They'd better take a nice long lifetime vacation way from the middle east.

Who has that kind of money and why are they sending it to a criminal in the Unites States and trying to blame other nations for it?

This ABC story contains a lot of fact previously unknown, definitely worth reading in its entirety.

Holy Shit! If that is true it is a game changer! This is an incredible and fast moving story. I heard on Current that the massive presence of police, security and armored cars were removed/significantly reduce at the US embassy in Egypt two weeks ago.

The egyptian pound has a kinda shit exchange rate.

Buuuuuut, more likely, the film was a front of some sort. Dude's already known to be a check kiter and drug dealer. Wonder what else he's got in there.

I love that so many DU'ers are carrying this guy's ass around in a sedan chair, too.

sorry, it's late and i'm stupid

As well. some are claiming that the people in the Middle East that are protesting the film are, for want of a better term, overreacting.

Formula for success on DU:

Step 1: Be a homophobic, racist, islamophobic piece of shit drug-dealing embezzler
Step 2: Have your work witnessed on Democratic Underground
Step 3: PROFIT!!!!

But I get what you're saying.

Community standards don't mean anything if that community is going to decide, "Oh, this group doesn't have a loud voice on DU, so they're an okay target for hate."

When a group that collectively breaks its own arm to pat itself on hte back over how awesome and progressive it is, decides bigotry is okay so long as it's "those people," that's a problem.

[center]







[/center]

[IMG][/IMG]

On top of the stretch, he got fined some fabulous sum like 600 thou US. No wonder he needs to make some money fast.

Of course I just see this in the European press, so who knows?

Where they can reap the consequence of their free speech instead of hiding and letting other Americans take the hit.

Others took the hit in his place, and I think he's a coward as well as a sick fuck. He did this from the safety of the US.

What Assange sowed... is different. Assange did not intend for the leaks to cause others to kill, and he did not create a narrative to foment violence.

On the other hand, civil disobedience is about accepting the legal consequences of one's disobedience of an unjust law. Do I think that Assange will treated fairly or justly? I don't know, but I care. If Bradley Manning is any indication, I think that the US wants to punish those who humiliate them with vengance. I do think that Assange knew that he was going to face some blowback, and some anger from very powerful people, and he put his face out there.

Do I think that Terry Jones would be treated fairly or justly in Egypt? No. And no, I would not advocate sending him to what would be his likely death because his actions led to the deaths of others in his place - as a conscientious human being.

But I do think that he should be sued for wrongful death, due to the intent and conscious disregard of what he had been told would likely happen.

Letting someone experience negative Karma, and facilitating negative Karma are two different things. I used to defend women's clinics in Washington DC, and one year around the anniversary of Roe, we got information that a group of evangelicals from the midwest were going to march and blockade a clinic in a high crime area of DC. There was conversation on how we might head them off, to prevent a lot of traffic problems and disruption of the neighborhood. I said, "If a bunch of white people with bullhorns want to march through that neighborhood at 6:00 am, yelling at the residents that they were going to hell for allowing this clinic to operated among them, I say let them." There was some silence, then someone said, "Could we live with ourselves if we didn't try to stop them?" They decided to cancel the march shortly after arriving in DC - I imagine after they saw the neighborhood.

However, this really applies only to Govt interference with someone's speech, not a private entity taking down a video for violation of terms of service.

When those that feel free speech is threatened by trying to mitigate horrific consequences of an action - they start saying that everyone could riot over anything, and not be at fault, because any speech = all speech.

i get free speech - and I support it, and have been flamed on DU by saying that speech is an action, and if someone knows that action is likley to provoke violence, and is intended to provoke violence, and that violence occurs, then they are liable at some level for the consequences of their actions.

I do not see a threat to free speech if the makers of this film, along with Terry Jones, are subject to a wrongful death suit - on the basis of their intent to provoke violence, that they were warned of the dire consequences, and their proceeding with action.

Even if the atttacks on Americans were not an intended consequence, the rioting was.

See it even today on college campuses.

the way the filmmakers wanted it to - judging by their responses to the violence, and the past actions of the ones that are known.

Longstanding history of intent to foment violence among Muslims, willful disregard for human life, conscious disregard of the probable consequences of their actions differentiates this action (speech is an action) from most of those in this country, in this society.

I don't think that wrongful death suit awarded to the families, based on the above, would endanger or chill free speech.

than this guy (by no means do I agree with what they did). As more of the story comes out, I'm convinced Nakoula is very complicit in the entire situation. He undermined US foreign relations with another country and put American lives in danger.

were premeditated, they were warned by those on the ground in Egypt that their actions would likely cause violence, they proceeded, and deaths occured as a result of that violence.

Terry Jones' statment after the fact reinforces the idea that he wanted this to happen - he said this proves that all Muslims are prone to violence at any criticism of Islam.

I think that he bears some responsibility for this incident, enough so that he should be charged with wrongful death by the families in civil court.

I got flamed because people stated that "anyone could riot over anything, then the speaker could be liable, and that supresses free speech."

My argument is that the filmakers intended to incite, had information that they would incite under the circumstances, and that violence came to pass. If all that could be proven about a speaker, THEN they are open to liability.

I think people jumped to conclusions and gave the scumbags that made the clip of a film (we have no real proof there is a film) a pass via the 1st amendment. Now that the real story is starting to come out, it may prove to be there were more sinister reasons behind the whole thing. I want to see the people who made this crap suffer in some way or another. It's in essence an attempt to overthrow the foreign policy of the US Government.

their actions and their intent to the violence and retaliation on Americans, then they can be held liable for the consequences of their actions.

If a drunk driver kills someone, they can't defend themselves by saying didn't know anyone else would be driving along that route at the same time.

Holding them accountable for wrongful death doesn't endanger the legality of alcohol, and holding the filmmakers at least civilly liable for wrongful death won't endanger free speech.

Especially since their intent to incite is so apparent.

to excuse them from any responsibility?

This is the result of the confrontation of two extremes in their respective religions, the rest of us have to confront them and make them responsible for their actions.

Either the rioters or the filmmakers? Does pointing out the culpability of one necessarily mean you're saying the side is blameless?

If so, why?

the attacks.

But the story gets more complex.