• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alleged "Innocence of Muslims Flim Director Taken in for Questioning.....

tererun said:
Despite the right's whining that this is some sort of attack on free speech, this is saving his life. He will be put into a segregated population while in prison and no one but guards will be able to get to him. Right now it is the safest place for him and the people who were trying to protect him. It also should be noted, this is a convicted felon, and no they do not have the rights of free people. This is not a regular citizen who used their rights. this is a person who has been stripped of his rights because he was tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty of a crime. Yes, we do strip those people of their rights, and yes they do have many of the freedoms you and i have restricted when they are out on parole. Comparing him to a frree US citizen with no convictions would be completely wrong as it is an entirely different argyument on whether or not the probation and parole departments can restrict the freedoms of people who fall under their authority.

I have a feeling despite the removal of his freedoms this guy is probably happy to be going back to prison. Considering he was pretty much a prisoner in his home anyway, it is probably a great idea to go to jail for a bit, let things cool off, and try for a discrete release and possibly going into hiding with the government's assistance and permission later. Given that the terms of his early release prohibit him from assuming another identity it would be impossible for him to go into hiding without violating the terms of his release, which would add more time to his original sentence anyway.
Click to expand...

When you try to justify abridging a person's rights because:

1. He's a convicted felon therefore he has no rights. (a very disturbing concept in and of itself)
2. We are doing it for his own good.

You have diminished the rights of everyone.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
He had every right to make the film he did.
He's scum for trying to trick the people involved and lying about it etc.
If he had just made it and was candid about it, he wouldn't be scum. He'd be another confrontational contrarian tweaking people's noses. Tweaking noses and pulling beards is a fine, honorable and necessary tradition which is a just demesne of assholes--it provides them with a socially useful function.

How much of a fool and someone else's tool do you have to be to let the people who made that film have that kind of an influence on your actions?[/B][/INDENT]
Click to expand...

:agree

Personally, I think that there need to be more of these ultra-stupid, ultra-crude, propaganda pieces made. Keep them coming until indignation fatigue sets in for all the morons who get murderous over it.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this. That's like asking for double-helpings of Jersey Shore.
 
Mycroft said:
When you try to justify abridging a person's rights because:

1. He's a convicted felon therefore he has no rights. (a very disturbing concept in and of itself)
2. We are doing it for his own good.

You have diminished the rights of everyone.
Click to expand...

It would appear that he's violated the terms of his parole. What would you have the authorities do? Ignore that because he's been inciting Muslims? Wouldn't that be tantamount to giving official approval of his behaviour?
 
Andalublue said:
It would appear that he's violated the terms of his parole. What would you have the authorities do? Ignore that because he's been inciting Muslims? Wouldn't that be tantamount to giving official approval of his behaviour?
Click to expand...

They ignored him for six months. Doesn't sound like he was on anyone's radar until Obama needed a scapegoat.

He found one.
 
Mycroft said:
They ignored him for six months. Doesn't sound like he was on anyone's radar until Obama needed a scapegoat.

He found one.
Click to expand...

He's only a scapegoat if he's innocent of what he's been detained for.
 
I just love how we now don't have the right to offend people if they are going to go insane over it. How very wonderful.
 
sharon said:
What does that mean?

orig.jpg
Click to expand...

Wrong again propaganda poster. I love how these posters are always wrong.
 
Harshaw said:
This is a tough call. If he violated his probation, that's unrelated to the content of the film, and it does need to be addressed. But yeah, it certainly does look very much like he's being targeted because of it.

Now, if this is used in some kind of attempt to assuage the riots, then that's a very, very big problem.
Click to expand...

I felt the same with I did about Julian Assange or Al Capone. No matter what, if you violate the law, you violate the law. No sympathies if your cause makes you a target.
 
Andalublue said:
It would appear that he's violated the terms of his parole. What would you have the authorities do? Ignore that because he's been inciting Muslims? Wouldn't that be tantamount to giving official approval of his behaviour?
Click to expand...

Interesting terms of a parole which just happens to violate the first amendment. :D
 
Henrin said:
I just love how we now don't have the right to offend people if they are going to go insane over it. How very wonderful.
Click to expand...

I just love how a convicted drug dealer and fraudster becomes the darling of the right and a hero of western civilisation simply by insulting Moslems. H.I.Larious!
 
Mycroft said:
They ignored him for six months. Doesn't sound like he was on anyone's radar until Obama needed a scapegoat.

He found one.
Click to expand...

Oh please. He violated terms of parole. This is the same garbage Lefties brought up about Wikileaks. That was atrociously obnoxious as well. Let's not defend unlawful behavior simply because it coincides with our political inclinations.
 
zstep18 said:
If a person purposefully or knowingly commits an act or engages in conduct that urges others to riot, that is incitement. I don't think the person who did this did that. However, I do think it was a little close to that. I think what the guy did should be protected speech. My point was that what he did was getting a little close to not being protected speech.
Click to expand...

After a certain point, you have to come to the troubling question as to when one's outrage and societal outburst is not dependent upon the taunting of an other individual, especially one so far away and so isolated.

To me, the video and the filmmaker does not incite riot so much as give desperate people an excuse to cause mayhem and destruction. Otherwise, I would be granted authority to cause all sorts of mayhem and destruction from intentionally offensive media directed toward my own sensibilities (and trust me, there are a great many which offend me), and those who make that media would be held in the court of public opinion culpable toward my actions. Yet, in reality, you would know that is not so, that I, and many others like me, would have more control, or responsibility over our actions. We would likewise not be granted public sympathy, not because it is not wrong to offend people like me, but rather because that is in no way a justifiable or an expected form of protest.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
I just love how a convicted drug dealer and fraudster becomes the darling of the right and a hero of western civilisation simply by insulting Moslems. H.I.Larious!
Click to expand...

He has a right to speak his mind and his history doesn't change that.
 
Henrin said:
He has a right to speak his mind and his history doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Not with certain tools (eg. a computer) under agreement of his parole. Remember Kevin Mitnick?
 
Fiddytree said:
After a certain point, you have to come to the troubling question as to when one's outrage and societal outburst is not dependent upon the taunting of an other individual, especially one so far away and so isolated.

To me, the video and the filmmaker does not incite riot so much as give desperate people an excuse to cause mayhem and destruction. Otherwise, I would be granted authority to cause all sorts of mayhem and destruction from intentionally offensive media directed toward my own sensibilities (and trust me, there are a great many which offend me), and those who make that media would be held in the court of public opinion culpable toward my actions. Yet, in reality, you would know that is not so, that I, and many others like me, would have more control, or responsibility over our actions. We would likewise not be granted public sympathy, not because it is not wrong to offend people like me, but rather because that is in no way a justifiable or an expected form of protest.
Click to expand...

This 100%! Especially the bit I've bolded. Very well put, Fiddy.

I think there have to be limits on free speech, and this from an anarchist, that relate to incitement to violence, so when a Muslim cleric calls for blasphemers to be beheaded, he's arrested. When Misterveritis calls for Mecca to be bombed, he's arrested. I don't think this Nakoula Nakoula guy should be arrested for his film, although it appears he's been arrested for other offences. That's pretty funny as, if you're going to thrust yourself into the limelight by making an explosively offensive movie, you'd think you'd make sure you weren't in breach of your parole conditions first.

I'd also defend the right of everyone to be offensive. Here are two cases in the UK where free speech about homosexuality has been tested. In this one 3 convictions took place for inciting violence against gays. In this one the preacher was aquitted because, although what he said might be offensive to many, he did not incite violence.

More paranoid Muslims might say, "Well, the only real difference was that one was Christian, hence protected by British society, and the other Moslem, therefore convicted and gaoled." That would indeed be paranoia as the difference is clear and has nothing to do with the merits of either faith. This guy, for example, I would like to see prosecuted, and I think he would be if he were in the UK and not the US.
 
Mycroft said:
When you try to justify abridging a person's rights because:

1. He's a convicted felon therefore he has no rights. (a very disturbing concept in and of itself)
Click to expand...

It is not that they have no rights, so please learn to read. it is that we do take rights away from them. From what I know of probation and parole there are a few things you will not be able to do. I do believe they normally require a person to not drink alcohol. You are subject to be detained and searched for no reason. they normally require drug testing. You lose the right to vote. I do believe they can enter your place of residence without warning or warrant. I know they can restrict your behavior otherwise. he seems to have restrictions on his using the internet. They can write these things up as they see fit, and that is part of your sentence. it is something that has been practiced for a long time, and just because you don't know about it does not mean it is not standard for felons.

I rweally do not think you are going to find much support for giving back the full rights of society to convicted felons. Especially like giving back the right to own guns to violent offenders, and the right to be near schools or supervise children to convicted child molestors. But if you think that is a good idea, you can go fight for it.
Mycroft said:
2. We are doing it for his own good.
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure where the legal standing is. I don't know if he is still considered under the custody of the state, and therefor they have an obligation to protect him while he is out in public. however, he did violate clear terms of his probation, and that alone is reason to arrest him. I was just pointing out the obvious that he is far safer in jail than he is on the street, and he may have even felt safer being in solitary and protected than being out in the open without the right to own a handgun to protect himself. When in jail they will place him into solitary for his own good as general population is not a place for a high profile person who's actions may cause retaliation. however, that would seem to be pretty standard for high risk inmates as far as i know of the prison system.
Mycroft said:
You have diminished the rights of everyone.
Click to expand...

Please, if I cou8ld do that I certainly would not be listening to those false allegations by you. You give me far more credit than the power I actually have. I have merely told you the truth about things you seem to be very ignorant of. i did not make the rules, nor can I change them, so blaming me is about as pointless and silly as blaming obama for all of this. This is simply the reprocussions from a convicted felon vioklating his probation and making a movie that pissed off millions of easily butthurt people. This is the world, you either learn to live in it, or someone out there is going to kick you off of it. This guy just learned that when you troll groups which consist of violent radical elements who have no problem killing you, it is good to have some sort of defense planned.
 
Andalublue said:
:agree


Disagree with this. That's like asking for double-helpings of Jersey Shore.
Click to expand...

This film maker is with Media for Christ.. a non profit evangelical charity that broadcasts programs all over the Middle East.. Media for Christ is an affiliate of Jihad Watch.. David Horowitz and Robert Spencer. Together they are responsiblt for anti-muslim bus posters.
 
Fiddytree said:
Oh please. He violated terms of parole. This is the same garbage Lefties brought up about Wikileaks. That was atrociously obnoxious as well. Let's not defend unlawful behavior simply because it coincides with our political inclinations.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending his illegal behavior...but I'm not placing the blame for other's illegal behavior on him or for the government's failure to contain that illegal behavior. In case you don't know what I'm referring to, it's the murder of our Ambassador.

Obama is shifting the blame for his own failings onto this guy because he made the film that was used by Al Qaeda to incite others to riot and murder.
 
Andalublue said:
He's only a scapegoat if he's innocent of what he's been detained for.
Click to expand...

Not true.

He's a scapegoat because Obama needs someone or something to shift attention from his own failings.

This guy is a convenient patsy.
 
tererun said:
It is not that they have no rights, so please learn to read. it is that we do take rights away from them. From what I know of probation and parole there are a few things you will not be able to do. I do believe they normally require a person to not drink alcohol. You are subject to be detained and searched for no reason. they normally require drug testing. You lose the right to vote. I do believe they can enter your place of residence without warning or warrant. I know they can restrict your behavior otherwise. he seems to have restrictions on his using the internet. They can write these things up as they see fit, and that is part of your sentence. it is something that has been practiced for a long time, and just because you don't know about it does not mean it is not standard for felons.

I rweally do not think you are going to find much support for giving back the full rights of society to convicted felons. Especially like giving back the right to own guns to violent offenders, and the right to be near schools or supervise children to convicted child molestors. But if you think that is a good idea, you can go fight for it.


I am not quite sure where the legal standing is. I don't know if he is still considered under the custody of the state, and therefor they have an obligation to protect him while he is out in public. however, he did violate clear terms of his probation, and that alone is reason to arrest him. I was just pointing out the obvious that he is far safer in jail than he is on the street, and he may have even felt safer being in solitary and protected than being out in the open without the right to own a handgun to protect himself. When in jail they will place him into solitary for his own good as general population is not a place for a high profile person who's actions may cause retaliation. however, that would seem to be pretty standard for high risk inmates as far as i know of the prison system.


Please, if I cou8ld do that I certainly would not be listening to those false allegations by you. You give me far more credit than the power I actually have. I have merely told you the truth about things you seem to be very ignorant of. i did not make the rules, nor can I change them, so blaming me is about as pointless and silly as blaming obama for all of this. This is simply the reprocussions from a convicted felon vioklating his probation and making a movie that pissed off millions of easily butthurt people. This is the world, you either learn to live in it, or someone out there is going to kick you off of it. This guy just learned that when you troll groups which consist of violent radical elements who have no problem killing you, it is good to have some sort of defense planned.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! I like the way you move the goalposts. Previously you said he doesn't have the rights of free people...now you say he does have some rights, but not all of them. I guess free speech is one he doesn't have anymore.

And in regard to "for his own good". What a crock. He would be doing better if he was left alone and not made into a media freak and a government scapegoat.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not defending his illegal behavior...but I'm not placing the blame for other's illegal behavior on him or for the government's failure to contain that illegal behavior. In case you don't know what I'm referring to, it's the murder of our Ambassador.

Obama is shifting the blame for his own failings onto this guy because he made the film that was used by Al Qaeda to incite others to riot and murder.
Click to expand...

So much easier to blame Obama than to look at the film maker and his associates. This was very calculated and deliberate. Jihad Watch and Media for Christ knew exactly what they were doing.
 
Andalublue said:
I just love how a convicted drug dealer and fraudster becomes the darling of the right and a hero of western civilisation simply by insulting Moslems. H.I.Larious!
Click to expand...

I love it how a thief who can't conform to our tax laws is now our Secretary of the Treasury.
 
sharon said:
So much easier to blame Obama than to look at the film maker and his associates. This was very calculated and deliberate. Jihad Watch and Media for Christ knew exactly what they were doing.
Click to expand...

It's so much easier for Obama to blame and scapegoat a filmmaker when his film wasn't the cause of the violence. When the resulting deaths can be laid directly at the feet of Obama and his State Department failures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom