General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo it's okay to insult religious beliefs in America, but if you insult religions based overseas then
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Stinky The Clown (a host of the General Discussion forum).
some DUers think that you should be sent there to face a crowd of rioting madmen. Or you should be sued. Or you should be busted for inciting a riot.
Gotcha.

Guess where BabyJesus is from?
Religion is supposed to be based in H'vn. You got a different flow chart?
Pardon me, but do you have another asinine comment?
fraankky
(1 post)If only we will all understand that it is the same God that we all serve inspire of our religion differences, we will thus, make the world a better place to live, and not everyday, war war war !!!!,
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)so I serve none of them. I personally think that compassion and empathy for our fellow human beings will go a lot further toward making the world a better place than serving the same god.
There are truly bad people in the world. EVERY country and EVERY religion has people who have vile beliefs, who are greedy or violent or just plain twisted. That does not mean that EVERY person in EVERY country or EVERY religion that has these people is vile or twisted. We need to learn to separate the "average people" from the "twisted people" when we are upset about something bad that has happened.
On Edit: Welcome to DU.
cali
(114,904 posts)do you really think this is all about that stupid, horrid film?
Hmm. Do you think it could have anything to do with terrorizing the population in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan with drone strikes? Could it have anything to do with our history of oppressing people throughout the middle east? How about our overthrowing democratically elected leaders? Or killing hundreds of thousand of civilians in illegal and unjust wars? What about our constant threats? The ugly history of colonialism?
spark meet tinder.
I'm tired of all this bullshit going on, I voted Obama to stop this kind of shit, and it seems it got worse!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Ugh. Maybe she should have warned diplomats to be more cautious on 9/11 but beyond that I don't think so.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)At least. Not just the US, but also Britain, Russia, Germany. Everyone has been oppressing these people for generations.
The recent revolutions overthrew leaders looking out for these outside interests (and enriching themselves) at the expense of the people.
You don't change that in 4 years. Actually, other than just getting out of there, it's hard to see how an American president has the power to do anything but continue the oppression.
As long as we need their oil, and as long as we want to keep Israel on the map, things won't get better.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)However this thread is addressed to the people who think we should throw a film maker into these rioting crowds to punish him for making a stupid film. Others here think he should be imprisoned or sued.
cali
(114,904 posts)not even close.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)What you're talking about is off-topic.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... it's ok for some asshole to try and publicly incite acts of violence because he has "freedom of speech," but it isn't ok for people who find his actions despicable to state their opinion that he is an asshole that should be punished for what he has done?
That the sort of "free speech" you are talking about?
Streets must all run in one direction where you live, eh?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts).. insult?
Why didn't you address the point I made? Are you afraid it makes your defense of the hateful asshole fall to pieces?
Do only hateful assholes have the "right to free speech?"
Do only hateful assholes get to define what "is and is NOT America?"
Are you a personal friend of the hateful asshole. so the hateful asshole confided in you his intent? Or are you a mindreader?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You have no point. Your argument was based on a crappy premise.
You said: "it's ok for some asshole to try and publicly incite acts of violence"
There was no incitement. No incitement. You will not show where there was any. You have no legal basis to show incitement. So there's no point in going any further.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that seems to have gone right over your bigoted head, is that "freedom of speech" isn't limited to just those assholes you defend.
People who oppose your hateful, prejudiced, vile friends sort of vitriol, have just as much a right to speak against them.
Hypocrite much?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)But I see you got to slam another DUer as bigoted, hateful, prejudiced and vile. Hope you feel better.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)This is the same crap righties use to silence all criticism of their horseshit. Squeal about "free speech" whenever they get called on the hate-filled vitriol they spew. Save it for the Teabaggers, this LIBERAL ain't buying it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I'll join you. But saying the person should be doing jail time for "inciting a riot" demonstrates both a lack of understanding of the law and of the constitution.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. say "the person should be doing jail time for "inciting a riot"?
My point (for about the 3rd or 4th time) for those of you that are hard of listening, is that IF this poisonous asshole has the "right to free speech" to spread his vile vitriol, then those opposed to his bile, HAVE THE SAME FUCKING RIGHT TO CALL FOR HIS PUNISHMENT.
Why is it people like you think only the assholes of America should be entitled to "free speech?"
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I DEMAND substantiation for that claim.
We all know it was a temper tantrum on your part.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I don't think anybody did. That doesn't mean those people are right, nor does that mean those people shouldn't have their amazingly level of wrongheadedness called out. Calling somebodies idiocy out does not equate to calling their right to free speech into question as you imply. In fact, I believe you said that was a tactic that was reserved for the tea party.
And here I thought you were a liberal....
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)People who oppose your hateful, prejudiced, vile friends sort of vitriol, have just as much a right to speak against them.
You accused me of opposing others' freedom of speech.
Show where I have done that.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Welcome to ignored.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You cannot and will not ever show where I said I oppose the right to speak against that film maker, because I never said nor implied any such thing.
I'd demand an apology but I know you're intentionally doing this just to get back at me as payback for you losing this argument.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Reminds me very much when I used to do battle with a bunch of hardcore Teabagger types at an non-moderated poli-BB elsewhere. Strawman, change the subject, false equivocation, petty insults, anything BUT address the actual point being made. Weak sauce, very fucking weak.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And when I challenged you to show where I implied someone didn't have the right to criticize them... you folded.
That was nothing but a pathetic attempt to lash out on your part, one that utterly failed.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)if you insult someone overseas?
You must HATE freedom of speech.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This movie does not CALL for violence. It is insulting. Like insulting the Ku Klux Klan.
You can reasonably expect the Klan to get violent when they're insulted. That's not illegal. Neither is making fun of someone's religion.
Nobody who insults religions here gets "reaped". Until you can prove otherwise, your arguments have no weight in America.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Once again, the RIOTERS are MADMEN. That does not make the FILM MAKER responsible for their actions.
It is not illegal in America to criticize someone's religion. Deal with it.
If you don't like that, there are several other nations out there for you to move to and enjoy their repressionist policies.
We will not tolerate such policies here. Deal with it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)MrDiaz
(731 posts)If you insulted the KKK, and then they rioted and killed people, you should go to jail for inciting a riot, right?
Telly Savalas
(9,841 posts)So we're not allowed to mock Fred Phelps because they may react violently
alc
(1,151 posts)we supposedly respect free speech and there are no legal consequences.
He should still expect a lot of criticism from almost everyone, but should not have to fear the government and should expect protection from the government. Protection as in nobody in the government will tell his enemies where he lives and allow/assist enemies to get to him any more than other US residents. The police shouldn't do more than they do for others, so he probably needs more personal protection than others (secutity system, body guards) but shouldn't need more legal protection (lawyers)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Being sued in a civil case? That is not such a horrid fate. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might come under an act rather than speech. It would be interesting see if the victim's survivors tried that - a wrongful death suit. It might fail though.
As for throwing him in the crowds, isn't he interested in saying this stuff to their faces? He will only insult them from a safe point?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)US support for Israel. Not just support but, almost like unquestioning support.
But you're really right that this is not just about a movie any more than the LA riots were about Rodney King. There is a lot of pent up anger, much of it justified because of our policies.
I also think there is an element of political opportunism. There are local gang bosses, wanna-be gang bosses, aspiring politicians, al qaeda terrorists, "community leaders", church(mosque) fund raising committees, etc. All these people see an opportunity to jump on the anti-american riot train to help build their own movements. So they organize and incite the riots. Some people are always looking for an excuse to start shit.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's stupid and it can't be defended.
It can be excused a slight bit because it's ignorant people who are being deliberately misled and incited by muslim clerics on Al Nas TV. If you want to look for exploitation by a power broker run amuck in this, start there.
But what this is NOT about is the standard 'US imperialism' mantra. That is utter nonsense.
cali
(114,904 posts)and actually believe the dog shit you're parroting, honeypie, you're seriously deluded.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)None of those countries have ever been threatened in the least by US imperialism or exploitation.
randome
(34,845 posts)...you interviewed people in Libya? Or...
The most recent thinking is this is a power struggle within Libya and that a group of fundamentalists wanted to score points with their followers.
No need to assume the worst. Best to wait until the situation becomes more clear.
cali
(114,904 posts)Response to Zalatix (Original post)
Post removed
cali
(114,904 posts)doesn't regard women or Mormons or Muslims as human.
No, strike that. It's fucking flat out grotesque. And it's a prevarication.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I know you see it going on just as much as I do, Cali. hell just in this thread you caught the "rioting madmen" thing. Where do you think that comes from?
Bigotry against some groups is clearly allowed on DU, and bigots are clearly taking advantage of this. So long as this persists, then DU as an institution is a haven of upport for such bigotry. Not every DU'er, of course thankfully, but it only takes one rotten fish to make the whole boat smell, and it's looking like we've got a whole hold full of putrefying herring this time around.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)pretty much deserves to be scorned, and laughed at. but the op is right it seems that ripping into religions and religious people is fine if they are in america and points can be scored but for some reason we have to be respectful to people overseas.
cali
(114,904 posts)that's all I'm saying. I agree that it only takes one, and it's up to us to call it out- as we're doing here.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Once again: it's the rioters' fault, not the film maker's.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Your argument leads to the most absurd of short-term conclusions - that criticizing anything about Islam is enough to make you responsible for " Islamic "* mob violence. There are a lot of crazy people over there who will riot over mere political cartoons. They will riot over a woman showing ANKLE.
THIS IS AMERICA. We do not restrict freedom of speech here over the fear of some random crazies going on a violent rampage. If the film makers had said "Islam, you're in danger, everyone riot and kill Americans", then THAT is worthy of prosecution. The film makers did not do that, so they are not responsible. THIS IS STILL AMERICA. It will never be the fascist hellhole you want it to be.
Not as long as I and other freedom-loving people still draw breath, it will not.
Do you get it yet?
* It's incorrect to label it truly ISLAMIC mob violence. The Koran doesn't sanction this behavior, and many Muslims over there have come out against it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Some hacker must have written in your stead:
"but he must also be prepared to face the consequences."
"this guy deserves to be "reaped" big time for provoking people, knowing what the reaction would be."
To rational people that means punishments for speech - which also mean restrictions, or the enforcement thereof.
I assume that you are rational, unlike the hacker who hijacked your account earlier.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)A film criticizing religion is NOT the same as yelling fire, or slander. Period. Get over it.
You are totally, hilariously uneducated about the law.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)to mean "reaped over the coals" like we do here on DU, whenever RWingers spew their bile. Thanks for the education.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The discussion here is about people on the DU who have specifically said that he should be prosecuted for "inciting a riot" or, worse, extradited and thrown to the angry masses in the Middle East.
If the situation ever comes to that I hope there's a REVOLUTION to prevent that from happening.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It appears that the attack was preplanned and the movie was a cover.
In the general case, rabblerousers are citing the movie as an excuse to riot in multiple places
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)This is not unlike the Danish cartoons flap. IIRC there were riots and deaths in places the cartoons had not been published.
I also think that some groups need to grow up and understand that freedom of speech is a basic human right. We as liberals and progressives should be fostering that right and spread its recognition. Yet on DU there is a sizable number of posters baying for blood.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)In their universe nothing can happen without government approval. Therefore it is the government's fault when they get offended.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'm sorry but just no way.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)There is no US style freedom of speech in any of those nations. Indonesia in particular. Even Canadians don't have it and some wonder why we do.
Also many muslims have chosen not to assimilate and place islam and the shariah as the highest thing in their lives. When you see signs at protests that look like what is shown here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=231385 its pretty clear they don't get the freedom of speech thing
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Beyond that, their news outlets make sure they know that we have a unique freedom of speech.
And even beyond that, they know youtube and how it works.
Lastly, even if they knew none of the above, they certainly know the trailer was released more than 2 months ago and has been quietly sloshing about the internet without fanfare until some elements, still unknown really, decided to play it up for 9-11.
Honestly, I think you and I are in agreement so its all good.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)cause nobody else has. If I went the RNC dressed in Obama gear and supporting him loudly, and the crowd starts rioting and gets me and beats the hell out of me and put me in the hospital. Would that be my fault for knowingly going there to say they were wrong and offending them, or would it be their fault for the CRIME they would commit? I know you won't answer but it was worth a shot, but if you do answer...how do the two situations differ?
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)Reagan closed down most of the mental hospitals and turned the mentally ill loose on the street. Now they put the mentally ill who do over the top "crazy" things in jail with the murderers and rapists. How would you like to be mentally ill and locked up with people like that? I'll bet Jesus wouldn't approve of that type of "Compassion"
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
If he walks into the RNC dressed in Obama gear...yes he is insane...and while those who beat him senseless for doing such a thing are guilty of assault, MrDiaz is guilty of stupidity!
And if he did such a thing, MrDiaz would probably be the only one arrested for disturbing the peace and assault, because not one single Republican would admit to seeing anything!
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I agree with you
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I'm saying they should be sued if they violated the terms of the contracts or SAG rules, which are put in place precisely so that actors' and actresses' work cannot be abused and misused in the sort of way that appears to have occurred here.
That has nothing to do with free speech.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I don't know, this discussion is ranging very far and wide - it's complicated stuff and it's certainly a very tense time all around the world, and here, as well.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Lasher
(28,569 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)But Americans kill plenty of people committing the crime of living in Muslim countries.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... between "insulting" and "villifying with extreme prejudice". Calling what these asshats did "insulting" is pretty insulting itself.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Your logic suggests that "villifying" the Ku Klux Klan "with extreme prejudice" is somehow punishable.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Clearly you're not reading what people are saying here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)No law was broken in the making of that movie. Deal with it.
We do not hold film makers responsible for criticizing a movement or religion. Deal with it.
We do not imprison, extradite or sue film makers for criticism. That is a fact. Deal with it.
You have no case. I've made no errors. Deal with it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)MrDiaz
(731 posts)leave the uneducated person alone, he or she clearly can not comprehend something as complicated as law.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)and that made you kill someone else in anger, would InAbLuEsTaTe be ok to insult you again knowing someone else would likely die as a result?
Didn't people involved in this movie (Terry Jones) already incite murder by burning the Quran? Then he planned to do it again. Now he is involved with this. Is that not purposely causing murder? There is no way that he could not know that this would likely occur. He's already been there, done that. They made sure it was seen. It was on purpose.
Is there not some point that free speech is trumped by inciting violence on others?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)then InAbLuEsTaTe should be held accountable, then "reaped" or whatever that bullshit was that InAbLuEsTaTe said upthread.
Great idea!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)would it be much different than a mob boss calling the shots? He's not doing the killing himself but it is because of him that the killing is done. Both the person doing the killing and the one telling him to do so would be guilty. No?
Sure, they didn't come out and tell anyone to kill another, but they did know that it would be likely.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)now you're accusing the filmmaker of "calling the shots" like a mob boss.
Please find me one court in the land that says that this film is anything like "calling the shots", yelling fire, slander, etc.
Until then you're just ranting and I'm just going to keep repeating this post.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)




Response to Zax2me (Reply #35)
Post removed
longship
(40,416 posts)Islam isn't a single sect anymore than Christianity is. There is one single head of Islam, and no single center. Here in Michigan, some would say it was Dearborn, which last I looked, isn't overseas.
I know it's a silly counter argument but I guess I don't get what your post is about.
Your use of 'rioting madmen' may be a bit provocative, and not close to being factual.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Go ahead! Endanger others with your behavior! You have that RIGHT! It is your RIGHT to say whatever inflammatory, ugly, nasty thing about any religion's holy prophet. So what that if you do, US citizens in countries with large populations of that religion's fundamentalist members will be put in danger? Why should someone else's right to life interfere with your right to free speech? So what if other countries in our increasingly smaller and more well connected world do not have a constitutional right to free speech and therefore do not understand it?
So what if it is shockingly arrogant to assume that the rest of the world should respect your right to free speech because it is the norm in your country? The really important thing here is that you get to say whatever valueless, shitty, obnoxious thing you want or post whatever disgusting, intentionally inflammatory thing you desire.
it's not ok to insult and/or feel insulted, period.
But that happens and what do you do then? Insult more and feel more insulted, pour oil to the flames? Or keep your cool and speak to calm? What's more ok?
JCMach1
(28,285 posts)and put the blame where it belongs:
at the feet of the Saudi-supported and backed clerics and groups across the Muslim world.
This is just showing how far the Saudi corruption has spread across Islam.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...with torches lit. You're safely mocking the KKK from where they can't get at you. But they can get at your friends. If you want to poke at an angry tiger, have at it. But if a group of innocent people are stuck in a cage with that tiger, then poking at it from outside the cage is irresponsible, and makes you culpable for putting them in danger. THEY presumably know the tiger better than you, and you shouldn't poke at it without asking them first if this is a good idea, because THEY are the ones who will suffer the consequences. Not you.
This is why this situation is problematic. Not because these people don't have the right to insult religions, but that they don't have the right to put other people's lives in danger just because they want to insult a religion. The religion, we should especially note, of several theocracies. In the U.S. the government is on the film maker's side and, presumably, will make an effort to stop people from beating him up over his insults to their religion. But in a theocracy, the government isn't on the side of person insulting the religion; in fact, the government is as likely to beat up film maker over the insult as random people are.
We're not talking about getting hate mail from religious fanatics here. These are insults that can motivate a government to take action because the damn government is a theocracy. And such insults matter to them. Which is why it's "okay" to insult a religion in the U.S. (not a theocracy--at least not yet), but it is not okay to insult the religion of a powder-key theocracy. Especially not when innocents might pay the price.
renie408
(9,854 posts)>>If you want to poke at an angry tiger, have at it. But if a group of innocent people are stuck in a cage with that tiger, then poking at it from outside the cage is irresponsible, and makes you culpable for putting them in danger.<<
And this:
>>This is why this situation is problematic. Not because these people don't have the right to insult religions, but that they don't have the right to put other people's lives in danger just because they want to insult a religion. <<
Thanks. This is what I have been trying to say, and you said it very well.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,773 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Punishable? No. THAT is a very dangerous and short-sighted proposition.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ESPECIALLY if you live in the South.
They're called the Invisible Empire for a reason.
renie408
(9,854 posts)So, if I told my local Grand Dragon that someone I know was trying to end the KKK chapter here and he had a cross burned in their yard...what is my culpability? What if I did it just to start trouble for the KKK, knowing that my comments would spur them into doing something?
I have a slightly unstable and violent neighbor. I am going to find out your personal information and start feeding him all kinds of false and inflammatory information about you. But according to you, if he comes and kills you...I'm OK!!
God, that makes things SO much easier for me!! I can just use other, susceptible people to do all the violent and icky things I would like to do in the world and be free of consequences!!
*whew*
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)but if they are prone to violence we should keep our mouths shut and not criticize them at all.
That's what you're saying.
So only those least worth of attack (people who *won't* respond irrationally) are open to being mocked.
dkf
(37,305 posts)They provoke mindless religious anger too.
skypilot
(8,966 posts)Not quite.
Just weighing in here and not wanting to be confrontational at all but from what I understand this video was around on the web for a couple months or so. So, it's not as though the embassy was already under siege and then to top it off someone released this video and made a bad situation worse. The video is what caused the house to be "surrounded". I understand your sentiment and this whole thing is very sad and ugly but I tend to agree with Zalatix on this. I think all of this also brings up an interesting issue regarding free speech in the digital age. If this film had been made in the VCR era it would have had a much more limited distribution and we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion because the film might not have been disseminated far and wide enough to cause the problems that it has caused. All kinds of speech is going to reach all kinds of audiences in this day and age. Do we want to limit some speech because we've lost control over how far it can be dissemintated and over who might be exposed to it and offended by it? Am I making sense?
2on2u
(1,843 posts)haven't been blown apart by an illegal invasion. Our children haven't been torn apart by the ravages of war, we are not living the nightmare of an occupation, our economy hasn't been turned upside down by a foreign government, we haven't lived through an endless war on our turf. We haven't been targeted by the Pat Robertsons of this world..... there is a difference and it isn't a good one. And all this asshole needs to do is read the old testament in order to see his own hypocrisy.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/islamophobes/pat_robertson.asp
ROBERTSON: You know, I hate to tell you, Alan, but that is absolute falsehood, not on your part, but on the part of those who signed it. All you have to do is read the writings of Mohammed in the Koran. He urges people to attack the infidels. He urges his followers to kill Christians and Jews. He talks about eradicating all of the Jews. This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)Why can't the film maker be held accountable for his part, US imperialism blamed for its part and the rioters take responsibility for their part? This was a team effort. It seems to me that each member of the team should face reasonable consequences.
It is going to be tough to punish US imperialism, but you get the idea.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)How do you intend to hold him accountable? By using a lot of harsh language at him? Or perhaps by REAPING him as some hilarious poster said upthread?
2on2u
(1,843 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)I am just spitballing here, but we have this thing called the 'legal system' in America. It is society's way of limiting behaviors it finds dangerous or deleterious to the common good.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Don't tell me, SHOW me the criminal charge that he's been charged with.
Till then you're just blowing hot air.
This film maker is going to get away with what he did and you're going to do nothing about it because that's how American freedoms work.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and Indonesia where the US hasn't blown any of them apart with any illegal invasions, ever.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)would DU blame the artist?
/oh and that one actually was funded by the US government.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's only the sensibilities of people in 3rd world countries we are supposed to be concerned about!
Or that is how it seems.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)The film makers said that the violence could be a possibility. But because of their freedom of speech, it's ok ? To do something that you know might cause harm is just wrong. Religous zealots are dangerous around the world and especially in America.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That's the vibe I'm getting from the pro-censorship crowd. Holy fuck, some people here are acting like a RW caricature of a "Politically Correct Leftist" who thinks everything is the West's fault for anything.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I've fought very hard against that caricature, but it appears to apply to more "leftists" than I would have thought...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)When bashing Western Civilization and all it stands for as "evil racist Imperialists" became more important than helping the Working Class.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Progressive dog
(7,337 posts)Freedom of speech is a basic right of a free people. when government is allowed to restrict that right, we are no longer free.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You can do it and not be prosecuted or "sent there to face a crowd of rioting madmen." But it's poor form. It's stupid.
Try to consider each culture is different. Before you travel to a place you can find out what is considered rude in that culture.
If you know something is rude in a culture, don't do it.
We are used to freedom here, used to a great deal of irreverence and not particularly religious. That's nice for us.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)liberalmuse
(18,876 posts)The point is, we are well aware that there are groups of people in this world who will bomb, beat, burn and kill for their belief's. Knowing this, why would you put out a video slandering that which they hold sacred? Why in the fuck would you do that and then promote it on 9/11? Maybe because you wanted to provoke a certain outcome? There's something very wrong with doing that, most especially if you are claiming the high moral ground.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Posters here have said that the film maker should be prosecuted for violating laws that don't even exist, or worse, they should be shipped overseas to be lynched.
Everyone agrees the film maker is a douchebag.
Stinky The Clown
(68,496 posts). . . . to repost. There is nothing wrong with your thread except the forum in which it was posted.