So, if my 12 y/o made a stop motion film with legos and an iPhone of Mohammed dressed as a ballerina - would throngs of people storm the streets throughout the world and throw firebombs at random embassies? Cuz if so, that would make them like the ultimate troll bait.

You'd probably be jailed for it as well.

jailed?

possible if judge sees that he's mocking islam and mohammed.

inciting racial hatred is what its called here in the UK

It's a fluffing movie. What happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

racial/Religion = the same thing where you live? islam is a race now?

Words hurt more than sticks and stones in the long run. The people who did this in the States should be put in jail for stupidity and trying to incite war tbh. What other thing will this do? Convince the general person that all Islams are evil? No. Piss off all Islamic people? Yes. Cause a small minority of them to perhaps go a bit crazy? Yes. Resulting in a reinforcement of the people who already think badly of Islam? Yep. fluff like this should not be allowed anywhere. If I made a video about how I am glad that Hitler killed tons of jews and it should happen again I am pretty sure it would not go over well and should not be allowed(If it is).

Locket

People are protected by the first amendment, Freedom of Speech.

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[83][84] defamation,[83][84] incitement,[84] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[83][84] fighting words,[83] fraud, and speech integral to criminal conduct

Seems as if it could fit there to me.

All I can say is that I laugh at Americans and how they are so fluffing protective of their freedom of speech that they allow assclowns to use that freedom to hurt others and then those people proceed to defend some pretty ludicrous things like that Muhammad video which should never have been made. I never see any other country so dedicated to preserving their guns and speech laws... disturbing.

It also turns up idiots like this.

http://thechive.com/...-by-court-security-video/

locket, are you serious? So any speech that could possibly offend some nutcase cave dweller in Pakistan should be banned? Thats a pretty broad net bro. The whole point of this discussion is to explore how it is that that many people are that ridiculously sensitive to something as amateurish as this. I mean seriously, a preteen with an iPhone really could have made a better anti-islam movie.

Joke 'em if they cant take a fluff. If they are that easily offended, they should stick to funny cat videos when they watch youtube.

So if a group wants to make sure that no one is ever allowed to speak against them, anywhere in the world, all they have to do is demonstrate a propensity towards violence? Then those who speak out against them are responsible for the violence? And you say our laws are ridiculous?

Yes, the film seemed pretty stupid from what little I watched of the youtube video. But that's not the point. What you are talking about is outlawing dissent.

An "artist" a few years ago created an exhibit of a crucifix in a vat of urine. Should that person be jailed for intentionally hurting the feelings of Christians? To Christians like me, it was certainly offensive. But we're not going to go burning down embassies and murdering people over it, so offending us is OK?

It doesn't even take something egregious to get a riot started in the Middle East.

Somebody writes a book about Islam from a critical standpoint: Riots

US soldiers unkowningly dispose of copies of the Koran in the wrong way: Riots.

A Danish cartoonist.. Well anyway, you get the point (I hope)

And since you brought up Hitler.. there are plenty of idiotic, hateful, violent neo nazis in the world today. Making a documentary that told the true story of the holocaust, Hitler's drug addiction, etc, would surely be offensive and hurful to them. So since hate is their religion, should I be prohibited from making such a film?

You find our love of our freedoms disturbing. I find it disturbing that you care so little about yours. Are you offended by that? Should I be jailed for that statement?

^
|
+1

You gotta be careful what you say about mohammad even on THIS forum lest it get out and incite more riots.

John Oliver raised a good point... Islam is only 1400 years old... basically an adolescent teenager getting all violent. Do you know what Christianity was doing when it was 1400 years old? Crusades... Spanish Inquisition... So... give it another 500 years and everything will be much better.

LOL I have freedom Mr Danger. Your love of guns and defending people who do fluffty things is showing your love of freedom? So glad I'm not American then.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with outlawing dissent. You just got so upset that someone assaulted your precious freedom that you ranted about it. I believe that the makers of the film were trying to get a reaction such as this and were trying to incite violence and hate. I stand against anything of that sort. Enjoy your life as you wish though. Bye.

What SAM said. I think it's idiotic that a society has come to the conclusion that one persons thoughts, control another persons actions. These extremists just sit around waiting for a reason to start firing rockets off. They don't need much incentive to do so, either. I'm speaking from experience on this one.

locket, you currently have the freedom to say what you want, because what you believe has not been deemed unacceptable... yet.

Here's the problem though. What you are talking about does indeed have everything to do with outlawing dissent. You think this man's dissenting opinion of Islam is disgusting, so you want him jailed. When you empower the government to stop people from saying or doing things with which you disagree, you are also empowering the government - should they ever decide to do so - to stop you or others from saying or doing things which you believe in.

I don't like what plenty of people have to say. But I recognize that in order to protect my own right to my own opinions, I must also defend the rights of others.. even if I find their opinions detestable. The crucifix in urine "artwork" I referenced in my first post was undeniably offensive to a huge segment of the US population. I find it disgusting and stupid. But it's not my job - or anyone's - to decide which opinions or expressions are allowed.

I never said you didn't have freedom. I said that you seem to care little about it. And I didn't realize my initial post here came across as a rant. It wasn't intended that way, which is why I didn't use THE LETTERS OF POWER. I simply provided several examples of how I thought your thinking was flawed on this issue. I can't help but notice that you addressed none of them in your response.

There's another advantage to freedom of speech. Here in the US, hateful, evil neo nazis are indeed allowed to spew whatever vile filth they want. That means that the thinking people of the US actually know who the idiots are, so we can choose not to associate with them. Naziism is illegal in Germany, but there are still nazis. They're just underground.

link to this controversial video.

"If" my 12 year old made...

You didn't read what I said apparently. I said he is trying to incite violence and hate with his words(The maker of the film) and that is something I will never agree with or agree that it should be allowed within any society against any group. Anyways...these topics annoy me so I'll avoid them now :P

it's called "Innocence of Muslims" and is fairly easy to find on youtube. just know that there are 2 versions. haven't watched either, but I assume the 13 minute version is essentially the longer one (74 minutes) condensed

Locket,

From what i have seen, anything you say or do about Islam incites a riot. And it has to do with the few that are so far into the looneybin that they are screwing over a very good religion.

what you are saying is pretty much: he made a movie that they do not agree with, they rioted and the person should go to jail. bullfluff. in our country we are allowed to show dissent at our government and any religion.

and we are very sensetive about our guns.

ok so thats the dumbest video ive ever seen. couldnt even watch it all. i also think its retarded that someone got upset over that.

Your *opinion* is that he was trying to incite violence and hate. You can't possibly know that to be true.

The man who made that video is by some accounts a Coptic Christian from Egypt. I don't know if you've ever been to Egypt, but I have. In 2003 I did jobs for the US military on several overseas bases. One of those jobs was at the embassy in Cairo. Since we were with the embassy, we had a driver and an armed bodyguard everywhere we went. Our driver seemed like the nicest guy in the world.. literally. That is, until the subject of Judaism came up.

Our driver decided he didn't like one of our crew members when he learned that his name was Abe. "Abraham is a Jewish name. Only a Jew would have that name". From that point forward, he refused to even speak to Abe, while he continued to be the nicest guy in the world to the rest of us. (Abe wasn't even Jewish BTW)

That same driver one day took us on a route that came near the Israeli embassy. There were police and military everywhere there, so we asked if something was going on. His response was, "No, they are always there to make sure nobody fires a rocket at the embassy. I wish somebody would".

Now, if the maker of the video in question did indeed come from that atmosphere, don't you think it might be possible that he might want to get his own views on Islam out? Not necessarily to provoke violence, but to show what he believes to be the true face of the religion? And if that is his motivation, what gives you or anyone else the right to tell him that he can't air his opinion?

And again, I'll come back to the crucifix in urine. There could be no doubt that such a piece of "art" would upset Christians. Do you think that is acceptable, or should that "artist" be jailed. If it is acceptable, how does it differ from the stupid anti-Islam movie?

Did I just see SAM_DANGER write without capslock on!!!!! O_o

HOW DO I GET DANGER INTO LAF?!?!

LOL. Yeah, my restart is still in protection. You can expect the shouting to resume tomorrow.

HA!

SAM

I think I agree with just about everything Sam said on this thread.

Also, to me (as a native living in Sweden) it is absolutely inconceivable that people would want to compromise with the very bedrocks of democratic civilization because some religious nuts get their feelings hurt and get violent. IF we want the multi-cultural wonder society that our politicians seem to think is paradise, then it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the basic pillars of democracy and freedom stand stronger than ever.

If ANYONE can use threats and violence to stifle the opinions and expressions of others, then we are lost. In the end, only the violent and the extreme will have sway in our society. We must show the barbarians that we are strong in our faith of the value of a modern and civilized society. If they cannot accept that, we must fight them. Be it in the schools with teaching, with culture and mass-media or even with force if that is what it will take.

We cannot accept "hurt feelings" or "religion" as an excuse for any kind of savagery or we will lose a fundamental part of what is good in our societies.

Ummmm...9/11? The Patriot Act? Drone warfare? Secret prisions? TSA? The militarization of police forces? The monitoring of pretty much ALL voice and data conversations? Take your pick...

Hitler had a drug addiction????

Please do tell??

sorry to take the thread off topic, i would just love to hear an explanation :).

Yes, that's going overboard to fight the problem IMO. The problem is that transparency and rule of law does not permeate the government. I don't mind that terrorists and their supporters are treated harshly, in fact I condone it. But I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". And if as long as you are innocent, you are not guilty IMO. With out transparent due process, how can you ever prove anyone guilty?

I think strong surveillance can be ok as long as it's very restrictive in how the data is used, and everyone knows if their data has been monitored. The watchers must be watched even more ardently than anyone else IMO.

How can you 'incite' violence? Thats the part I don't understand.

I agree with locket 100%. Locket, you may be interested in this article, which kind of discusses what you are trying to say:

http://www.aljazeera.com/...9/201291895216118375.html

Great, now we have TWO retards that hate freedom. Who wants to take this?

if you really think that all this rioting and violence is over a movie then I have some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

TAN, since I failed to get an answer from locket on this question, I'll pose it to you.

There could be no doubt that a piece of "art" which consists solely of a crucifix in urine would upset Christians. Do you think that making such "art" is acceptable, or should that "artist" be jailed? If it is acceptable, how does it differ from the stupid anti-Islam movie?

martian: Stop derailing the thread with truth.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/...-from-scared-actress.html

SAM DANGER. THE YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN"T HANDEL THE TRUTH! NO TRUTH YOU TOOTH STEALER YOU! IF YOU ASK ME, HEEEEEEERREEE"S JOHNY WOULD HAVE WORKED BETTER AT THAT POINT IN THE MOVIE BUT THEN AGAIN IT WASN"T DIRECTED BY RODRIGUEZ!

Hi Tan! :D Hmm. Yah I quite liked that article. Thanks for the link!

If it meant Christians assassinating ambassadors, burning down consulates and making death threats with the very real intent of carrying them out, absolutely. Extremists are extremists no matter what God they believe in.

The first amendment doesn't protect all speech. For instance, if you yell fire in a crowded theater, you could create panic and the potential for death. The retard who made that film probably could have predicted what would happen if he made that film, which is why he lied to his cast and dubbed over their voices in post production . If you do fluff like that KNOWING it could lead to death, it should absolutely be stopped.

Muhammed can blow me.

worst justification ever. youre missing the number one point. if you give in to demands of extremists, then they can begin to dictate anything they want with the threat of violence. where is the line drawn?

i'm tired of hearing about Muslims rioting in the news. it's time for drastic action. i'm going to take off my tinfoil hat and attempt to the encourage the aliens to do more anal probing abductions in that area. all's i want to hear from a Muslim is a report about whether or not an alien anal probing abduction happened in the area. if they try to tell me about anything else, i'm going to consider it to be completely irrelevent.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. And you're assuming extremists are rational. You think saturating the media with caricatures is going to make them acclimate to a new cultural climate? It's only going to make them more angry, more alienated. One should approach this with respect, not disdain. If you want people to not hate you, don't do the stupid fluff that makes them hate you. Try acting one's age instead of acting infantile and petulant. Otherwise, don't fluff about it, and don't be surprised if they keep burning down embassies.

" If you want people to not hate you, don't do the stupid fluff that makes them hate you"

by this logic i can hate muslims for acts of terrorism and then blame the muslims for my hatred?

i don't know, that does seem oddly fair..

" Try acting one's age instead of acting infantile and petulant. Otherwise, don't fluff about it, and don't be surprised if they keep burning down embassies. "

replace burning down embassies with invading muslim countries and do we agree?

agree 100% with sam on this subject.

The difference between your crowded theatre situation and making a film that offends someone is that a reasonable person will panic out of self-preservation in the theatre situation.

The people in the other situation are neither acting out of self-preservation, nor are they rational.

I personally think the people that made that film are stupid assholes who shouldn't have done it, because they absolutely should have known that it would cause problems bigger than they personally can address. At the same time, do I think it should be illegal? Hell no.

And I find it hilarious that you said "Try acting one's age instead of acting infantile and petulant." We should stop offending terrorists because for us to do so is acting petulant, but people taking offense to a film made by people who obviously don't speak for the United States and blaming the United States for it and killing ambassadors doesn't deserve any condemnation?

You've just pointed out someone else's slippery slope fallacy, but then followed it up with a healthy dose of victim-blaming.

Hopefully someday we will be able to ignore one another in peace.

The Islamic world needs to take a cue from latin America. When horrible US foreign policy repeatedly attempted to manipulate their governments by propping up dictators that served our interests - they did not get mad and start blowing up embassies - they just started selling us massive quantities of cocain. Now they are all billionaires and our inner cities are warzones.

#takethatimperialistyankeemotherfluffers

Sure, throwing maltov flufftails is kinda retro, but in the end you usually end up burning yourself.

If no one ever takes a first step then a relationship will never improve. Just because one person acts a certain way does not mean that you should.

So then the first paragraph of my first post in this thread would be correct. In a world where TAN makes the rules on who can say what, any group which wishes to silence all dissent only needs to demonstrate a propensity for violence.

Do you really see nothing wrong with that position? It is fine to offend Christians, because they're mostly harmless. But it is not fine to offend members of a religion which has a small number of followers who are willing to commit murder in the name of God at the slightest provocation. That doesn't seem incredibly backwards to you? I honestly can't think of a more illogical position to take on the issue of free speech.

I'm going to start the Church of Reagan. Our doctrine is as follows: Ronald Reagan was a divine prophet, sent by God to save America. To speak ill of The Prophet is heresy, and we will react to such heresy by killing the diplomats of whatever country allows his name to be uttered in a negative way. If you persist in allowing the defamation of The Prophet, we will start killing tourists and blowing up restaurants. Since The Prophet loved America, it must follow that America is a flawless example of perfection. Anyone who says otherwise is a blasphemer and must be put to death.

Furthermore, The Prophet loved Jelly Belly brand jelly beans. All other brands of jelly beans are to be considered unclean. All nations must outlaw all non Jelly Belly jelly beans. If they do not, we will burn their factories.

Your country must enact laws to avoid our wrath. You may not speak out against the Church of Reagan, because you know in advance that we will react violently. Submit or face imprisonment.