So it's okay to insult religious beliefs in America, but if you insult religions based overseas then

[Zalatix]

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.

[xfundy]

1. Pssst!

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]

101. we can make the world a better place

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]

122. I don't believe in any god

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]

2. "rioting madmen". right. gotcha

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.

[MrDiaz]

5. I agree

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]

12. Hey don't blame Obama - it was Hillary who let this crap get outta hand.

[dkf]

147. Seriously? Blame Hillary?

Ugh. Maybe she should have warned diplomats to be more cautious on 9/11 but beyond that I don't think so.

[Honeycombe8]

41. Why didn't he wave his magic wand and get rid of this stuff? nt

[ArcticFox]

160. This is 60 years in the making

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]

14. Yes, it's more about the drones and the invasions than some stupid movie.

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]

17. but you didn't remotely say that in the OP

not even close.

[Zalatix]

18. No, because my OP is addressing people who think that the film maker should be punished.

What you're talking about is off-topic.

[99Forever]

100. So your premise is that ..

... 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]

103. He's not inciting acts of violence. Yours is a strange, strange world. Fortunately it is NOT America

[99Forever]

114. So your response is a weak attempt at a petty...

.. 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]

119. Wait, you can dish out the weak, petty insults, but you can't take one back at you? Awwwww.

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]

123. The point smart guy...

... 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]

127. Zalatix wasn't denying anyone's "free speech rights". The concern was over violence. Riots.

But I see you got to slam another DUer as bigoted, hateful, prejudiced and vile. Hope you feel better.

[99Forever]

128. Nonsense.

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]

135. Critisize the film all you want.

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]

142. Where the fuck did I EVER...

.. 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]

145. Excuse me, you accused me of opposing others' rights to criticize "Innocence of Muslims".

I DEMAND substantiation for that claim.

We all know it was a temper tantrum on your part.

[eqfan592]

148. Where did anybody say they DIDN'T have the right to call for his punishment?

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]

150. 99Forever made that up out of thin air and they know they did.

[Zalatix]

146. Show the post where I ever opposed anyone's right to speak out against "Innocence of Muslims".

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.

You accused me of opposing others' freedom of speech.

Show where I have done that.

[Zalatix]

149. See how 99Forever avoids direct and clearly-written challenges to his/her falsehoods?

[99Forever]

154. Speaking of temper tantrums.

Welcome to ignored.

[Zalatix]

158. LOL you can't handle being wrong. You lost the argument. Bye!

[Zalatix]

141. "Bigoted head"? Now you are an outright malicious LIAR. You made that up out of thin air.

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]

129. He can't address the valid point you're making cuz his arguments are so full of holes.

[99Forever]

132. Yep.

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]

143. You falsely accused me of opposing others' rights to criticize the "Innocent of Muslims" film.

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. He may have the right to make such a film, as disgusting as it is, but he must also be prepared to face the consequences.

[Zalatix]

25. Define "face the consequences"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. As those of faith like to say, you reap what you sow - this guy deserves to be "reaped" big time for provoking people, knowing what the reaction would be.

[Zalatix]

31. Nobody who insults religions here gets "reaped". Why do you think it should be different

if you insult someone overseas?

You must HATE freedom of speech.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. You can't be this naive. It's different because the idiot insulted people who he had to know would not react kindly to such insults. Doh!

[Zalatix]

44. You can't be this ignorant of the law. The law says incitement to riot means calling for violence.

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]

55. U even called the rioters "MADMEN" who by definition dont act RATIONALLY-so yes u CAN incite violence w/o explicitly callin 4 it if theres a reasonable expectation it will ensue.

[Zalatix]

57. You openly accuse me of stupidity and then you REPEATEDLY engage in stupidity yourself.

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]

64. .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

67. Thank you for proving my point once again.

[Zalatix]

70. You have no point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. And your point is? LOL

[Zalatix]

77. You still have no point.

[MrDiaz]

104. based on your stance

If you insulted the KKK, and then they rioted and killed people, you should go to jail for inciting a riot, right?

[Telly Savalas]

136. Westboro Baptist are madmen who don't act rationally

So we're not allowed to mock Fred Phelps because they may react violently

[alc]

81. he probably lives in the US instead of Egypt because

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]

153. No he should not be imprisoned

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]

37. Good point but you left out a biggie...

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]

54. No, this is about people rioting over a video.

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]

98. sorry, but this didn't happen in a vacuum

and actually believe the dog shit you're parroting, honeypie, you're seriously deluded.

[riderinthestorm]

111. The riots and protests are now also occurring in first world countries like the UK and Australia

None of those countries have ever been threatened in the least by US imperialism or exploitation.

[randome]

66. And you 'know' this because...

...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]

99. I know this because it's fucking obvious to anyone with a functional brain cell or two.

[cali]

4. I think it borders on the grotesque to claim that DU

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]

7. Dehumanizing them is okay, though?

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]

8. id say anyone who thinks its okay to riot and kill because someone insults some guy in their religio

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]

9. I don't think the majority of folks here dehumanize women or Moslems or any other group

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]

19. True, but the Muslim religion is often used to dehumanize women in the EXTREME and not a peep from Hillary! Maybe it's time to call her out.

[Zalatix]

16. You deny that rioting madmen killed a US ambassador? Does anyone have a logical basis to deny that?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. And if people know that these rioting madmen exist, don'tcha think they have a responsibility not to do things that will provoke those madmen into committing heinous acts?

[Zalatix]

36. No more responsibility than I have in avoiding provoking the KKK.

Once again: it's the rioters' fault, not the film maker's.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. You serious? I never said the rioters are not responsible for THEIR actions - they are - but the filmmaker is ALSO responsible for inciting the rioters. What's so hard to understand?

[Zalatix]

48. What part of "the film maker is NOT responsible for inciting the rioters" do you not understand?

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]

58. LOL! Who said anything about restrictin free speech? Ur embarrassin urself w/ these strawman arguments but i defend UR right of free speech & 2 make a fool of urself. 2 funny!

[Zalatix]

62. No restrictions, eh? Then perhaps someone hacked your account and posted this while you were gone.

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]

69. That u stretch what I'm sayin 4 ur silly point is laughable-we punish speech when it causes harm-if u yell fire in a crowded theatre or slander.U really this ignorant or just pullin my leg?

[Zalatix]

71. You're being DISHONEST to deny that saying someone should be REAPED doesn't constitute punishment.

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]

75. Its the same when u know the consequences of ur actions. Many slander suits r based on unfounded statements known 2 be false & r well deserving of punishment.

[Zalatix]

78. Criticizing a religion is NOT "yelling fire" or slander. Sorry, your argument is still uneducated.

[malokvale77]

125. I took the "reaped"...

to mean "reaped over the coals" like we do here on DU, whenever RWingers spew their bile. Thanks for the education.

[Zalatix]

137. Anyone is free to trash talk that idiot film maker. His film was idiotic. We all agree on that.

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]

88. I deny it in the specific

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]

91. So the film maker wasn't at fault by even the most irrational stretch of the imagination?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. I believe at this point rabblerousers are citing it to whip up a frenzy

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]

105. They have no idea of the consequences of their attacks on free speech.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. The belligerents don't even understand the concept...which is part of the problem

In their universe nothing can happen without government approval. Therefore it is the government's fault when they get offended.

[riderinthestorm]

121. In Australia?? The UK??? Indonesia??? Really?

I'm sorry but just no way.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. Indeed

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]

126. But those countries have an educated populace who know that we do

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]

6. lets see if you can answer this

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]

11. They would be putting you in jail because...

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"

[MrDiaz]

15. wtf

[Quantess]

43. I didn't understand that either.

[Zalatix]

46. You're claiming MrDiaz is insane?

[atreides1]

97. Yes

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]

102. Your argument is insane.

[MrDiaz]

110. lol

I agree with you

[jsmirman]

10. If you're referring to my suggestion they be sued

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]

20. So, Zalatix is continuing an attack into a "new" thread...?...eom

[jsmirman]

28. Apparently, no.

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]

23. Nope, I'm talking about the suggestions of lawsuits over wrongful death and "inciting violence"

[jsmirman]

27. Ok, just checking

[Lasher]

13. Boy, that escalated quickly.

[Kolesar]

21. File this one under: "fucked premise" ... eom

[Zalatix]

22. Nothing fucked about my premise. n/t

[eridani]

26. People don't get killed for being Christian in America

But Americans kill plenty of people committing the crime of living in Muslim countries.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. Excellent point, often overlooked by warmongers.

[NCTraveler]

116. Christians are killed around the world daily. nt

[sendero]

29. There's a difference..

... between "insulting" and "villifying with extreme prejudice". Calling what these asshats did "insulting" is pretty insulting itself.

[Zalatix]

39. "villifying with extreme prejudice"... is that illegal in America? Care to cite the law on that?

Your logic suggests that "villifying" the Ku Klux Klan "with extreme prejudice" is somehow punishable.

[joeybee12]

32. Unrec...

Clearly you're not reading what people are saying here.

[Zalatix]

38. Yes, I am reading EXACTLY what other people are saying.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Okay okay, technically you may be "reading" what others are saying, but you're obviously not comprehending (or intentionally provoking like that idiot filmmaker).

[Zalatix]

49. I comprehend it perfectly. You will not ever show otherwise. You have no facts to back you up.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. Oh okay, so you ARE intentionally provoking people here w/ your comments, like that idiot filmmaker, and now facing the consequences of your stupidity by being called out on it. I get it, thanks for c

[Zalatix]

51. I admit I have provoked you into hurling an irrational personal attack.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. LOL! Nice try, but your making inane comments speaks for itself.

[Zalatix]

56. Inane? You're the one who has no facts, no logic and no basis behind your arguments.

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]

61. Really? We don't sue people 4 criticism? Ever heard of slander based on unfounded criticism intended 2 cause harm? Keep diggin, tho u really should stop embarrassing urself

[Zalatix]

83. Stop making a fool of yourself and name me one case where a RELIGION has sued for slander.

[MrDiaz]

113. lol you should

leave the uneducated person alone, he or she clearly can not comprehend something as complicated as law.

[2pooped2pop]

65. so if InAbLuEsTaTe insulted you

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]

68. Good idea! You know what, if I kill someone in anger over what InAbLuEsTaTe said

then InAbLuEsTaTe should be held accountable, then "reaped" or whatever that bullshit was that InAbLuEsTaTe said upthread.

Great idea!

[2pooped2pop]

74. no really

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]

79. Just when I thought your argument couldn't get more inaccurate

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.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Precisely!

[Zalatix]

80. So if your arguments drive me to kill someone and I say you drove me to it then you should be REAPED

[Zax2me]

35. BINGO

[longship]

52. Well, Islam has no base, no "pope"

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]

59. Oh HELL NO!! You go ahead and be as insulting as you want!!

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.

[tama]

60. Maybe

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]

63. Quit blaming basic American freedoms for this

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]

76. It's one thing to insult the KKK, another to insult them when they're surrounding a friend's house..

...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]

82. That was an excellent analogy.

>>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]

94. Precisely! It's irrisponsible and should be punishable. All we're sayin.

[Zalatix]

112. But it's not punishable. That's what American freedoms are all about.

[eqfan592]

138. Irrisponsible, absolutely.

Punishable? No. THAT is a very dangerous and short-sighted proposition.

[Zalatix]

85. LOL!!! There is no such thing as mocking the KKK from a safe distance.

ESPECIALLY if you live in the South.

They're called the Invisible Empire for a reason.

[renie408]

87. South Carolina here, and you are not kidding.

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?

[Zalatix]

90. None.

[renie408]

106. COOL!!

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]

107. And if I tell your neighbors that you oppose free speech, and they kill you, then I'm OK, too!

[4th law of robotics]

117. It's one thing to insult someone who won't fight back

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]

155. So what about being an abortion doctor?

They provoke mindless religious anger too.

[skypilot]

156. "...surrounding a friend's house with torches lit."

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]

84. We aren't already predisposed to hating what is being done in our name. Our infrastructures

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]

86. Then as I said to Cali, the problem is not the film maker, but US imperialism.

[renie408]

89. Why can't it be both?

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]

93. Held accountable HOW?

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]

95. Well, we could "unfriend" him. n/t

[renie408]

108. You could charge him with a crime.

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]

109. Okay, what crime? Show me a court that'll uphold that. Go ahead, I'll wait.

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]

92. The riots and protests are now also occurring in first world countries like the UK and Australia

and Indonesia where the US hasn't blown any of them apart with any illegal invasions, ever.

[4th law of robotics]

115. If christians were to murder Andres Serrano (of piss-christ fame)

would DU blame the artist?

/oh and that one actually was funded by the US government.

[Odin2005]

133. of course not, he's a white Westerner.

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]

118. Now we are sending in troops

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]

140. Still trying to justify letting crazy people dictate our rights?

[Odin2005]

130. Censorship is OK if victims of Western Imperialism are offended!

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]

139. Yes, they are. It's actually very disturbing.

I've fought very hard against that caricature, but it appears to apply to more "leftists" than I would have thought...

[Odin2005]

144. It's the victory of the 60's New Left over the 30's Old Left.

When bashing Western Civilization and all it stands for as "evil racist Imperialists" became more important than helping the Working Class.

[valerief]

131. First amendment. Works if you're money, too. nt

[Progressive dog]

134. It is OK to insult religious beliefs anywhere

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]

151. Don't insult anybody's religion beliefs

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]

152. Absolutely no one is denying that "Innocence of Muslims" was bad form.

[liberalmuse]

157. That's not the point.

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]

159. Then perhaps you haven't been reading?

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]

161. This seems morer suited to the Meta forum. On that absis I am locking this with an invitation . . .

. . . . to repost. There is nothing wrong with your thread except the forum in which it was posted.