Previously, news outlets seemed to be eager to share his being an "American-Israeli Jew".

Now that this has been discredited, his ethnicity is not so important anymore?

Coptics living in Muslim nations.

By running with the BS headline.

They took his word for it. That was a mistake.

They seem to LIE alike.

They immigrated to live in peace here. If some of them are causing trouble back home, they should stay there, not drag us into this.

However, this is more about the Cheney gang and the GOP wanting to inflame the Middle East and make Obama look bad. It's really dirty politics they have been playing since 2007.

Only since 07? Rove has been a player a long time.

But they timed the release of their film Obssession, etc. to go along with media calling Obama Muslim.

At least a few journalists are doing some actual journalism before rushing out stories that turn out to be BS.

or perhaps quick that includes what happened in Libya and who the perpetrators really were

Recent reporting seems to suggest that the events in Libya were less than spontaneous.

One wonders it the relationship between those events and the others that do appear to be related to this video are intentional or not.

but the Libyan government has arrested 4 people over the incidents there

Libya: four arrested over deadly Benghazi attack on U.S. consulate

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libya-four-arrested-over-deadly-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-1.464834

Lots of questions, no answers (yet).

Have you seen the "trailer" on Youtube?

Doesn't look like this "movie" required a whole lot of funding.

about.

Saw her say he lied to her when he offered her the role on CNN International two hours ago.

Overall I think we are talking about an amount in the thousands, though, not the millions for the whole shebang.

Let's look at the trailer on Youtube...

First of all it was shot and cut in full 1080 resolution. The picture is superb... The amount of stuff you see on youtube made for very little money that looks as good on a full size screen is limited to Studio releases and commercial music videos.
My guess is the infrastructure alone in editing equipment to cut this video required a render farm and a high end editing station... possibly avid. upwards of $15,000 plus the editors time if he owned his own equipment. likely $500 daily... for a couple weeks at least.

The ADR alone to replace all of the lines with dialogue would have taken meticulous work in studio. Probably 3-4 days replacing all thos lines with "Mohammed" and "jihad". I'm not saying the work was done well, but it was studio work nonetheless. Likely $3000

The locations were professional stages or green screen rooms. The compositing and green screen post was terrible, but it is so bad that sometimes it almost seems intentional. Regardless, renting or licensing that many locations in or around LA county requires a little dough, and then compositing or providing backgrounds for all of the greenscreen shots takes time and money.

The makeup while terrible, was clearly hired. Actors in the biz don't do their own makeup like that. Not by a long shot.

And these were actors in the biz. I recognize some of them, and others have come forward to say that they were paid. It's a cast of at least 20 if not more... and extras... It's not a huge production, but we are talking about a couple to 3 weeks of shooting time with lots of actors. that's more 20 grand.

In my professional opinion, I believe this was shot and produced for about 75,000-175,000 dollars on the cheap side, could have cost almost 500,000 dollars depending on what's not in the trailer I've seen, and I've discussed this at length with friends of mine in entertainment. Our theory is that this was INTENTIONALLY mishandled in production and post production to appear amateur. Sometimes it was more costly to appear amateur in this case as well.

There are tell tale signs... The audio in some scenes is bad when it doesn't need to be. EQ varies erratically without explanation. Cuts are haphazard. scenes of dialogue are cut across locations but production sound was kept though ADR time was clearly available. There is too much to point to "amateur" being the intent here.

Anyway, saying this film didn't require a lot of funding doesn't make a lot of sense from my perspective. No, it's not a studio picture with 300 million behind it, but it's not your average festival feature made for 30 grand either.

Why do you think this was done intentionally and do you have any theories on who was behind the funding?

i hope this fool lives in terror for the remainder of his miserable life.

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

"Let's camp out in your driveway just in case you're in the mood to take a long vacation under one of your assumed names...And by the way, let us guard your passport(s) for safekeeping -- Wouldn't want them to get stolen or burglarized..."

"Yessir, you know these things get kind of complicated, so Officer Fife will need to set down a few pieces of information - you know, phone numbers and suchlike, so the fellers from Raleigh can look into things. And Barn - maybe we should pick up his mail for a while, too - be sure you get a slip for Earleen down to the post office."

for utilizing their free speech?

/a pro-choice protester in Mississippi may also get free police protection despite stating something that is very offensive (even murder-worthy) to some. I'm ok with that and with this instance.

Yeah, I know.

Miranda rights, protection for abortion providers and unpopular views, sanctuary privileges. I am for those things. And I want them there when I am the hated one...still

I loathe this puke, I want him to reap what he sowed with the same intensity.

all the time, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are "protecting" this guy either. Close surveillance of him, would be appropriate though in this case.

There used to be an equalizer withing the 1st amendment; the fear of ostracization from the community at large acted as a check on outlandish speech. We do it here with our jury system.

And I don't know of any pro- or anti- choice advocates who undermine and threaten national security with offensive speech.

That is still a very real and powerful thing.

They are there to protect him from being murdered.

No amount of police presence will make your neighbors like you.

People are asking that he be allowed to be murdered because they don't like what he had to say. That is absurd to me.

/I'm sure a lot of people are upset that "their tax dollars" are going to protect certain people and their silly rights as well. Let's not set that standard.

at least in the short term, since he has a few identities...

And he needs to be kept on ice anyway until the dust clears, because the list of unanswered questions is growing exponentially by the hour...

I am real left wing now, but have plenty of hatred for the right, I mean real serious hate & I keep my mouth shut, mostly and do not write into the newspapers or publicly say anything that would cause murderous rage to come down on my family or my dog.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of MRFF http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ gets death threats all the time, from AMERICANS, and does not rate police protection, why should this guy?

You say you keep your mouth shut to avoid death threats.

Is it right that you should have to do so, or that others should have to do so as well?

Mikey Weinstein, founder of MRFF http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ gets death threats all the time, from AMERICANS, and does not rate police protection, why should this guy?

We church guys used to subscribe to Liberty Lobby's "The Spotlight", voted for David Duke & had lots of guns to be ready to fight the armies of Satan, though that made no sense cause the rapture should taken us away.

We also did not like Israel, but tolerated it cause Jesus said to.

This was back in the late 80's, funny thing I do not remember much animosity against Islam.
I used to go to Bible Baptist Church, in SE PA, I know what the rightwing crowd is all about.

My one buddy, who was in good standing at church was arrested for 2 rapes of women at gunpoint, everyone was surprised.

Conservatives have blown up Planned Parenthoods, killed Dr Tiller, attacked to Holocaust Museum, shot up a Unitarian Church and that is just off the top of my head.

If it was OK to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps why isn't it ok to put any group in to concentration camps without a trial?

you're arguing in favor of being silenced by threats of violence.

So the only people you can speak out against are those who won't fight back.

So Amish and the like.

.........go out & provoke people & ya get your lights punched out or worse.

I am not saying this is good, bad or indifferent.

It is just the way it is.

Could you find a way that that argument couldn't be used against agitators pushing for say civil rights?

They caused a lot of trouble too if I recall. And they were guaranteed to elicit violence.

And and that's just the way things were.

So YOU should take the consequences of your actions. I don't want tax dollars going to help this asshole. Let him find big pockets to put him in hiding. He did it to himself so fuck him.

is just dripping from your post. Remember those words when a fundie doesn't like what a pro-choice person has to say. I am sure you will say that same thing, right?

it could become a fire hazard.

your humanity (or lack there of)

now run along, n00b.

the constitution wasn't written to protect the well loved and popular people.

Let's not dismiss it in such a cavalier fashion. Please. And especially when it can have singularly catastrophic impacts on American living and working outside the United States, where different standards apply.

See the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the international view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

The ICCPR states that "hate speech" is "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" and that it "shall be prohibited by law".

While the US has significant reservations about what should be prohibited by law, citing constitutional freedom of speech concerns, its own National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA&quot gave one of the first government definitions of "hate speech" in the 1990s.

and it's been explained many times over that hate speech does indeed have a very real definition that has been set by the courts. are people really so stupid as to not understand that?!

still do not seem realize that "freedom of speech" is NOT absolute.

it has no legal significance.

When we start jailing people for hate-speech let me know.

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way, he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. He was arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity.

For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

(an odd era to pick, since back then it was deemed legal to round up certain ethnicities in to concentration camps and deny others the right to be full-citizens. I should hope we've evolved since then).

Post-Chaplinsky
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.



/If the WBC is protected then these movie producers are.

that doesn't apply to us.

And as far as I know the US does not penalize so called hate speech.

But your attitude is exactly why those who do live and work abroad - often in service, military or otherwise, to this country - are often at risk for "hate speech" in the US whether that speech has yet been recognized as such and penalized here or not.

But the times may be a-changing. Here is more about NHMC: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3776 From your attitude towards my post and to those of others here, I doubt whether you'll bother to read it. But there may be others who will and who will learn.

In the meantime, enjoy your ivory tower and hope that your own life may never be on the line because of someone else's hate speech.

yes or no?

But your attitude is exactly why those who do live and work abroad - often in service, military or otherwise, to this country - are often at risk for "hate speech" in the US whether that speech has yet been recognized as such and penalized here or not.

i'm just funny that way.

Being criticized? No he's subject to that.

Or are you referring to him not wanting to either be jailed by our government or shot by people who offended him?

if you can't understand that you're responsible for the shit that spews from your grocery hole, then i don't know what to tell you. have a great day.

without coming across as a totalitarian.

And you can get in deep shit for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, which is the equivalent of what this man and his backers have done. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

unlike the fire scenario.

And if it's criminal slander to offend people for their religious beliefs a lot of people are going to jail (like anyone on here who made a crack about mormon magical underware).

from today.

It was probably intended as a message to rioters and murderers, but OTOH, since they are a pro-GOP tabloid, the ambiguity of the text could be interpreted as a dictate sent to US taxpayers that we are going to pay for military adventures in executing these people. A type of gallows humor.

There is a further irony that while alive, Republicans feel these people are worthless. But alive, they are each worth literally billions of dollars in defense spending (in pursuit of finding and executing them).

I hope this trash is frightened enough to be puking his guts out. Fuck him.

"Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

The YouTube account, 'Sam Bacile,' which was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July, was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: 'It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511893/new-questions-about-makers-of-anti-muslim-film-as-shadowy-details-emerge/

Why protect a ex-con who's solely responsible for the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and two others.

He produced a film that knew would inflame the Islamic world.

Revoke his citizenship here in the United States and dump him in the Middle East somewhere.

Stevens, Sean Smith and two others"?

President Obama stated that he believes that these men were killed by Al Qaeda members trying to avenge the death of al-Libi, one of their leaders. I think Obama is probably well informed.

Did this crazy guy make the film? Yes. Is it offensive? Apparently a lot of Muslims think so. Did he have anything to do with the killing of our ambassador and members of his staff? No.

Our President has explained that the deaths were not directly related to the film. Don't blame this man for something he did not do. Having made the film and being disgraced for that is social punishment enough for his extremism. That is my opinion. Many will disagree, but that is my opinion.

Further, if you think of the case involving Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell, then you realize that it would be very difficult to prosecute someone for making a mean, parody film regarding a religious leader. Per Wikipedia:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Directly inciting people to riot is not protected speech, but no one is saying that the film exhorted people to go out and riot. That's quite different from telling a crowd of angry people that they should use their "Second Amendment Rights."

I can picture someone going after Jon Stewart if the First Amendment did not protect parody and satire. They wouldn't get far, but they might try. Mohammed is long dead and can't pursue this filmmaker for libel.

It's nice to vent, but the anger is not going to bring people together or improve understanding between different religious groups. And that is what is needed.

I'd bet money that the whole intent and purpose of the production of this film was to alter the outcome of the 2012 election by inciting violence in the Middle East. Nobody went to the trouble of producing this horrible specimen of "film making" for any reason other than that

...a la "Helter Skelter"...possibly even to make a martyr of the poor stupid sap who is now scared for his life.

It's the sort of thing we should have been expecting to see, if we paid attention to the RW fringe idiots, especially now that it looks like that "black socialist Muslim" is going to be re-elected. (and for the irony-impaired, no, the President is neither a socialist nor a Muslim! He's Irish, O'bama, so there!)

It should just be his cowardly ass, assuming he is the producer and his product wasn't bastardized after the fact without his knowledge.

In other words, if he produced this "film" for the express purpose of inflaming tensions, then I say fuck him and let him reap the whirlwind. But his family should get clear of it, and fast. The odds are that they were not involved.

I've made a lot of assumptions, so I reserve the right to change my mind if new evidence appears.

No one should be murdered for what they have say.

security that is most likely taxpayer funded.If he so truly believes what he says, why not shout it from the roof tops?

not everyone is eager to die for their beliefs and that shouldn't be the standard for who is allowed to speak their minds.

If this were someone making a controversial video that people here mostly agreed with and was facing death threats the mantra wouldn't be "stand up for your convictions, don't hide behind security".

Mel Gibson's Passions of The Christ. Taxpayers didn't have to pay for their opinions. From what I've read this was done with the intention of inciting some kind of reaction, he did, now he should reap what he sowed.
"Actors in "Innocence of Muslims" say they were duped by the man claiming to be Bacile, and that the film as they knew it was not about Islam. One actress claims all the offensive references were dubbed over the lines the cast actually read. The movie was originally titled "Desert Warriors." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-nakoula-basseley-nakoula_n_1880706.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D204975

to movies leading to violence (say by burning down embassies and murdering those within).

They offended people who at worst write letters or stage a boycott.

If your intention is that it should only be acceptable to offend people who won't respond to violence while effectively silencing those who would offend people who would respond with violence I will have to disagree with you.

Jessy169 in post #2 and #9 said it so much better than I could.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014229142

in that case you are presenting a real danger that any sane person would seek to avoid at almost any cost. You wouldn't incite them to murder, you would incite them to flee which leads to the deaths.

Being burned alive is a basic fear that all humans share.

Sane people are not forced to commit plan and orchestrate an attack after hearing about a movie that insults their favorite fairy tales.

Two entirely different things.

a riot. He is responsible for the actions he put into place. Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but his actions caused the deaths of several people, why is he in jail? Osama bin Laden didn't fly the planes into NY, but his actions caused the deaths of a lot of people, why was he hunted down and killed? Same difference! They incited a reaction by their action, they are just as responsible as the people doing the actual deed!

and killing over this is by definition insane.

Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, but his actions caused the deaths of several people, why is he in jail?

Osama bin Laden didn't fly the planes into NY, but his actions caused the deaths of a lot of people, why was he hunted down and killed?

They incited a reaction by their action, they are just as responsible as the people doing the actual deed!

to go out and kill people? Because that's actually what Manson did.

I am surprised at those in the DU community that take sides with George Bush that the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

people are always bold defenders of the rights of others that they sympathize with.

And less inclined to care when that is used against someone they dislike.

If this weren't human nature then enshrining those rights for all (not just the popular kids) would never have been necessary (and so hard fought).

does it offend you when an accused murderer is given a lawyer and police protection from the mob at our expense?

I hope he gets all the protection he and his family need. Scary to think that anybody in America would need protection after questioning somebodies superstitions.

necessary to be so insulting to people who do not understand what you are saying or the cultural context in which you are saying it, but it isn't to be censored either. There is fault on all sides.

We are all overly sensitive sometimes.

is lost in the wilderness and his compass is broken. He should be held responsible for his actions....at the very least made to pay the cost of his protection.

NOW, he's scared of retaliation. SMH!

What did he think would happen? If you are going to produce incendiary shit, you are more than likely gonna get your ass burned.

I support his right to free speech, but he should bear the result of the hate he spawns.

4 US Embassy personnel dead as well as 10 Libyan police.

I thought law enforcements job was to investigate after a crime has been committed.

This guy & his family deserves no protection, if you want to make trouble be prepared to defend yourself.

Fuck him & his family, they all deserve whatever they get.

a cell would likely be the safest place for this scum.

Now he's frightened for himself. Fuck him.

he wants to cut back on police, he wants you to face up to the responsibilities of your free speech on your own with no government protections.

I want to know the contacts

He reaps what he sows. He knew or should have known that this film was likely to be very incendiary but he made it anyway. Pay for your own protection.

If the news reports about his past federal convictions for stealing are true, he was forbidden from using the INternet for five years. Posting this thing to Youtube would seem to be a clear violation of his sentence requirements.

I think people are still trying to get to the bottom of this intentionally vague chain of responsibility, and who he's working for--Because there is NO way this assclown pulled this stunt all by himself...

And even if no laws were technically broken, you can bank that there will be a big lawsuit coming from the victims' families...

cognitive dissonance time ...

On the one hand, with the exercise of rights (in this case, freedom of speech) has consequences.

On the other hand, the exercise of rights should not be fear inducing.

He should be proud of his creation........and shout it from the rooftops........its his first ammendment right.....

Instead...he starts this shit and he knew it would be trouble".......and hides.........coward

his ass shoild be in jail for parole violation....IMHO

"What ... You have no faith your god will protect you for speaking his truth?"

You can say anything you want, it is America. Telling someone to shut up is not being against freedom of speech either. However, when you say something, be prepared to accept the consequences. I was just saying... is an excuse that is not even acceptable on a playground.

However, in this case, Nakoula should be charged with the American deaths. Consider this, if someone pokes at a tiger with a stick and runs away, and the tiger subsequently attacks someone, is it the tiger's fault, or the person poking and deliberately enraging the tiger? Given the long history starting with Rushdie and Satanic Verses, dutch cartoonist, etc... Kakoula knew damn well the reaction he was going to get.

I hope that pisses off all religions. Come and get me! I will use my freedom of speech and damn anyone who dares to try to take it away. I stand for our US Constitution and Bill of rights.

No matter how vile it is.

The taxpayer dollars on him are spent because we allow religious extremists to be in this country.

No one should have to live under the threat of religious extremism.

Anyone even meeting to discuss violence for a religious cause should be given a one-way ticket out of the country, permanently.

in making this film, but that's a different story.

My tax dollars going to protect a homegrown terrorist. Poor baby. I bet he feels like an abortion doctor. How does that feel asshole? I have an idea, just blast Rush Limpballs from your home, that will keep them away. I hope they catch him, and make their own movie. LOL! I bet the mob only wants some tips on how to produce hate films.

A little off topic but whenever I see an alliteration like yours I think of "Miracle on 34th Street"

Kris Kringle Krazy? Kourt Kase Koming; 'Kalamity,' Kries Kids.

What if he had? Would he have his right to freedom of speech slammed by the DU community too? If your going to blame Nakoula for the deaths then you should also blame the US for its freedom of speech rights too. I guess it really is just a piece of paper to some.