General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie
and hold them at least partly accountable - then I guess we can hold the makers of these films completely blameless in the Holocaust:
edited to add: I am NOT holding EITHER side in this blameless. I am REFUTING those that say that you can only find fault with the actions of EITHER the makers of the propaganda, OR those that carry out violence in response to the propaganda!!
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html
Jud Süss
"On September 30,1940 Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler, ordered all SS and police members to see the film during the coming winter. It was shown to SS units, and Einsatzgruppen about to be sent east on their murderous assignment, and was also sent to non-Jewish populations of areas where Jews were about to be deported, by 1943 viewership of the film was reported as over 20.3 million people."
Jud Süss was the most notorious yet most successful anti-Semitic feature film ever made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29
The Eternal Jew
"An unrepentant Hippler was interviewed in the Emmy Award-winning program "The Propaganda Battle" in the PBS series Walk Through the Twentieth Century (1983–1984). In this interview he stated that he regretted being listed as the director of The Eternal Jew because it resulted in being interrogated by the Allies after the war. He thought this was unfair because, in his opinion, he had nothing to do with the killing of Jews. However, in an interview shown in the German documentary series Holocaust (2000), the 90-year old Hippler described the film as "the most disgraceful example of anti-semitism."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JustAnotherGen
(31,820 posts)To help you make the point: 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568923/
A Film Unfinished - The 'behind the scenes' view of the making of a a Nazi Party propaganda film. All carefully crafted to foment disrespect and hatred.
Maybe I'm warped - but what would have possessed this man to make this film? Someone needs to lock HIM in a room with The God Who Wasn't There for a few days. See how he likes it.
I know cruel cruel cruel - but I put this film he's made (caught clips online at DU/YouTube) this morning with The Passion of the Christ. Zero artistic value whatsoever.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Didn't you even LISTEN to Mitt Romney??????????????????????????????
Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #97)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)This is not like yelling fire in a theatre (I wish people would stop using that moronic example). I have no plans to watch what I'm saying because some thugs across the world may take offence. We have a first amendment - suck it up. You want to make a movie about the weirdness of Mormons, have at it.
Response to leftynyc (Reply #216)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)an answer. I've used Piss Christ and The Last Tempatation as examples also this week - it was highly insulting to many Catholics, there were demonstrations and people just sucked it up. If we start jailing people for being irresponsible, that's a slippery slope that I think is a bridge too far (how's that for a bunch of cliches?)
Response to leftynyc (Reply #224)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Is Mapplethorpe unable to show? can I not stand on ant street cormner and scream that Jesus is a fraud.
Response to leftynyc (Reply #230)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)incinerated by silent vehicles in the sky, after seeing what is perceived to be a war on primarily Muslim people, after all the carnage, the refugees, the children killed, the wedding parties bombed and all the rest, a movie such as this, made in the country carrying out the above actions might be all that is necessary to push it over the edge.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)from past experience (Terry Jones Quran burning) that is will likely cause deaths when marketed especially to those who would react in a violent manner. Terry Jones is involved, yes?
He knew it would cause riots and violence. Yet he chose to do it again.
That's no longer free speech, but inciting violence. Inciting International violence, on purpose. (and right before the election, hmmmmm)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He released in a couple of months before the presidential election, and before the anniversary of 9/11. Sounds like the maker of the film knew full well what he was doing and what would happen...and that people might die.
It's pretty easy to predict extremists' reactions to things.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)While it is true the principal responsibility for the violence rests with those who committed it, some portion also rests with those who provided occasion and pretext for it, particularly if they did so with deliberate intent to provoke, which seems more likely than otherwise.
'Freedom of speech' does not mean no one can criticize or condemn what you say, and does not require people to support what you say, or to refrain from showing displeasure at what you said, or even that you said it, nor does it mean people cannot point out consequences of your speech, and pin the due portion of responsibility for those consequences to your utterance.
That you have a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.
hlthe2b
(102,256 posts)Of course it does not escape many of us that to hide behind free speech arguments in order to excuse the leakage of their own previously conceal bigotry -- tells the real story.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)repeatedly upheld 'time, place and manner' restrictions on speech and has likewise not found speech constitutional that 'incites violence' (aka the "imminent lawless action" test). I think the relevant SCOTUS decision is still 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio, but I may not be fully up to date on this.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Listen, I believe the folks who made the movie are despicable and the film itself is a hideous manipulative piece of crap.
But to smear DUers who defend free speech as "bigots" is pretty damn low as well.
Even if you can find ANY DUer who believes in "free speech at all costs" (which I doubt), I'm damn sure its not bigotry that bolsters their position.
hlthe2b
(102,256 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The very same DU'ers that are rallying in such vociferous defense of clear bigotry, under the argument of "FIRST AMENDMENT!" ...also seem to include many DU'ers who believe teachers should be barred from expressing their first amendment rights - you know, freedom of speech, freedom of association, that stuff?
That is... many DU'ers seem more interested in hearing what islamophobic bigots have to say, than hearing what an integral portion of America's labor force has to say. In fact these DU'ers believe the first should be protected and enshrined as holy, sacrosanct, while hte latter should be crushed and eradicated by government.
It's not that free speech is bigotry. It's that bigoted DU'ers are hiding behind the first amendment to defend their bigotry.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...their bigotry.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What is it with maneuvering oneself into victim territory around here? And there are bigots involved here - mostly right wingers, but bigots do use these incidents to attempt to smear all Muslims.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)What they have said is that the government cannot charge him becuase of the first admendmemt.
Some people don't seem to like that answer.
Case in point: you.
The old canard. You don't agree with me, so you must be a bigot, etc. etc. ad infinitium.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Hate speech is one of them. Defining it is the trick.
Given one of the people involved in this saga knew the reaction, given he is part of the culture, this is starting to look like hate speech.
Like pornography you know it when you see it.
G_j
(40,367 posts)for the exact reason you give, and it was calculated.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)But of course, you knew that.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)United States
In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[59] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[60] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[61]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[62][63]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[64] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[65] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[66]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What is prohibited is incitement to a riot.
it is even in US Code. In this case that would be a tad tricky since the crimes did technically occur on US Territory per CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and the people making the film were not physically there (or they'd be dead). So that is to a point, moot.
What is also prohibited is slander. I cannot go and destroy your reputation or call you all kinds of names, unless, critical qualifier here, you make your living in the public eye.
The third, very well known, is to scream fire in a crowded theater, which translates to speech that could lead to bodily harm.
Those three are part of speech, are they not?
What is stunning is that people believe all these rights are absolute, whether it is the first or the second, I will use my Poli Sci instructors crass explanation of the limits. My rights end up at the point yours begin. Yes, crass, more like the Golden Rule, but a nice way to avoid getting into your rights, isn't it?
No, rights are not absolute, they never have been, US Code has those limits nicely codified into law. Go look up slander cases, they abound. And hate speech, by the by, many a times does come hand in hand with INCITEMENT TO A RIOT. That is a line that even neo nazis know not to cross these days.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It only became such an incitement when Islamists started telling the average Ahmad in Benghazi that this movie was being broadcast on US TV and was the official position of the US government. It was those Islamists who started the riot.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Short answer? It's not. Bigoted Speech, Obnoxious Speech, even The Putrid Fartitude of the likes of Fred Phelps is protected under the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment protects the right to be a flaming asshole. Of course, you can still be called on being a Flaming Asshole, but your right to be one is protected.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)prohibited.
If you think it is, find me the court case which backs you up.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is even in US Code. In this case that would be a tad tricky since the crimes did technically occur on US Territory per CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and the people making the film were not physically there (or they'd be dead). So that is to a point, moot.
What is also prohibited is slander. I cannot go and destroy your reputation or call you all kinds of names, unless, critical qualifier here, you make your living in the public eye.
The third, very well known, is to scream fire in a crowded theater, which translates to speech that could lead to bodily harm.
Those three are part of speech, are they not?
What is stunning is that people believe all these rights are absolute, whether it is the first or the second, I will use my Poli Sci instructors crass explanation of the limits. My rights end up at the point yours begin. Yes, crass, more like the Golden Rule, but a nice way to avoid getting into your rights, isn't it?
No, rights are not absolute, they never have been, US Code has those limits nicely codified into law. Go look up slander cases, they abound.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)wrong.
Again, find the relevant court cases. Both the "incitement" and the related "fighting words" so-called 'exceptions' to the 1st Amendment have been narrowed significantly by the Supreme Court in the past 100 years. And rightly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
(emphasis added)
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.
Incitement vs. fighting words
Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to cause immediate breach of the peace. The modern standard was defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government. The Ohio statute under which the conviction occurred was overturned as unconstitutional because "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."[4]
The difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker.
And lastly, making a movie that offends someone's personal religious sensibilities is NOT a) "slander", b) incitement to a riot, or c) screaming fire in a crowded theater.
It's not that "this case" would be "tricky" in the US, there wouldn't BE a case. Period. Do you honestly believe that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to do or say anything that might make someone else mad? Even really, really, really mad?
Where do you get your understanding of the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The short answer is yes. Anybody with half a brain cell can see that. Were they only because of a movie? That will be debated for a while. Since a lot of that is also internal. Gasp, I know, groups jockeying for power after the old tyrant fell, who't think?
What makes US Code unenforceable is the lack of those doing the incitement being present there. That is a critical qualifier of the US Code in question, those who are doing the incitement have to be PHYSICALLY as in PERSON, there. This is a bad example since you also have the complication of international customary law, but as we see more events where the incitement occurs in social media, I can almost see a revision to that US Code.
Here you go...
18 USC § 2102 - DEFINITIONS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102
Why do you think our lovely neo nazis even know those limits these days and stay clear of crossing them? The same goes for many groups that espouse hate speech?
I can't help you if you cannot connect that.
Sorry.
By the way, nice personal attack there sparky. My knowledge of US Constitution and law come from people who have far more of a clue on it, a few of them are CONSTITUTIONAL lawyers, and a smidgen of International lawyers, not the Wikipedia. And as far as the First Amendment is concerned, there are reams of ACADEMIC texts on it... and papers in places like insert law review here. My favorite story in one of these a few decades ago was the do not scream fire in crowded theater, a young child asked a supreme court justice, what if there is a fire, like for real? Justice Brennan thought on it, and answered, that in that case he could scream fire, just as long as there was a real fire. I have no idea if the story is for real, or a nice legend, but I always found it cute.
We have had these discussions since the country became one and signed that Constitution, and slowly a corpus of law has emerged, with GASP, limits. There are far less limits to speech in the US, than let's say oh Germany, but the history is also different. That is one reason for that. I am betting that if we had something like the Holocaust occur in the US, and we lost the wear, and were occupied by foreign powers, that you are free to espouse hate speech quirk would go away like fast. On the other hand, we might get universal health care and union protections imposed by that occupier, like we did in Germany, Italy and Japan...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I come from a family that had people die in the Holocaust, AND I understand why the ACLU- which I support- defended the right of the Nazis to march.
I realize, sadly, every time these discussions come up, that there are invariably a few misguided folks here chomping at the bit to regulate regulate regulate all that pesky "problematic" speech they don't like, but the short answer? You're [font size=5]WRONG.[/font] You can spin elaborate fantasies about alternate realities where we "lost the wear" (?) or the happy day when opinions that bother you may be silenced, but it is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.
Sorry. Waaaah! 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)by the way, good for the ACLU on Skokie... but you also know there was zero incitement to riot during that whole mess, right?
If you are so familiar, you will be able to comprehend that.
Why I said that our pedlers of hate speech usually are careful NOT TO INCITE A RIOT... they are actually familiar with that US Code, since it was broken on their backs well before skokie.
Like the second amendment absolutists, you are wrong... neither right is absolute.
There are actually real limits, which most people are NOT familiar with. Go ahead, go incite a riot, and chiefly be there... you will personally see the real limits to it.
Wahh indeed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"careful"?
Inciting a riot would be standing up with a bullhorn and going, to an angry mob, "riot".
Which is a very different thing than making a video that offends someone and putting it on youtube, which is what this is about.
Telling someone to riot, vs. saying something that makes them so mad they think they need to riot- get the difference?
Sorry, there is no 1st Amendment prohibition against offending people, pissing them off, blaspheming against their religion, or the rest, as badly as some people may wish there was.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is dated. It fails to take into account social media.
It does indeed require YOUR PRESENCE as the one inciting the riot, at the site where it is happening. Why I said that as we have more and more riots happen who can be traced to social media, that will lead to some revisions on it.
And nobody is disagreeing with you that here is no 1st Amendment prohibition against offending people, pissing them off, blaspheming against their religion, or the rest, as badly as some people may wish there was.
You are seeing what you want to see.
What I have written here, repeatedly, is that the limits lie in INCITEMENT TO A RIOT, SLANDER and SCREAMING FIRE IN A THEATER. Exactly where did I say PROSECUTE the film makers? UNDER CURRENT US LAW it cannot be done, PERIOD... and there are far more complications on this than you can point to, including the VIENA CONVENTION and whether we recognize customary international law. Nor is there any PRECEDENT that would allow the prosecution of an individual under this code, for incitement of a riot over social media.
What I have argued, which you are UNABLE or UNWILLING TO COMPREHEND, is that freedom of speech, per the first amendment, IS NOT ABSOLUTE, even if you think so. There is more, it has not been absolute since early in the life of the Republic, slander laws go back a LONG TIME.
If you cannot comprehend this, it is not my fault, except in not being able to explain this to you, and at this point I have to conclude that you are incapable, like second amendment absolutists, of accepting that indeed there are some limits.
Have a good long day.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)slander, inciting a riot, and screaming fire in a theater.
Obviously it's not "absolute", because you can't, say, threaten the president. However, there is a wide chasm between those limited sorts of examples and the scads of speech that the censorship fetishists would love to shut up. Naked boobs on the internet apparently drive a few people bonkers, we know that Romney and Ryan have pledged to clean those up- goody! 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)RE-READ THE POSTS...
What I have written here, repeatedly, is that the limits lie in INCITEMENT TO A RIOT, SLANDER and SCREAMING FIRE IN A THEATER. Exactly where did I say PROSECUTE the film makers? UNDER CURRENT US LAW it cannot be done, PERIOD... and there are far more complications on this than you can point to, including the VIENA CONVENTION and whether we recognize customary international law. Nor is there any PRECEDENT that would allow the prosecution of an individual under this code, for incitement of a riot over social media.
Where did I state that any of this was hate speech? Please point to it. Or that it was related to the case at hand... I will be waiting.
I am just trying, and failing horribly, to educate you that the first, like the second, is not absolute. The fourth and the fifth come real close to actually absolute. But neither the first or the second are absolute.
I am sorry, for obviously being unable to teach you something that actually matters, and at this point I need to conclude there is some sort of ideological block at work here. But at least you get it that threatening the life of a public official (not just the President) can be a felony... congrats...
So to preserve my sanity, will stop doing this.
There, much better.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That is what you said.
You were wrong. Hate speech is not prohibited under the 1st Amendment.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)when that HATE SPEACH leads to INCITEMENT TO A RIOT.
I know you are dense, and on your horse...
I have made this point thought... hate speech leads to a riot... hate speech is limited when it leads to a riot... though what enters into the place is the US code regarding riots.
Also, perhaps you have missed this, but there is this slew of laws covering hate crimes... and some of them involve things like this.
You probably do not realize this but many of these cases end up investigated as HATE CRIMES... why is that? THey are merely speech, aren't they?
Here is another example via Ha'Aretz
N.J. police investigate anti-Semitic attack as hate crime
Police are investigating a graffiti attack in a predominately Jewish neighborhood in New Jersey as a hate crime.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/n-j-police-investigate-anti-semitic-attack-as-hate-crime-1.463627
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.403123.1347170061!/image/2017260903.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/2017260903.jpg
There are a couple things here, a couple thresholds were crossed by the story posted by the israeli paper, follow the bouncy ball.
1.- There was an actual thread of bodily harm
2.- There was a pattern.
So under your logic, there should be zero prosecution here.
As I have told you, if you an absolutist, this is a-ok, even when there is enough precedent for hate crimes to be prosecuted as such.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Your argument is sort of like saying, "yeah, well, getting angry at someone is illegal when it leads to you punching them in the face". Right, because punching someone in the face is illegal. Not getting angry.
Of course it's illegal to paint a swastika on a Synagogue sign; it's NOT illegal to wear a swastika on a shirt, although it certainly might indicate that the person wearing it is an asshole.
A hate crime is when you have a crime that has an element of group-specific hate as a part of something that is ALREADY a crime, like, oh, making threats, vandalism, violence, etc. That's a hate CRIME, which is not the same as hate SPEECH. Do you understand the difference between a hate crime and hate speech? You said upthread that you believe "Hate Speech" is prohibited or restricted by the 1st Amendment. It's not.
It's not the bouncy ball I need to follow, it's the goalposts you keep trying to move on your argument, such as it is. All you need to do is say "you're right, hate speech is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment". Admit you were wrong. I do it all the time. It's not that hard.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are arguing that it is absolute and that the reams upon reams of laws that have been passed over the last 200+ years are NOT VALID? Is that your argument?
Remind me how fast will the feds use National Security if I happen to come across a defense story... freedom of the press is part of it. It takes COURT CASES to get a lot of that information released
So we have established two things
Warren DeMontague is an Original intent club member.
And secondly, you actually believe that the US Code is not part of US Law.
WOW.
Never in my life I thought I would meet a member of the Federalist Society (They make the exact same arguments when it fits them) on DU... I really never thought I would see this on DU.
There is always a first. Thanks.
I am actually in awe... to be honest.
We are back to this.
We are also at the point that talking to each other is talking across each other. There is NO ARGUMENT that could convince a member of the Federalist Society that they might be wrong on that... so, whether you are or not, in my mind you made the exact same arguments.
Have a good day.
For reference here we go... will break it up into the FIVE establishment clauses
1.- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
2.- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3.- or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
4.- or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
5.- and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There aren't.
You were wrong.
You keep trying to change the subject to something- anything!- else, but it's very simple. Simple.
If you can show me one successful prosecution for "hate speech", I will say you were not wrong. If you can show me a LAW outlawing hate speech, that has not been overturned by a court, I will say you were not wrong.
But you were. Wrong.
You've got a whole bunch of other people saying you're wrong, too. Are they ALL "members of the federalist society hurr durr"?
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #192)
Post removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'll wait.
pbrower2a
(132 posts)In the illustration one has vandalism.
If I were the judge I would give a fine of treble damages to an adult -- cost of undoing the damage (professional paint job and/or cleaning).
A kid -- damages, some community service, and having to get a lesson on Nazi atrocities for educational purposes. Juveniles usually learn that when they associate a swastika with great injustice and cruelty that it is not so clever to deface a synagogue.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)And as for slander, who has the standing to take THAT one to court.
And the fire in a crowded theater? What, is the whole world a crowded theater now?
The Global War on Free Speech?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Riot, you need to be there physically, goes back to the labor battles of the late 19th century, and has been used in a few cases against peddlers of hate when there was an actual riot and you could document their presence of those inciting there. The film makers were not there, let's forget the fact it wasn't the US, physically until they breached the compound. (And that is customary law)... why there are many reasons why all the sanctions they will probably face are not legal, but more like You Tube removing a channel, and facebook canceling an account. As private owners, they can do that, legally... under private property laws. Free speech don't extend there, since neither is a government entity. (And of course being in the FBI we keep an eye on you shit list, which again they can do that. Now the IRS doing an audit, god help the IRS if they can prove this was in retaliation for all this... they can't do that)
Nowhere in this there is slander involved... and slandering gods is not contemplated in US law anywhere.
Fire in a crowded theater was actually used by Justice Brennan back in the day... way back in the day... as a figure of speech of a situation where injury and death could be caused due to panic. Why the story of a kid asking him about an actual fire at an actual theater is kind of funny and cute. No, the world is not a theater... but apparently figures of speech are well above the capacity of modern day Americans to comprehend... I am sorry.
And this is not about the global war on free speech, it is the apparent ignorance of many folks to the actual limits on Freedom of Speech. It is not absolute, and has not been absolute from the beginning. The first limits actually came in the form of slander laws, and had something to do with the use of newspapers during the the 1797 mess, during the Adams administration... which for reference was the first test, real test, to this country.
You think we have personal attacks on pols and private citizens these days? Oh we don't, we really don't...
Now what can happen... is that (and it would be a hard case to make) the families of the dead State Department workers take these people to court, civil court, for wrongful death... it would be an extremely hard to make, but it might happen.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Part of it is in the guise of the proposed UN anti-blasphemy resolution. http://www.christianpost.com/news/un-anti-blasphemy-proposal-meets-firm-resistance-47724/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not US LAW. I have been talking all this time of US LAW.
Also a UN resolution is mostly worth the paper it's printed on... Declarations start taking on the flavor of customary law. Then we enter into treaty law, another higher layer, and a few of them even have their own tribunals.
A resolution, like a resolution from your local city council, has zero enforcement and it is more about making a point... granted, a few countries will put all kinds of resistance.
Now the ones that you pay attention to are SECURITY COUNCIL resolutions. Those actually matter.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)but the war on free speech (led largely by muslims, with some aid from the Vatican) is real, none-the-less.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Would the movie qualify? Seriously curious.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is immanent. Difficult to do that with this movie.
Hypos that might illustrate---
If I stand outside of a mosque, and scream for people to burn it down, RIGHT NOW, I would say that's not protected speech.
If I stand outside of a mosque, and preach about the 'evils of Islam,' but say nothing about the mosque itself, and someone burns down the mosque? Protected.
If I make a movie that pisses people off, but doesn't say 'go burn the US Embassy' and they get up off their couches and burn stuff? Protected.
A movie you can turn off. A speaker, maybe not so much.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Difficult is not impossible.
Sometimes I wish I had taken up law instead of history as a profession. But only sometimes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which, from what I've seen, offends at the very least any sense of decent linear narrative cinematic storytelling established since Citizen Kane.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and, all all around poopy-head, to boot!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And that the rioters have 100% of the culpability - that speech is just speech...
I don't agree and I am responding to those people.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Did this person create propaganda that was intended to incite violence, and promote it to those who were likely to be enraged by it?
And can you explain why you think that this discussion involves justified homicide? If you are, I'd like to know where that has been stated.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And he was murdered for it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie"
And that the rioters have 100% of the culpability - that speech is just speech...
I don't agree and I am responding to those people."
I asked you because you said you don't agree with the statement "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie". You also said you don't agree that rioters are 100% culpable for their riots. So in the interest of finding out if you're consistent, I asked if you thought a guy who made a 10 minute low-budget movie critical of Islam and got murdered for it was responsible for what happened to him at the hands of someone angry about the movie.
It's really quite a simple question that deserves nothing more than a yes, if you agree that he's responsible for his violent and very gruesome death, or no, if you think murders are responsible for their actions in a way you obviously feel rioters aren't.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)To say that the rioters are not the only ones to blame, is not to exonerate them, or to say that murder of any kind is justified.
To imply that I do think that these murders or any are justified is a perversion of the term murder.
You are asking me if these deaths are murder - yes I do. Do I think that murder is justified - to ask me that question is inuslting.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)is completely different from making a movie that does nothing but cruelly mock and deride. Also, the evidence shows that Bacile, made this movie with the foreknowledge that he would incite violence.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Anyone who makes ANY movie, writes ANY essay, or depicts in Islam in ANY bad light should have the foreknowledge that it will incite violence.
There is the violence of Islam. "The Satanic Verses" were merely words on paper. The girl in Seattle only solicited cartoons. Both will look over their shoulder for the rest of their lives. Words, drawings, or ANY other media depicting Islam in anything other than There is no God but God and Mohammed is His Prophet will probably get you dead.
Here in this country, Christ on the cross in a jar full of piss was called art. I don't think anyone died. Elephant dung was used to create a piece of art depicting the Virgin Mary. No one died. In fact, in this very country, people of circumstance defended those "artful" depictions. Called them "First Amendment" issues...
Do you know what I'm seeing here on DU concerning a "movie" that may or may not even exist? Calls for those responsible for its production to be sent to the Middle East to face the consequences of their actions.
Do you see the disparity in those two views?
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)(http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/09/a_statement_and_a_film.html)
Look, I'm a filmmaker. Went to film school and the whole shebang. I've been very vocal in my defense of NC-17 movies because I believe that some times you need to make movies that don't pull punches. I believe film artists, like any artist, should have virtually no limits placed on their creativity and the stories they want to tell (obvious exceptions to this would be things like exploitation of minors and the killing of live animals... and live... people...).
However... contingent upon all of my defense of you as an artist is this: you must be attempting to MAKE ART. If you make a serious film that has a serious criticism of a religion, I will defend your right to do that; a documentary where you examine aspects of a religion that disturb you, fine; a character drama where the world and the religion stand in conflict with the main character's wants and desires; even a quirky Mel Brooks-style comedy; and so on... you might stir up dissension, violence, even, however, your intent was to start a conversation, or examine some fact of life... and all human activity lies within the artist's scope.
That is NOT what this movie was. I definitely think this movie should fall under fighting words and hate speech (and I think we should now have a very serious discussion about how international social media has maybe made our traditional definition of these unprotected forms of speech obsolete...). This movie had positively NO artistic merit by any traditional definition... even something like "Triumph of the Will" or "Birth of a Nation," had merit through the craft they exhibited... but "Innocence of Muslims"... that was slap-dash, shoddily-made, with no attention to production values or design, or any of the hall-marks that could prove to me that this was a real attempt at making a legitimate film. This was a vehicle for hate, plain and simple.
The difference I'm drawing is, comparing "Innocence of Muslims" to a serious piece of criticism is like comparing "You're wrong because you're a fucking stupid cow!" to "I think you should consider that you might be wrong because you're not looking at things from a larger perspective."
I'm also offended by your assertion that this religion is simply violent and that's a fact--I think people should be given the benefit of the doubt, and giving people well-reasoned arguments and challenging them with intellectual honesty is going to elicit a much more positive reaction than simply making immature and amateurish jabs at their holiest of holies.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Or are adherents of Islam the only ones given a pass on "outrage"?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The film is dumb, poorly edited, looks like it was made for five bucks, not five million, and was deliberately designed for no reason other than to set people off.
Pointing that out is in no way "giving a pass" to people whose belief in invisible sky-beings causes them to think they need to riot over it.
Frankly, I think the obsessive fetishes and mass OCD behaviors of people who believe in all manner of goofy, improbable shit, whose invisible sky-friends tell them all sorts of weird crap about how other humans need to behave; I think they ALL need to grow the fuck up, frankly.
The extremist 'adherents of Islam' who riot over cartoons and youtube videos are the most egregious examples, but by far not the only ones.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But there's no point to provoking them either.
It is always said people get to decide what offends them. Whoever made this movie knew he was offending Muslims.
He had the right to do it, especially in the West. But he can get some blame for the consequences.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)legal decision that would support this last phrase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[59] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[60] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[61]
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)BarackTheVote
(938 posts)The dictionary definition is "likely to occur at any moment; impending..." and clearly given its incendiary nature, when EVER this thing went viral in the ME, it would cause an uproar.
Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)M_M
(163 posts)
condemn this idiot but don't wish death on him or blame him for the murders of others. Thats where we are going wrong and lose our compasson and belief in human rights. We all have the right not to be murdered. Boycott him, protest him flip him off but don't demand his death or hope for the day they come looking for him and I believe by focusing on him, you really don't hold those who committed the murders accountable.
hlthe2b
(102,256 posts)I wish no harm to come to them, but to suggest they have no responsibility--at least on a moral level-- is to condone their bigotry and hate-speech.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They also owe an apology to the cast who they roped into this thing by misrepresenting it, and who they have endangered as well.
Hell, they owe an apology to everyone who has ever been involved with the institution of cinematic narrative storytelling, just for assembling that piece of crap and trying to pass it off as a "film". Like putting a turd in a french roll and calling it a sandwich; it's offensive to the category itself.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So the people who made this. Removal from you tube and cancelling the channel should fit the bill.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Who are you aiming that statement at?
spanone
(135,831 posts)
jp11
(2,104 posts)that treating muslims ( and you are broadly saying 'the muslim world' as if they are supposed to act like this) was a kind of insult and wrongheaded thinking.
It is a small part of the 'muslim world' that reacts like this, they are very violent and very vocal like any nutjob not afraid of dying or being killed would be but just a small portion of the 'muslim' world. I'm sure those who'd label themselves muslim would be wary to acknowledge these people as true muslims if they consider them that at all.
Beyond that the rest of the world simply cannot tip toe around the fraction of crazy muslims in the world. You either need to lock up the crazy people, get them help, or avoid them all together. It seems we can't avoid them because they seek out reasons to be outraged and thus relevant.
Look at OBL who cited our involvement in the middle east and just about every interaction with any arab country as reason to wage was against the US.
I'd wholeheartedly agree that if this film wasn't made then the incident wouldn't have happened BUT I think sooner or later the leaders of the crazy people would find some other reason to rally up their followers so they can keep them united against an enemy. It is how they tie them together in their hatred of some other while practicing their brand of crazy extremism.
The point I'm making is we can try to appease crazy hateful people but at best all we can do is have them move their targets to something else they don't like.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Yeah and if pigs had wings they would fly.
What the fuck are you? Some kind of psychic predictor of "what might have been?" You have the ability to look into people's minds you have never met, spoken with, or had a bit of contact with, in any way, shape, or form, yet you can accurately say what their actions would be "if _________?"
Impressive.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is appropriate, when they have been warned that those consequences were possible.
Terry Jones is a case in point - warned by the military that what he was doing could incite violence, then he proceeded to do it.
I hope the families of the dead sue him into oblivion.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)they'd cool down a little bit. Just an idea.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)because they "offended" us with their words and actions? or are we expected to remain civilized?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But the fact remains that under our laws, in our society, they have the right to make that film.
The fact also remains that a relatively small group of religious fanatics decided to kill innocents because they didn't like this film. Shouldn't be also condemn them as well? Shouldn't they be brought to justice?
Furthermore, let me ask you this. If it was a bunch of Christian fundamentalists that had gone on a rampage and killed innocents, let's say because of the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ", would you be so understanding and forgiving of them?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Who has said that we should not condemn the rioters, or bring them to justice? I didn't- I'm disagreeing with those that hold the filmmakers blameless. Are you clear on that now? Did I state that those who carried out the Holocaust were blameless? No. Did I state that the rioters should not be brought to justice? No - why do you assume this? Why do you think that to lay blame on one side is to absolve the other? Why do people equate understanding why people react the way they do with approving of those actions?
Does that clarify things for you?
Back to the actual discussion -
The last Temptation of Christ did not cause riots - nor was not intended to. I think that's significant, and not the same situation at all as what happened with this film in Libya.
Hate speech has legal consequences in this country, especially when directed in such a way as to incite violence.
However...
Neal Horsely's "Christian Gallery"website that had physicians with targets on them, listing their addresses and where their children went to school, and they had an X marked through their photo when they were killed, was deemed outside the bounds of free speech - and was ordered by the court to remove it from servers in the U.S.
Was that censorship? Would you say that calling it hate speech was somehow not condemning those who killed the physicians or bombed the clinics?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You want nothing less than to define illegal violence-inciting speech by how other groups of people react to it. An ever-changing and fickle standard, to say the least.
That's exactly what dictators do.
The kind of Government you would create would be more of a TERRORIST than those nutballs in the Middle East.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That does not threaten First Amendment rights.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)then all I have to do is avoid being caught paying them and it's all on you.
According to your logic.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He was warned by the military, who knew the situation, and he deliberately did it.
To say that he is not culpable is your logic.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And if the military warns you not to talk about Obama's Christian beliefs lest you provoke a bunch of Teabaggers into rioting, then you're liable.
This is your logic in action. Own it!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because that is not the environment here in the US.
Terry Jones was asked by authorities not to burn a Koran here, he did, and no riots ensued.
If I was to go create a website that listed abortion providers addresses, and the locations of their children's schools, and crossed out their names when they were killed, I would be told to take it down, because it was knowingly provoking violence and harassment of physicians and their families.
I see parallels in what Terry Jones did and what Neal Horsely did. I own that.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[59] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[60] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[61]
Your specification of "civil suits" is disingenuous, as anyone can take his neighbor to a civil court for pretty much anything. We have TV shows galore over such suits.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Generally, punitive damages are not awarded for mere, or even gross, negligence; rather, they are awarded only where conduct is willful or wanton, or shows a conscious disregard for the consequences.
He was warned against doing this by the military days before he promoted the film, because of the situation.
He showed conscious disregard for the consequences.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)tjdee
(18,048 posts)From what I heard briefly (like less than 5 minutes from whoever was on Morning Joe), these people were told that this was like Spiderman, big Hollywood film. The Libyans took that to mean that Americans were totally supportive of this film.
The blame lays with the people who did not understand that this was some cheapy awful pos "film" and then reported it to incite radicals who would kill people. They and the killers are to blame for this.
The idiot who sank 5 million dollars into a shitty "film" is just an idiot who was not smart enough to realize that his actions might have consequences like this. We haven't yet eliminated idiots in this country. See: many un-informed right-wingers.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Terry Jones - the Florida Koran burning Hate monger.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/gainesville-pastor-terry-jones-promoted-film-that-sparked-unrest-in-libya/1251112
I think it was deliberate.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Even the reported $5 million budget is pretty low by Hollywood standards, and I've seen movies with less than a tenth of that budget that had better production values than that POS. That thing looked like some joke sketch uploaded by some bored folks to YouTube.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
Lucy Goosey
(2,940 posts)Censor? no
Hold the filmmaker, however reprehensible, responsible for violence he didn't commit? no
I just don't think we should be censoring ourselves because some fanatics might use what we say/write/film to go to extremes.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's about acknowleging that the filmmakers intended this response in the target audience.
It was propaganda in the most basic definition of the word, and I think that they should be called out on it.
onenote
(42,700 posts)According to my dictionary, propaganda is:
the deliberate spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;
That covers a lot of speech, including both non-fiction and fiction.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In the same way that the blown up photos of supposed aborted fetuses are. I think that was on my mind when I wrote that. I know that pornography is legal, and that propaganda often functions the same way - getting people to bypass the intellect and bring up baser responses.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)You must be joking!
bighart
(1,565 posts)“The violence in Cairo and Benghazi is unacceptable and unjustifiable. The stupidity of one filmmaker, no matter how offensive, is not now, and never, a rationale for violence. A despicable act like this hurts us all –Americans and peaceful people who aspire to build their own democracy. "
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Your statement seems to implicate that I think that.
So, do you think that those behind Third Reich propaganda are blameless in the Holocaust?
Or do you think that they were a part of it?
In this situation there is blood on many hands.
bighart
(1,565 posts)There could potentially be a wrongful death case against those who made the film and I would not be the least bit opposed to seeing that happen.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)By who would this suit be filed? Where would it be filed?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Wrongful Death: Generally, punitive damages are not awarded for mere, or even gross, negligence; rather, they are awarded only where conduct is willful or wanton, or shows a conscious disregard for the consequences.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)pbrower2a
(132 posts)Julius Streicher (1885-1946), editor of the infamous Jew-baiting rag Der Sturmer, published a paper full of incendiary stories and cartoons about Jews -- often slanders including the Blood Libel. Jew-hating was the primary purpose of his paper, whose motto was "The Jews Are Our Misfortune". Jews never got a chance to rebut him for calling them a conspiracy of contemptible people against the German people. In world news Streicher cast the Jew as the evil schemer behind Britain, America, and the Soviet Union. He also penned a children's book entitled Das Giftpilz (The Poisoned Mushroom) that showed commonplace images of Jews in Germany -- all in disgusting appearance and seeking either to degrade, exploit, or harm Germans.
Arrested after the Second World War he was convicted of crimes against humanity largely for his antisemitic output and sentenced to death by hanging. He had never 'served' in a concentration camp or led a murder squad, and he never plotted mass murder. His racist writings stripped people of any qualms about murdering Jews. (To be sure, he was a brutal and sadistic Gauleiter who beat people with his whip, which probably did not help his case)
Froduald Karamira (1947-1998) was a businessman and politician in Rwanda who gave daily speeches, typically calling for the Tutsi population of Rwanda, during the Rwandan Genocide. After the genocidal regime was overthrown he fled to India, where he was arrested and from which he was extradited to Rwanda to stand trial for murder. He was convicted, sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad.
Those two cases are extreme examples of culpability for horrific crimes that result from hate speech. Under totalitarian systems almost any political speech that the regime tolerates is hard to distinguish from command.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)mofaz, libya govt cleaning up the mess.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)In one case the people who made the propaganda films are THE SAME as the people who oppressed the people who were targeted by the propaganda.
In the other, the people who were targets of propaganda are to be held blameless for violent acts they committed because the propaganda hurt their feelings, and the people who made the propaganda are blamed for shit that they didn't do.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Please explain this statement.
And why do you think that the makers of the anti-islam propaganda didn't "do shit?'
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"In a video announcing the "trial," Jones, wearing a black shirt with the word "Infidel" printed on it in Arabic, said that he planned to charge the prophet "with being a false prophet, thus leading 1.6 billion people astray."
You still think that they didn't try to make some shit happen? You don't think that they are raising a glass and congratulating themselves on this?
randome
(34,845 posts)Loudly.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So while yes, both the idiots who made the film and the people who attacked the embassy should be "condemned", the people who attacked the embassy should also be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, punished appropriately for murder.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But today we have the Internet so it's not possible to stop the spread of hateful speech. Nor of the concept of human rights. The religious nuts will eventually be absorbed into the ideals of Democracy just as the USSR was absorbed.
When faced with a choice, Democracy -or some form of it- always wins out. Unfortunately, some Eastern cultures are still struggling to catch up with the rest of the world.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)'hateful speech' is not a crime, at least not in this country.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)by the military that knew what the environment was - where it would be considered far, far more than just Hateful.
He went ahead and did it anyway - that tells me that he was trying for this, so he could release the statement that he did, indicting ALL Muslims for the acts of these few.
And people died. That's more than Hateful Speech, that's willful disregard for human life.
onenote
(42,700 posts)At most, in this situation, it would apply to those that encouraged others to act violently in response to the movie/trailer. It wouldn't apply to the creator(s) of the trailer or even those that posted in on youtube unless they also were the ones expressly urging people to engage in violence.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He released a statement indicting ALL muslims for the acts of these few - which is the point he tries to make with his public stunts.
It was like he threw a match into a building filled with gas, to make the gas industry look bad.
He should be liable in civil court for wrongful death due to conscious disregard for the danger to human life for his actions.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)After the election, Obama should take these idiots to task for inciting violence.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"In a video announcing the "trial," Jones, wearing a black shirt with the word "Infidel" printed on it in Arabic, said that he planned to charge the prophet "with being a false prophet, thus leading 1.6 billion people astray."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/article1251112.ece
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and therefore, Jones slandered?
What about those of us who think that all prophets are bollocks!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The content was meant to incite, not to educate.
Burn a cross on an AME church lawn and say you were just roasting marshmallows. See what happens.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"Don't do that, or they'll murder people"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)because the real world doesn't care if I'm sick of it.
The consequences of death and injury aren't mitigated by the fact that some asshole was irresponsible enough to drink and drive. I wouldn't walk down a street in a high crime area in a bikini and a diamond necklace, either -despite the fact that I should be able to with no one bothering me - I KNOW that a bikini and a diamond necklace would likely lead to the consequence of violence to my person.
Yes, I know that I would be held blameless under the law, but no one I know would hold me blameless, especially if I did it to "prove" that the people in that part of town were "animals." And if I pulled stunts like that often, and an innocent person got hurt as a result, I would expect to have some charges pressed by those that were hurt.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)If the filmmakers had made a film that urged people to go out and riot and kill -- that might be incitement. But if all they did is make a film that someone else took and pointed to and urged people to go out and riot and kill-- that person, not the filmmaker is the one inciting violence. Maybe it will turn out that the people behind the film and those that urged rioting are one and the same. But absent evidence of that, inciting some one to engage in incitement has never to my knowledge been deemed the basis of any sort of legal action.
Put another way, in a wrongful death suit, the plaintiff will have to establish the proximate cause of the death. First and foremost, the proximate cause would be the actions of the those actually committing the act. Potentially, someone egging them on to commit the act might be held partially responsible. But if the filmmaker is not related to those people (and at this point they may turn out to be, we just don't know), then its too far a reach to hold the filmmaker's actions to be a proximate cause of the death.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Generally, punitive damages are not awarded for mere, or even gross, negligence; rather, they are awarded only where conduct is willful or wanton, or shows a conscious disregard for the consequences.
If he was warned of by those with a comprehensive understanding of the situation that violence would likely result, and he did it, that shows a conscious disregard for the consequences.
He had reasonable expectation of violence - not to himself, because he was not present - but to those that would be viewed as his surrogates - other Americans. He proceeded. He wanted to show that Muslims are violent people, and he did what he could to bring out that in an area that he was warned had a population that may react violently.
His response afterwords supports that he thinks Muslims will react that way to criticism of Islam.
I think that the families of the deceased can make a case.
onenote
(42,700 posts)Those facts are critical.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)this is war' and then they tell their followers that the war is needed because 'they are trying to kill your children'. Are they held accountable for the violence done by those who listen to them, or are they in fact rewarded with riches and often honored by Presidents and the like?
So while I condemn the hell out of all these hate mongers, I do not wish to see them rounded up and jailed, just shammed and made irrelevant and loudly rejected by society as a whole.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I note you sailed right by that portion. Do you hold them equally accountable and can you show me that you have expressed that sentiment in the past?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:01 PM - Edit history (2)
Then yes. If he had walked into a Mosque in Florida, during a service, lit a Koran, and in the ensuing scuffle to remove him from the premises, someone got injured or killed, then I would think he would be held responsible in part.
I am saying that he should be accountable in some way for the 'consequences' of his attempt to cause violence - not just that he said something hateful. This goes beyond hateful - it was willfully creating a message in a part of the world that does not have the frame of reference we do about him, nor a history of free speech - or full understanding of it - so that the ensuing misunderstanding and direction of the violence would 'prove' his hatred for Muslims was based in 'fact.'
People died, and an international incident has occurred. This doesn't happen when a preacher stands on a streetcorner here in a big city and decries Heretics, and doesn't intend for people to riot. So no, I don't see that as being the same.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The probability of someone, somewhere taking it into their head to commit murder might be high, but certainly no specific intent to cause a riot in Benghazi or Cairo can be proven. If any entity bears proximate blame for this vis a vis wrongful death, it's Egyptian TV.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021338016
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)So on your planet, all statements criticizing Islam are vulnerable to wrongful death lawsuits.
Theocrats love your approach to things.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Islamaphobes love your approach to things.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Just be honest, you want a theocracy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'll bite - why is it that "I want a theocracy."
This should be interesting.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)gonna sue them, too?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And they had been warned that the people in this Chikfilay were armed, and that gays kissing had been known to set off riots where gay people were killed, you might have an analogy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Really.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And do you not see the inherent bigoted mess of your position? "Oh, better not say anything to piss off the Muslims. You know how they are. Just prone to violence."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that what he was doing could create problems - and he went ahead and did it, from half a world away, where he was safe from the consequences.
That's not bigoted, that's reality. He knew what he was doing, he did it, and other people are dead.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Muslims were the target audience of this film.
Is that clearer?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)
and was promoted by Terry Jones in a tee shirt that said Infidel in Arabic.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Their message is vile and despicable, but what did they do that they should be accountable for? The people that killed others because they have no tolerance for views not their own are accountable.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)because they felt it would cause unrest shows that they understood what might happen. And they did it anyway.
randome
(34,845 posts)But that would basically be conceding to the military authority over civilians.
With the Internet and global interconnectedness, I don't think speech -even hate speech- can be constrained as in the past.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If it was the State Department, would that be different? The military has information and understanding of the area that is valid.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)That will be a lovely standard to set.
Hey speaking out against the war may get people killed (emboldening our enemies and whatnot).
Now you're not a protester you're an accomplice in the murder of American troops during a time of war. Which means you're a traitor.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If it had been NGO that had the same level of information, and said that if you continue in your actions, violence is likely, would you call that "deciding what speech is acceptable?"
How is REQUESTING that he stop deciding anything? Clearly they didn't take other action to stop him.
Actually, I think that this is a job where the Military was absolutely on point - attempting to prevent violence by letting bigoted assholes know when they could be setting off a powder keg.
When this bigoted asshole decided to burn a Koran in public in Florida, public officials asked him not to. They also did not stop him. However the community rallied to let the Muslims in the area know that this was not representative of American thought. Those Muslims in Egypt did not have that - and a small number of them reacted violently to what they thought was a message that was representative of Americans.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in a wrongful death trial.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And it played out. That would be 'conscious disregard for the consequences,' because he was informed and advised to cease.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Military issues a blanket warning that protesting is encouraging our enemies.
Soldiers die.
This is linked by someone to those protesters.
Now all those protesters are liable for wrongful death lawsuits.
Not so?
outsideworld
(601 posts)The rest of the world is not the USA.and freedom of speech is not guaranteed everywhere else in the world
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)freedom to speak, assemble, worship, etc.??
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of their actions.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Israel should riot against DU!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Please: What country do you live in? It can't be the United States.
For the umpteenth time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[59] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[60] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[61]
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I never said the rioters didn't have free will. Please link to the post where I stated that.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of their actions.
that doesn't mean those who riot, etc. aren't also responsible for the consequences of their actions.
the doctrine of free speech ain't a blank ticket to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater, and incitement to riot is still a crime.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)for bands of muslim thugs to become murderous. THey don't NEED provocation, they only need an excuse. Murder is their bread and butter.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)focused on 'muslim' thugs?
and how can you be so sure there's no provocation involved?
in uganda, for instance, christian 'thugs' are hating on gays -- with provocation from the (foreign, white) christian missionaries who've overrun the place for at least the past decade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-uganda-gays-idUSBRE85R0XR20120628
Peter, 23, used to enjoy hitting Kampala's bars with his boyfriend until a draft bill dubbed "kill the gays" forced him into hiding.
"I'm so, so afraid. I just live indoors," he says, sitting in the semi-darkness of the cramped two-room dwelling where he has lived since his family and friends turned on him after the bill was introduced in 2009.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a better if the "Abrahamic Religions" had never existed, with each of them trying to out do the other in appeasing the bronze age death cult deity at the center of it all.
What's happening in Uganda is awful, but how close did DU come to using a .ug url before pulling back due to the outcry by the GLBT members?
Most people only pay attention to the violence that is motivated by these religions when "innocent" people are the victims. THe brutal, ongoing treatment of the GLBT population in muslim countries pales in comparison to that in almost any other country, the backwards, Christian, African countries being an exception.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Some people seem to get away with excusing all manner of noxious, hate-peddling crap under that rubric.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Would likely lead to violence.
Terry Jones was, and he did it anyway with full and conscious understanding of the consequences.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)gave it some credence by airing it.
Government propaganda was also done by private filmmakers.
Hate speech is not free' it costs lives. It has consequences. Just as there are degrees of murder in th
e law for extenuating circumstances, such as crimes of passion, I think the same applies here. The deliberate provocaion of this film is obvious. Both are wrong.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)want to hold the provocateurs blameless.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)A wingnut on another message board I post at thinks Dawkins' criticism of religion is bigoted. Does he have a right not to be offended? Or does that censorship only apply to victims of Western Imperialism?
When the Nazis did a march in Skokie, IL, a small city with a large Jewish community, back in the late 70s the march was not banned, instead the people of Skokie did a PEACEFUL counter-march in response.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)right to be vile while pointing out exactly how vile they are. The movie falls well inside freedom of speech, and for good reason.
If we allow banning of speech like this, exactly what speech do you think will be banned? Who will do the deciding? What do you think might have been labeled hate speech and banned under George Bush?
We can condemn the movie and the riot.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why are you asking me what kind of speech I think should be outlawed?? No one banned his speech nor has anyone suggested such for anyone else.
He consciously disregarded warnings of the consequences of his ongoing speech in this part of the world, he did it anyway, and now people are dead, due to the predicted outcome of his actions.
I'm condemning specific actions taken with knowledge of the probable consequences. Terry Jones has a history of these stunts, in order to 'prove' that all muslims are violent when Islam is 'criticized.'
His actions are legal, but the conscious disregard for the probable consequences leaves him open to a wrongful death lawsuit. That does not endanger free speech, nor does it censor anyone.
The intended and actual consequences of your speech are indeed something that you bear responsibility for.
Is that clearer? Do you understand that I am NOT saying that speech should be silenced - but if you threaten the president, or say that you're going to kill someone, expect some consequences. And if you tell someone to kill someone else, and they do, expect some consequences.
It is the result of his speech, which he had full understanding would likely happen, that it at issue.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)a wrongful death lawsuit winning. Otherwise we'd have seen them against Pat Robertson and his ilk over anti-gay hate crimes and that would actually have a much better chance of succeeding, since the lawsuit you're suggesting is one step further removed. (O'Reilly and Tiller are another example that would have ended in a wrongful death suit if this were possible.)
Legal repercussions are silencers of speech. You can't say "You should have the freedom to criticize Breatharianism, but we're going to have the government flay you alive in public when you do." and claim you're not in favor of censoring speech. If we go by the "Free to accept the ruinous consequences" metric, citizens of Soviet Russia had exactly as much free speech as we do. They just had to accept the "consequences". Flay you alive is a joke, but "Fine you into oblivion" works there too.
If Dave mocks Bob's favorite episode of Friends and Bob's idea of a rebuttal is to take out a Target with an assault rifle, Dave isn't criminally or civilly liable, even if Dave knew Bob was kind of weird about that show. Dave *is* morally liable, and everyone should give Dave no end of shit for setting Bob off. Even if the show did suck. (It did.) Even if Dave hated Target. We can't set a bar for rational vs. non-rational criticism, because we'd still need someone to determine where it begins and ends, which would make that person the sole arbiter of speech.
Making someone liable for wrongful death for the actions of others that they insulted would mean allowing anyone that was willing to commit violence to utterly control the discourse and would immediately spell the end of speech, free or otherwise, once everyone was afraid to say absolutely anything.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Even if it violates our own core values. Come to think of it we should institute anti-blasphemy laws for all religions, right? No? Just for Islam??
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)saying. The OP is about the makers, most of your comments are about Jones, who did not make but promoted the film. The maker is of course apparently a Coptic Christian Egyptian American and known convicted criminal.
Here's the latest run down on who did what with this piece of crap...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/13/friends-of-sam-bacile-a-whos-who-of-the-innocence-of-muslims-film-project/
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Movies like The Eternal Jew or books like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are created to vilify living people. Both of those works painted Jews as part of some grand conspiracy against the world, and were designed to foment hatred toward every Jewish person in the world.
Movies like this new one don't do that. It certainly attacks the founders of the religion itself, but it doesn't paint Muslims as part of any conspiracy, doesn't smear modern Muslims, and doesn't defame or attack any living person. It simply says, "The person who founded this religion was a nut."
An non-Muslim equivalent would be a movie painting Abraham as a schizophrenic or Jesus Christ as a violent womanizer. Either of these would be highly offensive to Jews and Christians. Still, if some Muslim made a movie depicting Jesus Christ as a womanizing manipulator who designed his religion as a con for the gullible, and a bunch of Baptist fundies went on a rampage and shot up a mosque in response, would you blame the filmmaker for the violence? Should the filmmaker be sued or jailed?
If an atheist is interviewed on TV and says "I think that Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed were all nuts", and Muslims riot and kill people because of it, should that atheist be held liable? Should one faith (or lack of faith) be forced to bury their opinions simply because it conflicts with the opinions of another more violent faith?
ProfessorGAC
(65,013 posts)One other thing that i thought you were going to hit on, was that those anti-Jewish films were ENDORSED BY THE STATE. They were willful attempts at provoking the population into seeing the VICTIMS AS THE PROBLEM. Then when the state did what it did to the European Jews, the public sentiment was set.
This is hardly the case here. There is no state sponsorship and no government benefits from what occurred here.
Xithras i sure thought you were heading toward that. Then you went to a different point. Great point, just not where i thought you were headed.
So, i thought i'd tack on.
GAC
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I went to the RNC with I love Obama shirts and pins, and gear, and the repukes beat the shit out of me, am I to blame or them?
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)the film you can condemn them all day and night. The 1st amendment is a restriction on government action, not private individuals.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)then I get to have Scott Lively brought up on charges. Deal?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lively-intimidate-officials-angry-crowds-tar-feathers
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)They certainly hold more culpability than Terry Jones, for corn's sake!!! They air part of it and 2 days later the mobs begin.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)For now, not really. All I see is a some assholes who made something offensive and some SAVAGES who have no self control and killed people because of an insult to a man who has been dead for a fucking millennium.
jillan
(39,451 posts)what this film depicted is how Americans feel.
Seriously - if you think Republicans can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists -
How do you think people with very little education are going to feel about Americans?
We bomb their cities. Kill innocent civilians.
And now there is a movie that is anti Muslim.
Yeah, I know we respect and cherish our free speech - but speech has consequences.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In fact, almost no one has.
