U S Wants The Film "innocence Of Muslims" To Be Removed From Google

[asiawatcher]

I have no objection to either the bible or the Quran being burnt and why should I? Frankly they are both written by authors unknown and at each reprint - various edits thru the ages were (and still are) open to interpretation and rewritten. And let's face it - the history books are never written by the vanquished. A little bit of common sense amongst the zealots would go a long way! Won't this get the vitriol going...

[smedly]

Looks like were headed right back to the Dark Ages where its illegal to criticize religion. I am getting sick and tired of Islam demanding this shroud of respect it is never willing to afford to others. You DO NOT have a right to not be offended in this life and you DO NOT have the right to inflict violence on others because of pictures or YouTube clips a half a world away. It is time the Governments of the world stood up to these murderous thugs and said no instead of cowtowing to them by granting their command for censorship under threat of violence.

imo best post on this thread and in fact probably the world, time for these murdering fanatics to realise there are others living on this planet besides themselves, they have no right to dictate how we should live or what we can say - if they don't like it then please feel free to leave

The truth of the matter is that religeous beliefs have been the cause of every conflict in mans sordid history - it is evil and begets evil doing and of course there is always an excuse written into the the small print that justifies it all, it is all evil and those that murder in the name of their god are evil following an inherent instinct in man called tribalism.

[bdenner]

I haven't read much of this thread but seen heaps on world wide media. As far as I'm concerned these radical Muslims NEED to get a life and accept opinion for what it is. Where would we be if the differing christian churches were in the same mind set as these extremists!

Edited September 17, 2012 by bdenner

[koheesti]

I haven't read much of this thread but seen heaps on world wide media. As far as I'm concerned these radical Muslims NEED to get a life and accept opinion for what it is. Where would we be if the differing christian churches were in the same mind set as these extremists!

It's hard to believe, but they aren't upset about someone's opinion of Mohammed. The video is apparently accurate according to the Quran so what complaint is there other than Mohammed being depicted on screen, or that the quality was very, very bad?

[MrRealDeal]

That may be partially true but the reason is because of what incited the leaders which is the vid. Unreasonable to do so or not it's the vid that is at the root and the cause of the problem.

One concept that seems to escape people is that the standard for fighting words is not the same for everyone and it's not the speaker who decides it's the listener , you could call one person say me a nigger and since I am white get away with it because it's not considered fighting words but to a black man it would be. People don't seem to understand that just because they don't think somethng is offensive or because it doesnt offend them that means that it shouldnt offend anyone else either and legally thats just not the case. People will eventually understand that intentionally offending even muslims is the same as intentionally offending anyone else and when done in a meaningless way is in fact illegal.

The arugment that their love for their god is unreasonable so they shouldn't be so offended won't pass muster at the Supreme Court I assure you. Insulting someones mother is considered fighting words , the argument that there god is false or whatever way people try and package it will not make meaningless instults any more legal , if insulting your mother is fighting words obviously your god also qualifys ....... Should it be that way ? I don't know, all I know is that no one is going to win a case using the 1st amendment as a defence for a meaningless insult against a muslim the way the laws are written today. The idea that ..... well they are just offended to easily , is not gona work in a court trust me.

All I can tell you is wait and see if you don't believe me and just read the part I posted about fighting words and the law.

How can it be legal for one group to insult another but the other not be able to insult them back in the same way ? Bacause the 2 groups have different beliefs and are insulted by different things at differing levels of anger , just because you can insult a christan by saying jesus isn't real doesn't mean you can do so to a muslim about their muhummad , because a christian doesnt get so angered it's considered injurious to say that , but to a muslim it is. Once again it's the listener that gets to decide not the talker. If in fact Christians got as angered that would be illegal as well but thats just not the case.

Why can a black man call me a honkey but me not call him a nigger back ? Because of the different levels of anger created by racist terms, it's considered injurious on it's face for him and hence illegal for me to say but to call me a honkey or some other white person slur would not be considered fighting words because it doesn't offend me in the same way.

I would point this out ...... it's illegal to insult a muslims mother just like your's or mine , do you really think any court will hold a muslims god in lesser status than their mother ?

Your argument is a straw man, because the 'speech' under discussion was not delivered to any specific person, so can not fall under the 'fighting words' construction. It expressed an idea about a historical figure that a group of people who do not subscribe to the same idea found offensive. Further, it is impossible to know the intent of the author; he may have just wanted to vent, or he MAY have wanted to sow discontent, but he clearly did not intend to harm a living person. The reaction of the relatively few who committed violence as a means of expressing their disagreement with this person can not be justified, period. Under your premise, my Aunt Sadie could justify mayhem upon hearing of the cooking of cauliflower, to which she prays bi-weekly...(she's a batty old bird)

I would like to see evidence for your notion that the listener determines what the standard is for 'fighting words'.

Your other assertions, regarding State and local laws, are meaningless as well, because the subject is the First Amendment, against which those State and local laws must be tested. That they are de facto laws does not validate them as constitutional. If they are litigated, and move through the court system, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear them, the outcome will be considered precedent.

For a scholarly discussion of the First Amendment and what is and is not protected speech, see http://www.bsos.umd....htingwords.html

That is, if you're interested in scholarly work, as opposed to pulling it out of the oft referred to orifice...

It's not correct to think that the fighting word doctrine only applys to speaking to an individual , my statement that meaningless insults are not a protected form of speech is quite true and if you actually read the Article you posted thats pretty much a 101 or high school level not Scolarly you would know that.

I was looking to the future and didn't say this case would rise to the level of meaningless hate speech that would fall under the fighting words exception , however I suspect it lacks the required significance of artistic , sceintific or literary value the doctrine requires ..... I said that in the future you won't win any cases using the 1st amendment as a defence against whats already been decided as illegal ..... meaningless insults

You are once again confused by saying that anyone is justifyed or that anything I have said would justify mayhem , Rioting is not legal just because you claim it was incited. However if you made meaningless insulting comments to your aunt over her vegetables or anything else it's not protected speech as NO meaningless insulting speech is legal contrairy to your incorrect beliefs. Which is why people are arrested all the time for disturbing the peace for making insulting stupid comments. Not including public figures as an exception.

What I mean when I say it's the listener who decides I figured it was obvious enough that I meant the listener is the only one who's going to complain.

Finally you are also confused when you state that laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional are meaningless they are the Law and only become meaningless IF they are overturned and you are also so confused and incorrect about whats legal and whats not that you think they have not already reached the Superior or State Supreme court level because they have, and the reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to hear them is because the defenition of meaningless has alredy been decided by them. And all those kinds of cases revolve around the defenition of "significant" which has also been defined before the defenition of "meangless" was.

Oops one more thing you are incorrect about ..... A persons intention is not what matters in situations like this , what matters is if " A reasonable person would know or should have known ...." Not what the possible offender knew or should have known or his intention. The meashurement is a "reasonable person" not the paticular person involved or the paticular persons intention but that of OTHER people who would be considered reasonable.

It's hard to tell if you are more incorrect or confused but it's easy to tell you know nothing about the limitations on the 1st Amendment which the Supreme Court has already decided include any conduct that is insulting , rude . offensive ect that does not have significant literary , scientific or artistic value ( I may be forgetting one more) And that would include speaking to a croud not just an individual, magazines , books and yes the internet as well. I guess you missed the argument about vaginas having artistic value in magazines. Or the argument that Calvin peeing of a Ford does not, allowing for those stickers to be illegal in some parts of America where some whiner complained.

[Ulysses G.]

One concept that seems to escape people is that the standard for fighting words is not the same for everyone and it's not the speaker who decides it's the listener

Your argument is a straw man, because the 'speech' under discussion was not delivered to any specific person, so can not fall under the 'fighting words' construction. It expressed an idea about a historical figure that a group of people who do not subscribe to the same idea found offensive. Further, it is impossible to know the intent of the author; he may have just wanted to vent, or he MAY have wanted to sow discontent, but he clearly did not intend to harm a living person. The reaction of the relatively few who committed violence as a means of expressing their disagreement with this person can not be justified, period. Under your premise, my Aunt Sadie could justify mayhem upon hearing of the cooking of cauliflower, to which she prays bi-weekly...(she's a batty old bird)

I would like to see evidence for your notion that the listener determines what the standard is for 'fighting words'.

Your other assertions, regarding State and local laws, are meaningless as well, because the subject is the First Amendment, against which those State and local laws must be tested. That they are de facto laws does not validate them as constitutional. If they are litigated, and move through the court system, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear them, the outcome will be considered precedent.

For a scholarly discussion of the First Amendment and what is and is not protected speech, see http://www.bsos.umd....htingwords.html

That is, if you're interested in scholarly work, as opposed to pulling it out of the oft referred to orifice...

It's hard to tell if you are more incorrect or confused

Sateev is not the one who is incorrect and confused here.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

The protests have certainly given a huge amount of publicity to an obscure badly made film, so much so that type 'the Inn' into google and predictive search brings up 'The Innocence of Muslims'. The outrage is also hypocritical considering again use google and enter 'Arab cartoon' and see the repugnant racist content that search brings up.

[MrRealDeal]

One concept that seems to escape people is that the standard for fighting words is not the same for everyone and it's not the speaker who decides it's the listener

Your argument is a straw man, because the 'speech' under discussion was not delivered to any specific person, so can not fall under the 'fighting words' construction. It expressed an idea about a historical figure that a group of people who do not subscribe to the same idea found offensive. Further, it is impossible to know the intent of the author; he may have just wanted to vent, or he MAY have wanted to sow discontent, but he clearly did not intend to harm a living person. The reaction of the relatively few who committed violence as a means of expressing their disagreement with this person can not be justified, period. Under your premise, my Aunt Sadie could justify mayhem upon hearing of the cooking of cauliflower, to which she prays bi-weekly...(she's a batty old bird)

I would like to see evidence for your notion that the listener determines what the standard is for 'fighting words'.

Your other assertions, regarding State and local laws, are meaningless as well, because the subject is the First Amendment, against which those State and local laws must be tested. That they are de facto laws does not validate them as constitutional. If they are litigated, and move through the court system, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear them, the outcome will be considered precedent.

For a scholarly discussion of the First Amendment and what is and is not protected speech, see http://www.bsos.umd....htingwords.html

That is, if you're interested in scholarly work, as opposed to pulling it out of the oft referred to orifice...

It's hard to tell if you are more incorrect or confused

Sateev is not the one who is incorrect and confused here.

I could use his own Article to refute the points he tried to make here is an example refuting his claim that it must be an individual for the doctrine to apply: from the article : Finally, since Hess' speech was not directed at any person or " group of persons", it cannot be said that he was advocating any action. ..... I put in the quotation marks .... Edited September 17, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[masaomi]

This is a film not worth watching. It would not even catch my attention if not for those Islamic middle east making a fuss out of it!?? Why the big fuss? People have made ridiculous assumptions about Christianity & being a christian myself, I just watch in amusment & did nothing. Why all the violence? Why burn away all those nice flags?

It is sad when people are so misled by the wrong "prophet".

[xavierr]

Muslims will have to get used to the fact that there are no "Blasphemy Laws" in democratic societies.

Their rioting serves only one purpose: Making obscure films and obscure writers famous overnight.

[JimmyTheMook]

I found the film informative and entertaining.

[meatballs]

How dare my government try to do that. Bowing down to terrorists? Instead of trying to get Google to remove the film they should be going after these murderers.

[geriatrickid]

How dare my government try to do that. Bowing down to terrorists? Instead of trying to get Google to remove the film they should be going after these murderers.

No need as the Libyans have arrested 50 people so far and have been diligent in the search for the attackers. On the other hand, Egypt's government will probably expect the US to agree to debt forgiveness and sign off on another $1billion aid package so that the Egyptians will not unleash their wrath.......... Interesting that Libya, doesn't need a massive aid package from the USA and is trying to do its best, while Egypt is demonstrating an approach that one would politely describe as ungrateful, extortionary and backstabbing. I suppose if the Egyptians really felt so strongly, they should decline the US aid and pay back the debt. That would send a message to America.

[MrRealDeal]

This is a film not worth watching. It would not even catch my attention if not for those Islamic middle east making a fuss out of it!?? Why the big fuss? People have made ridiculous assumptions about Christianity & being a christian myself, I just watch in amusment & did nothing. Why all the violence? Why burn away all those nice flags?

It is sad when people are so misled by the wrong "prophet".

Actually what initially seemed like another wacky conspiricy theory of using this film as an excuse for pre planned attacks is beginning to look a lot more reasonable with every news clip I seem to see.

[Ulysses G.]

What is really crazy is that the Obama administration is insisting that it was a "spontaneous" demonstration about the video and not a planned terrorist plot as Libya claims. It is pretty obvious to almost everyone that Susan Rice and Jay Carney are spinning this narrative.

[JoeLing]

........

Sure glad all those Libyans have long memories and are still grateful to the Americans for all they did in helping to get rid of Gaddafi LESS THAN A YEAR AGO. Little wonder the US doesn't want to get involved in Syria. Seems the more you help certain groups of people, the more they resent you and want to stab you in the back, while (usually) still holding out their hands begging for money.

Nothing wrong with your article but,

I don't belive the US helped the Lybian people just for humanitarian reasons but more likely they helped them to help themself to get favorable terms for oil contracts and to establish Coke and McD in every street corner. (I know, desserts have no corners but there are plenty of towns in Lybia that do). So not quite sure why Lybian people should be greatfull to the US.

America, Britain and France provided air cover and other support for the people who were fighting to rid themselves of a lunatic dictator who had ruled for 42 years. Think about it.

And they did it within days of troubble starting there, unlike in Syria. Suppose the biggest reason was Gadhafies quest to unite all Arabic states, in fact he wanted to unite half of Africa and then we would realy have had to worry in our western world. The USA had a long standing problem with Libya, so did Britain and Italy.

Further more, there is oil but no Coke, KFC's or McD's in Libya. So nothing at all to do with "Liberating the poor souls in Libya". Not realy sure why France joined in. But I suppose that would be a complete different story for a different tread.....

[maidu]

Here's how to stop the riots: When all the frustrated Muslim men (it's never women) are milling around looking for American flags to burn, have someone call out: "Get Your Green Card Application Forms Here. Just make a line, and we'll get you on a fast track to becoming a citizen of America." Half the protesters would charge over to get in line, particularly if there were a cut out photo of Lady Gaga alongside the sign-up table.

This 13 minute movie is rubbish. Any rational American might wish that the film had been produced elsewhere.

Are you getting hot under the collar because groups of testostroned-riven hot-heads are all hot-headed about it? The film is no worse than hundreds I've seen, some of which with big budgets. Remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? There was a long drawn out scene of hundreds of people in a giant cave who were chanting the name Kali, while yearning for blood sacrifice. Kali is a popular deity in Hindu tradition. Should the tens of millions of Kali worshipers in India start rioting and killing Americans? No, because they're a more decent bunch than the trouble makers in the Middle East.

It's hard to believe, but they aren't upset about someone's opinion of Mohammed. The video is apparently accurate according to the Quran so what complaint is there other than Mohammed being depicted on screen, or that the quality was very, very bad?

The extremists are pissed for two main reasons: #1 because it was a depiction of M (which is illegal) and it was done by infidels, which makes it doubly bad, in their view.

#2 reason: It depicts M in a non idolatary light. If you're going to be a Muslim, you're required to only heap praise on Him. Anything less is rude at best, or will get you tagged with a fatwa.

[koheesti]

Muslims will have to get used to the fact that there are no "Blasphemy Laws" in democratic societies.

Their rioting serves only one purpose: Making obscure films and obscure writers famous overnight.

That, and destroy their own countries...

“You’re going to set fire to more police cars?” an older man shouted from his spot on the sidewalk. “Who do you think ends up paying for those cars? The Egyptian people can’t even afford to eat, but they’re burning their country down. I hope the Prophet had a sense of humor!”

...

Behind him, the stream of airborne rocks is endless, young men cheering every time the shattering of glass is heard, riding on each other’s shoulders to make their insults more audible, taking apart the neighborhood around them in the hopes that its broken pieces would serve as ammunition once they run out of rocks.

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/day-protests-american-embassy-cairo

[JoeLing]

That may be partially true but the reason is because of what incited the leaders which is the vid. Unreasonable to do so or not it's the vid that is at the root and the cause of the problem.

One concept that seems to escape people is that the standard for fighting words is not the same for everyone and it's not the speaker who decides it's the listener , you could call one person say me a nigger and since I am white get away with it because it's not considered fighting words but to a black man it would be. People don't seem to understand that just because they don't think somethng is offensive or because it doesnt offend them that means that it shouldnt offend anyone else either and legally thats just not the case. People will eventually understand that intentionally offending even muslims is the same as intentionally offending anyone else and when done in a meaningless way is in fact illegal.

The arugment that their love for their god is unreasonable so they shouldn't be so offended won't pass muster at the Supreme Court I assure you. Insulting someones mother is considered fighting words , the argument that there god is false or whatever way people try and package it will not make meaningless instults any more legal , if insulting your mother is fighting words obviously your god also qualifys ....... Should it be that way ? I don't know, all I know is that no one is going to win a case using the 1st amendment as a defence for a meaningless insult against a muslim the way the laws are written today. The idea that ..... well they are just offended to easily , is not gona work in a court trust me.

All I can tell you is wait and see if you don't believe me and just read the part I posted about fighting words and the law.

How can it be legal for one group to insult another but the other not be able to insult them back in the same way ? Bacause the 2 groups have different beliefs and are insulted by different things at differing levels of anger , just because you can insult a christan by saying jesus isn't real doesn't mean you can do so to a muslim about their muhummad , because a christian doesnt get so angered it's considered injurious to say that , but to a muslim it is. Once again it's the listener that gets to decide not the talker. If in fact Christians got as angered that would be illegal as well but thats just not the case.

Why can a black man call me a honkey but me not call him a nigger back ? Because of the different levels of anger created by racist terms, it's considered injurious on it's face for him and hence illegal for me to say but to call me a honkey or some other white person slur would not be considered fighting words because it doesn't offend me in the same way.

I would point this out ...... it's illegal to insult a muslims mother just like your's or mine , do you really think any court will hold a muslims god in lesser status than their mother ?

Your argument is a straw man, because the 'speech' under discussion was not delivered to any specific person, so can not fall under the 'fighting words' construction. It expressed an idea about a historical figure that a group of people who do not subscribe to the same idea found offensive. Further, it is impossible to know the intent of the author; he may have just wanted to vent, or he MAY have wanted to sow discontent, but he clearly did not intend to harm a living person. The reaction of the relatively few who committed violence as a means of expressing their disagreement with this person can not be justified, period. Under your premise, my Aunt Sadie could justify mayhem upon hearing of the cooking of cauliflower, to which she prays bi-weekly...(she's a batty old bird)

I would like to see evidence for your notion that the listener determines what the standard is for 'fighting words'.

Your other assertions, regarding State and local laws, are meaningless as well, because the subject is the First Amendment, against which those State and local laws must be tested. That they are de facto laws does not validate them as constitutional. If they are litigated, and move through the court system, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear them, the outcome will be considered precedent.

For a scholarly discussion of the First Amendment and what is and is not protected speech, see http://www.bsos.umd....htingwords.html

That is, if you're interested in scholarly work, as opposed to pulling it out of the oft referred to orifice...

It's not correct to think that the fighting word doctrine only applys to speaking to an individual , my statement that meaningless insults are not a protected form of speech is quite true and if you actually read the Article you posted thats pretty much a 101 or high school level not Scolarly you would know that.

I was looking to the future and didn't say this case would rise to the level of meaningless hate speech that would fall under the fighting words exception , however I suspect it lacks the required significance of artistic , sceintific or literary value the doctrine requires ..... I said that in the future you won't win any cases using the 1st amendment as a defence against whats already been decided as illegal ..... meaningless insults

You are once again confused by saying that anyone is justifyed or that anything I have said would justify mayhem , Rioting is not legal just because you claim it was incited. However if you made meaningless insulting comments to your aunt over her vegetables or anything else it's not protected speech as NO meaningless insulting speech is legal contrairy to your incorrect beliefs. Which is why people are arrested all the time for disturbing the peace for making insulting stupid comments. Not including public figures as an exception.

What I mean when I say it's the listener who decides I figured it was obvious enough that I meant the listener is the only one who's going to complain.

Finally you are also confused when you state that laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional are meaningless they are the Law and only become meaningless IF they are overturned and you are also so confused and incorrect about whats legal and whats not that you think they have not already reached the Superior or State Supreme court level because they have, and the reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to hear them is because the defenition of meaningless has alredy been decided by them. And all those kinds of cases revolve around the defenition of "significant" which has also been defined before the defenition of "meangless" was.

Oops one more thing you are incorrect about ..... A persons intention is not what matters in situations like this , what matters is if " A reasonable person would know or should have known ...." Not what the possible offender knew or should have known or his intention. The meashurement is a "reasonable person" not the paticular person involved or the paticular persons intention but that of OTHER people who would be considered reasonable.

It's hard to tell if you are more incorrect or confused but it's easy to tell you know nothing about the limitations on the 1st Amendment which the Supreme Court has already decided include any conduct that is insulting , rude . offensive ect that does not have significant literary , scientific or artistic value ( I may be forgetting one more) And that would include speaking to a croud not just an individual, magazines , books and yes the internet as well. I guess you missed the argument about vaginas having artistic value in magazines. Or the argument that Calvin peeing of a Ford does not, allowing for those stickers to be illegal in some parts of America where some whiner complained.

Waooo, I'm confuzled, soooo much to read, will take me for ever.......

At least, will I get a degree once I read AND understood it all, or at least some of it??

[JoeLing]

Now I wonder, how would Thai People react if .......?

[MrRealDeal]

All you need to know is the very article he posted refutes the first statement he made here is the quote from his own source : Finally, since Hess' speech was not directed at any person or group of persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating any action. ........ group of persons is not an idivdidual as he claimed is only subject to the doctrine.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

That may be partially true but the reason is because of what incited the leaders which is the vid. Unreasonable to do so or not it's the vid that is at the root and the cause of the problem.

One concept that seems to escape people is that the standard for fighting words is not the same for everyone and it's not the speaker who decides it's the listener , you could call one person say me a nigger and since I am white get away with it because it's not considered fighting words but to a black man it would be. People don't seem to understand that just because they don't think somethng is offensive or because it doesnt offend them that means that it shouldnt offend anyone else either and legally thats just not the case. People will eventually understand that intentionally offending even muslims is the same as intentionally offending anyone else and when done in a meaningless way is in fact illegal.

The arugment that their love for their god is unreasonable so they shouldn't be so offended won't pass muster at the Supreme Court I assure you. Insulting someones mother is considered fighting words , the argument that there god is false or whatever way people try and package it will not make meaningless instults any more legal , if insulting your mother is fighting words obviously your god also qualifys ....... Should it be that way ? I don't know, all I know is that no one is going to win a case using the 1st amendment as a defence for a meaningless insult against a muslim the way the laws are written today. The idea that ..... well they are just offended to easily , is not gona work in a court trust me.

All I can tell you is wait and see if you don't believe me and just read the part I posted about fighting words and the law.

How can it be legal for one group to insult another but the other not be able to insult them back in the same way ? Bacause the 2 groups have different beliefs and are insulted by different things at differing levels of anger , just because you can insult a christan by saying jesus isn't real doesn't mean you can do so to a muslim about their muhummad , because a christian doesnt get so angered it's considered injurious to say that , but to a muslim it is. Once again it's the listener that gets to decide not the talker. If in fact Christians got as angered that would be illegal as well but thats just not the case.

Why can a black man call me a honkey but me not call him a nigger back ? Because of the different levels of anger created by racist terms, it's considered injurious on it's face for him and hence illegal for me to say but to call me a honkey or some other white person slur would not be considered fighting words because it doesn't offend me in the same way.

I would point this out ...... it's illegal to insult a muslims mother just like your's or mine , do you really think any court will hold a muslims god in lesser status than their mother ?

Your argument is a straw man, because the 'speech' under discussion was not delivered to any specific person, so can not fall under the 'fighting words' construction. It expressed an idea about a historical figure that a group of people who do not subscribe to the same idea found offensive. Further, it is impossible to know the intent of the author; he may have just wanted to vent, or he MAY have wanted to sow discontent, but he clearly did not intend to harm a living person. The reaction of the relatively few who committed violence as a means of expressing their disagreement with this person can not be justified, period. Under your premise, my Aunt Sadie could justify mayhem upon hearing of the cooking of cauliflower, to which she prays bi-weekly...(she's a batty old bird)

I would like to see evidence for your notion that the listener determines what the standard is for 'fighting words'.

Your other assertions, regarding State and local laws, are meaningless as well, because the subject is the First Amendment, against which those State and local laws must be tested. That they are de facto laws does not validate them as constitutional. If they are litigated, and move through the court system, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear them, the outcome will be considered precedent.

For a scholarly discussion of the First Amendment and what is and is not protected speech, see http://www.bsos.umd....htingwords.html

That is, if you're interested in scholarly work, as opposed to pulling it out of the oft referred to orifice...

It's not correct to think that the fighting word doctrine only applys to speaking to an individual , my statement that meaningless insults are not a protected form of speech is quite true and if you actually read the Article you posted thats pretty much a 101 or high school level not Scolarly you would know that.

I was looking to the future and didn't say this case would rise to the level of meaningless hate speech that would fall under the fighting words exception , however I suspect it lacks the required significance of artistic , sceintific or literary value the doctrine requires ..... I said that in the future you won't win any cases using the 1st amendment as a defence against whats already been decided as illegal ..... meaningless insults

You are once again confused by saying that anyone is justifyed or that anything I have said would justify mayhem , Rioting is not legal just because you claim it was incited. However if you made meaningless insulting comments to your aunt over her vegetables or anything else it's not protected speech as NO meaningless insulting speech is legal contrairy to your incorrect beliefs. Which is why people are arrested all the time for disturbing the peace for making insulting stupid comments. Not including public figures as an exception.

What I mean when I say it's the listener who decides I figured it was obvious enough that I meant the listener is the only one who's going to complain.

Finally you are also confused when you state that laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional are meaningless they are the Law and only become meaningless IF they are overturned and you are also so confused and incorrect about whats legal and whats not that you think they have not already reached the Superior or State Supreme court level because they have, and the reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to hear them is because the defenition of meaningless has alredy been decided by them. And all those kinds of cases revolve around the defenition of "significant" which has also been defined before the defenition of "meangless" was.

Oops one more thing you are incorrect about ..... A persons intention is not what matters in situations like this , what matters is if " A reasonable person would know or should have known ...." Not what the possible offender knew or should have known or his intention. The meashurement is a "reasonable person" not the paticular person involved or the paticular persons intention but that of OTHER people who would be considered reasonable.

It's hard to tell if you are more incorrect or confused but it's easy to tell you know nothing about the limitations on the 1st Amendment which the Supreme Court has already decided include any conduct that is insulting , rude . offensive ect that does not have significant literary , scientific or artistic value ( I may be forgetting one more) And that would include speaking to a croud not just an individual, magazines , books and yes the internet as well. I guess you missed the argument about vaginas having artistic value in magazines. Or the argument that Calvin peeing of a Ford does not, allowing for those stickers to be illegal in some parts of America where some whiner complained.

Waooo, I'm confuzled, soooo much to read, will take me for ever.......

At least, will I get a degree once I read AND understood it all, or at least some of it??

Concentration improves where money changes hands !

[JoeLing]

Waooo, I'm confuzled, soooo much to read, will take me for ever.......

At least, will I get a degree once I read AND understood it all, or at least some of it??

Concentration improves where money changes hands !

How much?

[JoeLing]

All you need to know is the very article he posted refutes the first statement he made here is the quote from his own source : Finally, since Hess' speech was not directed at any person or group of persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating any action. ........ group of persons is not an idivdidual as he claimed is only subject to the doctrine.

After 2 hours reading, I slowly understanding what was written and now you confusle me again .

Bugger, I'll have to start reading again from the beginning.

Maybe I go aggrevate some granies over at the "Kate's Boobies" forum,

alot less demanding then this essay

Edited September 17, 2012 by JoeLing

[bumpkin]

The intelligent do not interpret Freedom of Speech as a licence to abuse.

[bumpkin]

Muslims will have to get used to the fact that there are no "Blasphemy Laws" in democratic societies.

Their rioting serves only one purpose: Making obscure films and obscure writers famous overnight.

Maybe you would like to Google the assertion about Blasphemy Laws in democratic countries ?

Perhaps not used in recent years, but I think you will find they exist.

[endure]

Muslims will have to get used to the fact that there are no "Blasphemy Laws" in democratic societies.

The last successful prosecution for blasphemy in the UK was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977.

[Tchooptip]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

For your information he is no jew at all but an Egyptian Copt for sure

[wellred]

Ok so I jut watched the film, the full version too, not the 13 min clip. Honestly? I think it deserves an Oscar!!!! It was a cheap made film that really should have gotten a few laughs before people moved onto the next one.

I think they should designate buildings in which 'screenings' will take place... And when protesters arrive to make trouble.... Boom. Problem solved. If anyone kicks off just say hey Larry had a suicide bomb strapped to him... Ah that must have been it.

Edited September 17, 2012 by wellred

[Xangsamhua]

After 389 posts the vote against censorship in this case has increased from about 75% to 80%.

It looks like a general belief in freedom of expression is alive and well on Thaivisa.com.