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

[electau]

Five fundamental freedoms, Australia, they may be different to those of the US .

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

[simple1]

Five fundamental freedoms, Australia, they may be different to those of the US .

http://www.immi.gov....ve-freedoms.htm

Thanks for the link. Yes appears to have a slightly difference definition to US on Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of speech

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

[nurofiend]

can't believe i didn't look deeper when watching this

the actors (well some anyway for a fact) didn't know <deleted> was going on

just look at 2:53

it's a stupid pos that should've got no attention from anyone, but in the internet age you can offend anyone from anywhere you like and it can reach as far as the world stretches.

freedom of speech is a commendable concept but it's also far too obtuse a statement in of itself and it's certainly not a reality anywhere in the world.

[sauvagecheri]

can't believe i didn't look deeper when watching this

the actors (well some anyway for a fact) didn't know <deleted> was going on

just look at 2:53

it's a stupid pos that should've got no attention from anyone, but in the internet age you can offend anyone from anywhere you like and it can reach as far as the world stretches.

freedom of speech is a commendable concept but it's also far too obtuse a statement in of itself and it's certainly not a reality anywhere in the world.

Have you read the coran? Same comments apply ,....if not try,It certainly offends and demeans a lot of people Jews, Hindus, Christians ,millions died because of it,and the way it appears, millions more will in the future because of it .(see sample here) http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Militants.Islam

Once again ,this " I'm outraged and so offended " " thing " has nothing to do with the movie at all ,there are many many more even more offending videos on youtube concerning Islam and we heard not a peep about them .

As far as freedom of speech we can only do the best we can ,who said "Freedom is kept at the price of eternal vigilance "?

[Ulysses G.]

there are many many more even more offending videos on youtube concerning Islam and we heard not a peep about them .

Very true. I am expecting a fatwah on Pat Condell, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins any day now.

[nurofiend]

can't believe i didn't look deeper when watching this

the actors (well some anyway for a fact) didn't know <deleted> was going on

just look at 2:53

it's a stupid pos that should've got no attention from anyone, but in the internet age you can offend anyone from anywhere you like and it can reach as far as the world stretches.

freedom of speech is a commendable concept but it's also far too obtuse a statement in of itself and it's certainly not a reality anywhere in the world.

Have you read the coran? Same comments apply ,....if not try,It certainly offends and demeans a lot of people Jews, Hindus, Christians ,millions died because of it,and the way it appears, millions more will in the future because of it .(see sample here) http://www.prophetof...Militants.Islam

Once again ,this " I'm outraged and so offended " " thing " has nothing to do with the movie at all ,there are many many more even more offending videos on youtube concerning Islam and we heard not a peep about them .

As far as freedom of speech we can only do the best we can ,who said "Freedom is kept at the price of eternal vigilance "?

"there are many many more even more offending videos on youtube concerning Islam and we heard not a peep about them"

and what point are you making there?

Edited October 4, 2012 by nurofiend

[koheesti]

The rioting in Egypt and other countries got the US gov't to crack down on videos they deemed offensive to the protesters. Here is a snippet from the Egyptian riots...

Last week John Kerry said: "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago." According to the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram, the Cairo mob answered that taunt with the chant: "Obama, Obama there are still a billion Osamas."

http://online.wsj.co...1059003360.html

While that crap, low budget video trailer sparked violence all over, why is it ok to release these two films?...

FILM DRAMATIZING BIN LADEN RAID AIRING NOV. 4

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A film dramatizing the death of Osama bin Laden is set to debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two days before the presidential election.

National Geographic Channel did take into account Weinstein's desire to get out ahead of a competitive movie about the U.S. Navy SEALs' hunt for the al-Qaida leader, Owens said.

"Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,"

from The Weinstein Co. and Voltage Pictures, will air Sunday, Nov. 4, the channel said Thursday. President Barack Obama faces Republican challenger Mitt Romney at the polls two days later.

http://hosted.ap.org...-10-04-23-12-40

On top of that, later this year another Hollywood film about the killing of bin Laden, "Zero Dark Thirty" will be released.

IF there are riots after these films come out, will the US gov't's position be to protect free speech, or to punish the film makers?

Edited October 8, 2012 by koheesti

[snarky66]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

[GentlemanJim]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

Why?

[JDGRUEN]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

Why?

I'll offer an answer as to 'Why'?

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/

[GentlemanJim]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

Why?

I'll offer an answer as to 'Why'?

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/

A thousand thanks for the explanation and update. Somehow, I have missed that. Time to get the popcorn out as this is going to be fascinating to see how it plays out.

[NeverSure]

Nothing happened to the US - they didn't act to suppress the video. They ASKED Google to do so, and they were refused. The White House has been quite clear that they wouldn't compromise freedom of expression under any circumstances, meaning they would comply with the Constitution. Nothing prohibits them from asking for voluntary cooperation.

Google, to its credit, didn't comply.

What's so hard to understand?

And this is the true story.

All the rest of the over-reactionaries can continue their party, smoking and drinking whatever they choose.

Their time would be better spent in reading comprehension classes, but then that would ruin TV.

[snarky66]

There are 2 key questions to be answered.

1 Why were the diplomats left to die in Benghazi? And who altered the talking points?

There was no demonstration as per Mister Hicks & thus the video story is pure nonsense.

Misdirection; watch what the left hand is doing.

People who know stuff will be subpoenaed and they will be forced to testify under oath.

[Ulysses G.]

The guy who made the stupid film is still in jail, but the terrorists who killed Ambasador Stevens are still free men. The video was a BIG LIE and so was the cover-up.The truth is finally coming out.

[rsokolowski]

So if I find something offensive will that also be removed from the internet? The film was stupid, but this is a path that I do not want to be on. I guess it all depends on who gets to determine what is offensive and what gets removed?

How about if you find something offensive, don't watch it. Wow, that was easy!

[Steely Dan]

Mixing together of large numbers of people who believe in freedom of speech with large numbers of people who believe passionately in blasphemy laws is a recipe for disaster.

[Steely Dan]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

Why?

I'll offer an answer as to 'Why'?

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/

Dan Peteus couldn't believe the (12 times changed) talking points over Benghazi did not mention either AlQaeda oe Jihad, Then his private life became common knowledge.

[snarky66]

mister obama went to the United Nations about 6 days later (after the attack on 9/11/2012) & railed against the video. He must have known the next day there was no demonstration. This is the nexus of the cover-up.

I'll bet you the White House really believed this story would die.

What difference does it make anyway?

This is old news.

[Scott]

The topic is about the film, not Benghazi.

//Closed//

[Scott]

Unlocked per request of a poster. Please stay on topic and keep the discussion civil.

[chuckd]

This film will soon play a prominent role in House hearings on the Benghazi cover-up.

Why?

I'll offer an answer as to 'Why'?

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/

Dan Peteus couldn't believe the (12 times changed) talking points over Benghazi did not mention either AlQaeda oe Jihad, Then his private life became common knowledge.

With every passing day, it is becoming obvious the video was used as a diversion by both the White House and the State Department. There was no demonstration from video haters on the evening of 9/11/12. It was a planned and calculated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda.

Read the following link and see how the original talking points put out by the CIA were changed by the State Department to completely rule out the words "terrorist" or Terrorism" and any reference to Al Qaeda. IMHO this was done strictly for political reasons by the administration, two months before a re-election of a sitting President.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi

Caught playing politics with tragedy, what's next for the Obama administration and GOP investigators?

By Ron Fournier

May 10, 2013 | 8:34 a.m.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft “talking points” leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.

Where does this all lead?

Entire article here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/scrubbing-the-truth-from-benghazi-20130510

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a link to the revisions in chronological sequence: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

It is further interesting to note, the only one that is currently in jail over this cover-up is the maker of the video, which wasn't even involved in the attack in Benghazi. Maybe he should have been jailed for making a bad video, but if that happened half the so called stars in Hollywood would be in jail.

[GentlemanJim]

The most gratifying thing concerning this as far as TV is concerned, is that it now appears that some members here who are the first to throw the 'tin foil hat' insult at other members are now admitting and/or realising that their Government lied about this incident in a bid to try and cover up the truth. Governments lie about all sorts of things and the brutally shocking thing here is that a man who was made a scapegoat still languishes in jail, when senior people in the current administration and intelligence services know 100% that he is innocent of having anything to do with the contrived story of his stupid and imbecilic movie causing a riot in the Middle East/Libya. I am delighted there has been an awakening in the realisation that the Government may be lying, and I will refrain from using the label of a 'tin foil hatter' with those that choose to believe it as it is every persons right to weigh up evidence and arrive at their own conclusion, however unique that may be. Long may free speech and thought continue and I just hope the electorate in the USA make the conspirators of this lie pay heavily A few impeachments would not go amiss over this and a trouncing at the next appropriate elections..

[Exsexyman]

The most gratifying thing concerning this as far as TV is concerned, is that it now appears that some members here who are the first to throw the 'tin foil hat' insult at other members are now admitting and/or realising that their Government lied about this incident in a bid to try and cover up the truth. Governments lie about all sorts of things and the brutally shocking thing here is that a man who was made a scapegoat still languishes in jail, when senior people in the current administration and intelligence services know 100% that he is innocent of having anything to do with the contrived story of his stupid and imbecilic movie causing a riot in the Middle East/Libya. I am delighted there has been an awakening in the realisation that the Government may be lying, and I will refrain from using the label of a 'tin foil hatter' with those that choose to believe it as it is every persons right to weigh up evidence and arrive at their own conclusion, however unique that may be. Long may free speech and thought continue and I just hope the electorate in the USA make the conspirators of this lie pay heavily A few impeachments would not go amiss over this and a trouncing at the next appropriate elections..

I am sure there is much embarrassment that the Western intervention in Libya has resulted in the country being controlled by Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. Although they are politely referred to as 'Rebels', like their counterparts in Syria, in other countries, ie Afganistan they are called 'terrorists'. There seems to be almost a news blackout from Libya now by the MSM, but anyone who is prepared to search will find that Libya goes from bad to worse, with many reports of ethnic minorities, religious minorities etc being 'Cleansed' by these zealots.

I am sure that the US government and their agencies in Libya just want the story of this Benghazi incident to go away. They have undoubtedly been lying and covering up the details and circumstances of the attack on the Embassy from the get go. After all, it must be hugely embarrassing to have to admit that the very 'Rebels' they armed and backed with air support to enable them to take control of Libya, turned out to be terrorists after all, and showed their gratitude at the earliest opportunity by murdering the US Ambassador. They recently launched an attack on French diplomats as well. Hence the lies and the attempt by the Administration to make this film maker the scapegoat. Like you GJ i would hope that the conspirators of this lie will be made to pay heavily, but i won't be holding my breath. Call me an old cynic, but i have a rule of thumb which i find helpful regarding the actions of our Governments.

"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied".

[Steely Dan]

The most gratifying thing concerning this as far as TV is concerned, is that it now appears that some members here who are the first to throw the 'tin foil hat' insult at other members are now admitting and/or realising that their Government lied about this incident in a bid to try and cover up the truth. Governments lie about all sorts of things and the brutally shocking thing here is that a man who was made a scapegoat still languishes in jail, when senior people in the current administration and intelligence services know 100% that he is innocent of having anything to do with the contrived story of his stupid and imbecilic movie causing a riot in the Middle East/Libya. I am delighted there has been an awakening in the realisation that the Government may be lying, and I will refrain from using the label of a 'tin foil hatter' with those that choose to believe it as it is every persons right to weigh up evidence and arrive at their own conclusion, however unique that may be. Long may free speech and thought continue and I just hope the electorate in the USA make the conspirators of this lie pay heavily A few impeachments would not go amiss over this and a trouncing at the next appropriate elections..

I seem to recall the reason given for jailing the filmmaker was for breaking a parole condition. Unfortunately with the mounting body of evidence as to a cover-up it is easy to suspect this was a matter of political expedience. To do otherwise would have meant giving police protection, which would have left the government open to accusations of siding with a blasphemer, from a foreign law perspective. From U.S law the first amendment is clear and to even give the perception of cow towing to Sharia blasphemy laws sends a terrible signal about the resolve of the U.S administration in defending the first.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference/

[Jingthing]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

[chuckd]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

It makes a difference to the families of the four murdered US citizens that were left to fend for themselves on the altar of a re-election.

[Jingthing]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

It makes a difference to the families of the four murdered US citizens that were left to fend for themselves on the altar of a re-election.

I just reread the OP. Maybe you should as well?

[chuckd]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

It makes a difference to the families of the four murdered US citizens that were left to fend for themselves on the altar of a re-election.

I just reread the OP. Maybe you should as well?

The administration did exactly what I would have done if I wanted to coverup the real reason for the attack. The decision was made at the highest levels of this administration to blame the video for the Benghazi attack, thus holding Obama harmless from any ill effects of the murders made by terrorists who were supposedly on the way down.

The administration decided to request the video be taken down knowing full well YouTube would refuse to do so, thus insulating them from any criticism since they had asked it be removed.

I think it is called using smoke and mirrors in the make believe world of politics.

What you have had trouble digesting is this administration does NOTHING without first considering any political ramifications that might ensue as a result.

[Publicus]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

It makes a difference to the families of the four murdered US citizens that were left to fend for themselves on the altar of a re-election.

There are concerned Members of Congress and the public who genuinely care about the lives lost in Benghazi and the whole of the security question surrounding the U.S. Consulate Office there, and about U.S. national security.

However, then there are the other 80%, which include lecturers, pontificators, political agenda types, and, at foreign forums, America haters and the like.

Rand Paul: Benghazi should preclude Hillary Clinton from higher office

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/11/rand-paul-benghazi-should-preclude-hillary-clinton-from-higher-office/

Any citizen of the United States who experienced or studied (or taught) Watergate does not need lectures or pontificating about government - government right on all the way to the top. The Executive Branch was horrendous in precipitating Watergate, but the Supreme Court and the Congress, respectively, did its job. As did the public, the body politic.

The opposition in Congress and the right are screaming about Benghazi now.

I recall when Bill Clinton was president the opposition screamed and hollered every day for four years about something called Whitewater, a failed mountain resort in the Clinton's home state of Arkansas, where Clinton had been a long time governor. Here it is almost 20 later and the so-called Whitewater remains what it always was - a nothing constructed by the opposition to try to discredit the president of the United States.

During Obama's first term there were the "birthers" who said he was disqualified from the presidency because, according to them, absolutely was born outside the United States. More bullsh*t. To the birthers, Obama's real threat was to be black while president.

When an Arizona border officer was shot and killed by drug gangs, the chairman of the particular House Committee, Congressman Darrell Issa said the Attorney General of the United States was guilty of conspiracy to murder the police officer. Again, guilty of being black while Attorney General.

Now Issa has Benghazi:

The Benghazi Show, Brought to You by Darrell Issa http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-darrell-issa/65030/ I can't believe Issa is still in a position of any responsibility in the Congress. But then again, 12% of American people believe Congress is doing a good job.

These backwoods low roads are long and winding, but most familiar. Everything in Washington is political bullsh*t.

And of course Google should not ever pull the movie, nor should the president of the United States be asking Google or anyone else to do so.

SecState Clinton did appear before committees of the Congress where she, as secretary of state, was called to account. Sec Clinton accounted for herself and for the DEPSTATE. For one thing, she reminded Congress it kept cutting the budget for the State Department dating back more than a decade. Warren Christopher, Prez Clinton's first SECSTATE, had criticized the Congress for budgeting the United States to conduct diplomacy "on the cheap." The bottom line is that Sec Clinton faced her interrogators on Capital Hill and in the press/media.

[Credo]

The horrible filmmaker is in jail (crimes against art!).

Who is watching that stupid video anymore, banned or not?

This thread topic is very old news.

As Hillary would say: What difference does it make!

It makes a difference to the families of the four murdered US citizens that were left to fend for themselves on the altar of a re-election.

I would tend to agree if I saw the right wingers show 1/10 of 1% of the concern shown here for the many, many lives wasted on senseless wars under their leadership.

Benghazi is what happens when people are in dangerous or unstable places and are expected to operate with limited and dwindling funding.