Free speech or incitement to violence?

[rachel1]

The now-notorious 14-minute video trailer for the film “Innocence of Muslims” ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad continues to trigger violent protests across the Muslim world. At the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, one such protest may have resulted in the tragic deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues.

Though crude and technically amateurish, the film’s defenders and detractors alike give it a pass as an exercise of free speech. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for capitulating to unruly Muslim crowds instead of defending the right to make a disrespectful film. The Obama administration criticized the violence and the denigration of the Islamic religion, but at no time questioned the right to make the film.

However, a serious question exists whether the film is an exercise of free speech or an incitement to violence that does not enjoy First Amendment protection.

The film is the fruit of the combined efforts of Joseph Nassralla Abdel-masih, president of a charity known as “Media for Christ,” and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a felon. Nassralla is well-known for his anti-Islamic views. Nakoula is a self-identified Coptic Christian who apparently wrote and directed the film. Steve Klein, a well-known Islamophobe, identifies himself as a script consultant.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/19/free-speech-or-incitement-to-violence/?page=1#article

[msongs]

1. the appropriate response of believers to this film ought to be shrugged shoulders, not riots nt

[Zoeisright]

2. It's a deliberate incitement of violence.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded and naive.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. And yet, still protected speech.

The 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Righties Said "Burn Hollywood Burn" Should Be Banned

[oberliner]

17. Similar controversy for Cop Killer by Ice T

Where is the line? How is it determined?

[SkepticMetric]

3. A Proposal: How to Deal with a Pyro-Maniac Set to Light Up a Killing Fire Storm with Propaganda!

Think about it: every war the United States has fought in was driven by freedom of speech issues! Few things I can imagine are worse than nations or individuals attempting to halt the right of people to honestly and candidly express their opinions.

Having said that, if one knows a torch and flame propellant he is carrying surely would set off a horrible firestorm and cause mayhem and possibly murderous reactions, does he have a right to light the damn thing?

It sure is a tricky issue, and maybe even bearing the enigmatic burden of applying "situational ethics", BUT DON'T DARE TO LIGHT THE BLOWTORCH, YOU MURDEROUS BLOWHARDS!

I have practiced various forms of communications for many years, having "earned" (I hope an MA in Journalism from the University of Iowa. But I have yet to hear a logical argument to allow nit-wits to cause horrid consequences by, yes, I borrow the classic example, shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It is a quite perplexing issue to resolve. No decision seems totally "pure". Egad! I see I argue passionately here to suppress free speech under severely dangerous conditions that could cause great harm to people, places or things.

But who has the judicious right to make the demanding call! Well, that's a matter better left to a modern day Socrates than this circumloquacious Irishman !

But I must admit I would knock an individual trying to set a malicious fire on his ass with instant dispatch, because viscerally, morally and logically, it sure seems the right thing to do! How about you?

[Llewlladdwr]

9. I think your analogy fails.

This video was hardly an imminent threat, it's been on YouTube for months.

The fact of the matter is that ALL blame for the violence rests with those who committed it. It doesn't matter how many videos I put up on YouTube talking shit about your mom you simply don't have the right to come and burn my house down because it offends you. Same goes for criticism of a person's religion. You never have the right to commit violence because you're offended by someone else's words.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. "Think about it: every war the United States has fought in was driven by freedom of speech issues! "

I can think of at least three wars I'm glad we fought...

[snooper2]

4. Sounds just like fundies and ignorant politicians from a couple decades ago..

Didn't we already have to go through this a couple times?

&feature=related



And since it was right there to the right on the suggestions, ya got to love some Eazy E late on a Wednesday night

&feature=related

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. And P E Was Accused Of Having Homophobic And Anti Semitic Lyrics. Ice Cube As Well

I'm glad they weren't censored and I'm sure they regret it.

[jsmirman]

16. Uh, not "accused." Gulity.

We were all PE fans growing up, and yes, Semitic.

"Farrakhan's a prophet and I think you oughtta listen to"

Which was right at the height of Farrakhan spreading his most anti-semitic bullshit.

We would always rap that part saying "Farrakhan's a prophet and I think you oughtta listen to NOT(!) - what he can say to you, what you oughtta do..."

We still loved PE, but there was no chance in hell we were signing onto that sentiment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. PE Also Called Jews The "Frozen Chosen"

And said of homosexuality "From what I know the parts don't fit."


And in No Vaseline Cube ripped his fellow NWA members for being led around by a Jew.


If you don't like it, don't listen to it, and urge others not to listen to it, but don't ask the government to censor it. Someone else might ask the government to censor it.


BTW, I saw PE in concert in 1990. It was a great show...

[Comrade_McKenzie]

6. Those who respond violently are the only ones to blame. The rest of us have evolved. nt

[JoeyT]

11. Both.

Yeah, the guys that made the film are bigoted jackasses, and I hope they trip and fall into an open septic tank. But it still falls within freedom of speech.

[cthulu2016]

12. What a load.

"A serious question exists whether the film is an exercise of free speech or an incitement to violence that does not enjoy First Amendment protection."

No. There is no "serious" question as to whether the film enjoys First Amendment protection. To say whether something does or does not enjoy First Amendment protection is a legal question and there is no "serious" legal question whatsoever. The film does not fall within any exception to the First Amendment.

If somebody wants to argue for a new exception to the First Amendment then they are arguing that the film should not enjoy its current status as a fully protected work.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Oops.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. What cthulu said. The very premise is absurd. n/t

[Zalatix]

15. How about just don't give this idiot movie maker the time or money?

We've been on one hell of a DU crusade against this guy and yet worse shit plays on U.S. airwaves regularly and I don't hear as much about it.

[Quantess]

18. It is both.

The problem lies with the people who think that perceived blasphemy justifies violence. Those backward numbskulls should be embarrassed of how primitive they are, if human life is so cheap to them.