"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[Scootaloo]

24. Oh, I'm aware.

I'm making two points, though. One, not all speech is guarded by the 1st amendment, just as not all weapons are covered by the 2nd amendment. These are not absolute, inviolable rules. This seems to be a notion that is being forgotten in DU's sudden rush to embrace Ron Paul logic.

Second, speaking of DU... we supposedly have a set of community standards that cover stuff like this. I say supposedly because, well... I mentioned those groups in particular because bigotry against them seems to be quite acceptable, sometimes even endorsed on DU. DU is, of course a private entity and the 1st amendment only goes where the site owners want it to go - which increasingly seems to include allowing hate speech, but only against select groups. Go figure.

I'm quite aware that hate speech is legal in the US. However, legal does not equal acceptable. It's legal for rapists to seek visitation rights. it's legal for undisclosed donors to give undisclosed amounts of money to political candidates. Owning another human being was legal until the 1860's, and practical slavery through mechanisms of debt was still legal until a century after that. Voter disenfranchisement on basis of political party seems to be legal, as does infringement of 1st amendment rights so long as it's the rights to assemble and associate (and I can't help but notice DU'ers seem happy to deny those rights, while enshrining the rights to dehumanize others. Go figure, again)

There's also the notion that with rights come attendant responsibilities. Not legally-binding responsibilities perhaps, but a civil understanding that the rights you have are for the good of all, and not just yourself. Again, we seem to be embracing the Ron Paul logic that only I matter, me me me me, and any notion of rights coming with obligations for proper use is apparently deeply offensive.

One such responsibility is not pretending to be a different person entirely. Anonymity - including pseudonyms - is accepted practice, though such speech tends to carry less weight than identified speakers. and then... We have Bisseley, who has claimed to be an Israeli-American Jew, funded by "100 Jews" while making this film. Now, you could argue that that's legal. However it seems rather irresponsible to me. How about you? What the fuck is wrong with just following filmmaker tradition and going by "Adam Smithee" if you don't want your name attatched?

Ah well. I'm not arguing that the film should be censored by the govenrment, or that this dude should be dropped into Yemen or something (really, boundaries, people!) However, I do think there is potential for him to face lawsuits from people injured. if nothing else, he's liable for the fraud he perpetrated against the actors, by misrepresenting the project to them and redubbing the project without their knowledge. (If your character is named "George" in the script you're handed, and then in the film becomes "Mohammed, prophet of Islam," after postproduction as was the case here... yeah, I'd say that's grounds for a suit.)