• 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.....

Man makes film that pisses off radical muslims, this film could be why radical islamic militants attacked our embassy, he also has apparently might of broke his parol. So yes murder could be in this case.


The whole world is rioting about us because of this film and has made threats and may of attacked our embassy.

Well now that we have discovered that the Attack on the Embassy was pre-planned and by Militants that had previosly attacked the Libyan Consulate and AQ has come out saying the death of the Ambassador was for killing their #2 man. How do you think things look now since their plans go back to when they attacked the Consulate in June, then tried to Assassinate the Brist Ambassador, and then attacked the Red Cross?
 
New Laws in California make it illegal and antisemitic for students in Universities to criticise anything the state of Israel does domestically or withing occupied Palestine

what is happening to the USA ladeis and Gentlemen?
 
Perhaps this will help to shed some light on it.....

CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) — While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.

In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom. "The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don't appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world," said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University's School of Law in Orange, Calif.

The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.

But Nakoula's case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film "Innocence of Muslims" has had such far-reaching and violent implications.

"Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."

Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.

In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.....snip~

Free speech, religion clash over anti-Muslim film - Yahoo! Movies
 
New Laws in California make it illegal and antisemitic for students in Universities to criticise anything the state of Israel does domestically or withing occupied Palestine

what is happening to the USA ladeis and Gentlemen?
Progress....
 
Now there's an opinion piece in the LA Times suggesting that the film isn't protected free speech - Does 'Innocence of Muslims' meet the free-speech test? - Sarah Chayes

I don't know where some of these people got their journalism degrees but this is an insane argument. By Ms. Chayes' standards it would no longer be protected free speech to speak ill of the Red Sox because someone might get offended and become violent. On top of that her entire argument is based on the premise that Muslims are inherently prone to violence and should be protected from being incited. And to think, she was an adviser to Gen McKiernen in Afghanistan.....see how well that turned out?
 
Perhaps this will help to shed some light on it.....

CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) — While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.

In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom. "The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don't appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world," said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University's School of Law in Orange, Calif.

The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.

But Nakoula's case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film "Innocence of Muslims" has had such far-reaching and violent implications.

"Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."

Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.

In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.....snip~

Free speech, religion clash over anti-Muslim film - Yahoo! Movies

Hey.. You have dealt with this issue very fairly.. and if we hold free speech dear, we also have the right to condemn this insult to the Islamic faith.

There is NO right (or excuse) to violence, but there is the right to criticized and reject.

Meanwhile I had eye surgery this morning and am wearing a grill over my right eye, but I can see thru the grill and my eyesight in that eye is 100%.

If I were an Arab I would yell al hum'du Allah or Allah Akbar.. thanks to the skill of my young Jewish eye surgeon... My favorite checker at the market saw me and cried out Mazel Tov!
 
When I looked at the movie trailer I thought it humorous and basically similiar to a low grade version of Monty Python making fun of the Catholic church. I saw exactly NONE "offensive" about the movie trailer.

It is pitiful for anyone of our government to apologize for or condemn it. Given the millions and millions of videos, films and written material grossly insulting to Christians, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics etc, for which our government is silent, what Obama and others did in apologizing was grotesque bigotry against non-Muslims.
 
Now there's an opinion piece in the LA Times suggesting that the film isn't protected free speech - Does 'Innocence of Muslims' meet the free-speech test? - Sarah Chayes

I don't know where some of these people got their journalism degrees but this is an insane argument. By Ms. Chayes' standards it would no longer be protected free speech to speak ill of the Red Sox because someone might get offended and become violent. On top of that her entire argument is based on the premise that Muslims are inherently prone to violence and should be protected from being incited. And to think, she was an adviser to Gen McKiernen in Afghanistan.....see how well that turned out?

I have increasingly learned that liberal Democrats truly HATE free speech - meaning anything they don't like.

It is foolish to believe the government will protect free speech or privacy rights. If the government can come up with excuses to eliminate free speech, it will do so. Free speech is the greatest danger to incumbent governments. That is why Muslim radicals so intensely prohibit it.

Free speech is a far more dangerous weapon to them than even than guns. "The pen is mightier than the sword." Therefore, in their countries the allow guns but absolutely prohibit free speech.
 
When I looked at the movie trailer I thought it humorous and basically similiar to a low grade version of Monty Python making fun of the Catholic church. I saw exactly NONE "offensive" about the movie trailer.

It is pitiful for anyone of our government to apologize for or condemn it. Given the millions and millions of videos, films and written material grossly insulting to Christians, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics etc, for which our government is silent, what Obama and others did in apologizing was grotesque bigotry against non-Muslims.
I do think the movie was intended to offend thin skinned Muslims.
The green screen work was bad. I am not sure it would get a passing grade in a HighSchool class.
 
Progress....

Do you only view the laws as progressive if they solely apply to Israel? What if similar laws were introduced that prohibited criticism of Syria or Iran or Russia or China etc.,?

Seems like you may be confusing the word racist with the word progress - common mistake made by those pretending to defend democracy and freedom.

You are forgiven
 
Do you only view the laws as progressive if they solely apply to Israel? What if similar laws were introduced that prohibited criticism of Syria or Iran or Russia or China etc.,?

Seems like you may be confusing the word racist with the word progress - common mistake made by those pretending to defend democracy and freedom.

You are forgiven


You have provided no actual link to any sort of recognized news outlet that corroborates your claim.

Just because something exists in your imagination, that doesn't not mean it actually exists.
 
I do think the movie was intended to offend thin skinned Muslims.
The green screen work was bad. I am not sure it would get a passing grade in a HighSchool class.

Unfortunately, it's starting to be pretty apparent to me, that it doesn't take much at all to offend them.
 
When I looked at the movie trailer I thought it humorous and basically similiar to a low grade version of Monty Python making fun of the Catholic church. I saw exactly NONE "offensive" about the movie trailer.

It is pitiful for anyone of our government to apologize for or condemn it. Given the millions and millions of videos, films and written material grossly insulting to Christians, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics etc, for which our government is silent, what Obama and others did in apologizing was grotesque bigotry against non-Muslims.

I think it is perfectly rational for the US president to say this video is crap and most Americans do not agree, but we still defend free speech.. Unless of course the president gives up his own rights to freedom of speech.
 
I think it is perfectly rational for the US president to say this video is crap and most Americans do not agree, but we still defend free speech.. Unless of course the president gives up his own rights to freedom of speech.

It has little to do with his personal right to free speech. Anything a sitting president says to a willing audience, is construed as representative of Americans as a whole, when he is reacting to a situation such as this one.
 
6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi


Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.
Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.
Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.....snip~

Alleged 'Innocence of Muslims' filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies - latimes.com


Looks like they will find something to arrest him for. Thoughts? Think this will now affect Freedom of Speech Laws?

This explains everything. California is one of the worst states when it comes to citizens rights, and their "justice" system is corrupt as hell.
 
Do you only view the laws as progressive if they solely apply to Israel? What if similar laws were introduced that prohibited criticism of Syria or Iran or Russia or China etc.,?

Seems like you may be confusing the word racist with the word progress - common mistake made by those pretending to defend democracy and freedom.

You are forgiven
Seems like you are confusing the progress, or progressivism with liberalism. My post was not aimed at any particular party, as each is as guilty as the other. I called it progress, because, according to our leaders, that's exactly what it is.

Now, if you have a problem with the direction, or the goal, it would behoove you to voice that concern come election time.

But don't worry, no matter who you vote for, business will continue as usual.
 
It has little to do with his personal right to free speech. Anything a sitting president says to a willing audience, is construed as representative of Americans as a whole, when he is reacting to a situation such as this one.

Well you are certainly free to go to the ME and express your views as speaking for all Americans.
 
Well you are certainly free to go to the ME and express your views as speaking for all Americans.

I suppose if I cared enough, I would, but I don't. He can say whatever he wishes, but it doesn't change the fact that when he speaks, he is representing us.
 
Well you are certainly free to go to the ME and express your views as speaking for all Americans.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if you went back to Saudi Arabia so you can hang out with all the other like-minded men?

Sounds like a win-win situation to me. I sure know that our country would be better off with one fewer seditious imposter.
 
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if you went back to Saudi Arabia so you can hang out with all the other like-minded men?

Sounds like a win-win situation to me. I sure know that our country would be better off with one fewer seditious imposter.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know there are 40,000 American men and women living and working in Saudi Arabia? LOLOLOL :lamo
 
6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi


Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.
Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.
Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.....snip~

Alleged 'Innocence of Muslims' filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies - latimes.com


Looks like they will find something to arrest him for. Thoughts? Think this will now affect Freedom of Speech Laws?


Why is he hiding his face? Why isn't he proud of what he's done? It seems like he doesn't want credit for his film. What's the deal?
 
Ummm, perhaps he is in fear that someone wants to kill him?

No kidding, huh? Like it takes a genius to figure out why he's hiding. I'll tell ya, some people are just :screwy
 
Ummm, perhaps he is in fear that someone wants to kill him?


Exactly ...and a Fatwa has already been issued against everybody related with this film .... exaclty like the Fatwa they issued on Salman Rushdie because he wrote 'Satanic Verses'... :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom