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

[Wezil]

You are very close to advocating blashphemy laws (as was hinted earlier) as clearly these poor, righteous people just can't help themselves.

BS.

I refuse to pander to their superstitions.

[kentonio]

My free speech is not a reason to riot (particularly if you are on the other side of the planet). Period.

It's not yelling "fire" in a theatre and shouldn't be treated as such.

It's pretty much exactly that in this case. It seems they used their freedom of speech to deliberately cause a predicatbly violent reaction.

You are very close to advocating blashphemy laws (as was hinted earlier) as clearly these poor, righteous people just can't help themselves.

BS.

I refuse to pander to their superstitions.

I'm an atheist, why on earth would I want blasphemy laws? Where exactly is anyone asking for freedom of speech to be taken away?

[Wezil]

It's pretty much exactly that in this case. It seems they used their freedom of speech to deliberately cause a predicatbly violent reaction.

No it isn't. Yelling "fire" indicates a proximate cause of extreme danger (and a reasonable panic /oxymoron). Saying "Mohammed diddled kids" can cause no physical harm. The only harm results when the person hearing goes on a rampage because they are oh so offended. That's their problem, not mine.

I'm an atheist, why on earth would I want blasphemy laws? Where exactly is anyone asking for freedom of speech to be taken away?

It's why I used "very close" earlier. I see you dancing around the issue in that you concede the reaction was uncalled for but blame the filmmaker. You don't go so far as to say he shouldn't be allowed to say what he did but you do imply he should be held accountable (the whole "fire in a theatre" angle).

[kentonio]

No it isn't. Yelling "fire" indicates a proximate cause of extreme danger (and a reasonable panic /oxymoron). Saying "Mohammed diddled kids" can cause no physical harm. The only harm results when the person hearing goes on a rampage because they are oh so offended. That's their problem, not mine.

Because you're not a US diplomat?

It's why I used "very close" earlier. I see you dancing around the issue in that you concede the reaction was uncalled for but blame the filmmaker. You don't go so far as to say he shouldn't be allowed to say what he did but you do imply he should be held accountable (the whole "fire in a theatre" angler).

I've said he should be held morally responsible and I stand by that. I have not said that he should be held legally responsible. Yes, I firmly believe that people should show responsibility and not just abuse rights that people fought and died to earn.

[Kidlicious]

I think kentonio still hasn't gotten a couple things.

1) The film was probably made by someone who is either mentally unstable or is the victim of religious persecution or both.

2) The attack was premeditated and actually had nothing to do with the film.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, a thread where I agree with Wezil.

[Wezil]

Because you're not a US diplomat?

No, because I understand the concept of free speech. This doesn't fit any of the free speech exceptions unless you favour blasphemy laws.

I've said he should be held morally responsible and I stand by that. I have not said that he should be held legally responsible. Yes, I firmly believe that people should show responsibility and not just abuse rights that people fought and died to earn.

You've said it was equivalent to yelling fire in a theatre ( A criminal offence and much more trhan a moral offence). I'm sorry if that's not really what you meant.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Texan way is to not apologize every time someone pisses in your bowl of cheerios, like it's your fault.

Texas

[Jaguar]

I think kentonio still hasn't gotten a couple things.

1) The film was probably made by someone who is either mentally unstable or is the victim of religious prosecution or both.

2) The attack was premeditated and had actually nothing to do with the film.

And I agree with Kidicious, apparently.

[Wezil]

Both points may or may not be true but the original discussion still has merit. This scenario has happened before and will happen again.

[Lorizael]

Pretty stupid remark. The Texan way is to not apologize every time someone pisses in your bowl of cheerios, like it's your fault.

Oh really?

[Wezil]

Nice one.

[loinburger]

Incited the deaths of 4 people for starters.

A film inciting the deaths of four people would go something like "Hey everybody, you should totally kill the US ambassador and anybody associated with him, they're known pedophiles who bathe in infants' blood and they also draw funny pictures of Mohammed." This is something altogether different - I'd say that the film's creators are on the hook morally for being douchebags, but certainly not for being murderers.

[DinoDoc]

A film inciting the deaths of four people would go something like "Hey everybody, you should totally kill the US ambassador and anybody associated with him, they're known pedophiles who bathe in infants' blood and they also draw funny pictures of Mohammed." This is something altogether different - I'd say that the film's creators are on the hook morally for being douchebags, but certainly not for being murderers.

They murdered good taste and artistic sense in the process of making it if the clips being played on radio are anything to go by.

[SlowwHand]

Oh really?

Really.

Besides which, "Born in Lincoln, Nebraska, Cheney was primarily raised in Sumner, Nebraska, and Casper, Wyoming".
If you jump into a volcano in Hawaii, does that make it Hawaii's fault that you're a ****?