historically that’s not been the case.
This film-maker may have been a dipshit and a parolee on forgery and Identity Theft charges, BUT he is NOT responsible for the actions of a bunch of illiterate savages taking to the streets in the Arab/Muslim world.
.
.
I do not find it at all “unlikely” that we’d agree on many issues.
As just one example, you are not, to my recollection an anti-gun fanatic. As I noted guns are merely ONE tool in the violent offender’s arsenal and you’ve seemed to agree. The Happy Land Social Club fire in March of 1990 showed that violence WILL NOT be deterred even in the absence of guns. In that case, Julio Gonzalez sans gun murdered 87 people with just a small amount of gasoline, a makeshift wick (a hankie) and a Bic lighter.
I’d thought you’d mentioned Phelps somewhere as condemnable but protected and he IS indeed condemnable and he’s also protected, at least on on “Speech grounds” (he can say what he wants), however, he CAN BE barred from coming within so many hundred feet of such Funerals.
So far as I know, Salman Rushdie was not on probation when the fatwa against him was issued. It was pure fortuousity that Nakoula was. From the police point of view, it is always easier to protect somebody if you can actually lock him up. The ordinary non-criminal person on the street is a LOT harder to protect, and US cops are rarely willing to take the trouble. Most of the people in WITSEC, for instance, are criminals. Dunno how Brit cops do these things or how Thatcher’s fatwa fit into that.
“A good start would have been not exposing this man’s name and address”
It was my understanding that the press ferreted out his name. With his film on Youtube, and since he used his own home for some of the film, I suspect it was a given the press would find him. I think privacy is largely a thing of the past. Today’s Twitter decision reaffirms the lack of privacy in our online world.
Steve
No, it’s the federal government that disclosed his name. Clearly, an attack on freedom of speech.
“It was my understanding that the press ferreted out his name. With his film on Youtube, and since he used his own home for some of the film…” (Steve)
.
.
In any case, even if the film were grossly inaccurate and hysterical in its approach, it is STILL protected, as ONLY controversial and “offensive” speech requires such protections.
Speech we all agree with, or find non-offensive needs no protections at all, as it has no opponents.
The film-maker is NOT responsible for the actions of a crowd of illiterates.
It is perfectly OK to make fun of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, hell, even myself (though people have been shot for doing the latter)…over time I’ve developed a thicker skin. We should expect no less from the followers of Christ and Mohammed.
Just as the payer in a “murder for hire” DIDN’T “make the shooter kill,” no book, film or speech can “make” people commit acts they weren’t otherwise already inclined to commit.
The film-maker isn’t the “bad guy” here.