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

[maidu]

Note to Al Qaeda: You probably already know this, but if you want to keep the infantile mayhem and anti-American anti-Jew fires burning brightly, here's what you do: get some wanna-be actors off the sidewalk, give them $50 each to do some non-flattering skits about the big M. And voila, testorerone-riven unemloyed, sexually frustrated Muslim youth will tear down buildings for rocks to throw at US and Israel interests. Then, you at Al Qaeda will have added leisure time to go back to searching the internet for free sex sites, so you can stare at blonde women with large jugs.

[simple1]

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.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the dissemination of material that could be deemed as offensive to a religion (Burstyn v. Wilson). Summary of the decision "it is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine" or to protect "any or all religions from views which are distasteful to them". An excellent article discussing this topic at:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1884662.html

[chooka]

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.

Quite true.

We haven't had the usual anti poll brigade attacking this poll yet either. I actually thought some would come out and start saying this is only 361 members voting so it is not a true reflection.

[Sateev]

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.

It would probably be wise to read the entire section on Hess v Indiana before opening your pie hole (this is the last paragraph of the section, italics mine):

"The Court also found that there was no evidence to indicate that Hess' speech amounted to a public nuisance where privacy interests were invaded. This followed the rule in Cohen that "the ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is ... dependant upon showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner" (Van Alstyne 150). Furthermore, under the Court's decisions, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Finally, since Hess' speech was not directed at any person or group of persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating any action."

You are persistent, though, I have to give you that.

Furthermore, first you impugn the source, and then misread it to support your (illogical) position. If it's Highschool constitution 101 (I paraphrase, being too bored to find your post), then why are you attempting to use it to support your (misinformed) position?

My opinion: if you read more, say, like 20% of the volume you post, you might be better prepared to discuss these issues. Just saying...

I'm done.

[cloudhopper]

You have to wonder why the Muslims didn't go apeshit when this was released.

You have to wonder why the US hasn't called for this to be removed.

Maybe the recent attacks have nothing to do with films.

[smedly]

I am an atheist, I hate everything that religon stands for, I hate to the bone what it has done to millions of inocent people throughout mans sordid history, for supposidly such a good thing it has been responsible for more death and conflict than any other single thing - why don't people get that ?

I also believe in freedom of speech but that does not give me the right to insult or disrespect someones beliefs but equally these people who are protesting right now need to take a long hard look at themselves and see how a funny video compares to walking into a packed supermarket with a bomb strapped to their waist and blowing up woman and children, if they honestly think that their god approves this behavior then we are lost, I don't know how conflict can be solved throughout the world but I do know what is right and what is wrong

Very soon on our planet something is going to snap, we already see dangerous alliances forming between countries, greed and power has already dealt a serious blow to world economies - what's next ?

[chooka]

Here is a story about the Gallipoli campaign:

"The attack commenced early in the night of May 18th," he wrote. "At the time, D Coy was in support and I and some others were put in the front line to reinforce those who were there. I was put into a bay occupied by two others who I did not know and as far as guts was concerned I could not have wished for better mates, for during the night and early morning, the Turks came at us in never ending waves and there was never a dull moment.

"Before the shooting started we could hear the Turks reciting from the Koran in which the word 'Allah' was most prominent and our blokes were up on the parapet yelling 'Come on you bastards, we'll give you Allah!'

"We had orders to hold our fire until the enemy got close, and come close they did. We were blazing away for dear life and one of our three got a bullet through the fleshy part of his neck and we had a job to persuade him to evacuate and leave his rifle and ammo with us.

"Just nearing dawn the Turks got right up to our trench and at one stage I was trying to get a clip of ammo into the magazine of my rifle when a Turk was lunging down at me with his bayonet.

"I was warding him off trying to reload when my mate shot him just as he was lunging down. He fell into the trench on top of me, wounded, but not dead, for when I got clear and stood on his body to continue shooting I felt him clutching at my legs, but when the attack subsided later on we found that he had 'died of wounds'.

"After daylight, the attack ended and we could see on our front many bodies of dead and wounded. Both of us had badly burnt hands from our red hot rifles and we were relieved by fresh troops.

It has been reported that some of the Turkish soldiers,unable to understand English, formed the erroneous belief that " bastards" was the name of the Australian god !

It just shows how differences in such things as culture and language can result in misunderstanding

Interesting.

In Strine (the native language of Australia) the term 'bastards' is often used to denote a superior being.

Only it is usually prefaced with the word 'pommie'.

and a term of endearment. ie, Hows it going you old bastard, your shout you bastard.

Roughly translated; G'day mate and your turn to buy the beers mate.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Here is a story about the Gallipoli campaign:

"The attack commenced early in the night of May 18th," he wrote. "At the time, D Coy was in support and I and some others were put in the front line to reinforce those who were there. I was put into a bay occupied by two others who I did not know and as far as guts was concerned I could not have wished for better mates, for during the night and early morning, the Turks came at us in never ending waves and there was never a dull moment.

"Before the shooting started we could hear the Turks reciting from the Koran in which the word 'Allah' was most prominent and our blokes were up on the parapet yelling 'Come on you bastards, we'll give you Allah!'

"We had orders to hold our fire until the enemy got close, and come close they did. We were blazing away for dear life and one of our three got a bullet through the fleshy part of his neck and we had a job to persuade him to evacuate and leave his rifle and ammo with us.

"Just nearing dawn the Turks got right up to our trench and at one stage I was trying to get a clip of ammo into the magazine of my rifle when a Turk was lunging down at me with his bayonet.

"I was warding him off trying to reload when my mate shot him just as he was lunging down. He fell into the trench on top of me, wounded, but not dead, for when I got clear and stood on his body to continue shooting I felt him clutching at my legs, but when the attack subsided later on we found that he had 'died of wounds'.

"After daylight, the attack ended and we could see on our front many bodies of dead and wounded. Both of us had badly burnt hands from our red hot rifles and we were relieved by fresh troops.

It has been reported that some of the Turkish soldiers,unable to understand English, formed the erroneous belief that " bastards" was the name of the Australian god !

It just shows how differences in such things as culture and language can result in misunderstanding

Interesting.

In Strine (the native language of Australia) the term 'bastards' is often used to denote a superior being.

Only it is usually prefaced with the word 'pommie'.

and a term of endearment. ie, Hows it going you old bastard, your shout you bastard.

Roughly translated; G'day mate and your turn to buy the beers mate.

I've always admired you Aussie bastards with your overwhelming powers of rhetoric!

[koheesti]

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

Or as I heard the other day, The right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

and I just saw this...

[koheesti]

As long as we are going to ban films that offend the protesters, I guess we are going to have to shelve the upcoming film Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama bin Laden. After all, the protesters were chanting, "Obama, Obama, there are a million Osamas".

[notime]

You have to wonder why the Muslims didn't go apeshit when this was released.

You have to wonder why the US hasn't called for this to be removed.

Maybe the recent attacks have nothing to do with films.

Brave Lady indeed. Is she still alive? Maybe she was too accurate with her assessment to touch her? In this case it would not be easy to accuse her of intending to hurt Muslims or ignorance over Islam. Maybe they got scared of her message and there is a lesson in it for the rest of us?

[Naam]

Note to Al Qaeda: You probably already know this, but if you want to keep the infantile mayhem and anti-American anti-Jew fires burning brightly, here's what you do: get some wanna-be actors off the sidewalk, give them $50 each to do some non-flattering skits about the big M. And voila, testorerone-riven unemloyed, sexually frustrated Muslim youth will tear down buildings for rocks to throw at US and Israel interests. Then, you at Al Qaeda will have added leisure time to go back to searching the internet for free sex sites, so you can stare at blonde women with large jugs.

you seem to have quite some insight on al-Qaeda. have you been in Waziristan for training?

[Steely Dan]

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

Agreed. But is being stupid illegal? How and who determines what constitutes abuse? If we allow premeditated synthetic outrage, violence and intimidation to decide what 'abuse' is we had may as well throw freedom of speech out with the trash. Whatever the cost of standing up against intimidation the cost of giving in to it would be far greater in the end.

Edit: And the signs are not good as our leaders are showing no backbone here with some notable stand outs such as Canada and Australia. Salman Rushdie said recently that it would be difficult to publish the book now because of the 'climate of fear' that exists.

http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/9932926.Satanic_Verses__would_not_be_published_now_/

[asiawatcher]

I found the film informative and entertaining.

There ya go pilgrim... glad to see there is more than one comic amongst us all.

[Steely Dan]

Related to my last post here is an opinion piece from an ex-Muslim about it. Just to show how much the MSM have been cowed the dhimmi one time defenders of free speech are moaning about the cover of newsweek which featured the article, which is a nice straw man to burn in order not to answer the questions raised within.

http://www.thedailyb...inal-stand.html

[chooka]

I believe with youtube if you publish something and it reaches say 50,000 views then Youtube actually pay you a fee for every view there after.(around $1) This film Innocence of Muslims has now had around 6,174,847 views. Nice little money earner for both the publisher and Youtube..

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[simple1]

I believe with youtube if you publish something and it reaches say 50,000 views then Youtube actually pay you a fee for every view there after.(around $1) This film Innocence of Muslims has now had around 6,174,847 views. Nice little money earner for both the publisher and Youtube..

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Good point - so I looked it up and found this:

As a member of the Youtube partners program, they typically pay 1/3 cents to 1 cent per view. As you get more consistent viewers, they pay a higher percentage. Some of these posters can make a very significant income off their videos.

For example, a video with 1,000,000 views x .0033 = $3300. This is the minimum you will make if you're a yourtube parter.

[Sateev]

Related to my last post here is an opinion piece from an ex-Muslim about it. Just to show how much the MSM have been cowed the dhimmi one time defenders of free speech are moaning about the cover of newsweek which featured the article, which is a nice straw man to burn in order not to answer the questions raised within.

http://www.thedailyb...inal-stand.html

"And the defining characteristic of the Western response? As Rushdie’s memoir makes clear, it is the utterly incoherent tendency to simultaneously defend free speech—and to condemn its results."

Excellent essay, great post.

[Xangsamhua]

I am an atheist, I hate everything that religon stands for, I hate to the bone what it has done to millions of inocent people throughout mans sordid history, for supposidly such a good thing it has been responsible for more death and conflict than any other single thing - why don't people get that ?

I also believe in freedom of speech but that does not give me the right to insult or disrespect someones beliefs but equally these people who are protesting right now need to take a long hard look at themselves and see how a funny video compares to walking into a packed supermarket with a bomb strapped to their waist and blowing up woman and children, if they honestly think that their god approves this behavior then we are lost, I don't know how conflict can be solved throughout the world but I do know what is right and what is wrong

Very soon on our planet something is going to snap, we already see dangerous alliances forming between countries, greed and power has already dealt a serious blow to world economies - what's next ?

I share your pessimism, but I think the world's problems result from ego, especially in the form of envy, greed and ignorance - the very things the Buddha warned us against. These things cause havoc for everyone, those who do wrong and those who have wrong done to them, regardless of whether they are done in the name of religion or of atheism.

[Exsexyman]

I am an atheist, I hate everything that religon stands for, I hate to the bone what it has done to millions of inocent people throughout mans sordid history, for supposidly such a good thing it has been responsible for more death and conflict than any other single thing - why don't people get that ?

I also believe in freedom of speech but that does not give me the right to insult or disrespect someones beliefs but equally these people who are protesting right now need to take a long hard look at themselves and see how a funny video compares to walking into a packed supermarket with a bomb strapped to their waist and blowing up woman and children, if they honestly think that their god approves this behavior then we are lost, I don't know how conflict can be solved throughout the world but I do know what is right and what is wrong

Very soon on our planet something is going to snap, we already see dangerous alliances forming between countries, greed and power has already dealt a serious blow to world economies - what's next ?

I share your pessimism, but I think the world's problems result from ego, especially in the form of envy, greed and ignorance - the very things the Buddha warned us against. These things cause havoc for everyone, those who do wrong and those who have wrong done to them, regardless of whether they are done in the name of religion or of atheism.

' When The Power Of Love Overcomes The Love Of Power, Then The World Will Know Peace'. ------. Jimi Hendrix.

Now where did i put that kaftan!

[geriatrickid]

Note to Al Qaeda: You probably already know this, but if you want to keep the infantile mayhem and anti-American anti-Jew fires burning brightly, here's what you do: get some wanna-be actors off the sidewalk, give them $50 each to do some non-flattering skits about the big M. And voila, testorerone-riven unemloyed, sexually frustrated Muslim youth will tear down buildings for rocks to throw at US and Israel interests. Then, you at Al Qaeda will have added leisure time to go back to searching the internet for free sex sites, so you can stare at blonde women with large jugs.

you seem to have quite some insight on al-Qaeda. have you been in Waziristan for training?

No need to travel so far away. One can just visit a mosque in the UK, France or Canada and get the indoctrination. Freedom of religion and all that stuff you know. That's where the muslim countries have it right. Their restrictions on non Islamic religions preclude those ruffian octogenarian catholics from saturday night bingo rampages. the methodists from rioting when the cupcakes are sold out at the bake sale, and those pesky jews from drinking too much at their events, etc. etc. I shudder to think what might happen if those cute Mormon missionary boys ever showed up on a doorstep in Tehran. It might be too arousing.

[geriatrickid]

When The Power Of Love Overcomes The Love Of Power, Then The World Will Know Peace'. ------. Jimi Hendrix.

Now where did i put that kaftan!

Interesting enough, Jimi ended up asphyxiating on his own vomit after feasting on sedatives.

It's a bit odd that you would try and repackage your position to one of peace, considering that most of your posts on the subject IMO have been in support of the violent protestors.

Remember the bit where you were blaming an "Israeli jew" for the film, a claim which you have yet to retract?

[Ulysses G.]

A very fair point.

[Scott]

Off-topic, baiting posts removed. Please stay on-topic and be civil to one another.

[maidu]

I am an atheist, I hate everything that religon stands for, I hate to the bone what it has done to millions of inocent people throughout mans sordid history, for supposidly such a good thing it has been responsible for more death and conflict than any other single thing - why don't people get that ?

I also believe in freedom of speech but that does not give me the right to insult or disrespect someones beliefs but equally these people who are protesting right now need to take a long hard look at themselves and see how a funny video compares to walking into a packed supermarket with a bomb strapped to their waist and blowing up woman and children, if they honestly think that their god approves this behavior then we are lost, I don't know how conflict can be solved throughout the world but I do know what is right and what is wrong.

Very soon on our planet something is going to snap, we already see dangerous alliances forming between countries, greed and power has already dealt a serious blow to world economies - what's next ?

What's next? War. But our species (and ants) are used to war. It's not all bad. We're already waaay beyond the carrying capacity of this one small planet. There are other ways to keep human populations from exploding too fast (pestilance, toxic chemicals, too small birth canals, drunken drivers, terror attacks, mature adults choosing to not have children, natural disasters, etc.) .....war is yet another way.

[Asiantravel]

there is now wide speculation that when the movie zero dark thirty is released shortly it will spark the riots all over again.

if this really goes ahead at this point in time I think it would be very provocative.

you can't keep rubbing salt into the wound and expect no reaction?

http://www.guardian....ng-helped-obama

[maidu]

Note to Al Qaeda: You probably already know this, but if you want to keep the infantile mayhem and anti-American anti-Jew fires burning brightly, here's what you do: get some wanna-be actors off the sidewalk, give them $50 each to do some non-flattering skits about the big M. And voila, testorerone-riven unemloyed, sexually frustrated Muslim youth will tear down buildings for rocks to throw at US and Israel interests. Then, you at Al Qaeda will have added leisure time to go back to searching the internet for free sex sites, so you can stare at blonde women with large jugs.

you seem to have quite some insight on al-Qaeda. have you been in Waziristan for training?

oh darn. Allah be cursed, my secret is out. How did you know?

[Exsexyman]

When The Power Of Love Overcomes The Love Of Power, Then The World Will Know Peace'. ------. Jimi Hendrix.

Now where did i put that kaftan!

Interesting enough, Jimi ended up asphyxiating on his own vomit after feasting on sedatives.

It's a bit odd that you would try and repackage your position to one of peace, considering that most of your posts on the subject IMO have been in support of the violent protestors.

Remember the bit where you were blaming an "Israeli jew" for the film, a claim which you have yet to retract?

Most of my posts? I've only made one.

[JUDAS]

This is a sad day for America and it's people.

[snarky66]

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.

You beat me to it. I was going to say Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows & lied with a straight face.