General Discussion

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)

58. Seriously?

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:18 AM

Sep 2012

"I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie"

And that the rioters have 100% of the culpability - that speech is just speech...

I don't agree and I am responding to those people."

I asked you because you said you don't agree with the statement "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie". You also said you don't agree that rioters are 100% culpable for their riots. So in the interest of finding out if you're consistent, I asked if you thought a guy who made a 10 minute low-budget movie critical of Islam and got murdered for it was responsible for what happened to him at the hands of someone angry about the movie.

It's really quite a simple question that deserves nothing more than a yes, if you agree that he's responsible for his violent and very gruesome death, or no, if you think murders are responsible for their actions in a way you obviously feel rioters aren't.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all] ehrnst Sep 2012 OP

Another one JustAnotherGen Sep 2012 #1

Don't you know the film represents American Values & Freedom of Speech???????????? Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #197

And I'll argue it again here leftynyc Sep 2012 #216

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #218

Giving in to the lunatics is never leftynyc Sep 2012 #224

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #225

That is simply not true leftynyc Sep 2012 #230

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #231

No it isn't yelling fire, however after watching people in your country disintegrated and 2on2u Sep 2012 #226

I don't think that applies when you know 2pooped2pop Sep 2012 #227

What would have possessed him? The timing is interesting, for one thing. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #200

The Idea the Makers Of this Film Should Not Be Condemned, Sir, is Ludicrous The Magistrate Sep 2012 #2

We have a lot of DUers suggesting the contrary under their "FREE SPEECH" at all costs argument... hlthe2b Sep 2012 #4

The 'right' of 'free speech' has never been an absolute right. The SCOTUS has coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #130

So now any DUer who strives to uphold the 1st Amendment is a bigot? Really? riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #139

No, but if your eyes have been open, you've seen those to whom I refer. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #144

Well, as I pointed out in another thread... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #153

Hateful bigots have a right to be bigots, and others have the right to criticize... Odin2005 Sep 2012 #211

No one said that treestar Sep 2012 #156

No, I don't believe anyone has said that Confusious Sep 2012 #228

There are real limits to free speech nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #6

hate speech is accurate here G_j Sep 2012 #25

There is no prohibition on hate speech in the United States SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #59

Hate speech is always written in BLOOD. :-/ n/t DeSwiss Sep 2012 #64

Where is "hate speech" outlawed in the United States? We are not the UK. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #84

Since I really do not feel like retyping nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #149

This film is not an obvious incitement to riot. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #213

Only in the fevered imaginations of some folks who don't understand the bill of Rights. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #163

It is depressing to see how many people don't understand the 1st Amendment. "Hate Speech" is NOT Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #107

What is prohibited is incitement to a riot nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #148

And if you think you can define "saying anything that might make people mad" as "incitement", you're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #151

Excuse me, did we have a riot outside now at two embassies and one Consulate? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #154

I was in Skokie when the Nazis marched, "Sparky". I take the 1st Amendment REAL fucking seriously. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #162

When exactly did I say shut them up? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #167

Right, so the only reason no one has been prosecuted for inciting a riot lately, is because they're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #170

The code was first used against organized labor by the by nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #171

I'm not sure why you are confusing, say, "blasphemy" or speech-that-someone-finds-offensive, with Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #172

When did I confuse them? FRACKING nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #176

Your own words, upthread: "There are limits to free speech- HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THEM" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #181

Whatever, they do have a limit nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #187

"Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #189

Let me see the Ammendment is barely two sentences nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #191

You said there are "real limits" on "hate speech". Here. That is what YOU said. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #192

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #193

What specific code prohibits "Hate Speech". The specific "code". The specific LAW. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #194

in this case pbrower2a Sep 2012 #221

Wouldn't incitement to riot be saying "come on guys! Let's RIOT!" ? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #175

I will answer this nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #180

There actually IS a global war on free speech MNBrewer Sep 2012 #184

But we are talking of INTERNATIONAL AGREMENTS nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #185

I understand that MNBrewer Sep 2012 #186

As long as we are clear nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #188

And the pro-Censorship contingent here supports it, I bet. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #220

I think just saying "Come on, Feel The Noise" might qualify. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #183

Hate speech is not prohibited. Read Virgina v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps, etc...nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #116

What about "fighting words?" The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #124

With fighting words, you have to prove that provocation/call to violence msanthrope Sep 2012 #135

Cool. Thanks. The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #146

I would imagine there are plenty of Muslims in the US who are incensed by that "film" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #165

Apparently, if someone believes that, they're a member of "The Federalist Society" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #195

Don't let them look at the dissents, then...heads can explode from too much irony. nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #196

I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie" ehrnst Sep 2012 #11

Is Theo Van Gogh responsible for his own murder? n/t cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #26

Can you expound - give some reference to your question? ehrnst Sep 2012 #28

He made a movie critical of the Muslim treatment of women. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #32

So why do you ask me if he was responsible for his own murder? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #37

Seriously? cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #58

*Crickets* *crickets* Zalatix Sep 2012 #60

?? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #81

I don't agree with the premise of your question, so there is no "Yes/No answer. ehrnst Sep 2012 #79

Making a movie that is a critical evaluation of a real-world issue BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #212

Here's where your theory falls flat... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #222

Even Roger Ebert called this film akin to yelling "fire" in a theater BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #229

if you're clever enough to operate a computer, then you probably know the answer frylock Sep 2012 #55

Not about the insinuations made about my position. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #121

You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #67

Would you say the same about, say, "The Last Temptation of Christ"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #87

Why don't you ask the people who are "giving them a pass"? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #105

Who is giving the rioters a "pass"? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #122

They don't get a pass, certainly not for this treestar Sep 2012 #157

YOU don't have to agree; the law will do that for and without you. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #86

"pin the due portion of responsibility for those consequences to your utterance." It is a rare U.S. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #101

The riots didn't take place in the US under US law. The world doesn't belong to the US. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #160

Hm... so what's the legal definition of imminent? BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #214

+1 Gold Metal Flake Sep 2012 #173

"That you have a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do." M_M Sep 2012 #219

Fully disidoro01 Sep 2012 #3

Sorry, the YOUTUBE promotion is clearly ugly incitement and they do have blood on their hand. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #5

Yes- there is blood on the hands of both the filmakers and the rioters. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #20

They have responsibility on a moral level, yes. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #166

The people who did kill have to be held accountable nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #8

Thank you! You understand my post. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #19

I never wished death on him or anyone. Who here has demanded the death of the filmmaker? ehrnst Sep 2012 #21

knowing the sensitivity of the muslim world, this was nothing less than inciting violence spanone Sep 2012 #7

Someone else in the koran burning incident had made the point jp11 Sep 2012 #52

Conjecture much? 99Forever Sep 2012 #104

I think that suing crazy hateful people for the consequences of their actions ehrnst Sep 2012 #110

Maybe if ignorant slime stopped baiting them BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #217

Oooh, the "sensitivity"!! So do American Evangelicals get to have the same "sensitivity"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #90

How about American homosexuals? Do we get to burn down megachurches and kill the preachers MNBrewer Sep 2012 #169

Condemn the makers of the film, certainly. MadHound Sep 2012 #9

Yes they have the right - but they can also be held accountable. ehrnst Sep 2012 #17

Held accountable how? Which part of the First Amendment do you want to do away with? Zalatix Sep 2012 #61

Hate speech and inciting violence can be subject to civil suit when damage or death occurs. ehrnst Sep 2012 #76

Inciting violence, eh? So if I pay 2000 people to go riot over your pro-theocracy arguments Zalatix Sep 2012 #91

No. Not at all. ehrnst Sep 2012 #95

So if the military warns you not to post these opinions THEN you are liable. Zalatix Sep 2012 #99

I doubt that the military would have that opinion ehrnst Sep 2012 #112

Your argument is downright silly. Zalatix Sep 2012 #125

Because, I want a theocracy, right? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #133

I suggest you review American law, to wit: WinkyDink Sep 2012 #93

Wrongful Death, to wit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #100

What was your LSAT score again? Zalatix Sep 2012 #136

Libyans were told this was a Hollywood movie tjdee Sep 2012 #10

Do you know who was involved in the promoting of this film? ehrnst Sep 2012 #13

And Egyptian TV! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #202

It should've been obvious upon observation this was no blockbuster ButterflyBlood Sep 2012 #66

Idiocy per se is not illegal here. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #96

Condemn? yes Lucy Goosey Sep 2012 #12

This was deliberate propaganda - this isn't about censoring normal speech ehrnst Sep 2012 #14

I'm curious what the "most basic definition" of propaganda is onenote Sep 2012 #80

I think that covers it - I personally think that it fits a basic definition of porn ehrnst Sep 2012 #123

Incitement To Violence is a crime in the US. closeupready Sep 2012 #15

THis film told muslims to riot and kill people? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #177

So are you going to tell John Kerry you think he is wrong? bighart Sep 2012 #16

No, why does implicating the propaganda makers diminish the crime of people who acted on it? ehrnst Sep 2012 #18

Those who participate in actions of violence are responsible for it. bighart Sep 2012 #22

Yes - I agree. I would like to see a wrongful death suit filed. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #29

A wrongful death suit against who? Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #63

Terry Jones and the producers. The US. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #120

I oppose that, and it will get exactly nowhere MNBrewer Sep 2012 #178

Julius Streicher, Froduald Karamira... pbrower2a Sep 2012 #223

i will call it like i see it. isreal and rw joint in creating this mess. mob rule wrong. obama, seabeyond Sep 2012 #23

Interesting piece of flawed logic slackmaster Sep 2012 #24

Who is holding the rioters 'blameless'? ehrnst Sep 2012 #27

Here's some "shit" that they did ehrnst Sep 2012 #39

It's not hard for me. Both film-maker and his ilk and the rioters should be condemned. randome Sep 2012 #30

Yes - there are some here that think you can't see the wrong on both sides. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #31

one act is criminal, one isnt. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #33

They could be held liable in civil court for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #34

Inciting a riot is against the law in most places. randome Sep 2012 #35

inciting a riot is a huge stretch. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #54

He was warned this could happen, and was asked to stop ehrnst Sep 2012 #114

Incitement is a very narrowly defined offense onenote Sep 2012 #82

He was warned that continuing could result in violence, and he continued. ehrnst Sep 2012 #117

WE can attack the propagandists, but the Prez doesn't have that luxury - yet. reformist2 Sep 2012 #36

Here's Exhibit One in a wrongful death suit against the filmmakers: ehrnst Sep 2012 #38

What's the burden of proof here? That Mohammed IS a true prophet MNBrewer Sep 2012 #41

That they were inciting violence - Jones has a history of it. ehrnst Sep 2012 #48

So fucking sick of worrying about the delicate sensibilities of Muslims. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #57

I'm fucking sick of the danger of drunk drivers. But I still stay off the roads on new year's eve. ehrnst Sep 2012 #118

Yes, you're so Realpolitik I can smell it from here. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #147

It appears that you misunderstand the legal concept of incitement onenote Sep 2012 #88

In a wrongful death suit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #126

I'm not sure who "he" is in this instance or exactly what "he" did. onenote Sep 2012 #190

This country is filled with preachers who call for war on gay people, who say 'take off the gloves Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #44

I never said jailed - sued for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #45

And what of the rest of those preachers mongering hate? Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #50

If they deliberately plan to incite a riot, and someone gets killed as a result ehrnst Sep 2012 #72

But it comes down to your inability to prove intent to do so. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #201

ANY statement criticizing Islam can cause riots. Zalatix Sep 2012 #62

That could also go for any statement criticizing Christianity ehrnst Sep 2012 #70

If criticizing Christianity caused riots I'd be saying the same thing. Zalatix Sep 2012 #89

I have no idea where your line of thought goes. Theocracy? ehrnst Sep 2012 #131

And if two gay people kiss in front of a chick-fil-a and it starts a violent riot Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #69

If this CFLwas in a country that outlawed Gays, ehrnst Sep 2012 #71

Good luck on the lawsuit. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #103

I don't have a case. The families of the dead, I believe, do. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #128

Check your watch, it's silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134

And who did that shirt kill, exactly? Nevernose Sep 2012 #65

Really? That's what you take from this? He had been warned by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #92

Your analogy might work, had Jews rioted and killed Nazi officials MNBrewer Sep 2012 #40

Jews weren't the target audience, Christian Germans were. ehrnst Sep 2012 #47

Were they? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #56

Yes. The film was dubbed into Egyptian Arabic. ehrnst Sep 2012 #78

Condemn them, yes. Hold them accountable? For what? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #42

Wrongful death. In civil court - they can be sued. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #46

Perhaps. But that will be very tough to prove. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #49

I think that their "promotion" of it after they were asked to desist by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #83

Slippery slope, there. I understand where you're coming from. randome Sep 2012 #115

it goes to Jones knowing what the consequences could likely be ehrnst Sep 2012 #119

Ah so the military should decide what speech is acceptable? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #132

Never said that - in this case the Military had an understanding of local conditions ehrnst Sep 2012 #137

Requesting is one thing. You asked that it be used as evidence 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #138

Warned - he was warned that it could result in violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #142

Explain how this couldn't be applied to the scenario I described 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #145

Americans seem not to gasp the fact that outsideworld Sep 2012 #43

Some of the rest of the world needs to grow a thicker skin when it comes to things like religion slackmaster Sep 2012 #51

Not gonna hold my breath for that. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #74

I think Americans are well aware of the lack of freedoms elsewhere. How should that affect OUR WinkyDink Sep 2012 #75

Ummmm ....... so what? If the Libyans want to put him on trial in abstentia, go ahead. nt kelly1mm Sep 2012 #168

people who stir up hatred against entire religions, races, etc. are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53

Really? The reactors have no Free Will NOT to riot, kill, bomb, attack, ....??? By this standard, WinkyDink Sep 2012 #77

Who said they had no free will? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #85

FGS! READ your own previous post! WinkyDink Sep 2012 #102

Maybe you're confusing me with another poster? ehrnst Sep 2012 #109

who said anything like that? i said those who stir up hate are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #155

Hate like this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #203

not sure what your point is. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #204

My point is that it doesn't necessarily take provocation MNBrewer Sep 2012 #205

i assume that 'thugs' of any kind don't need provocation, as they're 'thugs'. why are you so HiPointDem Sep 2012 #206

I've done plenty of Christianity bashing on DU, so don't try to make me out as focused on Islam MNBrewer Sep 2012 #208

They could always try to claim that it's "Brilliant Swiftian Satire" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #68

However, Swift was not warned by authorities that his work ehrnst Sep 2012 #108

Govt propaganda is a different level of "movie." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #73

This was shown on state TV in Libya. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #94

uh...I am referring to the film-MAKERS. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #98

Uh, yes I know. But the Government in Libya ehrnst Sep 2012 #106

but ann--- Sep 2012 #111

Absolutely - I'm referencing others that ehrnst Sep 2012 #113

Who said we cannot condemn the filmaker? nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #127

See this post ehrnst Sep 2012 #129

Doesn't even come close to answering the question. nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #140

We can condemn hate without censoring it. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #210

We can defend a person's JoeyT Sep 2012 #141

He was warned that promoting it like he did would cause violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #143

I don't think there's much chance of JoeyT Sep 2012 #150

We must avoid provoking criminally insane people into committing crime MNBrewer Sep 2012 #159

You know, Terry Jones did not make that thing. This fact is muddling much of what you are Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #161

There is a massive and fundamental difference between this movie and the ones you cited. Xithras Sep 2012 #152

Terrific Points ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #182

+1 for both your post and the Professor's post. Great points. nt riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #198

if MrDiaz Sep 2012 #158

So long as you don't seek to have the government punish or stop the asshats that made kelly1mm Sep 2012 #164

I think it was financed by the Romney campaign. 6000eliot Sep 2012 #174

If you get to have Terry Jones prosecuted for his "incitement to riot" MNBrewer Sep 2012 #179

Egyptian Television to blame for current unrest MNBrewer Sep 2012 #199

When the US starts sending Muslims to concentration camps your point may work. CBGLuthier Sep 2012 #207

The fact of the matter is, by not condemning the film maker, we are sending a message that jillan Sep 2012 #209

Except no one was ordered to see this movie oberliner Sep 2012 #215