Did Anti-Muslim Film Cross Legal Line?

[Jessy169]

Of particular import is the strong suspicion that the real purpose of the film was to incite a violent reaction in the Muslim world. According to Steve Klein, interviewed after the eruption of protests in the Muslim world, “we went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

Klein told Nakoula, “you are going to be the next Theo van Gogh,” the Dutch film maker who was murdered in 2004 after making a film that defamed Islam. Subsequently, Nakoula’s accomplice, Morris Sadek, contacted an Egyptian newspaper reporter, Gamel Girgis, and told him he had an exclusive story about a American who made an anti-Muslim video. Sadek’s obvious intention was to make the video known to the Egyptian public.

...

In other words, between 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 nothing substantial about U.S. behavior has changed. That means the Muslim world continues to be a tinder box that someone living in the West, someone like Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, can throw a match into and spark more violence.

At this point, many will argue that Nakoula’s perverse film is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the abridgment of speech and press. But this may not be entirely true. Free speech does not excuse purposeful efforts to incite a riot.

An enterprising prosecutor might be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire enterprise that created “Innocence of Muslims” was a premeditated effort to produce exactly the type of violence that we have seen. If that’s the case, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, Steve Klein and Morris Sadek could be potential targets of a criminal investigation into the promotion of hate speech that contributed to murder.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/17/did-anti-muslim-film-cross-legal-line/

[Nye Bevan]

1. Please. Enough with trying to eliminate First Amendment protection for people who mock religion.

There is absolutely, 100%, with complete certainty, and no shadow of a doubt, that cartoons, Youtube videos etc. that mock Muhammed are First Amendment protected speech. And anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or a publicity-seeker.

[Jessy169]

6. How does posting this article equate to

"trying to eliminate First Amendment protection for people who mock religion?" It doesn't. And there are other options than "idiot" or "publicity-seeker" -- "curious about other people's opinions" would be one of those more viable options, and the correct one in this case. And while I agree with you that "There is absolutely, 100%, with complete certainty, and no shadow of a doubt, that cartoons, Youtube videos etc. that mock Muhammed are First Amendment protected speech", there are plenty of people who question whether or not the creators of this video might have broken other laws -- the writer of the article included.

You have the constitutional right to light a match. You do not have the constitutional right to toss that burning match onto a pile of kindling the express purpose of burning down a whole town. Do you?

[Nye Bevan]

8. One more time. Here is the legal dividing line.

"I hate Muslims! Let's bomb them all! Muhammed sucks!" is First Amendment protected speech (while loathsome), as it does not result in a credible, immediate threat to anyone.

"I hate Muslims! Look, there's a Muslim over there! Let's go kill him!" is "fighting words", NOT protected by the First Amendment, as it results in a credible, immediate threat to someone. You could go to prison for yelling those words.

This was established in 1942 by the Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

And when you refer to "other laws" the videomakers "might have broken"; even if you are able to come up with an example of such a law, this law would by definition be unconstitutional (at least in this scenario) due to the First Amendment.

Many people died in the riots over the book "The Satanic Verses". But Salman Rushdie should not be arrested if he decides to write "The Satanic Verses 2", even if protests and riots would be predictable.

[cthulu2016]

22. Analogy fail.

You do not, in fact, have the constitutional right to light a match.

You do, however, have the constitutional right to make movies.

A good rule of thumb is that whenever a legal argument relies on something being kind of the same as something else it is usually trash. Law is about specificity, not analogy.

All crimes have specific and required elements. It isn't about picking up a generalized crime vibe.

[frylock]

15. why are these asshole's 1A rights greater than that of the OPs?

enough with trying to eliminate first amendment protection for people who hate bigoted assholes.

[Nye Bevan]

18. I'm not advocating that the OP be criminally prosecuted for his post.

Disagreeing with someone on an internet message board is not exactly the same as sending someone to prison.

[cthulu2016]

23. I anyone suggesting the OP be charged with a crime for posting?

What First Amendment protection has the OP lost?

[Marrah_G]

25. no one is trying to stop the op from speaking

She is allowed to state her views and everyone else is allowed to respond.

First Amendment speech has to do with the GOVERNMENT making certain speech illegal.

[cali]

2. no. suspicion or even absolute conviction is not enough to

to remove 1st amendment protection. there is NOT A CHANCE IN HELL that that sorry little film will be considered incitement.

Give it up.

[lame54]

17. Does this vid deserve 1st amendment protection?...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x268em_guns-n-roses-welcome-to-the-jungle_news?search_algo=2

Because it was kicked off of youtube

[cali]

24. uh, YouTube isn't the government.

and is anyone being prosecuted over that vid?

[lame54]

26. first of all...

thanks for answering my question

I'll answer yours - no

now for your reply - therefore google can pull it and still not violate its first amendment rights - they won't - even though the white house has asked them to review their rules and consider it.

they denied them based on 1st amendment protection

[gollygee]

3. That's not the legal line

Potentially upsetting people is not the legal line. The legal line is deceiving people into thinking they're in imminent danger where violence would be an expected response to their belief they're in danger. The old "yelling fire in a movie theater" example is because someone could be trampled trying to get out. This movie didn't attempt to deceive people into thinking they had to storm the US embassy or their kids would be taken prisoner. It just pissed them off. We have the right to piss people off, though it was a stupid crappy thing to do. People have the right to be mean.

[obamanut2012]

4. They lied to the actors about what film they would be in

And dubbed many of their lines.

THAT is the only legal line crossed, and I know at least one actor is suing, and I hope she wins.

I loathe this film, but I loathe spitting on the First Amendment more.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. If they signed the standard release there is no tort

Javaman posted actual texts of them this AM

[glacierbay]

5. Jeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz,

would you please give it up. THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY PROSECUTION HERE. We have a 1st Amendment Right to mock and ridicule religion in this country and no matter how many times, or how may ways you try to spin it, you're wrong to think that the makers of this film broke ANY US LAWS.
The film was bigoted, vile, stupid, hateful, but not illegal in any way in the US.

[Jessy169]

7. I agree that the film was not illegal in any way

But the usage of that film to start riots that have resulted in death "might" be illegal. It is an interesting question to me and to others. I'm not thinking that the makers of this film broke any US laws, I'm just thinking they might have and wondering what others might think. Thank you for your post, and letting me know what you think.

[cali]

9. nope.

and it doesn't seem to be of much interest here. the vast majority of DUers disagree with your take.

[glacierbay]

13. Here's where you fail

the only one's using that film are the extremists themselves. Nowhere in that film was it suggested that people should go out and riot and kill, nowhere, the makers may have, probably did, know that it would cause unrest in the Muslim world, but knowing and advocating are two far different things. No legal line crossed here at all.

[leftynyc]

10. NO - and I wish people would

stop the moronic argument that it did. You don't believe in free speech which is enshrined as the first amendment of our constitution, if you think we should cater to mescreants that live halfway across the world and can't control themselves, perhaps you're living in the wrong country. NOBODY in this country should have to worry about how some assholes are going to react to anything - the violence is the fault of the thugs and nobody else.

I'm sick and tired of this stupid question.

[closeupready]

11. Yes, very possibly.

nt

[Impious]

12. Get real, seriously

Aside from all the other arguments, your apparent desire to criminalize "offensive" language leads to a slippery slope in which anyone who feels insulted is given sanction to take up violence. Why stop at Muslims? As an atheist I am insulted almost daily and could certainly draw offense if I chose to at the ubiquitous subscription to what I see as superstition unworthy of modern people. Who would you blame if I lopped off Pat Robertson's head for one of his many insults? I feel he has a perfect right to his opinions... and may the best set of thoughts win in the light of scrutiny rather than by persecution.

[Ron Obvious]

14. Theo van Gogh

Klein told Nakoula, “you are going to be the next Theo van Gogh,” the Dutch film maker who was murdered in 2004 after making a film that defamed Islam.

Excuse me? "Defamed Islam"? Theo van Gogh, together with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, made a documentary called "Submission" which investigated and highlighted the abuse of women in Islamic societies and he was subsequently murdered for this. Something most people would be terrified to do these days.

Don't lump him in with the the guy who made the most recent film.

[Marrah_G]

16. No

[NCTraveler]

19. I am not sure how people are not sure what the problem is.

Maybe blaming it the film makes them feel better.

This is a big part of the problem:

"In other words, between 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 nothing substantial about U.S. behavior has changed."

[hifiguy]

20. NO!

Saying stupid things is protected by the First Amendment.

[cthulu2016]

21. "An enterprising prosecutor" should be disbarred.

To seek to convince a jury that someone is guilty of a crime that you know, as a matter of law, he is not guilty of is not merely "enterprising."

The endless regurgitation of the stupidest argument ever made is not making it any less stupid.

The making and distribution of the film do not constitute incitement.

It is unfortunate that persons sometimes insist that legal terms mean what they think they mean based on colloquial usage. "Incite" in law does not mean what it means in conversation. That is why one reads the actual statutes, rather than vamping on what one imagines the law might be.

Also, in case anyone is wondering, you cannot have a criminal conspiracy to perform legal acts.

[Jessy169]

28. What I find ironic

is how so many DU posters who are supposedly vehement defenders of free speech, including hate speech, react so promptly and so negatively to any DU post that questions the legality of the "Innocence of Muslims" video, including the use of false accusations (you are trying to take my first amendment right to hate speech...), and expression of sentiments that I am somehow doing something "wrong" by posting articles that question the legality of the how the creators of the film used it to incite violence.

I would expect first amendment enthusiasts to welcome discussion on any constitutional question, and not be so prompt to make false accusations and/or statements intended to discourage such discussion.

I am reminded of a recent Yahoo article with a title describing the renewed debate between defenders of first amendment protected hate speech and those who questioned the wisdom of "no limitations" on hate speech. Reading through the 5000 - 6000 posts on that article, the vast majority were from right-wing Yahoo "crazies". It occurred to me that the right-wingers are the ones most heavily invested in protecting hate speech, because it is the right wing who -- at least in current times -- benefit the most from freedom to spread their hate not just here at home, but around the world.

I believe that the majority of DU posters who might be reading this and other articles related to hate speech do NOT post their opinions, because they do not want to lock horns with the die-hard hate speech defenders. But from reading hundreds of articles and opinions found around the internet, I believe there is strong support for doing something to prevent this type of hate speech from being used to incite hatred and violence wherever the perpetrators might intend to cause trouble.

Reasonable people recognize there is a serious problem with hate speech in America today. The only question is, what to do about it. To those DU posters who hate discussion of this topic and do not want to see reasonable and logical discussion on alternatives, I apologize for the irritation. But it is a very important issue, and as long as DU doesn't prevent me, I will continue to post questions and articles on this topic. Thank you for you feedback and comments.

[Nye Bevan]

30. You're welcome.

And thanks for starting a thread that demonstrates that the vast majority of DUers are "First Amendment Enthusiasts" (to use your term).

[Romulox]

29. Nope. Not even a close call. nt