Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:05 AM Sep 2012

Really? The film maker is at fault? That is the lesson learned?

Is there some list of criteria somewhere that I missed for discussing different religions?
A list that says what level of complaints are allowed? And are not allowed?
Shit, some one better start documenting a list of things you cannot put in a film about different religions!
Because I am not sure at this point what is ok and what is not!

36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Really? The film maker is at fault? That is the lesson learned? (Original Post) Logical Sep 2012 OP
I suggest you write a book defending the film BeyondGeography Sep 2012 #1
And if he did there is nothing wrong with that Marrah_G Sep 2012 #4
If he did, he'd need to have his head examined BeyondGeography Sep 2012 #17
I agree, it would be nuts Marrah_G Sep 2012 #19
don't need a new book alc Sep 2012 #26
Nope, religious extremists are to blame Marrah_G Sep 2012 #2
So the Nazi cartoons CJCRANE Sep 2012 #3
They are in this country Marrah_G Sep 2012 #9
I didn't say to censor them CJCRANE Sep 2012 #14
Oh I agree, and frankly this guy would not even be on the map in this country Marrah_G Sep 2012 #21
The filmmaker is responsible for what he did - i.e. making a bigoted film el_bryanto Sep 2012 #5
The whole truth vs. what is politically smart to say are two different things, sadly. reformist2 Sep 2012 #6
While I generally support free speech, artistic freedom, etc. no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #7
And I would bet the film would have never even entered the radar of the general public here Marrah_G Sep 2012 #12
The rioters are at fault, but the film maker is stupid gollygee Sep 2012 #8
Well said. surrealAmerican Sep 2012 #27
yes, the filmmaker is at fault... luvspeas Sep 2012 #10
What about their actions? boston bean Sep 2012 #16
The filmmaker intended for a riot to break out and the Libyan Ambassador to be killed? Barack_America Sep 2012 #18
And that woman wearing that short skirt deserved to be raped, right. joeglow3 Sep 2012 #31
no, but an American or Israeli woman walking down the street in Cairo carrying a sign that says... luvspeas Sep 2012 #36
is "piss christ" ok because Christians won't riot alc Sep 2012 #33
Both sides get the red out Sep 2012 #11
I hear you Lucy Goosey Sep 2012 #13
In this country absolutely. However, if you want to be policeman for the world's behavior, within still_one Sep 2012 #22
You're defending a film-maker who has gone on record saying "Islam is a cancer"? Hell coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #15
no, but right now it is up to the adults in charge to protect American lives, not reckless still_one Sep 2012 #20
No, the filmmaker isn't at fault, but he does bear at least some responsibility Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #23
From what I've heard it sounds more like crude propaganda CJCRANE Sep 2012 #25
Who financed it malaise Sep 2012 #24
I think it would be helpful to know the financiers riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #29
I'm pretty sure the financing is from a bunch of empty foundations and shell companies Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #34
It's the hornets fault.... Junkdrawer Sep 2012 #28
Exactly. n/t FSogol Sep 2012 #30
Its a deliberate intent to inflame and insult. HooptieWagon Sep 2012 #32
I just wish those folks would direct their anger at the right place rbixby Sep 2012 #35

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
4. And if he did there is nothing wrong with that
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:07 AM
Sep 2012

The fault lies with those who murder in the name of religion, not with free speech.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
19. I agree, it would be nuts
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:16 AM
Sep 2012

But if someone goes out and murders people because of it, the fault still lies with the murderers.

alc

(1,151 posts)
26. don't need a new book
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:31 AM
Sep 2012

The US Constitution is good enough. I can't defend the contents of the movie (I have no idea what the contents are). But I haven't heard of any content that goes beyond any free speech limits we have. I won't accept that the region is like a crowded theater and the movie is the equivalent of yelling "fire". It was an expression of someone's belief and should be allowed no matter how offensive to others and it's not an excuse for anyone else's bad behavior.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
2. Nope, religious extremists are to blame
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:06 AM
Sep 2012

People who kill others in the name of their deity are at fault.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
3. So the Nazi cartoons
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:07 AM
Sep 2012

of Jews were OK?

Of course there is freedom of speech but there is also the right on the other side to condemn speech or actions which have nasty consequences.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
9. They are in this country
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sep 2012

Most citizens in this country would find such a cartoon disgusting. However, they wouldn't walk into a german embassy and murder 4 people because of it.

Free speech especially protects unpopular speech.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
14. I didn't say to censor them
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:13 AM
Sep 2012

just to condemn them verbally as is also my right.

The film-makers also know that given the abuses of the war on terror it would have this effect. In fact it'll be interesting to see what other coordination there was to promote this movie in the relevant places.

ETA: I also wanted to point out that the Nazi anti-semitic cartoons had the effect of dehumanizing jewish people. And I also condemn muslims who create anti-semitic cartoons. The deisred effect is purely for negative propaganda purposes.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
21. Oh I agree, and frankly this guy would not even be on the map in this country
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:18 AM
Sep 2012

It's some crazy person with no power to whom the religious extremists across the world are using to justify murder.

I doubt even a dozen people would have watched this nuts crappy movie in this country.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
5. The filmmaker is responsible for what he did - i.e. making a bigoted film
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:08 AM
Sep 2012

That was a foolish decision, and one that is having a very negative effect. I don't think that many of us are arguing he shoudn't have been allowed to make that film (I'm certainly not), but I am allowed to say that this was a foolish act with tragic consequences that the film maker should be ashamed about.

Bryant

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
6. The whole truth vs. what is politically smart to say are two different things, sadly.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sep 2012

Obama would be smart not to talk about this stupid propaganda film.

no_hypocrisy

(45,774 posts)
7. While I generally support free speech, artistic freedom, etc.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sep 2012

"Innocence of Muslims" is a challenge to my tenets.

This is "The Last Temptation of Christ" on steroids. The script sucks. The production is shoddy. I've seen better acting in porno houses.

Where is the merit underlying this movie? One example? It appears the main if not the sole purpose of creating and distributing this film was to provoke negative response in order to justify a counteraction against that negative response. That's destructive and is neither art nor expression. It's just another mode of inciting riot.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
12. And I would bet the film would have never even entered the radar of the general public here
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:11 AM
Sep 2012

People who want to murder in the name of god will always looks for reasons to murder in the name of god.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
8. The rioters are at fault, but the film maker is stupid
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sep 2012

Did I read that he suggested that Mohammed was a pedophile? He was intentionally provoking them. They were stupid to allow themselves to be provoked and puppetted, and they were murderous to go on a killing rampage.

It isn't a case of "a is bad, therefore b is good." Both are in the bad column in my opinion, though the rioters are by far worse.

surrealAmerican

(11,340 posts)
27. Well said.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:33 AM
Sep 2012

Both parties are wrong here. The film was intended to spark this sort of reaction and the ignorant murderous fools who fell into this trap should have known better.

luvspeas

(1,883 posts)
10. yes, the filmmaker is at fault...
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:10 AM
Sep 2012

This was a deliberate attempt to incite exactly what has occurred. Sure, you can look at freedom of speech and the right to be an asshole. But I think that it is appropriate for the leader of our nation to condemn this film and I am entitiled to my belief that the makers of this film did it only to achieve the effect it has had on members of the Muslim community. That is my criteria.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
16. What about their actions?
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:14 AM
Sep 2012

They were insulted. An American Ambassador and 3 other Americans were murdered (innocent, btw, who more than likely believed the film was offensive). And they weren't murdered by a film or the maker of that film. There is no equivalency in my mind. I guess I have a right to say that.

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
18. The filmmaker intended for a riot to break out and the Libyan Ambassador to be killed?
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:16 AM
Sep 2012

That's quite specific.

The filmmaker intended to anger Muslims. He is responsible for that. He is not responsible for the killing. At least not criminally.

luvspeas

(1,883 posts)
36. no, but an American or Israeli woman walking down the street in Cairo carrying a sign that says...
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:19 PM
Sep 2012

"you stupid muslims mofos I think your gods and prophets are terrible" and there is a picture on the sign that shows their most revered figure committing all sorts of vile acts will get a reaction. Do they deserve the reaction - I can't say. Are they somewhat responsible for inciting violence if violence occurs...absolutley.

alc

(1,151 posts)
33. is "piss christ" ok because Christians won't riot
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:42 AM
Sep 2012

But this is not ok because the offended will riot.

Or was piss christ "art" that was meant for non-christians with no expectation that christians would see it and be upset? While this was not "art" because it's only purpose was to upset Muslims.

If we allow "art" to be used to express political or religious opinions we need to allow any opinions and should not decide which art is appropriate based on who it offends.


I'd guess the idiot who made the film considers it more a documentary than art. I think we need to allow any documentary subject. Whether it's Michael Moore D'Souza, or this guy. They need to be allowed to try to get their message out. I don't want anyone including myself deciding where the line is.

get the red out

(13,459 posts)
11. Both sides
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:10 AM
Sep 2012

Both the people who support the film and those who don't can yell at each other for the rest of time for all I care. The violence over it is what is a complete abomination.

This violence in reaction to speech is something that needs to stop.

Lucy Goosey

(2,940 posts)
13. I hear you
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:12 AM
Sep 2012

I can't believe how many people are saying that this is the filmmaker's fault, or that it's not OK to criticize religion or that people shouldn't be held accountable for actions they take on behalf of their religion.

The filmmaker is probably a total asshole, but someone excercising his right to be an asshole is not justification for murder or violence. Period.

still_one

(91,962 posts)
22. In this country absolutely. However, if you want to be policeman for the world's behavior, within
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:19 AM
Sep 2012

their own countries, I think that foreign policy has been tried before and didn't work too well.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
15. You're defending a film-maker who has gone on record saying "Islam is a cancer"? Hell
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:13 AM
Sep 2012

yes, the film-maker bears some of the responsibility. WTF??????

still_one

(91,962 posts)
20. no, but right now it is up to the adults in charge to protect American lives, not reckless
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:16 AM
Sep 2012

extremists on both sides who want to throw flames on the fire

Frankly our history in the middle east has not been an illustrious one

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
23. No, the filmmaker isn't at fault, but he does bear at least some responsibility
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:24 AM
Sep 2012

Any true creative talent is able to defend the artistic merits of his controversial works...I haven't seen that from this guy yet...

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
25. From what I've heard it sounds more like crude propaganda
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:29 AM
Sep 2012

which I would compare to anti-semitic cartoons from the early 20th century.

Can we blame the cartoonists for anti-semitic actions commited by other people - not really. But can we blame them for creating an atmosphere that might lead to violence - I think so.

riverbendviewgal

(4,251 posts)
29. I think it would be helpful to know the financiers
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:33 AM
Sep 2012

They will be known in a few days if there is good investigative reporting. I should hope so.

One should be open and stand for what they believe in.

Don't you think?

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
34. I'm pretty sure the financing is from a bunch of empty foundations and shell companies
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:42 AM
Sep 2012

that exist on paper only...

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
32. Its a deliberate intent to inflame and insult.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:39 AM
Sep 2012

I see no reason why he should hide behind mamas skirts. If the filmmaker hates muslims, send him over to Libya so he can tell them face to face.

rbixby

(1,140 posts)
35. I just wish those folks would direct their anger at the right place
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:49 AM
Sep 2012

Attacking our embassies around the arab world isn't going to make us change our constitution to remove 'things made in poor taste' from our freedom of speech. I wish that folks would realize that sure, they might be justified in their anger, but our government didn't issue the movie as an official stance on Islam or anything.

I'm not sure what the end result of the violence against americans in this case was supposed to be. Its definitely not going to force us to stifle the freedom of expression.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Really? The film maker is...