Film maker should be shipped to the Mideast

This dipstick should be thrown into the crowd of protestors.

Calif. church says anti-Muslim filmmaker is member - AP State Wire News - The Sacramento Bee

Abner

 

I haven't seen the movie...but it's curious to me that he gets mentioned as being an instigator for this latest violence despite the movie being out over a year and despite the fact that the violence centers around the 9/11 anniversary. I'm not saying he's being scapegoated...but there is a lot more to this story than this guys film.

Don't be to quick to throw somebody under the bus...free speech is still protected in this country. How about expecting a little tolerance from the Arabs?

 

That pesky First Amendment...

I am not a fan of the thought of throwing any American into a group of violent anti-American protesters in a foreign country.

 

Free speech

I absolutely believe in free speech. This is why I posted my opinion.
"wikpedia"
"The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]"

As for the dipshit that made that film:

Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]"


I come from a military family. I do not appreciate those that would purposely incite factions. This is just anti-American. May the US Ambassador rest in peace.

Abner

 

Throwing the film maker to the protestors does nothing but show them that violence is the answer. I don't like what the idiot did, but that doesn't mean the protestors should have their way. I think everyone should practice some tolerance.

 

So Abner, your saying you only believe in restricted free speech? ....umm...ya lost me.

What if ones intent was not to incite but to educate? What if some group IN ANOTHER COUNTRY disagrees...silence then lest you offend?

You can just as easily point to repeatedly failed foreign policy and appeasement as the leading factors in the violence of the last few days...would you through Bush to the crowd? Obama? Carter? Reagan? I would argue that all have contributed to Muslim discontent far more than this youtube guy. This move is an excuse AT BEST on the part of violent protesters.

The problem is that many see these people as being capable of the same thought processes you find in the west. Despite decades, centuries even, of evidence to the contrary. We have to find a way to deal with these folks who reject the society we live in...but altering our fundamentally held principals is exactly the wrong approach. We need Churchill not Chamberlain.

 

You know what? You bring up some valid points.

Thanks,

Abner

 

This doesn't happen often, but Abner, I disagree with your original post as strongly as possible.

Would you agree with almost everyone free to speak to it that the conviction of the three members of Pussy Riot was appalling? The charges against them were for (possibly inexact description from news report) "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred and enmity."

 

First of all, thanks for this comment:

"This doesn't happen often, but Abner, I disagree with your original post as strongly as possible."

I consider you one of the most brilliant persons I have known. So I consider this a great compliment.

Here is all I am trying to say (by the reference - Wikipedia). Free speech has it limits. I cannot yell "I have a gun" in movie theater and not to expect serious consequence. I feel the person that made this film should have exercised better judgement. That is all. Of course, this is strictly my opinion.

Have a good one!

Abner

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the United Nations (UN) can both take a flying leap into…HELL….as far as I’m concerned. They are nice organizations and are basically meaningless. We have our constitution and that is OUR valid document!

 

Amen brother!

 

Just out of curiosity, why is that?

 

An Egyptian Coptic Christian plays a part in the creation of a controversial film about a year ago. There is no Middle Eastern violence.

The American 9/11 anniversary arrives a year later and extremist Muslims attack multiple U.S. embassies in different Islamic countries. One American ambassador is killed, along with two garden variety Americans.

The extremist Muslims are not held politically accountable for their actions. Instead, an Egyptian Coptic Christian is blamed for the violent and murderous actions of extremist Muslims.

 

US Constitution - First amendmennt

From wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action."

I forgot to post this along with the UN link regarding freedom of speech.

Sorry, I am on the road trying my to cope with a netbook ( I don't like the little keyboards)

Abner

 

ok, I give up. Posted the wrong link again. Gotta run to a meeting.

See ya guys,

TGIF

 

I wouldn't conflate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, admittedly adopted by the UN–in 1948–with the UN as a body recently.

Of course, noting that the UDHR has this hazy allowance there for rights not being absolute doesn't do anything to argue that a right should be limited in any case.

 

Back to the original post: What makes you so sure that this video trailer was a direct cause of the recent violence?