US Embassies, Consulates Attacked.

[amigocabal]

I have to say I am impressed by the Jihadist lunatics ability to take a non-event and turn it into the prelude to WWIII.

Remember that these are the same people who react to rape by stoning rape victims to death.

The Spearhead folk have more in common with NOW that with these jihadists.

[Justice]

Under Brandenburg, the imminent standard would only have been met had the movie been shown at the place and time where the violence occurred.

That's kind of what I meant, but not fully. The movie could have been shown there; it's on Youtube, which is presumably everywhere that the internet is. For me, inciting "imminent lawless action" is more in regards to timing: if this had been released in the middle of a round of heated protests, thus inciting them to actual violence, that would pass the test for me. That's not the case, though; it was released months ago, and only now has caused something. More like "Delayed lawless action", really. Even then... I'm really reticent to give leeway on this because you risk sedition really quickly on something like this, especially if an administration wants to protect its allies from criticism.

[amigocabal]

Under Brandenburg, the imminent standard would only have been met had the movie been shown at the place and time where the violence occurred.

That's kind of what I meant, but not fully. The movie could have been shown there; it's on Youtube, which is presumably everywhere that the internet is. For me, inciting "imminent lawless action" is more in regards to timing: if this had been released in the middle of a round of heated protests, thus inciting them to actual violence, that would pass the test for me. That's not the case, though; it was released months ago, and only now has caused something. More like "Delayed lawless action", really. Even then... I'm really reticent to give leeway on this because you risk sedition really quickly on something like this, especially if an administration wants to protect its allies from criticism.

Agreed.

Assuming showing a film incited imminent, lawless action, the maker of the film would only be liable under Brandenburg if the maker was the one who showed the film at the location where the imminent lawless action took place, or planned and prepared for the film to be shown at the location.

[TheHammer]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

I do think you need to walk a very fine line. Someone merely taking offense at any point current or later about something spoken/written is not enough of a standard to say that speech should be restricted. It should be clear that the producer of any form of speech is in fact intentionally seeking to incite violence, rather than having it show up as a consequence even if the violence was foreseeable. To not do so would allow threats of violence to curtail any form of unpopular speech and would in fact be counter to the very notion of free speech. For example, I don't think you'd want someone to be held liable for advocating for gay marriage just because some crackpot said they'd kill a bunch of people if they didn't stop talking about it.

That being said, I think that in this instance, given the behavior of the producers involved you might have the case that the sole reason for this film was in fact to incite violence. Its not as clear cut as say them posting a youtube video saying that "muslims are evil and should be killed", but its not that far below.

[wautd]

They (the protestors) need to grow up, they dont need to throw a tantrum like a two year old when someone 'offends' them. However, from what im seeing the producer needs to face court, though that is only a preliminary theory.

Its not as simple as "grow up"

Religion is one of the few things these guys have, the entire area is poor, there is little education, religion gives them a sense of community, a sense of focus. And this guy deliberately shit on it with the intent to cause problems. The rioting isn't a surprise, it's not even difficult to understand.

Is it right? No, not really. But humans are not logical creatures by default.

Yeah, it's those barbarian murdurous thugs who're the real victims here. I now totally understand how having your feelings hurt justifies murder.

[Aaron MkII]

Good thing thats not what I said then.

[Justice]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

The problem with that is saying something could incite violence in the future invites falling off the slippery slope. The a very similar point is argued in Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, to which the Justices felt advocating violence at some abstract point in the future doesn't constitute "imminent lawlessness".

With regards to what I said before, the big problem with giving this imminence is that you basically have the Islamic world is always at risk of imminent lawlessness; that it is a theatre which is always full. Now while one could argue that's kind of accurate, I think that the broad interpretation is too risky to take.

[Vendetta]

They (the protestors) need to grow up, they dont need to throw a tantrum like a two year old when someone 'offends' them. However, from what im seeing the producer needs to face court, though that is only a preliminary theory.

Its not as simple as "grow up"

Religion is one of the few things these guys have, the entire area is poor, there is little education, religion gives them a sense of community, a sense of focus. And this guy deliberately shit on it with the intent to cause problems. The rioting isn't a surprise, it's not even difficult to understand.

Is it right? No, not really. But humans are not logical creatures by default.

Yeah, it's those barbarian murdurous thugs who're the real victims here. I now totally understand how having your feelings hurt justifies murder.

If the descriptions of the video in the Guardian are correct, it essentially amounts to blood libel. Which we're finding out is apparently A-OK when directed at muslims, who should just get over it, right?

[Ralin]

If the descriptions of the video in the Guardian are correct, it essentially amounts to blood libel. Which we're finding out is apparently A-OK when directed at muslims, who should just get over it, right?

How is saying that Muhammed was a murdering, womanizing child-molester similar to accusing Jews of ritually murdering Christian children? I mean, I'm not up on Libyan politics, but I somehow doubt that they have to worry much about the local Christians riding in and killing them for poisoning the wells.

[Beowulf]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

I do think you need to walk a very fine line. Someone merely taking offense at any point current or later about something spoken/written is not enough of a standard to say that speech should be restricted. It should be clear that the producer of any form of speech is in fact intentionally seeking to incite violence, rather than having it show up as a consequence even if the violence was foreseeable. To not do so would allow threats of violence to curtail any form of unpopular speech and would in fact be counter to the very notion of free speech. For example, I don't think you'd want someone to be held liable for advocating for gay marriage just because some crackpot said they'd kill a bunch of people if they didn't stop talking about it.

That being said, I think that in this instance, given the behavior of the producers involved you might have the case that the sole reason for this film was in fact to incite violence. Its not as clear cut as say them posting a youtube video saying that "muslims are evil and should be killed", but its not that far below.

I think the point where this argument falls on it's face is that in 1969, there was already both the equipment to transmit your recording across the globe, as well as to record it for later use. Technology has made this capability more democratic, and cheaper, but it's not new. If you shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or cause "fire" to be shouted in a crowded theater, that's one thing. If someone else uses your recording of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, is it still your fault?

By your standard, we have a violence veto. Anything I say that could cause someone to commit violence, at any time, anywhere, would be cause for censorship. Denying the existence of God? Advocating the existence of one idea of God over another? Denying the Holocaust? Saying the Holocaust happened? Denying that man landed on the Moon? Arguing about the limits of First Amendment speech?

What the film-maker did was deplorable, and immoral, but should not be considered illegal.

[Zwinmar]

What it comes down to is they think it is ok to over react to something that really means nothing. Denounce it, sure, fine, whatever, but start killing people because of it? That is like a kid throwing a punch because he saw a video of someone calling another kid a poopyhead.

So yes, they need to join the twenty first century, and people need to quit making excuses for them.

[AniThyng]

If the descriptions of the video in the Guardian are correct, it essentially amounts to blood libel. Which we're finding out is apparently A-OK when directed at muslims, who should just get over it, right?

How is saying that Muhammed was a murdering, womanizing child-molester similar to accusing Jews of ritually murdering Christian children? I mean, I'm not up on Libyan politics, but I somehow doubt that they have to worry much about the local Christians riding in and killing them for poisoning the wells.

Could someone who advocates that mere words arent much to get worked up about explain to me though in small words why this is ok but using a certain 6 letter word meaning homosexual is a bannable offense? Mere words have no power right? and I don't actually want to hear that you can do anything you want on a private bbs, I mean in principle.

Also...isn't the us in the business of assassinating propagandists for AQ...? Who directly incite violence but don't necessarily follow through themselves?

[Aaron MkII]

What it comes down to is they think it is ok to over react to something that really means nothing. Denounce it, sure, fine, whatever, but start killing people because of it? That is like a kid throwing a punch because he saw a video of someone calling another kid a poopyhead.

So yes, they need to join the twenty first century, and people need to quit making excuses for them.

Sure, so when do we start helping? It took centuries for Christian's to lose these attitudes, so this might be a long road but surely we can assist by funding education, increasing their standard of living and throwing in some health care.

[Zwinmar]

What it comes down to is they think it is ok to over react to something that really means nothing. Denounce it, sure, fine, whatever, but start killing people because of it? That is like a kid throwing a punch because he saw a video of someone calling another kid a poopyhead.

So yes, they need to join the twenty first century, and people need to quit making excuses for them.

Sure, so when do we start helping? It took centuries for Christian's to lose these attitudes, so this might be a long road but surely we can assist by funding education, increasing their standard of living and throwing in some health care.

Not all Muslims over reacted, and I am sure there are some out there that just shrugged at it. Its the extremist who get all out off kilter about something like this. Just like any other fundamentalist they need to quit reading what they want and start reading what was said, but that would require people to be objective.

But everyone knows you can be as stupid as you wish when it comes to religion and people will tolerate and make excuses for it. I know first hand of churches in the U.S. who can and do preach the same thing if they were 'offended.'

[TheHammer]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

The problem with that is saying something could incite violence in the future invites falling off the slippery slope. The a very similar point is argued in Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, to which the Justices felt advocating violence at some abstract point in the future doesn't constitute "imminent lawlessness".

With regards to what I said before, the big problem with giving this imminence is that you basically have the Islamic world is always at risk of imminent lawlessness; that it is a theatre which is always full. Now while one could argue that's kind of accurate, I think that the broad interpretation is too risky to take.

It is a treacherous slope at best. But I still think one that could be walked. Imminence should quite frankly be weighted far differently in the modern world than intent and likliehood to incite violence. I don't believe that incident you cited is truly relevent because unless there is additional information not in the article they never directly advocated/incited any violence, they simply refused to sign a pledge that they did not agree with and perhaps did not agree with. Intent wasn't clearcut, nor did it seem particularly likely to incite violence.

To put it in perspective, it would be like a film maker refusing to sign a pledge saying he would "never make a film that might portray Muslims in a negative light".

[Wing Commander MAD]

This probably means we have to start taking a longer and closer look at what we are releasing and even doing when recording devices may be present, as unintended consequences can spiral out of control much much more quickly now than in the past.

I do not like where this is heading.

It is bad enough that many in society blame rape victims for arousing their rapists, either by wearing too short a skirt or by acting too friendly.

But now, pictures of girls and women can arouse rapists around the world. Should Lindsey Evans, a former Miss Teen Louisiana, be blamed for rape, merely because she bared her vagina in a photo and some rapist was aroused enough by it to commit rape?

Remember, the people with whom we are dealing here are the same kind of people who react to rape by stoning the rape victim to death.

I wasn't trying to comment on this particular case, more reitterating Broomstick's earlier general point about actions having consequences for which we bear responsibility either directly or indirectly. You can't control how others will react to your actions, but you should keep in mind the possible consequences of your actions and the probability of those consequences occurring. You then need to weigh those consequences and their probabilities versus the utility of taking the action. Ultimately, those choosing to commit an action bare the greatest responsibility. In this case I agree that utility of Freedom of Speech outweighs the negative consequences of violence occuring. Likewise, I believe those who choose to be violent bear the greatest responsibility for the violence.

My main point, however, was noting that things have changed in the world and even something as small as the speed at which information propagates can have great ramifications in unforseen areas and may necessitate changes to our behavior.

[amigocabal]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

You would be liable because you set it up to play at random times.

If you played a recording of someone else shouting, "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, whether once or at random times, that someone else would not be liable unless that someone else ordered you to do it, or planned and prepared the playback.

I do think you need to walk a very fine line. Someone merely taking offense at any point current or later about something spoken/written is not enough of a standard to say that speech should be restricted. It should be clear that the producer of any form of speech is in fact intentionally seeking to incite violence, rather than having it show up as a consequence even if the violence was foreseeable. To not do so would allow threats of violence to curtail any form of unpopular speech and would in fact be counter to the very notion of free speech. For example, I don't think you'd want someone to be held liable for advocating for gay marriage just because some crackpot said they'd kill a bunch of people if they didn't stop talking about it.

That being said, I think that in this instance, given the behavior of the producers involved you might have the case that the sole reason for this film was in fact to incite violence. Its not as clear cut as say them posting a youtube video saying that "muslims are evil and should be killed", but its not that far below.

If it can be shown that they ordered someone to play the movie at the embassy, or they planned and prepared the broadcast of the movie at the embassy, then I would agree that they incited violence, similar to someone playing a video of a burning flag in front of an American Legion post, or a video of a burning cross in front of a black person's home.

But it would be the broadcast of the video at the site, not the making of the video itself, that would constitute incitement.

[RogueIce]

Could someone who advocates that mere words arent much to get worked up about explain to me though in small words why this is ok but using a certain 6 letter word meaning homosexual is a bannable offense? Mere words have no power right? and I don't actually want to hear that you can do anything you want on a private bbs, I mean in principle.

Unless you've got examples of people being arrested and convicted for just saying the f-word (or a variation thereof) or "Man this is so gay" and getting arrested for it, the principle is not the same. This would apply to the US, as it's US law we seem to be discussing here. Note there's likely a difference between somebody going up to a gay person and calling him/her a "fag" as opposed to, say, those "God Hates Fags" placards you see courtesy of the WBC. Somebody posting either would get banned here, but AFAIK the WBC crowd hasn't been arrested solely for their banners.

[TheHammer]

I think Brandenburg was probably right for the time it was handed down, and some of it still certainly has merit. However I think it is probably in need of an update given the modern world we live in, and the speed at which information can disseminate to all corners of the globe. Such a ruling might put much less emphasis on "imminence" and instead focus on intent and likeliness to incite or produce lawless action.

For example, if I am not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, would I then not be accountable if I recorded myself shouting "Fire!" and set it up to play at random times inside a theatre? Because that's essentially what you have here. It wasn't "imminent" when I first said it, and but because technology allows such things to be kept indefinitely, that speech lives on forever.

I do think you need to walk a very fine line. Someone merely taking offense at any point current or later about something spoken/written is not enough of a standard to say that speech should be restricted. It should be clear that the producer of any form of speech is in fact intentionally seeking to incite violence, rather than having it show up as a consequence even if the violence was foreseeable. To not do so would allow threats of violence to curtail any form of unpopular speech and would in fact be counter to the very notion of free speech. For example, I don't think you'd want someone to be held liable for advocating for gay marriage just because some crackpot said they'd kill a bunch of people if they didn't stop talking about it.

That being said, I think that in this instance, given the behavior of the producers involved you might have the case that the sole reason for this film was in fact to incite violence. Its not as clear cut as say them posting a youtube video saying that "muslims are evil and should be killed", but its not that far below.

I think the point where this argument falls on it's face is that in 1969, there was already both the equipment to transmit your recording across the globe, as well as to record it for later use. Technology has made this capability more democratic, and cheaper, but it's not new. If you shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or cause "fire" to be shouted in a crowded theater, that's one thing. If someone else uses your recording of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, is it still your fault?

In 1969 this capability was as you say much more expensive, much larger and complex to operate, and for the most part in the hands of responsible professionals. The idea that cowards could knowingly create a video of themselves for the sole purpose of inciting violence, and then near instantly be seen all across the entire world where that violence is then carried out might not have occured to them. And chances are, if the elder generation of the 60's is anything like the elder generation of today they probably didn't entirely understand 60's level technology well enough to begin with.

Regardless of that speculation, I think the term "imminence" is rather vague to say the least and should require more clarification. Is it a day? An Hour? A year? What are the statue of limitations there? The very fact that we are all having a debate as to what would qualify is proof enough of that. In any event, I would have to believe that intent and likeliness of violent action should bear greater importance than the actual timing of said violence being carried out.

As to your notion about someone else using my recording of "shouting fire" in a crowded theatre, again you have to go back to the intent of the producer of the speech. Was the recording used without my knowledge or permission? Or did I create the recording and distribute it of my own will in the hopes that someone would use it in a crowded theatre? In one instance its not my fault, but in the second it most certainly would be. I don't believe anyone in this case is suggesting that the producers of the film had no intention of it being released.

By your standard, we have a violence veto. Anything I say that could cause someone to commit violence, at any time, anywhere, would be cause for censorship. Denying the existence of God? Advocating the existence of one idea of God over another? Denying the Holocaust? Saying the Holocaust happened? Denying that man landed on the Moon? Arguing about the limits of First Amendment speech?

What the film-maker did was deplorable, and immoral, but should not be considered illegal.

I believe you missed the third paragraph of my post wher I specifically addressed the concept of a "violence veto". For emphasis, it should be clear that the intent of the speaker is solely to provoke violence and that the speech has no additional value. Its not enough that knowing a particular unpopular speech would probably provoke violence, it should be shown that it was also your intention that violence would happen. The concept of "fighting words" has made its way through the courts before and likely will again.

To use one of your examples, denying the moon landing strictly to provoke a conflict is different than denying it because you actually believe it. As a second example, calling someone's mom fat because you wish to provoke you would be different than saying she was fat because you truly believed it, even if in both cases you were to end up in a fight with the person whose mother you insulted.

That being said, in ambiguous circumstances, one should always err on the side of free speech, but in this case there is evidence that the goal of the film producers was in fact to produce violence. They went out of their way to make it as imflamatory as possible. As current laws are written and interpreted you are likely correct that it might not be "illegal" in the larger sense, but it probably should be. I'd have more sympathy for the crazy preacher burning the Koran because he believed it to be "evil" than a chickenshit movie producer doing it with the intention of inciting riots.

[ray245]

Not all Muslims over reacted, and I am sure there are some out there that just shrugged at it. Its the extremist who get all out off kilter about something like this. Just like any other fundamentalist they need to quit reading what they want and start reading what was said, but that would require people to be objective.

I think you are projecting the viewpoint of a religious person living in a developed country onto a bunch of people who look at religion as the only main source of bettering their lives in a screwed up region. A well off person might be able to shrug at the video, but a person who is much poorer would not share the same attitude.

But everyone knows you can be as stupid as you wish when it comes to religion and people will tolerate and make excuses for it. I know first hand of churches in the U.S. who can and do preach the same thing if they were 'offended.'

There is a huge level of difference between people who lived in the first world and people who are living in the third world. A person from a first world nation is less likely to resort to terrorism because they have a lot to lose. A person from a much poorer region can be more extreme because they have nothing to lose if they engage in acts of violence. They are already used to the idea of dying young due to acts of war or general violence, so why should they care if they die as a result of a violent uprising?

[mr friendly guy]

update

US identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker 'Sam Bacile' as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

A US law enforcement official says a man named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is behind the anti-Muslim film that has sparked mob attacks on US missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

A man who calls himself Sam Bacile has said he created the film, but The Associated Press has connected Nakoula to the Bacile persona.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The self-proclaimed director of Innocence of Muslims initially claimed a Jewish and Israeli background.

But others involved in the film said his statements were contrived as evidence mounted that the film's key player was a southern Californian Coptic Christian.

Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he managed logistics for the company that produced the film.

He denied he had directed the film, though he said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile.

But the mobile phone number that the AP contacted on Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where Nakoula was located.

Nakoula told the AP he is a Coptic Christian and supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by Muslims.

The film was implicated in protests that resulted in the burning of the US consulate on Tuesday in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

Libyan officials said Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other embassy employees were killed during the mob violence, but US officials now say they are investigating whether the assault was a planned terrorist strike linked to Tuesday's 11th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. Federal court papers filed in a 2010 criminal prosecution against him said Nakoula had used numerous aliases in the past. Among the fake names, the documents said, were Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.

During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver's licence to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.

It came as WikiLeaks sparked outrage with a tweet claiming the Libyan embassy was attacked because the US backed Britain's threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London to remove Julian Assange.

On Wednesday on its official Twitter feed WikiLeaks posted: "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world."

It then retracted the tweet saying, "we have deleted and rephrased a previous tweet with the word 'tacit' in it, since the word is rare and was being misinterpreted."

Meanwhile, demonstrators stormed the US embassy in Yemen, leading to a clash in which one person was killed, while protesters stoned Washington's mission in Cairo as anger spread over a US-produced film mocking Islam.

Yemeni police used water cannon and fired warning shots to expel protesters who breached the perimetre wall, and at least one demonstrator was shot dead outside the compound as police battled to prevent any new incursion.

In the Yemeni capital Sanaa, five protesters were also wounded when police opened fire outside the compound, a security official said.

The shooting came as protesters, chanting "O, messenger of Allah ... O, Mohammed," launched a second charge on the complex which they had stormed earlier but were ejected by the security forces.

President Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi apologised to his US counterpart Barack Obama and the American people for the acts of a "mob" and ordered a probe.

"Those who are behind (the attack) are a mob that are not aware of the far-reaching plots of Zionist forces, especially those who made a film insulting the Prophet," said Mr Hadi.

Some protesters said they saw three vehicles being torched by some of the demonstrators after they gained access to the compound through an unguarded security gate.

After being evicted from the complex on their first assault, protesters retreated about 100 metres from the gate, gathering near a checkpoint where they chanted anti-Jewish slogans.

They then launched a second bid to access the compound, prompting police to fire on the crowd, witnesses said.

n the Egyptian capital Cairo, police fired tear gas to disperse the latest protest outside the embassy by stone- and bottle-throwing demonstrators

A total of 70 people were injured, the health ministry said.

Armoured vehicles were deployed around the mission.

Egypt's Islamist President Mohammed Morsi condemned the offence caused by the movie but warned against resorting to violence

"We Egyptians reject any kind of assault or insult against our Prophet. I condemn and oppose all who ... insult our Prophet," he said in remarks broadcast by state television.

"(But) it is our duty to protect our guests and visitors from abroad," M Morsi said. "I call on everyone to take that into consideration, not to violate Egyptian law ... not to assault embassies."

The low-budget movie in which actors have strong American accents, portrays Muslims as immoral and gratuitously violent.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the film overnight, stressing that the US government had nothing to do with it.

"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage," Senator Clinton said.

"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."

But she reiterated: "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."

Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, condemned both the release of an amateur movie mocking Islam and the deadly attacks against US missions.

Libya's new Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shagur told AFP in an exclusive interview that there had been a "big advance" in the investigation into the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said that arrests had been made but declined to elaborate on the number of people in custody or their backgrounds "so as not to hamper the smooth running of the investigation."

"The interior and justice ministries have begun their investigations and evidence gathering and some people have been arrested," Mr Sharif told AFP.

Journalists managed to enter the Benghazi residential complex that housed the US consulate and described a scene from a warzone.

Blood stained the ground at the main entrance of the consulate, which is part of a three-building compound, an AFP photographer said.

All the buildings were blackened by fire, furniture destroyed and walls punctured by bullets, said the photographer who managed to enter the grounds with other journalists after obtaining permission from the owner of the compound.

Security officers and police were nowhere to be seen, inside or outside the consulate, with no sign of an investigation.

Tuesday's assault was initially believed to have been motivated by outrage over an amateur Internet film made in America that insulted Islam, but US officials later said it might have been a pre-meditated assault by Al-Qaeda affiliates or sympathisers.

A spokesman for the Libyan interior ministry's security commission said the inquiry would be "very complicated" because the crowd outside the consulate had been very mixed.

"There were extremists, ordinary citizens, women, children and criminals," Abdelmonem al-Horr told AFP.

Protests against were also held in Iraq and Iran as anger over the US-produced movie "Innocence of Muslims" that initially erupted among Sunni Muslims spread to the two Shiite-majority countries.

A small demonstration was also held by Israeli Arabs outside the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

- With AP, AFP

[Zwinmar]

I think you are projecting the viewpoint of a religious person living in a developed country onto a bunch of people who look at religion as the only main source of bettering their lives in a screwed up region. A well off person might be able to shrug at the video, but a person who is much poorer would not share the same attitude.

There is a huge level of difference between people who lived in the first world and people who are living in the third world. A person from a first world nation is less likely to resort to terrorism because they have a lot to lose. A person from a much poorer region can be more extreme because they have nothing to lose if they engage in acts of violence. They are already used to the idea of dying young due to acts of war or general violence, so why should they care if they die as a result of a violent uprising?

Your mistaking me for someone who even likes religion in the slightest. I had enough religion shoved down my throat growing up poor in the South. People are free to believe what they wish, however, start pushing it on people as these yahoos are doing and expect retaliation. Religion is not an excuse to abandon ones own morals.

Behind every uprising of the poor there is a rich backer paying for his own 'privileges.'

[ray245]

Your mistaking me for someone who even likes religion in the slightest. I had enough religion shoved down my throat growing up poor in the South. People are free to believe what they wish, however, start pushing it on people as these yahoos are doing and expect retaliation. Religion is not an excuse to abandon ones own morals.

Behind every uprising of the poor there is a rich backer paying for his own 'privileges.'

In their eyes, the only thing they have of value is being attacked. It is pointless to ask them to shrug at the insult. Expecting to do this is going to make them even more extreme in their belief and in their action.

It is one thing to expect a religious extremist in a first world nation to shrug at such insult. It is another thing altogether to expect a person from a third world nation to do the same.

[Broomstick]

Not all Muslims over reacted, and I am sure there are some out there that just shrugged at it.

Not only that, but there are people in the Muslim world who are opposed to the violence, even if they are highly offended at the movie in question. The Libyan government has apologized to the US for the occurrence and the day after the attack there was a counter-protest of Libyans who were protesting the violence and deaths. Please do remember than "Libyans", "Muslims", "Arabs", and so forth are groups composed of individuals, not all of whom are murderous fanatics and many of whom find the violence and killing every bit as deplorable as any Westerner does - maybe more so, given that they are far more likely to be a victim of this bullshit than the average American or European.

[Grumman]

In their eyes, the only thing they have of value is being attacked. It is pointless to ask them to shrug at the insult. Expecting to do this is going to make them even more extreme in their belief and in their action.

It is one thing to expect a religious extremist in a first world nation to shrug at such insult. It is another thing altogether to expect a person from a third world nation to do the same.

That depends what definition of "expect" you're using. They are obligated to not go murdering innocent bystanders just because they got their panties in a bunch, but one cannot predict that they would fulfil such an obligation.