Conspiracy to incite riot vs free speech

[BarackTheVote]

25. Who would be in trouble in this situation?

Someone walks into a biker bar. Moises up to the honky tonk microphone and starts calling all of the bikers bad words. He doesn't touch or physically assault anyone, or even dare anyone to shut him up. Nevertheless, the bikers start mumbling amongst themselves, becoming more and more enraged, until one guy has finally taken enough insults and rallies the bar to beat the ever-loving blue-eyed shit out of this guy. Who would the law find at fault? Who would face prosecution?

I think you could much more easily nail these filmmakers on obscenity charges. In Miller vs. California, the SCOTUS defined obscenity as:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law)

So, (a), given that this movie was specifically made as hate speech (the filmmaker called Islam a "cancer," and lied to his cast and crew about his intentions (even going so far in his subterfuge as to dub offensive lines over what was said on-set), implying that he knew he was doing something distasteful that these people would not go along with... prurient (though usually applied to acts of a sexual nature) is defined as "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire [...]"; could not inspiring racial hatred and using speech that you know will cause riots a world away apply?

(b) this one, I don't know if could be met... however, this film does portray a respected religious figure as blatantly sexually degenerate. Personally, I think consideration (a) and (c) should take precedent over this, especially considering our shifting social mores.

(c) clearly, the video was slap-dash with no interest in creating a work of art--their only interest was apparently in producing something offensive as quickly as possible.

Whatever the case, Bacile will not escape unscathed; his cast and crew are already suing him for misrepresentation and I think there will be some serious investigations as to where the money went... After all, The Asylum produces B-grade schlock for between $250,000 and $500,000... this movie was rumored to cost FIVE MILLION DOLLARS (though last night I saw a more conservative estimate of $600,000... whatever number is right, however, it's far too high for what appears on-screen).