"Innocence of Muslims" Filmmaker Likely Doesn't Exist, Film May Not Exist

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh christ. You're telling me it's illegal to dub videos for youtube?

Or do I misunderstand you? Do you think he hired the actors and didn't pay them? That would be a good reason to arrest him.

[giblets]

Muhammad is a ***.

^^^ Treason right there, according to Slowwhand.

I'm really enjoying committing treason. Muhammad is a gay ****! Muhammad is gonna be the next Penn State football coach! What do Muhammad and a catholic priest have in common? (ZING!)

Quick, someone translate this to arabic and email it to a Wahhabi cleric.

He didn't say it actually was treason. That would require evidence that this guy actually intended to put American ambassadors in danger.

[Uncle Sparky]

Oh christ. You're telling me it's illegal to dub videos for youtube?

If a producer/director edited a film to intentionally defame or endanger an actor, the unions would, justifiably, rip them a new one. Plus, he seems to have violated his parole. This would send him directly to jail.

What do Muhammad and a catholic priest have in common?

They both find HC cute, but a bit too old for them and this has made HC really pissy.

Or do I misunderstand you? Do you think he hired the actors and didn't pay them? That would be a good reason to arrest him.

... and yes, he probably has a lot of outstanding bills and contracts that he has no intention of paying.

[Dr Strangelove]

Has the US instituted blasphemy laws and no one has told anyone? Because Hollywood is in for a wake up call if that is the case.

Edit: In fact if making anti-islamic films is illegal now, does that mean the Obama campaign is the recipient of the proceeds of a criminal enterprise after Bill Maher's donation?

He was warned about the likely results of publicizing his film even by a Chistian conservative yet he persisted. He hid behind a false name because he didn't want to reap the consequences of his film, but he was willing to let Americans die for his cause. Finally, the terms of his probation prohibit him from using computers or the internet, yet he posted the film on YouTube. Boom! He violated his probation! End of story. If he did commit crimes in Egypt or the US before he became a citizen and did not admit to them on his naturalization forms, that too is a crime and nullifies the naturalization. It's perfectly legal.
How is this different from deporting a Hispanic with a criminal record?

[regexcellent]

The difference is that you're only doing it out of a desire to punish him for saying something you don't like. You're searching far and wide for another law as an excuse to squelch speech.

[Wezil]

You don't have to look "far and wide" if he broke a court ordered condition.

[DinoDoc]

He was warned about the likely results of publicizing his film even by a Christian conservative yet he persisted.

In what rational way is he responsible for the reaction of people throwing a temper tantrum?

[giblets]

In what rational way is he responsible for the reaction of people throwing a temper tantrum?

Probably the concept of "fighting words" created by the Supreme Court

[DinoDoc]

Probably the concept of "fighting words" created by the Supreme Court

Post Snyder v Phelps, how would you make the argument that applies here? Or more interestingly, doesn't kick most of the things making fun of Christians off the air? Blasphemy laws have to be applied uniformly after all.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The difference is that you're only doing it out of a desire to punish him for saying something you don't like. You're searching far and wide for another law as an excuse to squelch speech.

When it comes to hunting down and arresting makers of blasphemous videos, the US government and Iran are on the same page

OTOH, the US government is out of step with the larger US popular opinion on the matter.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...other_cultures

[The Mad Monk]

It borders on treason.

Hold up there hoss, think about what you're saying.

[Uncle Sparky]

Post Snyder v Phelps, how would you make the argument that applies here? Or more interestingly, doesn't kick most of the things making fun of Christians off the air? Blasphemy laws have to be applied uniformly after all.

He isn't being accused of blasphemy by the Us police. He is accused of breaking the terms of his parole - using a computer (which btw, woud also have been required to dub in the edit) and using the internet. Capone was not jailed for murder or running a crime empire: he was jailed on tax fraud.

Nothing illegal about the content of the film clips. The medium he used, however was forbidded. He broke the law as it applied to him.

[Kidlicious]

Of course I'm going to Hell. God is just so insecure and so upset about my not believing in him that he's going to have me tortured for all eternity.

Some people believe you will be tortured for eternity. If you look at evil, and say Satan is the Evil One, well that's your master. I can see how some believe that. However, it may be that you are simply disgarded as useless since you refuse to fulfil your purpose in life and do your own things which amount to a hill of beans.

[DinoDoc]

stuff

In what way does this answer the question of In what rational way is he responsible for the reaction of people throwing a temper tantrum? Gribbler was the one that brought up a possible legal doctrine to hold him responsible under.

[Uncle Sparky]

Sorry DinoDoc. Of course you are right. I will be taking out ads in all the papers and post on You-Tube that you and Gribber are d*ckless *ssholes who like to suck the f*rts out of dead camels. Please don't view me as responsible for any negative reaction you might have, you d*ckless f*rt sucker.