The difference is in intent. Piss Christ and this movie are different in their intent.
Both are covered by the 1st amendment, no question.
But as I'm looking at the shit show across the middle east, I'm thinking - who in their right mind is standing up to defend this? Is our false pride so great that we cannot condemn this piece of shit because we're worried about compromising our "principles"? Those same principles that we seem to have no problem allowing to be compromised by our own elected officials?
Sounds like we can beat our own wife, but god forbid someone call her a bitch. And that's no different than what these protestors are saying.
The difference is in intent. Piss Christ and this movie are different in their intent.
Both are covered by the 1st amendment, no question.
Serious question...intent aside.......if there was an Art Show being displayed in a U.S. government sponsored museum with Allah upside down in a jar of urine, would the reaction by these same people be any different than what it was to this movie??
"The potent mixture of the sacred (Virgin Mary) and the profane (excrement and pornography) became a cause of controversy when the Sensation exhibition moved to New York in 1999. The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought a court case against the Brooklyn Museum, with Giuliani describing the exhibition of Ofili's work as "sick" and "disgusting". Giuliani attempted to withdraw the annual $7 million City Hall grant from the museum, and threatened it with eviction. The museum resisted Giuliani's demands, and its director, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a federal lawsuit against Giuliani for a breach of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the court case.[3]
Giuliani was reported as claiming that Ofili had thrown elephant dung at a painting of the Virgin Mary: "The idea of having so-called works of art in which people are throwing elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary is sick."[4] The press also reported that the painting was "smeared", "splattered" or "stained" with dung.[5][6] Ofili, raised as a Roman Catholic commented that "elephant dung in itself is quite a beautiful object."[7]
The work was protected by a plexiglass screen, but was damaged when Dennis Heiner smeared white paint over the canvas on 16 December 1999. Heiner was charged with second-degree criminal mischief, and received a conditional discharge and a $250 fine. Scott LoBaido, an artist from Staten Island, was arrested on 30 September 1999 for throwing horse manure at the museum. He accused Chris Ofili's work of "Catholic bashing". Museum guards protecting the painting were quoted as saying: "It's not the Virgin Mary. It's a painting."[8]"
The question should be restated because it's narrow with its subject, "Americans", but then
becomes broad with the object, "religion". To be fair, the question can be posed in the
following two ways:
Should Americans be permitted to make a film that exposes truths about Islam taken
directly from the Koran?
or
Should people at any time and place be permitted to question Religious dogma through
parody, satire, or perhaps more appropriately by rigorous inquiry and careful vetting?
Of course the answer to either is a resounding Yes. My point here isn't about grammar but
rather the careful masking of the belief in question, Islam, under the veil of all religions. As if at
this moment in time, there are other religions on Earth that are equally likely to murder others
with divine license and force their own women and children to don suicide vests. Or promises
rewards in the afterlife for their martyrdom. Incentives to radical members of their group who
kill indeterminately (both enemy and Muslim alike) and with zeal. The Koran plainly states
unambiguously that infidels as well as those whose beliefs are held in other faiths should,
after being conquered, be given two choices: capitulate and convert (and pay a tax) OR die.
Also I'm not aware of any other religion whose punishment for apostasy is death. And
whose contempt of women and repression of thought is upheld even to this day.
Remember the Ayatollah Khomeni, basically the Islamic equivalent of the Pope in Iran,
issuing a fatwa calling for the premeditated murder of a British novelist ,Salman Rushdie,
in the late 80's? A bounty placed on a human for writing a book. All of this because of a
perceived smear against the prophet. The book, The Satanic Verses, an unfortunate title
because it contains nothing about Satanism or the occult, is more about the struggles that
Indian expatriates experience assimilating to occidental culture in Britain than religious
dogma. The author, his family, and the publishers went into hiding and were given police
protection. Bombings of bookstores ensued as well as organized book-burning in the
Middle East.
Historical note, tossing books into bonfires is always an early sign of fascism and
totalitarian control whether secular or not. Genocide, misery, and ignorance follow.
The whole idea of thought control is morally wrong in any sense or context. And the
censorship of others' thoughts or writings is a disturbing and contemptible weapon in the
never-ending war on Human Rights and Freedom.
More recently, further death warrants were issued by mullahs for political satirists
in Denmark over cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The Danish newspaper
said that their only intent was to spark debate about self-censorship and criticism
of Islam. The subsequent reprinting of the drawings in publications world-wide ignited
outrage, of course, in the Muslim communities. Again things were burned, embassies
attacked, plans were made to bomb the newspaper's offices. One of the cartoonist's
home was broken into by an axe-wielding crazed fanatic intent on murder. Gladly he
failed his mission. All told, however, the deaths of at least 100 people have been
reported in connection with this controversy. Over a cartoon.
Cowardly, the newspapers in America along with the people posing as journalists kowtowed
to the mullahs and refused to reprint the cartoons. This reminds me of the following exchange
around that time between one of my favorite authors, the late Christopher Hitchens, and an
Islamic Apologist. Christopher correctly and astutely points out that Muslims "claim a
special right to be offended".
Enjoy,
(sorry for no embedded video, for some reason I can't get it to work)
Let me add that it's bizarre to me why these mobs are attacking US embassies. The US government did not put this video out.
It's not that bizarre... The film is not the real issue here, it's just the latest focus for the massive anti-American/Western sentiment amongst many people in Libya and across the Arab world. If it wasn't this stupid movie then something else would have been the catalyst. Debate the freedom of religious comment all you like but it wouldn't change this situation one bean. This issue's ostensibly a religious one but it's pure politics.
That sure doesn't sound like artistic intent to me.
It's an irrelevant distinction in this context - the First Amendment covers both political and artistic (and religious) expression.
Point taken. So if Rock had said "Blaming political speech for violence is to excuse inexcusable human behavior," I wouldn't have questioned the statement's relevance to this embassy riot mess. But no one should be surprised that political speech leads to violence since it is arguably behind most wars, riots, ethnic cleansing and the like.
Bottom line is "inexcusable human behavior" and there's plenty of that to go around, much of it considered "free speech."
That sure doesn't sound like artistic intent to me.
It's an irrelevant distinction in this context - the First Amendment covers both political and artistic (and religious) expression.
Point taken. So if Rock had said "Blaming political speech for violence is to excuse inexcusable human behavior," I wouldn't have questioned the statement's relevance to this embassy riot mess. But no one should be surprised that political speech leads to violence since it is arguably behind most wars, riots, ethnic cleansing and the like.
Bottom line is "inexcusable human behavior" and there's plenty of that to go around, much of it considered "free speech."
Sorry but this is most definately not the bottom line - it's just dangerous obfuscation. Whatever was inexcusable about the film pales before the inexcusability of murdering 4 innocent people. But you know that and certainly aren't trying to blur this distinction,.. right? Of Course no one really was surprised that this lead to violence. But that neither inculpates the film makers, nor exculpates the killers. Islam has as much right to kill and maim in the face of passive provocation as any other religion: ZERO
That sure doesn't sound like artistic intent to me.
It's an irrelevant distinction in this context - the First Amendment covers both political and artistic (and religious) expression.
Point taken. So if Rock had said "Blaming political speech for violence is to excuse inexcusable human behavior," I wouldn't have questioned the statement's relevance to this embassy riot mess. But no one should be surprised that political speech leads to violence since it is arguably behind most wars, riots, ethnic cleansing and the like.
Bottom line is "inexcusable human behavior" and there's plenty of that to go around, much of it considered "free speech."
Sorry but this is most definately not the bottom line - it's just dangerous obfuscation. Whatever was inexcusable about the film pales before the inexcusability of murdering 4 innocent people. But you know that and certainly aren't trying to blur this distinction,.. right? Of Course no one really was surprised that this lead to violence. But that neither inculpates the film makers, nor exculpates the killers. Islam has as much right to kill and maim in the face of passive provocation as any other religion: ZERO
Agreed. I didn't mean to equate whatever was inexcusable about the film with the inexcusability of murdering 4 innocent people.
I have a family member in the state department. Those were her colleagues murdered. I have been stunned, saddened and disgusted to see FB "friends" sharing the photo of a beaten and bloodied Ambassador Chris Stevens with comments such as "these people are animals" and "Barrack insults my intelligence." Free speech, inexcusable behavior. This was very much on my mind when I made my comment.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Americans shouldn't be allowed to do anything at this point. We need to sit in time out until we learn to stop being such cowardly assholes.
You're probably right in some ways. But related to the issue at hand, the US is one of the few countries that protects hate speech.
You can hardly avoid protecting hate speech when protecting a general freedom of speech. This is not a US specific problem. The more freedom a society offers its citizen, the more vulnerable it becomes to undemocratic forces which use this freedom for their own agenda. In Germany we have neo nazis demonstrating their antidemocratic cause and using the right this democracy grants them to fight it.
I think in the big picture, the fear of the mob has already globally altered freedom of speech in press, film etc. The failed bombing attempts on Salman Rushdie's life were in 1989, Theo Van Gogh was killed in 2004. The mohammed cartoon riots were in 2005...
Now it's Youtube... In this case it's apparently some amateur production that cost a little money but you could insult islam without any budget. Every idiot on this planet can shoot a video with his cellphone. I'm sure if you look hard enough, there's already enough shit floating around in cyber space with which anybody with the right knowledge could ignite riots like these pretty much any given time and this is what's really dangerous. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there with very little or nothing at all to lose, living in an environment where the death of an individual never meant much and all it takes to mobilize them is a crappy Youtube video and a good sense for crowd control. If done right you could probably have cyber-hate controlled mobs invade countries and overthrow governments, take control of resources and establish a new regime under the name of allah... look at the situation in Mali and the possibilities of what could happen in Nigeria.
Probably splitting hairs here, but this film seems way more religious than political in nature.
It also seems that an argument could be made that it is designed to incite violence, in which case it is not protected under the First Amendment and , to address the OP, Americans are not allowed to make films like this.
I may have missed it in the thread - was it raised that the violence is the frustration of these countries' citizens and has less to do with any film or religion and more with general anger at the conditions in which they have to live? They found an excuse and ran with it and are just feeding off eachother at this point.
A Hindu group wants to screen it in Toronto. Let's see how that plays out.
I doubt that by pure chance all those individuals simultaneously found this video on Youtube, got really upset and spontaneously decided to vent their anger by burning some embassies and killing people -which again by pure chance happened on Sept. 11th. This was a targeted campaign and the mob was given a reason and it was directed towards certain targets. Religion is just being used as a tool to motivate and mobilize.
I don't think this video itself has much significance. They could just as well have chosen something else. Just search Youtube for "muhammad gay" or "muhammad pedophile".
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The CIA, er I mean Al Queda, called in a bomb threat to the University of Texas at Austin this morning....smh.
americans have a greater sense of freedom than the rest of the world bro
thats why
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but from all so called 1st world countries I've ever been to, the US feels the most restricted to me. I wasn't able to have titties on my party flyers, got stopped for having a beer on the street etc. I mean it's great if you're feeling all free and enjoying your freedom and so on but to everybody who's been around the world for a while the whole myth of the US being the "freest country of the world" is completely ridiculous. I mean I spent a total of 8 years living there and it's a incredibly big, diverse and beautiful country but it's also the closest thing to a police state that you can find outside of 3rd world dictatorships.
Having lived here and in France, I can definitely say we are far more free for several reasons. In France, I could be stopped at any moment for no cause, asked for my papers and jailed if I didn't have them. It was unnerving to see the kind of power the CRS and police had at first. Plus, the dudes walked around with machine guns which gave the place an armed camp feel. As far as free speech I am not entirely up on the standards in different countries but I'd be hard pressed to see one more open than ours. In England the slander laws are far more restricting. On a social level Europe felt far more constrained in terms of freedom of choice to pick your professional or your educational path. Europe is just a more class based society, you are tracked early in school which determines educational opportunities which determine professional opportunities. It is a marked difference if you ever lived it.
I haven't traveled as much recently. Perhaps the Euro zone has changed things but that was my impression when I was there. That being said our dog-eat-dog economic system produces a lot of misery that I rarely experienced in Europe. Perhaps we could take the best from both.
Worth mentioning that, so far, every country where violence has occured is an Arab Spring site. F the movie, Islamophobia and Clash of Civilizations hard-ons, other things are at play here.
americans have a greater sense of freedom than the rest of the world bro
thats why
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but from all so called 1st world countries I've ever been to, the US feels the most restricted to me. I wasn't able to have titties on my party flyers, got stopped for having a beer on the street etc. I mean it's great if you're feeling all free and enjoying your freedom and so on but to everybody who's been around the world for a while the whole myth of the US being the "freest country of the world" is completely ridiculous. I mean I spent a total of 8 years living there and it's a incredibly big, diverse and beautiful country but it's also the closest thing to a police state that you can find outside of 3rd world dictatorships.
Having lived here and in France, I can definitely say we are far more free for several reasons. In France, I could be stopped at any moment for no cause, asked for my papers and jailed if I didn't have them. It was unnerving to see the kind of power the CRS and police had at first. Plus, the dudes walked around with machine guns which gave the place an armed camp feel. As far as free speech I am not entirely up on the standards in different countries but I'd be hard pressed to see one more open than ours. In England the slander laws are far more restricting. On a social level Europe felt far more constrained in terms of freedom of choice to pick your professional or your educational path. Europe is just a more class based society, you are tracked early in school which determines educational opportunities which determine professional opportunities. It is a marked difference if you ever lived it.
I haven't traveled as much recently. Perhaps the Euro zone has changed things but that was my impression when I was there. That being said our dog-eat-dog economic system produces a lot of misery that I rarely experienced in Europe. Perhaps we could take the best from both.
How long have you lived in France and how many times were you stopped, how many times jailed? Do you seriously think US authorities have less power and abuse it less often? I was stopped, spreadeagled against a wall, had my pockets (illegally) searched etc all for putting up club flyers onto a construction fence on the Lower East Side. I mean I sort of enjoyed the experience, especially with a diplomatic ID in my pocket and knowing they couldn't do shit but you'd never get treated anything like this anyplace in Europe. The Texas state trooper that stopped me for speeding (10 lousy miles over the limit) and behaved like some SS officer... no cop in the whole of Europe would ever behave like such a pig. Not to mention that as far as I know, in Europe cops don't shoot immigrants with 41 bullets for reaching for their wallet or sodomize them with toilet plungers. Or the cops raiding homes in search of "The Tin Drum" DVDs because some insane person deemed it to be child pornography... The US is so super restricted in many ways that directly affect my personal life style and to say that France would be less free is just crazy talk. Being able to buy a cold beer and walk around the park with it on a hot summer day, get naked at pretty much any beach you like... don't get me started on shit as cabaret law and cities outside of NYC closing down clubs at 2am... just ridiculous. I mean it's all subjective and depends on what you do and how you live but this constant "freest country of them all" nonsense is as much of a joke to me as it is to all other people in the international community that I know. It's almost a cliche by now... The US immigration procedures are enough for a lot of people to not even consider going there anymore. To me it's still a great place to be but not the only great place and most certainly not the pace where I feel the freest.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Thymebomb13 said:
Not to mention that the US is the prison capital of the world. There are several states which have turned their prison systems into virtual gulags for profit.
Worth mentioning that, so far, every country where violence has occured is an Arab Spring site. F the movie, Islamophobia and Clash of Civilizations hard-ons, other things are at play here.
6 people now reported dead across North Africa, particularly Sudan, and the Arabian peninsula in anti film protests targeting US, British and German embassies and schools. What could these other factors be in your view? (not trolling, genuinely curious)
Worth mentioning that, so far, every country where violence has occured is an Arab Spring site. F the movie, Islamophobia and Clash of Civilizations hard-ons, other things are at play here.
6 people now reported dead across North Africa, particularly Sudan, and the Arabian peninsula in anti film protests targeting western embassies. What could these other factors be in your view? (not trolling, genuinely curious)
Would there be a shift in theory if it were one dead or how about 12?
Would this thread even exist had zero Americans been killed? As we know, there are regular dead people and then there are dead American people. I'm not seeing too many threads titled "Should Americans be Allowed to Supply Arms to Tyrants?"
Maybe you're not trolling, but I doubt that a smart guy like you (no sarcasm) needs anyone to explain why the instability caused by post-Arab Spring upheavals might contribute to people's frustrations...especially as the US has been involved in some way or other in said countries.
I don't doubt there are fanatics at the embassy gates, but as easy as it is to place the blame at the feet of Islam and all Muslims, I think there are other non-religious factors that are causing the spread of the violence. The film is a catalyst.
Did all those people who tore up LA during the riots or G20 Toronto do it to rage against racism, poverty and social injustices?
If folks want to buy into the "Islam is a cancer" BS, I am not really pressed to argue it.
And for the record, I think people in any country should be allowed to create garbage - religious or otherwise - but don't be surprised if after it keeps getting piled on others' doorstep, someone will set fire to it and kick it back.
Comments
Both are covered by the 1st amendment, no question.
But as I'm looking at the shit show across the middle east, I'm thinking - who in their right mind is standing up to defend this? Is our false pride so great that we cannot condemn this piece of shit because we're worried about compromising our "principles"? Those same principles that we seem to have no problem allowing to be compromised by our own elected officials?
Sounds like we can beat our own wife, but god forbid someone call her a bitch. And that's no different than what these protestors are saying.
"In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, the filmmaker characterized his movie, now called "Innocence of Muslims," as "a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam."
source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
That sure doesn't sound like artistic intent to me.
Serious question...intent aside.......if there was an Art Show being displayed in a U.S. government sponsored museum with Allah upside down in a jar of urine, would the reaction by these same people be any different than what it was to this movie??
It's an irrelevant distinction in this context - the First Amendment covers both political and artistic (and religious) expression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The potent mixture of the sacred (Virgin Mary) and the profane (excrement and pornography) became a cause of controversy when the Sensation exhibition moved to New York in 1999. The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought a court case against the Brooklyn Museum, with Giuliani describing the exhibition of Ofili's work as "sick" and "disgusting". Giuliani attempted to withdraw the annual $7 million City Hall grant from the museum, and threatened it with eviction. The museum resisted Giuliani's demands, and its director, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a federal lawsuit against Giuliani for a breach of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the court case.[3]
Giuliani was reported as claiming that Ofili had thrown elephant dung at a painting of the Virgin Mary: "The idea of having so-called works of art in which people are throwing elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary is sick."[4] The press also reported that the painting was "smeared", "splattered" or "stained" with dung.[5][6] Ofili, raised as a Roman Catholic commented that "elephant dung in itself is quite a beautiful object."[7]
The work was protected by a plexiglass screen, but was damaged when Dennis Heiner smeared white paint over the canvas on 16 December 1999. Heiner was charged with second-degree criminal mischief, and received a conditional discharge and a $250 fine. Scott LoBaido, an artist from Staten Island, was arrested on 30 September 1999 for throwing horse manure at the museum. He accused Chris Ofili's work of "Catholic bashing". Museum guards protecting the painting were quoted as saying: "It's not the Virgin Mary. It's a painting."[8]"
The question should be restated because it's narrow with its subject, "Americans", but then
becomes broad with the object, "religion". To be fair, the question can be posed in the
following two ways:
Should Americans be permitted to make a film that exposes truths about Islam taken
directly from the Koran?
or
Should people at any time and place be permitted to question Religious dogma through
parody, satire, or perhaps more appropriately by rigorous inquiry and careful vetting?
Of course the answer to either is a resounding Yes. My point here isn't about grammar but
rather the careful masking of the belief in question, Islam, under the veil of all religions. As if at
this moment in time, there are other religions on Earth that are equally likely to murder others
with divine license and force their own women and children to don suicide vests. Or promises
rewards in the afterlife for their martyrdom. Incentives to radical members of their group who
kill indeterminately (both enemy and Muslim alike) and with zeal. The Koran plainly states
unambiguously that infidels as well as those whose beliefs are held in other faiths should,
after being conquered, be given two choices: capitulate and convert (and pay a tax) OR die.
Also I'm not aware of any other religion whose punishment for apostasy is death. And
whose contempt of women and repression of thought is upheld even to this day.
Remember the Ayatollah Khomeni, basically the Islamic equivalent of the Pope in Iran,
issuing a fatwa calling for the premeditated murder of a British novelist ,Salman Rushdie,
in the late 80's? A bounty placed on a human for writing a book. All of this because of a
perceived smear against the prophet. The book, The Satanic Verses, an unfortunate title
because it contains nothing about Satanism or the occult, is more about the struggles that
Indian expatriates experience assimilating to occidental culture in Britain than religious
dogma. The author, his family, and the publishers went into hiding and were given police
protection. Bombings of bookstores ensued as well as organized book-burning in the
Middle East.
Historical note, tossing books into bonfires is always an early sign of fascism and
totalitarian control whether secular or not. Genocide, misery, and ignorance follow.
The whole idea of thought control is morally wrong in any sense or context. And the
censorship of others' thoughts or writings is a disturbing and contemptible weapon in the
never-ending war on Human Rights and Freedom.
More recently, further death warrants were issued by mullahs for political satirists
in Denmark over cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The Danish newspaper
said that their only intent was to spark debate about self-censorship and criticism
of Islam. The subsequent reprinting of the drawings in publications world-wide ignited
outrage, of course, in the Muslim communities. Again things were burned, embassies
attacked, plans were made to bomb the newspaper's offices. One of the cartoonist's
home was broken into by an axe-wielding crazed fanatic intent on murder. Gladly he
failed his mission. All told, however, the deaths of at least 100 people have been
reported in connection with this controversy. Over a cartoon.
Cowardly, the newspapers in America along with the people posing as journalists kowtowed
to the mullahs and refused to reprint the cartoons. This reminds me of the following exchange
around that time between one of my favorite authors, the late Christopher Hitchens, and an
Islamic Apologist. Christopher correctly and astutely points out that Muslims "claim a
special right to be offended".
Enjoy,
(sorry for no embedded video, for some reason I can't get it to work)
Thanks.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
It's not that bizarre... The film is not the real issue here, it's just the latest focus for the massive anti-American/Western sentiment amongst many people in Libya and across the Arab world. If it wasn't this stupid movie then something else would have been the catalyst. Debate the freedom of religious comment all you like but it wouldn't change this situation one bean. This issue's ostensibly a religious one but it's pure politics.
Point taken. So if Rock had said "Blaming political speech for violence is to excuse inexcusable human behavior," I wouldn't have questioned the statement's relevance to this embassy riot mess. But no one should be surprised that political speech leads to violence since it is arguably behind most wars, riots, ethnic cleansing and the like.
Bottom line is "inexcusable human behavior" and there's plenty of that to go around, much of it considered "free speech."
Sorry but this is most definately not the bottom line - it's just dangerous obfuscation. Whatever was inexcusable about the film pales before the inexcusability of murdering 4 innocent people. But you know that and certainly aren't trying to blur this distinction,.. right? Of Course no one really was surprised that this lead to violence. But that neither inculpates the film makers, nor exculpates the killers. Islam has as much right to kill and maim in the face of passive provocation as any other religion: ZERO
Agreed. I didn't mean to equate whatever was inexcusable about the film with the inexcusability of murdering 4 innocent people.
I have a family member in the state department. Those were her colleagues murdered. I have been stunned, saddened and disgusted to see FB "friends" sharing the photo of a beaten and bloodied Ambassador Chris Stevens with comments such as "these people are animals" and "Barrack insults my intelligence." Free speech, inexcusable behavior. This was very much on my mind when I made my comment.
You can hardly avoid protecting hate speech when protecting a general freedom of speech. This is not a US specific problem. The more freedom a society offers its citizen, the more vulnerable it becomes to undemocratic forces which use this freedom for their own agenda. In Germany we have neo nazis demonstrating their antidemocratic cause and using the right this democracy grants them to fight it.
I think in the big picture, the fear of the mob has already globally altered freedom of speech in press, film etc. The failed bombing attempts on Salman Rushdie's life were in 1989, Theo Van Gogh was killed in 2004. The mohammed cartoon riots were in 2005...
Now it's Youtube... In this case it's apparently some amateur production that cost a little money but you could insult islam without any budget. Every idiot on this planet can shoot a video with his cellphone. I'm sure if you look hard enough, there's already enough shit floating around in cyber space with which anybody with the right knowledge could ignite riots like these pretty much any given time and this is what's really dangerous. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there with very little or nothing at all to lose, living in an environment where the death of an individual never meant much and all it takes to mobilize them is a crappy Youtube video and a good sense for crowd control. If done right you could probably have cyber-hate controlled mobs invade countries and overthrow governments, take control of resources and establish a new regime under the name of allah... look at the situation in Mali and the possibilities of what could happen in Nigeria.
It also seems that an argument could be made that it is designed to incite violence, in which case it is not protected under the First Amendment and , to address the OP, Americans are not allowed to make films like this.
No one is saying it does. And Islam is as responsible for these murders as much as all Americans are responsible for the making of the film.
A Hindu group wants to screen it in Toronto. Let's see how that plays out.
I don't think this video itself has much significance. They could just as well have chosen something else. Just search Youtube for "muhammad gay" or "muhammad pedophile".
Having lived here and in France, I can definitely say we are far more free for several reasons. In France, I could be stopped at any moment for no cause, asked for my papers and jailed if I didn't have them. It was unnerving to see the kind of power the CRS and police had at first. Plus, the dudes walked around with machine guns which gave the place an armed camp feel. As far as free speech I am not entirely up on the standards in different countries but I'd be hard pressed to see one more open than ours. In England the slander laws are far more restricting. On a social level Europe felt far more constrained in terms of freedom of choice to pick your professional or your educational path. Europe is just a more class based society, you are tracked early in school which determines educational opportunities which determine professional opportunities. It is a marked difference if you ever lived it.
I haven't traveled as much recently. Perhaps the Euro zone has changed things but that was my impression when I was there. That being said our dog-eat-dog economic system produces a lot of misery that I rarely experienced in Europe. Perhaps we could take the best from both.
How long have you lived in France and how many times were you stopped, how many times jailed? Do you seriously think US authorities have less power and abuse it less often? I was stopped, spreadeagled against a wall, had my pockets (illegally) searched etc all for putting up club flyers onto a construction fence on the Lower East Side. I mean I sort of enjoyed the experience, especially with a diplomatic ID in my pocket and knowing they couldn't do shit but you'd never get treated anything like this anyplace in Europe. The Texas state trooper that stopped me for speeding (10 lousy miles over the limit) and behaved like some SS officer... no cop in the whole of Europe would ever behave like such a pig. Not to mention that as far as I know, in Europe cops don't shoot immigrants with 41 bullets for reaching for their wallet or sodomize them with toilet plungers. Or the cops raiding homes in search of "The Tin Drum" DVDs because some insane person deemed it to be child pornography... The US is so super restricted in many ways that directly affect my personal life style and to say that France would be less free is just crazy talk. Being able to buy a cold beer and walk around the park with it on a hot summer day, get naked at pretty much any beach you like... don't get me started on shit as cabaret law and cities outside of NYC closing down clubs at 2am... just ridiculous. I mean it's all subjective and depends on what you do and how you live but this constant "freest country of them all" nonsense is as much of a joke to me as it is to all other people in the international community that I know. It's almost a cliche by now... The US immigration procedures are enough for a lot of people to not even consider going there anymore. To me it's still a great place to be but not the only great place and most certainly not the pace where I feel the freest.
Several, as in 50.
If you think this doesn't happen in the U.S., you've been in the NW too long.
6 people now reported dead across North Africa, particularly Sudan, and the Arabian peninsula in anti film protests targeting US, British and German embassies and schools. What could these other factors be in your view? (not trolling, genuinely curious)
Would there be a shift in theory if it were one dead or how about 12?
Would this thread even exist had zero Americans been killed? As we know, there are regular dead people and then there are dead American people. I'm not seeing too many threads titled "Should Americans be Allowed to Supply Arms to Tyrants?"
Maybe you're not trolling, but I doubt that a smart guy like you (no sarcasm) needs anyone to explain why the instability caused by post-Arab Spring upheavals might contribute to people's frustrations...especially as the US has been involved in some way or other in said countries.
I don't doubt there are fanatics at the embassy gates, but as easy as it is to place the blame at the feet of Islam and all Muslims, I think there are other non-religious factors that are causing the spread of the violence. The film is a catalyst.
Did all those people who tore up LA during the riots or G20 Toronto do it to rage against racism, poverty and social injustices?
If folks want to buy into the "Islam is a cancer" BS, I am not really pressed to argue it.
And for the record, I think people in any country should be allowed to create garbage - religious or otherwise - but don't be surprised if after it keeps getting piled on others' doorstep, someone will set fire to it and kick it back.