To us, it's "just a movie" because we have generations of movies as entertainment

[magical thyme]

created in society built on freedom of speech.

But not all countries have that. To many, any movie is state-approved and state-sponsored propaganda.

To them, this movie represents US policy and attitudes toward them. And the "US policy towards them" depicts their prophet as a donkey and their people as homosexual pedophiles.

Remember that Libya spent decades under the thumb of a violent despot
propped up by the US. After decades of brutal repression that we sponsored, they are a tinderbox. The extremists there hate us for what we did to their country and people through our puppet.

This doesn't condone the violence, but it explains how "just a movie" is really "just a lit match thrown into a tinderbox."

Remember that it is their extremists that are doing the violence, just as our extremists bomb women's health clinics, bombed Oklahoma City, bombed the Atlanta Olympics.

[phantom power]

1. that is an interesting point

[flamingdem]

27. Agree, though many state sponsored productions have given way to independent lately

since governments have cut back on "the arts".

[OneGrassRoot]

2. Very well said. Thanks, MT. K&R n/t

[boston bean]

3. I don't disagree,

but the answer to it, isn't to allow them to think that the US can act like a violent dictator and prevent movies from being made or put up on youtube. The answer is to explain this is what free speech is.

I'm not entirely convinced they do not know this.

Also, another point many are missing is that Egyptian TV made a huge deal out of this, like it was some sort of blockbuster released in remembrance of 9/11.

[Volaris]

56. I think there are 2 possible reasons that Egyptian TV did that...

The first is because, The Egyptian Press had for a good long while, worked under a repressive regime where access to information of any stripe was limited, and they don't understand that when we Americans see a film like that, we get a really good chuckle out of the fact that some sucker(s) actually ponied up 5 million dollars to have that damn thing made..that's because after .appx. 300 years of open information exchange (and a pretty good tip from P T Barnum) we have become pretty good at discerning the difference between legitimate and bullshit when it comes to mass media, free information, and Freedom of Speech/Expression of Ideas, and not everyone on the Globe is playing on the same field as us (yet). It's not their fault they don't know this is the kind of bullshit that most of us just laugh at, they just don't have the history and exp. that we do with this kind of thing.

Or, it could be that the Press over there is VERY religiously oriented (a throwback to the recently deposed, information-controlling government), and knew EXACTLY what would happened if it was released for wide-scale broadcast, and were counting on P T Barnum's proven maxim to get exactly the result they wanted.

[lightcameron]

4. Well, of course. But that should have no bearing on our response.

Nor should we let anyone think other people's perceptions of our freedoms will change our freedoms.

[appal_jack]

6. Well said, lightcameron!

I also would echo slackmaster's questions immediately below.

-app

[magical thyme]

9. and I would re-iterate my response. I didn't write that I support their repressive culture

nor did I imply it.

Many people have written wondering what the fuck is wrong with people reacting with violence to "just a movie." I offered an explanation of why what is "just a movie" to us has deeper meaning to others.

Seriously. Rush Limbaugh is "just a radio program" but how many extremist nuts have taken him at his word when he instructs his followers to go kill the liberals?

Hate speech is hate speech. It is intended to incite the fringe nutcases to violence. Sometimes it succeeds.

And that's why this is not "just a movie." It's hate speech. It was deliberately created and distributed with the intent of inciting violence.

[slackmaster]

5. Where and how did you acquire this deep understanding and empathy for another culture?

Does it bother you that you are supporting a culture that treats women as property, and puts homosexuals to death?

[magical thyme]

7. um, exactly where did I support a culture that treats women as property?

What I wrote is that we view movies differently than many others do because we have freedom of speech and movies as entertainment, whereas they don't.

I never said I condone or support their culture, or the repressive aspects of their culture, nor did I say I condoned the violence.

Next time, you may want to try reading for comprehension.

[loyalsister]

8. Very good point

To bring home the idea of media entertainment is a real challenge that is probably not yet much of a priority. We know who made the movie, do we know who presented it?

In the context, I suspect the extremists might have hoped to get others on board.

[magical thyme]

10. Not sure what you mean by presented it. My understanding is that an arabic-version trailer

was put on you-tube last week, and picked up from there. Their local news showed the trailers and things spiraled from there.

[loyalsister]

13. I was referring to the source that gave it the most widespread attention

Suppose news programs ran a trailer of a movie bashing all minorities at the most inciting, hateful KKK level of rhetoric imaginable.
The clashes between advocates of a sick point of view and their defenders of free speech vs. people. I would certainly expect violence in such a situation.

[magical thyme]

14. I see. I think it was their media that ran it on their news that gave it widespread exposure.

So their media is as crappy as ours, in that respect. With Gadaffi gone, who is running their media now?

[loyalsister]

17. I don't know, actuially

It's difficult to imagine that whoever it is didn't understand the danger.

[magical thyme]

18. I'm sure they did, just as ours did in their lies ahead of the Iraq wars

not to mention Fox and friends...

[RadiationTherapy]

11. I am not going to feel empathy for an intentionally backward and regressive religion who

"to them, this movie represents US policy." Nonsense. Welcome to free expression and if the expressions of others move you to murder, you will be treated as a murderer. This, like our American culture war, is a very real Global culture war. I do not intend to give an inch of the ground we have earned as a civilization to religious nutjobs.


"I going to fight this all the way" - Hitchens on Muslim violence and the repression of free expression.

[magical thyme]

12. Freedom of expression is not without license. Period.

Nobody said that the killers should not be treated as killers.

Many people have said it's "just a movie." That is within *our* cultural context, not theirs. *We* have freedom of speech; *they* do not. That makes it more than "just a movie" in *their* eyes. That does not condone the violence, but it explains it.

Furthermore, just because you *can* say or do something does not make it the right thing to do. We freak out on this board when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, etc. incite hatred and call for violence against our President, women's health providers, liberals, etc.

Are the fringe fanatic killers responsible for their violence and killing? Of course. Whether they are burning down a US embassy, or bombing a government center in Oklahoma City or bombing a women's health clinic or bombing the Olympics in Atlanta.

But so are the people that prey on their weaknesses to fill their minds with hatred and incite them to act on that hatred, including Bacile and his backers for their roles in this.

Bacile has admitted he produced this piece of trash with the knowledge it would incite the fringe to violence. He intended the ensuing violence. He is culpable of deliberately inciting violence, he is guilty of hate speech, and he is a killer by proxy.

[RadiationTherapy]

15. I can't believe you are trying to equate video production with murder. I am against people like you.

I will not accommodate this bullshit one inch. What you are trying to do in defending these murderers is plain fucking ridiculous. I do not care one bit what the intentions of the video producers were. Islam is an imperial religion and this sort of behavior and your concessions to it is how they intend to win ground. Humans have fought too hard to develop a civilization that honors Enlightenment values and I do not intend to concede ground to a bunch of animalistic, delusional religious nutjobs. No.

[magical thyme]

16. Please point out exactly where I have defended the murderers? Good luck with that, because I haven't

I responded to the question raised repeatedly on this board of why some people get violent over "just a movie."

I do blame the movie producer, funder, and promoter for their roles in inciting the nutjobs.

That in no way lets the killers off the hook.

Try reading for comprehension the next time.

[RadiationTherapy]

23. You are defending them by implicating the creators of the videos who are not

in any way responsible for the behavior of the murderers. The implication that civilized people have to accommodate their creativity to placate primitive murderers is disgusting to me and as such I find it a defense of the murderers.

[magical thyme]

36. the creator of the video did it with the *intent* of inciting violence.

He stated in an interview that he knew what would happen and he intended it to happen.

That was his goal and purpose. The killing of the US ambassador and staff members was his intent.

I think that is horribly, horribly wrong. I think it is the equivalent of going into a crowded movie theater and yelling "FIRE!" with the intent of creating chaos so that people will get injured or possible killed in the stampede to the exits.

Which, by the way, would be a crime in the US, land of "free speech." Which is not freedom without license.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. No, it wouldn't be a crime. I realize some people like to have weird fantasies about "limits" on the

1st Amendment, but how about you come up with the specific court case in the past half century of so that you think backs up this goofy assertion of yours that it's a crime to say something that makes someone else mad or offends them?



I. Will. Wait.

[Codeine]

54. I'm so fucking tired of this "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit comparison.

If you want an analogy like that here's something closer; someone points out that sometimes people start fires in theaters, and a bunch of Bronze Age assholes react by screaming "YOU WANT A FIRE?! WE'LL SHOW YOU A FUCKING FIRE!!" and burning the place down.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. We freak out, we dont riot, kill, and burn shit.

Im sorry, but if someone's belief system "makes" them get violent over cartoons or movies, the belief system is the problem, not the cartoon or movie.

[magical thyme]

39. Um, yes we do.

It may take different triggers, but I've lived long enough to watch riots on t.v. in the 60s and 70s, and to see bombings in Oklahoma City, at the Atlanta Olympics, and in women's health clinics.

And I distinctly remember that "The Last Temptation of Christ" wasn't necessarily accepted too peacefully in Catholic enclaves.

We have as many fringe lunatics as they do. I see zero benefit to deliberately goading them to action.

Freedom of speech does not come without license. We have limits on our freedom of speech. If you don't believe that, go into a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire" just to watch the stampede. Go to an airport and make a bomb joke. Better yet, share it with a TSA agent. After all, it's just a joke and freedom of expression. Go to your local bar and start bragging about how your militia is going to bring this gummint down once and for all. Go post in freeperville about how you're going to be making the news next week and we won't have that monkey in the white house any more.

Let us know how you make out. Hey, I'll bet we'll petition for your presidential pardon and early release!

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Okay. So let's hash this out. Someone could get on stage at a megachurch and say "I'm Gay"

and cause violence, therefore, they're not allowed to do it?

Is that your rationale?

"Saying something that makes someone mad" is NOT "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Understand?

Now, the specific situation in this story is not in the domestic US, so the 1st Amendment does not apply. But your understanding of the first Amendment is grossly inadequate. So much so that, well, you really ought to get back to Civics class because the 1st Amendment is the backbone of our freedoms and the Bill of Rights. Got it?

And you know what? Even if my saying that made you so mad you felt the need to burn something, riot, or otherwise have some violent tantrum, I'm still not gonna get arrested for it. WAAAH!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. And making threats against the President is not the same thing as "saying something offensive"

specific threats against the government or government officials are illegal because they are threats. They are NOT the same thing as, for instance, making fun of someone's goofy belief system, like the belief that says "The First Amendment Doesn't Protect Speech that bugs me or makes fun of my religion".

And in case you haven't noticed, right wingers make all sorts of generalized noise about "bringing down the government"; remember Sharron Angle and her "2nd Amendment Remedies"? Even that sort of horrible shit is within the bounds of the 1st Amendment.

[cali]

19. first of all, speak for yourself. It's not just a movie to me. It's a vile piece of hate.

furthermore, there have been generations of movies in Egypt and Libya and other countries.

And finally, I wish people who are doing so would stop comparing the abortion clinic bombings and killings by fanatics to those killings driven by fanaticism in the middle east. 8 people have died in the past 25 years in the former compared to tens of thousands in the middle east over the past decade. It just doesn't work as a comparison, partly because "our" fanatics have other outlets aside from violence.

[magical thyme]

20. Personally, I agree it is a vile piece of hate and I don't consider it "just a people posting here

movie" myself. I was responding to the may posters on this board saying that it's "just a movie." That's why I put it in quotes. I suppose I should have written that to *some* of us it's "just a movie." My bad.

So it's not a perfect comparison by numbers. My point in the comparison is that every society and culture has their fanatics. Yes, ours have other outlets. That doesn't undo my point: if ours didn't have other outlets maybe we'd have higher numbers of violence too.

[XemaSab]

26. If our extremists were a greater percent of the population

then we would have more killings here.

The difference is only of degree.

[moondust]

21. Oh good. You found a way to blame "us."

What took so long?

[magical thyme]

22. Seriously, did you even read the OP? At all? Or just leap to a wrong conclusion?

a la Romney?

Try reading the OP. Try reading the rest of the thread. For *comprehension.*

[Bake]

24. We can read "for comprehension" just fine.

Especially BETWEEN THE LINES. Deny it all you want to.

I feel no sympathy for anyone whose response to a movie is to KILL PEOPLE.

Bake

[magical thyme]

25. Nor. Do. I. This thread isn't about blame.

It is about why what we see as "just a movie" is something different than that to people living in a totally different context and culture.

I personally do not absolve the people who were violent from their actions.

I also do not absolve the movie maker who has stated outright that he knew his movie would provoke violent protests and made it anyway because that was his intent.

No, you are not reading for comprehension. You are inserting your own words between my lines.

[RadiationTherapy]

28. "do not absolve the movie maker" = I want limits on free expression.

Fuggthat.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. A lot of folks who think they are progressive, are chomping at the bit to limit free expression.

Look at the people who cozy up to the religious right and write checks to Ed Meese the minute a nude woman on the internet makes them so angry they cant see straight. Its that "problematic" first amendment, ya know.

[magical thyme]

34. Um, there already are limits on free expression.

Don't believe me?

Go to a crowded movie theater some night and start yelling "Fire" at the top of your lungs while running for an exit.

Go to an airport sometime and make a joke about bombs.

Go to a Romney rally and pull out an "I hate Romney" banner.

Go knock on your next door neighbor's door and tell him if he doesn't mow his lawn you're going to shoot him.

Get on the phone and call Rush Limbaugh's show. Joke with him about how somebody needs to kill the nigra in the white house.

Go down to your local bar and tell them how you're planning the next revolution with your militia and they all better really watch out on New Years when it starts.

Enjoy your visit from secret service and/or your stay in jail.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. All of those except the Romney sticker are direct threats. Saying something that offends someone is

not a direct threat.

If someone was arrested for pulling out an I Hate Romney sticker at a Romney Rally (as opposed to being escorted out) they would have a real court case. A real lawsuit. I'd imagine you don't understand that, or why, because the concept of free speech is clearly so alien to you, you don't seem capable of grasping the distinction between that an an active threat.

You really don't understand the 1st Amendment, do you?

An indictment of our educational system.

Someone really shortchanged you, since you are so woefully deficient in understanding such a basic concept of the United States Constitution.


So. Um, how about you show me the specific case under which someone was convicted for saying something someone else found offensive or made them angry?

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read...

I've screamed fire in a movie theater, between movies, when the lights were on. No one even seemed to notice, and the secret service apparently were too busy to come arrest me.

Nothing else you wrote even approaches a free speech issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. The 1st Amendment means you can ONLY SAY STUFF THAT EVERYONE ALREADY AGREES WITH!

Otherwise, you GO TO JAIL!





ITS TRUE! I READ IT IN TEH CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

48. You made me mad! Enjoy jail! You're going to JAIL! Did you hear? Never shoulda said that thing that

made me angry, because now you're off to JAIL! JAIL!

PULL OVER!


JAIL!

[MNBrewer]

29. I don't buy it at all!

I think it's a rubbish premise. True, there may have been propaganda films made there, but we've had them here, too.

I think international cinema has a history that is more vibrant than is being reflected in this OP.

[4th law of robotics]

32. Perhaps we should do away with the whole freedom of speech thing

until all stone-age savages are on the same page.

Mustn't offend.

[EX500rider]

33. "Libya spent decades under the thumb of a violent despot propped up by the US..."

propped up with bombing runs and sanctions?

[Bluenorthwest]

35. So you see 'them' as simple minded children not up to the level of world culture

Cinema is not a new art form. Your post says extremists did this, and I agree. But you also claim that those extremists speak for their culture and represent their thinking, and I do not agree with that, nor do I agree that people here are saying 'it's just a movie' because it is not a movie, it is a filmed bit of hate speech, you are the one calling it a movie and claiming others are equating it to other movies, like Spiderman or something.
So you say they are extremists but also idiots who can not understand how a film is made to fuck with them. They lived under a repressive regime, but have no idea how propaganda works? Seriously? You believe that?

[magical thyme]

40. I most certainly do NOT say that the extremists speak for their culture

or represent their thinking.

Otherwise they wouldn't be extremists, they'd be mainstream.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. But you are saying that they are extremists because they are of that culture....

they don't know about moving pictures and all, that's part of your argument, that they are not used to such things. You are saying their actions are an outgrowth of their culture. Charles Manson said the White Album and the Bible made him kill, and whack job extremists think films make them violent not because of their culture as you claim, but because they are extremist criminals. The state of Libyan cultural knowledge of cinema is not a necessary part of explaining that there are criminals, anymore than Manson means we should be careful about Bibles and ballads. It was not the film, not the Bible, not the Beatles, it was criminals.

[Whisp]

37. thank you for that.

some here seem to not get the fact that every country out there doesn't think exactly like they should. or do things American would do, or think things we do.

It's really close minded to the whole notion of diversity of peoples on this globe and I'm a bit surprised there is ignorance of that here.

[Zax2me]

38. HELLO. This was not about a movie - it was designed attack.

The movie 'protest' was a cover.

[magical thyme]

42. HELLO. The protest was a protest. The planned attack took advantage of

the protest.

Or, possibly, are the same people who translated the movie to use it to trigger the protest, because the movie producer claims he doesn't know who did the translated version. He put out the original english speaking version last February but claims not to be involved with the translated trailer that was shown on their news reports.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. What you just said, there, offended me and made me mad.

So enjoy your stay in JAIL! JAIL! Off to JAIL, WITH YOU!

[MariaM83]

41. the embassy represents more than just the state authority

To them, this movie represents US policy and attitudes toward them. And the "US policy towards them" depicts their prophet as a donkey and their people as homosexual pedophiles.

We don't know that the outrage was directed against the US government, per se. The embassy is just the most visible physical symbol in the country of everything American.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Wanton murder in response to offense is ONLY the fault of the actors in the murder

This is no "fire in the theater" scenario because fire presents a real and present direct physical threat to life.

If you can provoked to such a reaction, that is 100% on you other than targets putting themselves in harm's way by being among such reactionaries. We have incompatible cultures, apply the Prime Directive and if they attack outside their borders then that is what a military is for.

[lonestarnot]

53. Sad how propaganda has left these people in the condition in which they find themselves and they

don't even know it for the most part. Many have been reading somewhere though. I have hope.

[ButterflyBlood]

55. Gaddafi was a puppet and propped up by the US? WTF?

I mean even ignoring the large role the US played in ousting Gaddafi there's also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(1986)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Oh and 2 1/2 decades Libya spent under sanctions on the State Department's sponsors of terrorism list. Sorry but that bit was so mindnumbingly stupid I'm just going to disregard the rest of it.