US Embassies, Consulates Attacked.

[Rogue 9]

a reactionary supreme court decision from the 1910's against the red menace? That is your moral justification? Really Broomstick?

Nope, not moral, legal. The Supreme Court does not dictate morality, it decides legality. The decision was that the right to free speech is not unlimited and society does have a right to limit it to prevent "clear and present danger". The precedent was set. You can not use your first amendment rights to instigate a riot or uprising.

Also, it was not "against the red menace" but rather for encouraging insubordination against the draft during a time of war. It was later used in the anti-commie scare, but the actual court case was about encouraging draft resistance. This was further refined in 1969 to the "imminent lawless action" standard, which bars speech that is intended to incite lawlessness or violence that is both imminent and likely.

This is not morality, it is the US law as it currently stands.

Making a movie that deliberately insults the prophet Mohammed with the intention of grievously offending Muslims, then posting it on the internet, would predictably lead to violent and lawless action. Thus, I say, based on what evidence I have, that this movie does not rest under the protection of the First Amendment and is not protected speech.

That's not the standard. Imminent lawless action means imminent; you can be prosecuted for getting up in front of a mob at City Hall and calling on them to burn it down right now, but even calls for illegal action at some unspecified future time are protected under U.S. constitutional law. You cannot judge whether speech is protected or not based on other people's reactions to it; this amounts to the heckler's veto and encourages violent reaction to speech people disagree with because it will get the authorities to muzzle the speaker, which hands a veto on speech to the most dangerous and least tolerant members of society - in short, it empowers hyperbelligerent thugs like those who rioted and stormed the embassies because it accomplishes what they want.

That said, the filmmaker is still a gigantic douchecanoe, but making the film isn't illegal. Several other things they did, especially those related to maintaining false identities, might be depending exactly on what was done, but the content value of the film doesn't make it criminal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The people making the film were deceived about the content and all references to Muhammad and Islam were dubbed in after it was finished.

This guy has put 80 people under virtually guaranteed fetwa of summary execution.. Who had no idea whatsoever of what they were getting into. Great way of acting on your freedom of speech, douchebag.

[Col. Crackpot]

The people making the film were deceived about the content and all references to Muhammad and Islam were dubbed in after it was finished.

This guy has put 80 people under virtually guaranteed fetwa of summary execution.. Who had no idea whatsoever of what they were getting into. Great way of acting on your freedom of speech, douchebag.

wow. yeah he's an asshole.

[Alyeska]

There are equally offensive anti-Christian acts of speech conducted every year. Piss Christ anyone? The only difference is that people on the other side of the planet over react and kill over Islam. So the bar of Freedom of Speech should be set by the lowest common denominator half way across the planet? Freedom of speech has a terrible price some times. But to allow the extremists to set the limits to speech is a very bad slippery slope. If Muslim extremists set the bar, you damned well better expect other religions to demand equal treatment. So then it becomes a crime to criticize Christianity all because some random Muslim might go apeshit if some lies to him about a girl burning the Koran.

[Rogue 9]

The people making the film were deceived about the content and all references to Muhammad and Islam were dubbed in after it was finished.

This guy has put 80 people under virtually guaranteed fetwa of summary execution.. Who had no idea whatsoever of what they were getting into. Great way of acting on your freedom of speech, douchebag.

Wow, what a douche. Dealing with his employees in bad faith like that is begging for a lawsuit at least.

[Pelranius]

If the Benghazi attack is a terrorist attack, I imagine the it wouldn't have mattered if the movie was made or not (not that it makes 'SS fraud', double race baiting jerk off any less of a douche), due to the 9/11 anniversary and AQ all mad about Al Libi's June 2012 death.

Surprisingly, the Muslim reaction to the film seems to be rather subdued compared to previous incidents. We have that hooliganism in Cairo (people breaking into consulates/embassies to haul down flags is nothing new, happened several times to China in 2008), a demonstration in Gaza and the Benghazi business. Don't know of any others.

[Grumman]

Making a movie that deliberately insults the prophet Mohammed with the intention of grievously offending Muslims, then posting it on the internet, would predictably lead to violent and lawless action.

So would a woman walking through an ultra-orthodox neighbourhood and not wearing a burqa.

Religious terrorists should not be permitted to shape US law just by threatening to throw tantrums whenever someone fails to kowtow to their stupid beliefs.

[amigocabal]

It doesn't matter if he said he was a magic ice cream man from the planet Xanadu. People do not have to censor their free speech to cater to the sensibilities of neanderthals afraid of the invisible man in the sky. Nor is it their fault when said neanderthals murder the first person they see that kinda sorta looks like that person a little. Fuck Allah with a pork chop sandwich.

True, it was not his fault that those nithings (calling them neanderthals is an insult to neanderthals) "murder[ed] the first person they [saw] that kinda sorta looks like that person a little." He simply published a movie on a web page, a far cry from inciting a crowd.

But he is still a douche.

[amigocabal]

Don't you see how incredible asinine that sounds? Let's try putting this in a different context. That fucker Martin Luther King, Jr. if he just shut his mouth and didn't inflame the passions of those good ol' boys, nobody would have gotten lynched.

The people in the civil rights movement were entirely away that they were risking death for doing what they did, and when arrested and convicted served their time in jail. One of the key aspects of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions. The civil rights marchers of the 60's deliberately broke laws in their protests. They dealt with the consequences.

Contrast that to the makers of this film, who concealed their identities and even used false ones - they clearly knew trouble was coming and were doing everything they could to make sure someone else[ suffered the consequences of their actions.

None of the civil rights protestors were ever charged with murder on the theory that they provoked good ol' boys into lynching some n-words by getting too uppity. They were arrested for various reasons, but not this reason.

[gigabytelord]

RIP Vile Rat, Didn't know him personally, but spoke with him several times in passing while playing eveonline, he seemed like a cool guy, he and Aevum Decessus have known each other for years, I need to go talk to Aevum now

[Terralthra]

The irony, of course, being that the origin of the commandment not to portray Mohammad is within his own writings, and the purpose was to try to ensure that his image never became an object of religious fervor.

Also, if we're listing relevant cases on the freedom of speech issue, I'll put forth National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the American Nazi party had a constitutionally-protected right to march their swastika flag through a village of holocaust survivors.

Mere offensiveness does not rise to the level of "inciting imminent lawlessness," nor "fighting words."

[mr friendly guy]

I don't really see the either the film maker gets 100% blame or the Islamist murders get 100% blame dichotomy. The murderous thugs deserve almost all of it, but this film maker is clearly not innocent, and I held that view even before I knew he tricked the actors into the film. That being said, raising some issues about Mohammed is valid, however its clear he did in the context of stirring up shit and hiding behind others, and has employed deceptive methods when dealing with his actors.

Seriously what does it take?

If I provoke someone to attack me, but hide my identity behind someone else (just for irony people who shout FREEDOM OF SPEECH), and they are consequently injured, should I not be partially to blame ethically even if not legally? Would it make a difference if I just pick a random name who just happens to be yours? Or if I deliberately pick your name knowing you will likely be hurt, but at least its not me? How about I pick your name because I hate your guts, knowing these extremists would get you? Will freedom of speech protect me from any ethical responsibility. Apparently it does, so well that I don't even deserve to be called a douchebag - unless I trick actors into false pretenses of course.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And now there's a report that protestors have stormed the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

Protesters have stormed the grounds of the United States embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

They were demonstrating against an anti-Islam film made in the US, which has provoked anger around the Muslim world.

On Tuesday, the US ambassador to Libya was among several people killed in a fire started after the US consulate in Benghazi was stormed.

There have also been clashes in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

Witnesses in Sanaa said a number of vehicles had been set on fire in the compound of the embassy.

Police opened fire in an attempt to hold back the crowds, but they managed to gain access to the building.

[Grumman]

It looks like the creator of the film might have been breaking the law after all.

While there is no Sam Bacile, there is a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula who has used the alias Nicola Bacily in the past. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison for bank fraud in 2010, and forbidden from using the internet without permission for five years.

[Broomstick]

That said, the filmmaker is still a gigantic douchecanoe, but making the film isn't illegal. Several other things they did, especially those related to maintaining false identities, might be depending exactly on what was done, but the content value of the film doesn't make it criminal.

Let's see... he made a film under false pretenses, using a false identity, on a subject guaranteed to inflame sensibilities in a number countries, endangered the actors involved without their knowledge or consent, and the result so far are at least 4 dead and probably more injured and a disruption of international relations.

That goes a little beyond "douchbag" in my book.

This wasn't "oh, I'm going to criticize Islam", this was a matter of deliberately inciting violent action. That's the distinction I'm looking at. This wasn't done as a critique or humor or as a rational discussion, it was done to provoke exactly this reaction.

Does that mean there should be a review board for films prior to their release? No. But when one's actions result in consequences, particularly foreseeable consequences, one should be held accountable. The fact the guy(s) behind this hid behind false identities indicates they knew there would be a shitstorm and were trying to evade those consequences.

Sure, we can let these asshats wander off, protecting their rights to be asshats, but no whining please at the protests, riots, injuries, and deaths resulting from that inaction. No wringing of hands when someone involved with this project - or believed to be involved, or just happening to have the same name as someone involved - is targeted for assassination by pissed-off Muslims. Please, no getting upset at the storming of embassies and killing of diplomats. Because, you know, Free Speech trumps everything, even human lives. That a very easy sentiment to hold when it's not YOU facing the violence.

[Crossroads Inc.]

This is the reason why there needs to be some sort of "ground rules" about just how far you can take 'Freedom of Speech'.

It is a tricky, VERY tricky thing to take on, but there has to be SOME Point when "The Law" can say "This is a clear and deliberate attempt to cause harm and breach of the peace"

If the movie was just "about" Islam and the prophet, well, that could still spark outrage but it would be deffendable. THIS movie takes every chance to slander, insult and outrigtht lie about Muhammad and the only conclusion one can take is this asshole WANTED to piss people off.

This is the same guy who last year burned a pile of Koran's that also led to mass rioting around the world.

[Zwinmar]

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.

[Justice]

If we are citing cases, we also might want to look at Dennis v. United States (1950), and maybe Black v. Virginia (2003) for completeness' sake. But the distinction that hasn't been mentioned is that all these cases regard inciting US citizens on US soil, while the film in question is meant to incite foreigners against US holdings in other countries. Since this is rather directly affecting the security of US holdings outside of our borders, could they perhaps have more leeway in regards to a "Clear and Present Danger" claim?

[Broomstick]

That's an interesting question - the US constitution and most of its law were written at a time when the US both wasn't affected by and didn't affect events halfway around the world. I don't think the question has been looked at in that manner.

[Wing Commander MAD]

That's an interesting question - the US constitution and most of its law were written at a time when the US both wasn't affected by and didn't affect events halfway around the world. I don't think the question has been looked at in that manner.

I'll second that. The basics of dissemination of information are roughly the same, the big difference is the speed at which it occurs now. We seem to have hit the point where containment and control of something "released into the wild" is not possible at all. 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 can't help but wander how long until we end up with a war or something else major happening due to some misunderstanding that in the past would have been able to be worked out due to the comparative slowness of the spread of information to the masses.

[Pelranius]

And now there's a report that protestors have stormed the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

Protesters have stormed the grounds of the United States embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

They were demonstrating against an anti-Islam film made in the US, which has provoked anger around the Muslim world.

On Tuesday, the US ambassador to Libya was among several people killed in a fire started after the US consulate in Benghazi was stormed.

There have also been clashes in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

Witnesses in Sanaa said a number of vehicles had been set on fire in the compound of the embassy.

Police opened fire in an attempt to hold back the crowds, but they managed to gain access to the building.

Looks like I spoke too soon.

At least nobody was killed this time.

[Justice]

In all honesty, I'm not sure if it changes too much, but it's something that I noticed hadn't been brought up.

In judging this against the Brandenburg standard, I can definitely see two out of three passing: intent is rather obvious (not only from content, but using an "Israeli" pseudonym seems to show they were going for maximum damage), and likelihood could be established from the Danish shitstorm back in 2005. Imminence is the problem; to argue imminence, you'd basically have to say there is always the possibility of "imminent lawless action" regarding Muslim populations and this sort of thing, but that's a huge slippery slope.

In better news, the Libyan response to all this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the Arab World right now.

[Aaron MkII]

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.

[amigocabal]

This is the reason why there needs to be some sort of "ground rules" about just how far you can take 'Freedom of Speech'.

It is a tricky, VERY tricky thing to take on, but there has to be SOME Point when "The Law" can say "This is a clear and deliberate attempt to cause harm and breach of the peace"

If the movie was just "about" Islam and the prophet, well, that could still spark outrage but it would be deffendable. THIS movie takes every chance to slander, insult and outrigtht lie about Muhammad and the only conclusion one can take is this asshole WANTED to piss people off.

This is the same guy who last year burned a pile of Koran's that also led to mass rioting around the world.

The ground rules for Freedom of Speech was set forth in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) The Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447 Neither this film, nor the burning of the Quran, qualifies as inciting imminent, lawless action.

Brandenburg is still good law. In a recent case involving a protective order, a judge deliberately ignored Brandenburg. An appeals court overruled that judge, citing Brandenburg.

Under the Brandenburg standard, a person who interrupts a gathering of 9/11 survivors and yells that the victims deserved to die for supporting Israel could be guilty inciting imminent lawless action. Someone who merely appeared on a video, or wrote text, saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved to die for supporting Israel can not be guilty under this standard even if someone took enough offense to it to commit murder.

Are you arguing that the Supreme Court got Brandenburg wrong?

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.

Imminence is the problem; to argue imminence, you'd basically have to say there is always the possibility of "imminent lawless action" regarding Muslim populations and this sort of thing, but that's a huge slippery slope."

Agreed, as I showed in the example above.

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

[CJvR]

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.