to incite violence, well did the creators of South Park do the same thing, and it just didn't work?

bomb an Al Jazeera office and the current administration take out Anwar Awlaki the Al Qaeda propaganda guy?

The film is just being used to prop up "they hate us for our freedom" (again).

Militias don't do film reviews.

What if Al Qaeda funded this video? What is your opinion about Al Qaeda propaganda?

Or is it more so inflammatory that it has the inevitable result of causing violence?

That quote is from one of the "advisors" on the film, which if accurate, demonstrates knowledge beforehand of the cause-and-effect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/ant-islam-israeli-film-protests

In answer to your question, though, I believe it is "so inflammatory that it has the inevitable result of causing violence".

----- from the UK article ----

The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.

It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse.

would you favor such a film receiving the same sort of action you propose against this film?

and the current administration take out Awlaki if propaganda is so harmless?

We're not at war in Catholic countries at the moment. So the context is different.

And I think it's irresponsible to conflate a member of Al-Qaida with Al Jazeera. Not the same thing.

So the text of the message is not the problem, it is the probable reaction. Not sure I can go along with that.

Bryant

that free speech as we look upon it regarded the same in other countries. I can understand why other countries may look upon the video as U.S. government sanctioned. imho

There's no freedom of speech for enemy propagandists.

and limb and it isn't even in the motherfucking ballpark of somebody in your yard burning shit or hanging you in effigy because that threat is clear and present. It is impossible for recorded media to present a rational or even a reasonably irrational in the face of the false impression of rational threat. These folks are not some isolated tribe conflating globally common technology with magic out of their frame of reference.

Fire is fucking fire and you damn well know what fire is no matter where you hail from, what you believe, dress code, creed, ideology, race, sex, orientation, gender, veteran status, citizenship, income, age, or anything else you wanna throw out.

Our lives and liberty are not to be the hostages of whoever is willing to respond to offense in the most extreme fashion. There can be no right not to be offended and freedom of expression, it doesn't work because such things are mutually exclusive. Plus, it is essentially folding to terrorism. "Do and act in ways we approve of or we will draw blood" is bullshit. Roll on this and there will be a new offense. Roll on that and there will be another and more and more until all the Reich wing fear mongering about sharia law takes on reality be it in fact or de-facto according to the interpretation of whatever little group of extremist is willing to act the biggest fool.

Next thing you know there will be murderous nut jobs rioting and killing until our women are covered in TV, movies, and web clips or whatever else the nuttiest nut demands.

It doesn't matter if someone expects a nut to be nut, the problem is the nutty hostage taker behavior.

There is no "fire" because there is no plausible threat to life, limb, or way of life from a piece of recorded media and sure as hell nothing clear and present of any description. If God is offended then it is with the being's power to remedy the situation beyond human imagination.

These fuckers have no case and neither do you. Not unless you can explain some plausible way a recording is gonna "getcha".

We need all our people out of these lands and if fuckers want to take their offense on the road then they should be annihilated if it is in our ability. If someone wants to be over there to rake in oil money, take in the sights, or whatever then they will have to be on their own until reactionaries can handle shit they don't like enough to refrain from the murdering and such or at least the concentration is diluted enough to get to one off status.

These folks are modern humans not primitive children.

I loved your post however it would have been even stronger if you had chosen not to curse so much. Just my opinion do as you please but you know what they say about cursing and not having much to say intelligently.

I don't see why I should have to pay the price for what other people do.
In a democratic society, I'd have nothing to fear.
As it is, we demand perfect unity, and with it, perfect silence.

what's your opinion about Al Qaeda propaganda that incites hatred of Americans? Is that okay? Is that something you would accept and defend?

Think Larry Flint.

I kid you not, this is exactly what some DUers have suggested.

Writing what I think of that idea would get my post hidden.

That poster is now on the hook for the damages.

(Disclaimer: I *ahem* "adapted" *ahem* that joke from another DUer.)

Or the fact we allow women to wear bikinis. You are going to let another country's reactions dictate what we can say?

It's equivalent to the eliminationist rhetoric from al Qaeda. Do you think Al Qaeda propaganda is acceptable?

It's the same kind of rhetoric that Anders Breivik used to justify his actions.

We've seen mass hysteria in action with the Bush administration. It's not difficult to make people afraid and push them in the wrong direction.

I hardly think it espoused being eliminationist.

Crowds can be easily whipped up if the circumstances are right.

I remember during the Bush era I found most of Bushco's simplistic slogans absolutely ridiculous but enough people believed them to make a difference.

Criticism is not the same thing as censorship. It's merely the other side of freedom of speech.

or the al-Islam group.

I'm writing my opinion on a message board. I condem both groups.

1) Making a boneheaded movie about Muslims.
2) Telling a bunch of Teabaggers "Obama is President. Deal with it."
3) Gay protesters outside Oral Roberts U.
4) A movie based on interracial couples, playing in Mississippi.

Which one, if followed by a riot, qualifies as "conspiracy to incite riots"?

Hint: it's the politically incorrect one.

Incitement, in legal terms, means planning, supporting, encouraging the actual riot

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.

They could get him on something as simple as that.

I think porn/obscenity is a reach; even the "fire in a theater" charge will be tough to prove. However--it will be less tough to prove in civil court; the families of the dead might sue him and strip him of every penny he might possibly make for the rest of his life (sorta like OJ). And the actors in that spuriously dubbed thing do have a valid beef.

This reminds me of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was produced in Egypt and was (still is, in some circles) a popular Ramadan offering on tape/DVD. There are other, similar "Israel/Jew bashing" programs that pop up from time to time during the holiday, too. They're without any redeeming social value, they serve to whip up the masses and leave them with an aggrieved feeling, and they are deemed--rightly so--very offensive to the people who are being insulted in the productions.

USA has the most liberal "speech" laws in the world. Even in UK they could find a hook to bag this guy, easier than here, I think.

Shortly after Miller v. California the Supreme Court decided Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974) which renders your argument fallacious.

Just did a cursory examination, but it doesn't seem to directly contradict what I said.

The last half of the post is exactly that. They mention the statute they think is applicable and why they think so.

A movie saying some religion is bad is quintessential expressive speech.

The doctrine that legal protections only apply to your ideas and your expressions is, unsurprisingly, not subscribed to by everyone.

The video was created by Muslim haters, with the sole intent of inciting riot and mayhem, and with the admitted on-the-record quote form one of the participants that they "figured" this would happen. The purpose behind the video was not to "express ideas", it was ONLY to incite. The mass demonstrations burning across the Middle East appear to have been the goal of the inflammatory video. How is that protected under free speech doctrine?

will not magically make it right the 100th time you say it.

This isn't a debate, it is information. You have been given the information and chose to discard it.

You have that right.

But any prosecutor following your lead should be disbarred, since it would be a grotesque misuse of, and willful misinterpretation of, the statute.

I do know what expressive speech is. Free expression, freedom of expression, freedom of speech -- I know what it is.

From Wikipedia:

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is NOT ABSOLUTE in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, copyright violation and INCITEMENT TO COMMIT A CRIME.

I assume you're the legal expert and that you know what you're talking about, except for the blatantly incorrect part about me not having "no idea what expressive speech is", which is bullshit and you should not have said that -- I forgive you. Me, I'm just somebody who is making a point that there ARE limits to freedom of expression, as noted above in the Wikipedia write-up.

The video was NOT an expression of ideas. It was pure slander intended to incite riot and mayhem. From the creator's point of view, "Mission Acomplished".

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

It is hard to think of clearer example of expression of viewpoint than saying that some religion is BS. (The expression that Islam is awesome is surely an expression of viewpoint, not an incitement to Terry Jones to start some shit.)

Me saying in this post, "Islam is bullshit," could start a riot somewhere. But even if I am currently hoping that it will start a riot, and even if I just typed that with the intention of starting a riot it is still not incitement to riot because there is nothing in the statement, "Islam is BS" that instructs or encourages anyone to participate in a riot.

What I cannot do is to talk to real Egyptians in Cairo and say, "Let's start smashing windows. Who's with me?"

You have stated your opinion that the film has no point of view beyond incitement to riot. Media for Christ (the production company name) may have a different view. Perhaps one religion saying another religion sucks is seeking to buttress their message that their religion is the only true path to god and the other religion is false. And if that isn't protected speech then nothing is.

It is established US law that a group of Nazis holding a march in Skokie, Illinois, a town full of holocaust survivors at the time, is not incitement to riot. The fact that the Nazis were plainly doing so to upset Jews was still not sufficient to say that saying, "Nazism is cool," is not an expressive act.

Criticizing a religion in a video is the very heart of expressive speech of the sort described in the US code as not being incitement to riot. It is doubly protected, both insofar as it is protected speech and since any sanction of it would be subject to strict scrutiny as potential establishment of religion.

YOUR RIGHT TO SWING YOUR ARM ENDS AT MY NOSE.

Just someone who believes that the sole intent of that video was to cause riot and mayhem, which it certainly did. I'm hoping to sucker a bunch of DU attorneys into posting their learned and much more relavant opinions on the topic, for all to read and learn from.

It's true. That's mean.

agreed to commit.

I know of none. The person(s) who did this film (if even one exists beyond a trailer on YouTube) is in no legal trouble.

I'm not an attorney, I can't competently argue the finer legal points. But I believe this point to be self-evident: If you know for a fact that riot and mayhem will result from your communication, and you make that communication with the full intent to cause riot and mayhem, then you will be held responsible.

If there aren't laws that hold such a person responsible, then there should be.

is to go apeshit every time I hear a counter view. You are basically making blasphemy against Islam illegal.

I think your biggest problem is that you don't understand the legal definition of "incite."

People were afraid of violence and local governments attempted to stop them. The case went to the Supreme Court (the Nazis were represented by the ACLU) and the SC said they had a 1st Amend right to march despite the threat of violence. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). (Ultimately the Nazis did not march in Skokie because Chicago gave them the right to march there which is where the Nazis wanted to march in the first place.)

Cases like this show there is a very high bar to get over when it comes to violence and the 1st Amendment. There is no evidence anyone has actually seen this film or that a film even exists beyond a YouTube clip.

Freedom isn't free, you have to sacrifice, endure others contrary beliefs and utterances. I want to remind you, "Anytime you take away someone else's rights, you have just limited your own." Shintao Apply your logic to the campaign today, and you could make similar claims, or apply it to protestors in the street, or those seeking civil rights. Nah, we need to bleed for our freedoms, feel the pain of our libertys, sacrifice instead of surrender.


Now what is logical, is to withdraw embassys from the middle east, take all Americans out willing to leave. Take all military out of there, and...............

1.Get our nose out of other people's business.
2.Mind our own business.
3.Leave people alone.
4.Take care of our own problems at home.
5.Stop meddeling in other peoples affairs.

I think you get the hint here. If we were not there murdering, destroying, torturing, raping their people, this would have never happened. You can't force freedom on people, they too have to sacrifice for it. Those sand jockeys could kill one another over the issue, and burn themselves to the ground without our help.

There are many things illegal in the US that are allowed elsewhere. Just how far to you want to create some sort of long arm status? By what standards would you measure it. You might want to consider other international applications before you answer.

I call my friend in China, I convince him to rob a local store. Punishable under USCS? Don't know.

I call my friend in China, I convince him to lob a molotov cocktail at the U.S. Embassy in China, which he does and it causes significant damage. Punishable under USCS? I'm guess "yes".

What do the experts say?

In this case, Bengazi, there clearly appears to have been prior planning. Egypt maybe, elsewhere is probably copycats. That would cripple the instigation angle.

Two courses of action: Extradition or US prosecution. The first would not get anywhere (1st Amendment). For the other, long arm status is normally written into the law. I don't see that in those sections.

First amendment free speech rights in America guarantee me the right to create and publish electronic communications that:

1) Directly incite violence that leads to property destruction, injury and/or death with the sole purpose of doing just that
2) Insult and agitate any people in any country that I hate and want to enrage
3) Interfere with or harm American foreign policy endeavors, at will

And my communications do not have to be truthful or factual. I can tell any lie, make any slander, hurl any insult -- all with the sole intent of causing riot and mayhem or other significant damage -- and that is my American right.

According to the current state of law, freedom of speech does not protect the following:

Speech that contains "fighting words" (insulting or abusive language that is likely to cause "an immediate violent response&quot ;

Obscenities; Language or communication directed to inciting, producing or urging the commission of a crime;

Defamation - words or communication that are false and untrue and are intended to injure the character and reputation of another person;

Abusive, obscene or harassing telephone calls;

Loud speech and loud noise meant by volume to disturb others or to create a clear and present danger of violence.

http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Speech.htm

something about what you're talking about you probably ought to find other matters to opine on.

That only learned experts on any given subject should post their opinions on DU? Seems like it.

In case you didn't read the many comments, I have been very clear that I am interested in getting expert legal opinions on this subject, and not myself qualified to argue the legal details. The opinions expressed have been to solicit other points of view. Do you think that should be discouraged?

I've had many experiences with attorneys, including winning my own cases in court pro se. I have found that sometimes attorneys who think they know what they are talking about frequently do not, and that in many cases an attorney's arrogance often seems inversely proportionate to how smart that lawyer actually is.

Still, I value your opinion and won't ask for your expert qualifications to offer it.

BTW, since you posted under the lincoln.edu/criminaljustice list of when "freedom of speech" is not protected, I'm wondering if you have legal arguments in mind as to what if any of those points are not actually valid. If you do, I would be interested to now your opinion.

Attorneys are bound to argue the law as it actually exists based on statute and case law. Having been in court a couple of times pro se doesn't give you any background to legally opine on issues as complex and challenging as Constitutional Law questions which, as you've already indicated you are not qualified to argue. There's no point in discussing an issue further where there is only one right answer. You still keep wanting to argue about legal definitions based on some online 'research' when by my count at least two attorneys have already told you in every way possible on this thread that your ideas are incorrect. Make my vote #3.

Your statement that I am wanting to "argue about legal definitions" is not correct. I was asking for your point of view, since you are obviously a highly qualified legal expert. I was just wondering if you disagreed with any of those statements form the Lincoln edu. Instead of responding to that polite and reasonable question, you double down on your rather arrogant and cold assessment that I'm wasting your and others time with something I'm not even qualified to talk about -- or do I misinterpret your writing.

As we all know, highly trained legal minds are capable of seeing the "right" in some even where people with common sense and a sense of decency see only "wrong". This video is one of those cases. I accept that there may be no legal basis for prosecuting the perpetrators of the video, but I'm not taking your word or anybody else's word for it, yet. I'll refer you again to the second paragraph of my last post, and wish you well.

asking for a point of view. Instead you want to debate legal concepts with which you unfortunately have little or no familiarity. You are now trying to advance a specious argument that, professional opinion to the contrary your point of view should still prevail because of some amorphous moral high ground.

"As we all know, highly trained legal minds are capable of seeing the "right" in some even where people with common sense and a sense of decency see only "wrong".

Unfortunately, and as you've already been told in multiple responses the law doesn't work that way. You don't have the training or background to understand how these quotes (and lots of others which you haven't stumbled upon) work in the context of Constitutional interpretation and existing case law and DU is hardly the place to start your education. People who are actually conversant with the subject are probably not interested in continuing what is rapidly becoming a pointless conversation.

Please go and re-read Cthulu2016's reply to you on the subject:

"You have no idea what expressive speech is, and repeating your error
will not magically make it right the 100th time you say it.

This isn't a debate, it is information. You have been given the information and chose to discard it.

You have that right.

But any prosecutor following your lead should be disbarred, since it would be a grotesque misuse of, and willful misinterpretation of, the statute".

Says it all.

Absolutely correct. Jessy whatever is also being coy so now we are just humoring him or her.

"I hate Muslims, we should bomb them all, and Muhammad sucks" is speech that (while obnoxious) is protected by the First Amendment.

"I hate Muslims! Hey, there's one over there on that corner! Go kill him!" is speech that is NOT protected by the First Amendment and that could send you to prison, as it is considered to be "Fighting Words" likely to cause an "immediate violent response".

We need to make sure that video like that is never made public. Then we will all be safe.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. You don't riot and kill because someone made a movie you don't like.

It was insensitive, and he should be called out for that, but it being unethical doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to make it.

In my opinion both the protesters and the scumbag that made the video are to blame for what is going on. While I would like said scumbag to pay, the truth of the matter is he probably won't.

I do strongly believe this was an attempt by a group of Americans to undermine US foreign policy. Proving that is another story.

After all, people died as a direct result of the book he wrote.