Slashdot Mirror
Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed
sycodon writes "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the film Innocence of Muslims, has been arrested and jailed in Los Angeles for probation violations. The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world, but at the same time simply enforcing the law, as all evidence indeed suggests Nakoula violated the terms of his probation."
What does his apparently violating parole have at all to do with this site?
They should have done this weeks ago. It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.
It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.
I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.
The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.
This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?
He's not jailed for the film he's known for, so why are we hearing about it? Is he the new Lindsey Lohan? Are we going to follow him through the courts and rehab?
Appeasing the Muslim lunatic fringe is not a "win" for anyone. We should not apologize for free speech, no matter who it offends. If anything, authorities should have gone the other direction and NOT arrested him despite his parole transgressions, in light of the political statement it creates.
It didn't spark riots around the world. At least the ambassador in Libya was killed in a targeted attack by Al Qaeda. The ambassador was worried about his safety for weeks before his death. We know this because CNN reporters walked into the compound and looked around. Security was NOT good at this place.
If you've violated probation, you've shown to the courts that you cannot be trusted. No bond is the correct action here.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I'll be so fucking glad when we kick Bush out of office....
ho-hum. yet another example of the guvmint's access to time travel technology.
there's no way this guy had violated his parole in the past until the current hooplah.
Free speech is letting others criticize you,
That's a very specific, contrived, and useless definition for free speech you have there.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
He's now Commodore Burrito or Angleburt Hinkydink or Mohammed Jolly or Fred Flagstone...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Clearly, he's a dirtbag
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Hope they have enough on him to keep him locked up.
Is he really being locked up for violating his probation, or is that just a justification to arrest someone for saying something inconvenient? Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
No.
He should be locked up for his own safety because you know there are people looking to literally cut his fucking head off and shit down this throat.
But if he is being locked up for his own safety he should have the option to refuse.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
> > Clearly, he's a dirtbag
> It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
Clearly you see the word "illegal" everywhere, even when it hasn't been written.
The trouble with freedom of speech is that speech isn't just words.
Otherwise Islam's fatwahs are merely free speech.
Imams calling for the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan are just free speech.
And talking dirty to children is just free speech.
Point is you only support free speech that YOU agree is free speech but use the fact that you agree something is free speech that another disagrees is free speech as "proof" that you agree with free speech more.
You just have a different range of what you call free.
At least the Muslims demanding this movie be banned aren't being hypocrites over it.
Are you suggesting it's possible to have free speech and yet ban hate speech? That's highly offensive to me. You should be arrested!
They won't stop. They will demand we hand him over so they can slowly behead him and post that on the internet then drag his body though the streets and hang it from some bridge.
I think that's not at all true. I assume the local police don't give a shit about foreign policy. If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?
What's much more likely is that once media reports of him apparently violating probation, the local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations. Nothing more.
Yes, he really is being jailed for his actual wrongdoings. You are not allowed to use aliases on probation. He used an alias and did something infamous with it.
Certainly, I imagine people do this all the time and are not caught, usually because it simply does not come to light, particularly since an alias has the effect of making it harder to tie a person to what they do under their alias. In this case, what he did is not the issue, it is that it was infamous enough for him to be caught violating his probation. It would be a very, very dumb Probation Officer who, when faced with his convict's publicly obvious non-compliance, did not enforce the conditions of Probation.
Remember, he's already a convicted criminal who is only free on probation on the guarantee of good behavior and specific provisions meant to ensure he remains on good behavior. He's not so much being thrown in jail as simply returned to jail.
Is this incredibly convenient for the Obama Administration? Hell, yes. Is it a matter of silencing him? Not at all.
Not really.
The best way to figure out who has power over you is to figure out who you can't criticize. You have the freedom of speech when the answer to that is "no one."
Obama can't be seen as punishing him for exercising free speech.
Anybody who believes that is going to subsequently demand than anybody who says anything equally inflammatory be equally punished. And if those hypothetical people haven't broken their parole, nothing at all will happen.
It needs to be clear, this guy is being arrested only because he violated the terms of his parole in terms of using an alias or the internet. But it's essentially unrelated to the film and that has to be made clear.
There is simply no way the US government can be seen to be suppressing free speech. The last thing Obama wants to do is use this to his advantage. Because the reality is, that he isn't being punished for free speech -- he's being punished because he's a shady guy who violated his parole.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What was it they got Hoffa for? Not for being an organized crime boss...
That would make sense...except that the violations at issue occurred during the investigation of whether or not he posted the video, which itself would have violated the terms of his probation.
Its not about violations known in advance and held in reserve and then used as retribution for a "perfectly legal" act, "uppity" or otherwise.
the freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash
You mean like Piss Christ?
Oh wait. That seems to be fine. Even though the intent plainly was to generate backlash.
It looks like you have decided it only matters when people who would riot anyway use a movie as a pretext.
This movie was obviously not designed to "cause harm". It was just a bad, bad movie.
I could claim that watching Mortal Kombat: The movie drove me into a howling rage and it would be just as stupid. People need to take responsibility for reactions to media they never even had to watch, which is QUITE unlike the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater which no-one can avoid hearing or being part of the reaction to.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Aside from the people who feel this is a free speech issue where Nakoula was really arrested for making the film, no matter what else he did, there are at least two perfectly ligitimate reasons why he can be charged with probation violations:
1. He's been using aliases to do this - that's usually specifically prohibited by the terms of probation. The normal right to use an alias for non-fraudulent purposes does not usually apply while a person is on probation, so if he's got typical restrictions, the state does not have to prove he had some sort of fraudulent intent. They can void his probation automatically, although that doesn't stop them from also bringing charges if they are willing to try and prove the alias did entail fraudulent intent.
2. Reckless endangerment - His actors were placed in danger, and they are much more identifiable than he is as a producer, so their danger is actually greater than his (That may have changed due to all the publicity, but at the time of his actions, it was undeniably true, and that's the timeframe a court would have to consider). If he took steps to protect himself, but did not warn the actors of what sort of risks they were about to take on his behalf, that proves he had knowledge to elevate his actions to a felony level. So even if he trys to claim that his use of aliases was for the legitimate reason of protecting himself from Muslem retaliation, he demonstrates depraved indifference to the consequences of his actions with regard to his innocent employees. He really can't offer evidence to even mitigate the severity of sentencing on the one charge without simultaniously giving the state evidence to use on the other charge. His probation officer does not have to wait until the state decides to charge Nakoula criminally to act, either - he can bring the man in and ask just about any questions he chooses and all those answers become testemony admissible later if there is a court case filed. He can void the man's probation for conduct that doesn't rise to the level of new charges as well.
Who is John Cabal?
The next time you are jailed to appease people in a foreign country I guess I'll not say boo about the matter.
And if you think this "wraps up" the international incident then you are a fool; they are still protesting and want him dead, not arrested.
Kind of funny how when you start to try and appease people they keep wanting more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
At the court hearing about his parole violation he told the Judge that the original name he used during his criminal prosecution and incarceration wasn't his real name.
Think about that for a minute, he's jailed for fraud and ordered as a condition of probation not to use aliases, only his legal name and he tells the judge evaluating his compliance that the name he used in the previous trial was a fake. It's highly unusual in situations like this for a judge to incarcerate a parolee before the hearing, she threw him in jail because she said the court has no confidence he's not a liar and flight risk.
And might I add, just because you haven't bothered to follow the case that it makes your assertion that no one believes this isn't political asinine. Obama and the state department has almost zero influence over department of federal paroles (it's mostly courts administered). His parole conditions were public nearly a day after the whole thing went public, including links to all the PDFs on popehat.
Yes, because a check fraud conviction with a judicially applied condition of not using the Internet except under approval of the court appointed authority is such an uncommon offense against free speech that I've seen and heard it described as "a routine condition". When one is convicted of a crime, one loses certain rights. That's completely consistent with the 14th amendment, deprivation of liberty with due process.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
He was convicted for bank fraud. And then he goes and writes checks to pay for employees using an alias, and his probation conditions make it perfectly clear that the use of any sort of alias violates probation. The guy really stepped in it. This isn't some case of over sleeping and missing a check up with his probation officer.
That pretty much assured we'll be seeing more batshit insane rioting in the future. From the Muslim World's perspective, the following events occured: 1) Guy releases a movie insulting Islam 2) The Middle East explodes into violent rioting, killing hundreds of people 3) We arrest the guy to quell them. So in other words, riot more! The more Americans you kill, embassy you torch and flags you rip up, the more the US will bow to your whim! Positive reinforcement for everybody! I fucking hate this country.
Clearly you see the word "illegal" everywhere, even when it hasn't been written.
It's not illegal to see the word illegal everywhere.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Nobody's apologizing, failfuck
I guess you didn't get the memo the U.S. is doing just that, and paying $70k of your money to do so.
What was that you called people that got things wrong again? Seems like it rather more applies to yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not arrested for parole violations? He had two parole conditions and he violated both!! In fact he told the judge yesterday that the name he used during his original trial and incarceration was a fake. This is on the order a sex crime parolee with a condition not to have unsupervised contact with children running a bloody day care. They absolutely put people in jail all the time for violating parole. It's so common it's a daily occurrence for nearly every single parole officer.
Last I heard, they still haven't got Hoffa.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
He's a scumbag con man that violated the terms of his probation. I think we can come to an agreement on the word, "illegal" here.
As for the rest of your rant, start reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical_exclusions
Absolutely correct. California could be better using their time and effort protecting us from Linsey Lohan and others like her, but they release them after 45 minutes because the jails are too full. But this guy said something (supposedly) unpopular, so the system is going after him with everything they can come up with. This is clearly an effort to appease a supposedly religious group by further eroding basic American freedoms.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I wouldn't say he's a dirtbag... Any worse than others in the "movie industry".
He was already in prison for bank fraud... And he ran the movie production under a false name? Really? Who's money was he messing with this time?
Sounds like a typical OOD Slashdotter! Somebody who's gonna contest and push every little thing cause they feel persecuted. There's a LOT of those people in jail for "pushing the Man around" when they could be free.
Getting bail has jack shit to do with how serious your crime was, and everything to do with a) your likelihood of commiting another crime while out (very small for most murderers), and b) your trustworthiness, i.e. the likelihood the government will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking you down after you jump bail. In other words, it's an expression of how much the government trusts you to behave. Breaking probation indicates he is untrustworthy: therefore, no bail.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.
The beginning of what? What were the terms of his probation? If it's so "clear" why are the terms of his violation sealed from public view?'
Uh, the violation was made pretty public. You are not allowed to maintain aliases on probation. "Sam Bacile" not only released a video, but he hired actors and produced a video under that name. That's not allowed. In fact, that's not even a good idea when you aren't already a convict. In this case, though, he is a convict and had to follow probation rules to remain free.
One could argue that if you did *not* punish him, then the probation officer could be accused (rightly) of not doing his job. Since his job is to enforce the rules, and the evidence of the wrongdoing is absolutely manifest to all who are looking, he would be remiss in his duties if he left him free. Indeed, some people are wondering why he was allowed to remain free this long, although you could argue that some investigation was needed.
Ok, I can see lying to probation officials...
I can't without knowing what the "lie" was:
Police: "Sir, we're with the police. We want to ask you some questions. Are you awake?"
PB*: "Um, er, I guess so..."
Police: "LIE! You are plainly half asleep. Arrest this man".
PB = Poor Bastard
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I mean, saying something that could be construed as inflammatory and standing behind it is one thing, but saying it then hiding behind the bodies of others to try and avoid the consequences of your expression? I don't think I can rightfully support such an action. "Freedom of Expression" is more than a right, it's a duty, and I for one think this particular chucklehead failed in his duty to stand behind what he said, so I don't think his "speech" really falls under the category of protected. This asshat wouldn't last 2 seconds in Heinlein's "polite society," and for damn good reason - he's a worthless fucking coward.
For contrast, I offer the case of Terry Jones, the asshole pastor who made a big show of burning Korans. Same concept (intentionally pissing off Muslims), but since Rev. Jones actually had the cajones to stand behind his admittedly dickish actions, it's a completely different scenario.
If there truly is power in words (and, subsequently, media), then it's fair to say that with great power comes great responsibility. Maybe it's just me, but if you're too much of a chickenshit to stand up and own the fucked up shit you say to/about others, I think you would be wise to just keep your trap shut.
Also noteworthy - I would expect anyone who violates his parole and evades capture by using multiple false identities to be held without bail as well, regardless of their other, non-parole related actions.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
a criticism of your insulation
Seriously! In this day and age, you need at least R-22 if not R-30 in your house. Short of that, you may as well leave the windows open!! Oh wait... that's not what you meant was it... sorry, I'll just see myself out.
LA has a large number of Muslim inmates. I would hardly consider him safe in jail there.
So if this political, it is the politics of the evangelical christian, not the politics of the state. The state has rules that defines and describes civilized activity. If is the uncivilized activity of the religious terrorist that requires us to revisit and reinforce the rules.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
You are confusing Hoffa with Al Capone, who was jailed for tax evasion.
I thought it was for the criminally bad acting and scripting of the movie. If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
There's no legal concept of "hate speech" in USA, thankfully. There's "fighting words", but that's a different concept.
You might be thinking of Capone, convicted on tax evasion.
To the extent it's true that ordinary citizens commit felonies without intent daily, the fact that this guy had something to pin on him is not remarkable. Any of us could be arrested nominally for violating some law when the underlying motivation is to suppress speech the government doesn't like.
Shouldn't be a problem. Islam is a religion of peace.
But they keep looking: http://www.ktul.com/story/19662557/soil-samples-to-be-taken-in-hoffa-body-claim
It is unwise to ascribe motive
Some men have had their fucking head cut of and sewn back on again without losing the ability to fuck. Having your regular head cut off is much worse. You are not guaranteed to survive, even if it is sewn on again immediately.
Are you talking about Al Capone?
They couldn't nail Capone for any of his more high-profile crimes - in the end, the one government agency he couldn't escape unscathed was the IRS. Capone got nailed for tax evasion.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I can understand his motivations for lying about his name.
He had used fake names as part of his original scamming, and one condition of his probation was NOT to use false names.
-----It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.
---The beginning of what? What were the terms of his probation? If it's so "clear" why are the terms of his violation sealed from public view?'
From the La Times:
"Nakoula, who was on supervised release from a 2010 conviction for bank fraud, faces eight charges of probation violation, including making false statements to authorities about the film.
When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name “Sam Bacile” in connection to the film, Dugdale said.
Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoula’s role in making “Innocence of Muslims” was “much more expansive” than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials."
------It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie
----You know who believes that statement? Approximately no-one. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that had the protestors not claimed that movie was provoking them that he would be in jail, or even in trouble? Lots of other terrible movies are made every day and the producers run free to make more.
I believe that statement because it is true. Don't believe me? There is absolutely nothing in the Prosecutors statements about why he was arrested that had anything to do with the CONTENT of that movie. It's because he lied, repeatedly, to officials. This is exactly my point. Some people are so willing to believe conspiracies that they refuse to look at what is so obvious right there before them. Read this article and tell me his arrest had anything to do with the CONTENT of that movie:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-aliases-innocence-muslims.html
----He was jailed EXACTLY because of the content of the movie. He is being punished to try and appease the protestors.
--You know what other countries are doing by way of thanks? Jailing some guy who ripped up a bible in Egypt. Is this really the road we want to go down?
Did the guy who ripped up the Bible violate the terms of his parole? Do they even have parole there? If not, it was most likely because of blasphemy laws. The fact that the Egyptian authorities are stupid for enforcing blasphemy laws, while our authorities are not stupid for enforcing parole violations, is none of my concern.
I think he started giving out false names BEFORE people wanted to kill him. Sure NOW he has a good reason to do it, but that was his own choice. He knew that he was prohibited from using aliases for his past crimes, so prison shouldn't come as much of a shock to him (at least until the muslim inmates figure out who he is).
The only killing we have seen was from a terrorist attack on an embassy, not from a protest.
How many "protests" also involve quiet ambushes on secret safe-houses?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Use of false identities was a modus operandi in committing his previous crimes. I read somewhere that one of his conditions for parole was that he stop doing it.
Clearly, he's a dirtbag
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
He doesn't need to be a criminal for AC to wish bad things upon him. Always struck me as strange how slashdotters are quick to forget that not everyone is a lawyer talking about laws.
Arr, fine. I'll respond, though I suspect this is a troll. Freedom of speech does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Freedom of speech does not cover incitement to violence. Calling a specific group of people violent is freedom of speech, just as much as those people can call themselves non violent and the original speaker an idiot. (Note that this is the response generally accepted in polite society and the response that most sensible, educated people had to this video.) Calling for the man who made the offending remark's head to be chopped off is direct incitement to violence, thus, bad for society as a whole.
This guy is completely 100% irrelevant to anything that's happening in the Middle East. Go to youtube and in one minute you can find a dozen anti-Islam videos made by various random people. When certain extremist groups in the Middle East want to incite violence for their own political purposes, they will find a catalyst easily enough, just like with Mohammed cartoons etc, it doesn't matter what that catalyst is. The biggest issue here for me is that the administration is still talking about the stupid irrelevant film instead of the fact that the Libya attack was obviously a planned and successful Al Qaeda operation to assassinate a US ambassador and that we didn't do enough to prevent it. But that wouldn't look good, would it, so better to focus everybody's attention on a particular US citizen and make him take the blame. Shameful.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
there is no evidence to support the claim that he was a child-molester (among other accusations).
It depends on your definition of "child molester". If having sex with a prepubescent child is sufficient, then he definitely qualifies based on authentic Islamic hadith.
Either way, slander/libel is a civil offense, not criminal, and it requires the offended party to sue.
So you're arguing that he shouldn't have been held accountable for his probation violation?
Get back to me when someone actually does get arrested for child porn, as opposed to publicly and flagrantly breaking his probation.
Peace through superior shanks!
What makes you think he will be safer in a crowded prison?
The trouble with freedom of speech is that speech isn't just words. Otherwise Islam's fatwahs are merely free speech.
Fatwahs are murder contracts, that offer a reward for murder. Soliciting murder is a crime.
The video may have offended some, but was not a direct request for criminal activity.
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
I understand his motivations. I also understand that providing false identities to LEOs while on legal probation is a crime in itself, and that if a person commit a crime, they will be punished accordingly.
This is all much ado about nothing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And all those people that say that he should be handled like any other parolee that has lied to his parole officer... all I can say is... This is the REAL WORLD, nothing is ever applied consistently. People who make a big stink and get attention directed towards them tend to get more "special treatment".
Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Not sure. Ask Martha Stewart.
He should be jailed for spreading hate speech
There are no laws against "hate speech" in the US. Laws against speech are unconstitutional. Insulting you and your closest billion friends is perfectly legal.
There are hate crimes, though. If a black man cuts in line front of you and you say "fucking asshole!" and punch him, you'll pay a fine and likely spend a few days in the county jail for battery. But if you say "fucking nigger!" and punch him, that's a hate crime and you'll likely go to prison. But that stupid movie was nothing like that.
BTW, mods, he wasn't trolling, that seems like a legit opinion to me (even though I disagree vehemently), particularly if he's from Germany or somewhere where that attitude is drummed into kids at an early age.
Free Martian Whores!
Obviously he's an asshole, and angry about frequent muslim attacks on Copts, but I'll go a little further and suggest he's 0% to blame for violence in the middle east. "A youtube video made me really, really mad", is not an excuse for murder. And it's not like he's the first person on the internet to trash muhammad.
It was just the ridiculous excuse du jour for something those savages were eager enough to do anyway. News sources are calling that, "the flash point" or "spark that set off violence". All are elegant ways of saying people wanted to murder other people, but needed a convenient excuse.
I ASSume they'll keep him away from the general population.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Some men have had their fucking head cut of and sewn back on again without losing the ability to fuck. Having your regular head cut off is much worse. You are not guaranteed to survive, even if it is sewn on again immediately.
I think you meant "You are guaranteed to not survive, even if it is sewn on again immediately."
Plus, I'm sure there are several people who would rather lose their regular head than their fucking head.Of course there are also those who cut off their fucking head because they want to.
I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, but there is still such a thing as having some taste, and having some common sense. Clearly this guy has, at the very least, poor judgement, and perhaps poor impulse control, and while I'm not going to lay 100% of the blame on him for the violence in the Middle East due to his ill-advised (and poorly produced, from what I hear) video, he certainly is guilty of being the catalyst.
That's very loaded language. He's not "guilty" of anything - at least in the context of the Islamic hissy-fit business. He is a catalyst, like that teacher who sparked an armed and angry lynch mob in Sudan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case
Granted, his actions were provocative, while the teacher's were not. While his actions were inadvisable, 100% of the blame lies with the angry nutjobs and the rabble rousers. If we apportion any blame at all to this guy then we may as well issue mitigation points to anyone taking offence. If some guy in the street says that my mother is a scabby whore, should he share the blame if I were to then pull out a knife and cut out his liver? He's a factor in what happened, but what he did is rendered academic by my crazy response. Staying with that example, if I reacted so badly, is it possible that this reaction is based on more than just this single incident? There's way more happening here than just a bunch of cavemen getting worked up over a video.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Yeah, typically. You also go to jail for violating terms of your probation too. Lying to your probation officer, depending on the lie will typically get you a few nights in jail. Violating your probation terms typically means you go back to jail for a considerable amount of time.
Since we don't know everything about the case usually we take the magistrate at his word when he says there was a "lengthy pattern of deception" and conclude that it has been going on for a long time.
Yes, that's much more likely than previously no one noticing his parole violations because they weren't being put in the spotlight so that even the world's most incompetent parole officer has to notice them.
Your own post was male bovine excrement. California releases people who are true threats to the public all of the time, claiming that the jails are too full and other nonsense. This guy was clearly targeted because of a silly little film he made, no because of anything that he did, and had been doing for several years before the film trailer was posted.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How much is mallice, and how much is stupidity? How much of it changes anything at all?
If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
You say that, but I'm sure that there are downsides as well.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
or lousy dialog, pathetic special effects or poor scene editing. He'd get the death penalty for sure. Can I issue a fatwah against lousy film makers?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Are you sure it's not because it's both? I mean Romney is a pretty friggin big idiot after all.
As has been accepted by everyone except the fawning liberal press, the embasy attack and the rioting in general had been planned for months to coincide with the annaversery of 9/11.
This is simply putting this guy under a microsocope and finding something, anything, to jail him with. He is a political prisioner. If not alledged parole violation, it would have been spitting on the sidewalk. You can bet this didn't originate with local authorities.
Meet the new Putin, darker skinned than the old Putin.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not when they're deemed a flight risk, like this guy and Bernie Madof (who also was denied bond for the same reason).
Free Martian Whores!
I've seen far too many comparisons in comment threads with Nakoula's anti-Islamic film to the Supreme Court decision in the Schenck v. United States trial. The majority decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes read: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." There is no "clear and present danger" in making a movie depicting Mohammed because there may be extremists in the world who would use it to vent their ever-present hatred of Western freedoms. This slippery slope that would have all free people wary of ever criticising Islam for fear of reprisal and would essentially give extremists the same kind of oppressive power over Western nations as they hold over women in their countries. "Respect our laws or else we'll beat you or kill you." There's an enormous difference between inciting panic in a crowded theater or rioting in an already present and agitated crowd to making a film or exercising your free speech and then having extremist groups use it as an excuse for violence.
Ah, the apologist logic here is pathetic.
That doesn't change the definition of Free Speech. That just means that if you have threats along with your Free Speech, then it changes the issue entirely. It's the threat that is the issue, and not the speech itself.
The issue at hand is from a terribly low budget movie's trailer, which is insulting to Muslims. It is not threatening. Calling for the destruction of Israel is threatening, particularly when said Imam is calling upon his followers to make it happen.
This is no different than the Westboro Baptists that go around protesting at military funerals. They can get away with it it because it's not threatening anybody, and that's why it is the unfortunate side of acceptable Free Speech.
The issue to them is very cut and dry, but it is far from not being hypocritical. You cannot insult Islam in any way. But the reverse is completely acceptable; they can insult your nation (e.g, Great Satan, which also associates religious aspects to it), or your religion (e.g, Jews), and you had better accept it. And they're going to do it while they destroy your embassy, even if your nation wasn't involved at all (e.g., German Embassy protests).
But you're right, I guess I don't see any hypocrisy in there. Keep running around with your blinders on.
True, but let's not pretend that once he got the attention that it didn't become somebody's job to dig this up. I'm not defending the asshole, rather the phrase "If you have nothing to hide...."" is echoing through my head right now.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, the crime he was originally tried and convicted for was fraud and if I'm not mistaken he had >10 aliases he was using to bilk money. Hence the probationary rule that he not pretend to be anyone else. He did so NUMEROUS times in the filming and posting of this movie.
Secondly, I've been on probation (for a misdemeanor but still had to report etc.). It's no fun and I can tell you that if my PO had found out I was in violation I probably would have had some repercussions. Probably not jail since my case was so minor but this guy stole millions so I think what's occurring is completely legitimate. He could have created the movie and gotten it posted WITHOUT violating his probation yet he defied them anyway.
yes, he's definitely a flight risk. With the entire Muslim world itching to behead him, I'm sure he'd rather flee the extremely dangerous confines of the US for a much safer destination, such as Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Albania, Kosovo, Spain, France, Thailand........
I believe that you have confused the excuse for him being arrested for the reason that the government started looking for excuses in the first place. The reason that he is arrested is suppression of free speech. The excuse is the things that you mention, which otherwise would have never been acted on by the government (just like they had been ignored for years prior).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So, a $100,000 bond wouldn't be a pretty safe guarantee of him not fleeing?
He's a dirtbag whose deliberate actions created way too much trouble for him to walk freely in the streets.
Anyone who saw that piece of crap of his "movie" can agree that it didn't aim at sparkling a legitimate debate over Islam, but just at throwing fuel on fire on a tense enough situation.
I wish they keep him locked, whatever the reason.
If you go by what the Washingtonpost has been saying, the Obama administration hasn't been quite as forthcoming on the story. It appears that the attack on the consulate was not spontaneous, and that within the administration, there has been charges of it being a "terrorist" incident. Sure, given previous stories where there was a representation of Mohammed the Arab street has expressed outrage, so the entire story seems plausible at the time, but as more info leaks out, it seems less so.
Most of the media has been giving Obama a pass on the story, nor has Romney latched on either..
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
Actually, in some cases it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words . See also incitement to riot.
Even in the US, there's provisions which restrict freedom of speech. The US has, far and above, the most liberal free speech laws in the world, and there's still provision in US law that could make what he did illegal. I haven't seen the film in question, so I can't really give an opinion one way or the other on whether what he did actually was inciteful, but there is provision in US law to make inciteful speech illegal.
In the rest of the civilized world, there wouldn't be any question... every developed country in the world other than the US, and most of the developing nations with free speech, have restrictions on free speech that essentially boil down to a basic rule: your right to say what you want stops at my right to be safe and free. If what you're saying can cause me harm, and it's not 100% true and backed up by verifiable facts, you're not allowed to say it. Even if it is backed up by verifiable facts, if it is likely to incite hatred or violence against me (say you're telling the wrong people I'm a lesbian), then you're not allowed to say it either.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether your constitution protects your right to speak... your actions have consequences, and you need to take responsibility for them. The US Constitution is *not* a carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want, and the free speech provision says nothing about being exempt from the consequences of your speech, it only says that they won't prevent you from speaking in the first place.
You must remember though that he is locked up in the state of California.
Because of recent goings on here almost no one on parole in the state can be locked up for parole violations.
Only new crimes. Now probation is a little different and on the county level. But seriously. If we are not going to violate parolees in the state then putting a guy in jail for a simple probation violation just would not ever happen with anyone but this guy.
He is locked up right now because people with power found it to be to their advantage to have him locked up. No other reason.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
It doesn't hurt that the media tends to be against him, playing over and over again every misspoken or out of context word.
Like that stint about him "Liking to fire people". Where the context was being about to drop out of services that are not performing well. But noo, lets not use it in conext, just use is as sentance fragment to show how evil he is.
Now I am not a Romney Supporter and will not vote for him... However. The media hasn't been fare with him.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Martha Stewart spent five months in a federal prison in Alderson, WV, for making false statements to federal investigators --a lesser crime than lying to one's probation officer. THEN, after she spent five months in prison, she spent another five months under home confinement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Incarceration
I can understand that, given the amount of publicity both nationally and worldwide, the government really had little choice but to enforce the probation terms once it came out who the filmmaker really was and that he must have violated the terms to go on YouTube to upload it.
But when is someone going to point out that probation terms like these are absurd on their face? The Internet is a basic part of modern life. Everyone uses it, and even someone who tries to avoid it might well find themselves violating the terms by accident. (For instance, is using a GPS device counted as using the Internet? From a technical standpoint, that's often what is happening.) Probation terms ordering people to stay away from computers might have made some sense back in the days of Kevin Mitnick and Captain Crunch, but they are utter nonsense in 2012. You might as well make a probation term telling someone they can't watch TV or read a newspaper.
Only two things can be taken away from this event: 1) killing ambassadors and US citizens by not so crazy Muslim fanatics WORKS and is an effective strategy. 2) If the Constitution cannot protect this guy, it sure as shit won't protect you either.
You missed one:
3) violating the conditions of your parole by using false identification will result in arrest, being considered a flight risk, and subsequent denial of bail.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He wasn't arrested for parole violations. He was arrested for embarrassing the state. The alleged violations are just the excuse they happen to be using. If they didn't have that, we would be hearing some BS about child porn on his computer instead.
He is being sued by one of the actresses in the movie. He lied to the cast and used a fake when producing the movie. Using fake names is a violation of his parole. The condition exists because he used a fake name in bank fraud in the past. Not really selective prosecution when a victem is pushing for it.
What does the Obama administration have to do with his parole officer? Is there video or documents showing Obama has anything to do with this?
Look for use of term "teabagger" or other sexual slang instead of reasoned argument.
Wait... there's a use of "teabagger" that's NOT sexual slang?
No wonder that guy in front of the grocery store with the clipboard was so offended by my request...
On one hand, they got the guy who broke he law, that's a win. But on the other, it makes it look like he's being jailed for expressing his opinion about something controversial. That's a not a win, that's a loss.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
C'mon, the guy's a chump. Failure to release details of his 'violations' should raise lots of suspicion. In fact the whole thing smells of a coverup and is starting to sound less believable every day. Not that I ever did believe the movie had anything to do with anything except to serve as a diversion, like most stories on the middle east from mass media.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The contents of the movie drew attention, Then people investigated who made it, and it turned out that he did, under an alias - a violation of his parole. So yes, the arrest happened only because of the contents of his movie, although he wasn't arrested FOR the contents of his movie - they were just the trigger that lead to his parole violation being made known.
This is no different than the Westboro Baptists that go around protesting at military funerals. They can get away with it it because it's not threatening anybody, and that's why it is the unfortunate side of acceptable Free Speech.
WBP is half "church" half legal machine. They know the law and they work within it. They have to be very careful because they will be arrested and punished if they overstep their bounds at all. To that extent, WBP members have been arrested and I'm sure that members will be arrested in the future.
It is very common to want legal justice to enforce social norms, as is the case here and with the WBP protests. In fact, many laws are enacted to do just that. If you're going to openly eschew social norms, say by making a highly inflammatory video, then you are wise to make sure there is no way that you can be punished for it, as the WBP do. This guy clearly did not do that, and his rap sheet makes it clear that he is something of a habitual fraudster. The prison door was open and waiting for him before he did this and that was spelled out in his agreement. Should we now be weeping for him because he provided an easy excuse to push him through it?
Freedom of speech is so often used as an excuse to avoid any sort of punishment. Freedom of speech is not, and never will be, freedom from consequence. There is plenty of legal precedent for consequences to speech. You can be fired for certain speech. You can be jailed for certain speech. In this case, the consequence of his speech is that it caused media, and later prosecutors, to look into his background and expose that he was in violation of parole. He is not excused from his existing probation limitations because he created something that is constitutionally protected.
And, since I find what he created to be abhorrent, I will gleefully celebrate his further incarceration.
Now if only Obama would do something about Uwe Boll.
Sure, anyone can probably be busted for some lame excuse, but this guy was convicted of actual criminal behavior before he was ever involved in this. The worst thing here is that he pissed people off and they are getting back at him. Still, you know what? I'd say he has the right to say what he likes, but he doesn't have the right to say it without people disliking him for it. If he hadn't been doing something illegal already, he'd still be walking the streets right now, video or not. It just so happens that he made some people *very* interested in whether he was doing something wrong. As it stands, I'd say his video is pretty good evidence of some shockingly bad decision making skills, so a criminal conviction is no surprise there.
He made it his business to insult and bait an entire population, and that was entirely legal, but I'm just not really going to feel very bad when he suffers from the unforeseen consequences of his actions. What he did was legal, and his return to jail is legal too. I don't believe in karma, but if I did, I'd say karma is a bitch.
Hm.. good point about the civil vs. criminal. Not to defend it too vehemently, but I will say most accounts would suggest that he married a prepubescent girl, but waited until "Aunt Flow" visited to consummate. While not cool by today's standards, this was kind of how things were done 1400 years ago. Europe included. Marriage was a contract between families and a means of supporting each other. It still is in some undeveloped parts of the world. Again, I can't stress enough that the icky factor is overwhelming in this case, but I still wouldn't quite classify this in the same category as say teachers or other authority figures *CpOrUiGeHsts* who go after their students/underlings.
What was it they got Hoffa for? Not for being an organized crime boss...
You probably mean Al Capone. And they got Capone on tax evasion.
What makes you think that they would put him in general population?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
You say that, but I'm sure that there are downsides as well.
Well, you'd have to start by building a small jail and then proclaiming the inside to be the outside.
Ezekiel 23:20
There's no legal concept of "hate speech" in USA, thankfully. There's "fighting words", but that's a different concept.
And the "fighting words" doctrine has been severely limited by subsequent jurisprudence. The incident in the seminal case on "fighting words" (cop arrested protester for calling him a "damned racketeer") would clearly constitute a civil rights violation today. The "fighting words" doctrine as an exception to 1st Amendment protection is essentially dead. It lives on, however, as a defense to battery in some jurisdictions. So you can get punched for saying some stuff, but you can't get shut up by the government.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
If he hadn't been doing something illegal already, he'd still be walking the streets right now, video or not.
This is why I mentioned the bit about 'if you have nothing to hide.'. If he hadn't had that criminal history behind him, what else do you think they would have dug up on him? "We found he downloaded 6 mp3 files, bring him in!"
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Either way, slander/libel is a civil offense, not criminal, and it requires the offended party to sue.
Well that would sure shut up the anti-Muslim crowd! Muhammad v. Nakoula.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
This AC has said about all there is to say on the subject. I'm as staunch an advocate of free speech as anyone. I think the "fire in a crowded theatre" canard is way overplayed, and I think national security exceptions to free speech endanger our national security in and of themselves. I'd rather see goatse on every billboard in the country than have any restrictions on obscenity whatsoever. Even I can't find a reason to be upset about parole violations leading to revocation of that parole.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If he hadn't had that criminal history behind him, what else do you think they would have dug up on him?
I think there would have been concern from the government but otherwise nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones_(pastor)
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Obama's not an idiot; he's a highly competent cryptofascist overlord. Based on his first term I have to conclude that his primary objective is an indefinite undeclared-martial-law police state, cost be damned. He clearly considers human life and liberty expendable, doubly so for noncitizens.
And yes, I'll probably vote for him anyway. Lay off, people, I already feel bad enough about it. This election is like choosing between Ivan the Terrible and Rasputin. (Yes, I know that Ivan the Simple and Boris the Cobbler are running too. But I'm not going to throw my vote away!)
Clearly, he's a dirtbag
I wonder how many Slashdotters who are making claims like this are the same ones who mock Christians in other posts? If I had time, I would make the Slashdot hypocrisy list.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
He's a felon on parole. There are conditions to that parole. If a felon offered parole doesn't want to agree to the conditions of his release, he is welcome to stay in prison, where he can continue to say whatever he would like.
Being on parole and violating the conditions of your parole in a spectacular manner and NOT expecting to be put back in prison as a result is ridiculously dumb.
For example, one of the conditions of his parole that he not use the internet unsupervised.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet unsupervised, likely no one notices and nothing happens.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet to start a blog claiming Mitt Romney is a polygamist, and it gets picked up by the media, he's going back to prison.
Parolees should not violate parole. Parolees who do not want to go back to prison should definitely not get CAUGHT violating parole.
You don't get a free pass just because you say something extremely objectionable while violating your parole.
paintball
In other words, it's legal harassment. Hopefully if there's any provable connection between his arrest and the video, this turns into a multi-million dollar First Amendment lawsuit.
I think the guy's a bigot. But bigots have a right to be bigots in this country whether the political establishment likes it or not.
Liberty in your lifetime
Yup, he's a dirtbag.
And hopefully he ends up a very rich dirtbag after a successful First Amendment lawsuit over this. "Dirtbags" have the same right to freedom of speech as you do in this country.
Liberty in your lifetime
We're not talking about bond, we're talking about parole. And yes, murderers get released on parole just like this guy was. And when murderers violate that parole, just like this guy did, they get put back in prison, just like this guy will.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Criminalizing hate speech is an utterly unacceptable violation of our right to free speech. You're a far more dangerous person for suggesting it, than he is for exercising his freedoms. Shame on you, you are worse than Nakoula.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Despite any valid points that may follow, All I see here is "Our President" trying to send the message to the Muslim Population that we are punishing this man and "are sorry" for his Infidel behavior. Thanks the wrong DAMN message! The correct message is: Here in America we treasure freedom and many Americans gave there lives for it. We feel the childish knee-jerk killing and rioting within some of your societies as a result of watching or hearing about something that offends you is evidence of your adolescence. Most Christian by contrast argue by acts of love, we are indeed offended by much in society and see it as an opportunity to pray for and help those individuals and understand there is sin in the world. We don't kill them! This guy has some problems, he needs help, I am glad that the law did its duty. I just wish our President would.
I will say most accounts would suggest that he married a prepubescent girl, but waited until "Aunt Flow" visited to consummate.
Until the, the Prophet had to settle for "thighing" her.
While not cool by today's standards, this was kind of how things were done 1400 years ago
Just because pedophilia was more acceptable 1400 years ago, doesn't make it not pedophilia. And this is someone people are supposed to look up to as a moral leader.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, it's that you irrationally support authoritarian censorship, which requires little, if any real thinking.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But what are the odds that anyone would have noticed the violation. It's one thing to go against the rules. It's onother to go against the rules and then jump up and down waving a flag to get everyone's attention.
Maybe. But then again, as the summary and you say, this is very convenient for the US government, so how do we know this isn't another made-up charge like with Julian Assange?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
A statute is trumped by the first amendment if they conflict, and the statute in question seems to require pretty direct advocacy. This wouldn't even pass the sniff test if Muslims had been the victims of a riot, so it certainly wouldn't apply in this case.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I can't say I'm upset about it either. But I also acknowledge that the mechanism used to return him to jail, i.e., annoying someone important, is a very dangerous thing to exist, and can (and has) been used in much more objectionable ways.
The law was enforced against him because he annoyed someone more powerful. Most parole violations do not result in reincarceration. Often even repeated parole violations don't get more than a warning. That he gets jail is excessive.
OTOH, IIUC, his treatment of the actors and actresses in the film merits his being sued into total bankruptcy, probably for copyright violation. TOTAL. It was, in my non-lawyer opinion illegal as well as immoral. (He may not be much worse than most Hollywood producers, but that's a very low bar to jump over. A worm could do it. And saying he wasn't much worse isn't denying that he was worse.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You misunderstood my stance on the matter. I think even the founders would agree that the WBC stands on the unfortunate side of free speech. They are protected, when clearly no one wants them to be, simply to protect everything else. But, I still think, like the founders, that they are a necessary evil to put up with to avoid the slippery slope that it would otherwise create.
As stated, there is insufficient data to determine if he violated anything. Try not to assume that the government is being truthful.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the administration is still talking about the stupid irrelevant film instead of the fact that the Libya attack was obviously a planned and successful Al Qaeda operation to assassinate a US ambassador
What? How about this? I for one would like to avoid making foreign policy based on assumptions and hearsay. Or perhaps you're a Mittens man and would rather jump to wild conclusions before any real information is available?
And before you start wailing about how some of those early baseless assumptions turned out to be partly true, I would remind you that a broken clock is right twice a day...
Also, while the attack was clearly a blow to our local Libyan intelligence operation - in addition to the obvious human tragedy - the impact of the movie and its subsequent protests are more troubling because they demonstrate how there is a downside to greater freedom of expression in the region. There is clearly an attempt by extremists (religious and governmental) to hijack that freedom to let everyone know that they are still a potent force. The trick is to respect the protests while not allowing them to be completely one-sided. The counter-protests in Libya are a good example of this.
Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. You don't need freedom of speech to protect popular statements without controversy.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Wouldn't these riots be more like you cutting out your brother's liver because someone else called your mother a whore? Which probably says more about Islam than any Youtube video ever could.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Good example. She was another person who was prosecuted to distract attention away from larger criminals.
And by "another" I mean this guy was too. Both appear to be guilty as charged. And in both cases that isn't sufficient to explain why *they* were chosen to prosecute.
The difference, of course, is that Martha Stewart doesn't appear to have had any malice, while this guy was loaded with it. And the criminals that Martha Stewart took the fall for had no real connection to her, and were powerful WITHIN the country, while those this guy is taking the fall for aren't guilty of the crimes that he is charged with, and are outside the country. Neither is the conventional "fall guy" setup, but in both cases the "victim" ends up in jail for the convenience of external forces, not *because* they committed the crime (though they did, apparently, commit it.)
I hadn't noticed that parallel before. Thanks for pointing it out.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No need to go to youtube. Just watch the last half hour or so of Bill Maher's Religulous. That's a well-made popular movie that is even more insulting to Islam.
One wonders why Muslims didn't go apeshit over it. And one wonders what Maher's life expectancy would be if he lived in Iran.
The simple fact is they don't like us. Didn't a hundred years ago, didn't a year ago, and won't like us tomorrow. And now, thanks to Obama's apologies and bowing to everybody he gets near, they don't respect us either. Look for things to get much worse before they get better.
I'd say it's a lose lose. If he's violating parole, we have to arrest him, but that make the violent criminals* of the Muslim world think their crimes impact the behavior of the US government.
* No, I don't mean all Muslims, just those willing to kill and destroy property because some idiot said something mean about the Profit**.
** I wonder if Jesus and Mohamed are in heaven asking God to make with the lightning bolts every time someone makes fun of them down hear on earth?
In that very article you linked, it says that "mere offensiveness does not qualify as 'fighting words'." I've only skimmed through the video, so it may be what I'm about to say next is wrong, but that's all it looked like it was--offensive.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Funny.. they are digging up a driveway right now to look for him.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/soil-samples-to-be-taken-from-detroit-driveway-in-search-for-jimmy-hoffa/
But your right, they still haven't found him.
they release them after 45 minutes because the jails are too full
Probably more because they need to be given "special treatment" and segregation from other prisoners who aren't rich and famous, which adds cost.
Maybe if LL was in with gen-pop then she'd clean up her act.
Call me when Mohammad shows up in a California court to file a complaint for slander/libel against this guy.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
When has the media ever been fair. They don't even cover natural disasters honestly. I saw coverage of a fire near where I live, and from the TV it looked like the entire city was in flames. Yeah, it was pretty bad, but it covered less than 1/10th (I'm not sure how much less), as I discovered when I got back.
In this case I can't complain about they way they are panning Romney. What I do object to is that before the election started they didn't criticize Obama properly. He's an enemy of freedom, possibly an enemy of humanity (though that *may* be an overstatement). That Romney is worse doesn't mean I feel I can vote for Obama. Talk about throwing your vote away...voting for either of them is worse than throwing your vote away. So I'll vote for some minor party, and be sorry that the incompetent that I vote for doesn't have a chance to win. (None of the minor parties I've investigated have a candidate who could even understand more than a fraction of the job of a president. Different parties understand different fractions. And none of them could get much cooperation from congress...or maybe they could? After all, none of the minor parties are the official enemy...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Or, at least, he wasn't by the specific terms of his probation.
Something that involved making a posting to the internet without prior consultation with the Probation Officer which was, also, prohibited by his probation terms.
So in short, my right to free speech is conditional on whether every human being on this planet approve of what I say. If they don't, I, not them, am responsible for anything they might do to show their displeasure. Also, North Korea has complete freedom of speech because it doesn't ball-gag its citizens pre-emptively.
But tell me, does responsibility for one's own actions not extend to muslims? Are those following Islam not adults capable of controlling themselves? Because if they are, then they, not a Youtube troll, are responsible for these riots; and if not, then that puts Islam in far worse light than any video could.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm going to start off by saying that I'm ignoring the fact he violated probation.
That's central to the case (and it was parole, not probation, those are significantly different): If he had not been convicted of a crime that he's still technically serving time for, they couldn't do this. As it is, they can because he was let out under specific conditions and violated those conditions.
I am officially gone from
I find that if you know someone wants to shoot you, providing them with the ammunition to do so is not a wise move.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Way to miss the point. Seriously.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, he really is being locked up for violating his probation, which he no doubt was violating long before the kerfuffle over the video. The video simply made him more noticeable to the system. Sorry to deny your outrage, but it's as simple as that.
I don't know if this was actually true, but originally there was some reporting that under terms of his probation, he was not allowed to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. I would have suspected some outrage in ./ over a condition like that.
As I understand it, communicating with folks uploading a video to the internet under an alias is what he's been held on. But what people seem to be concentrating on is the alias part (which seems a bit hippocrtical given the typical number of AC poist made on ./ as well)...
Which, ironically, has the side benefit of protecting his life.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
Me thinks you misunderstood my entire post. I was not attacking the use of the word illegal in the GP post, nor was I getting into whether the OP actually used the word, which he clearly and literally did not.
I was attacking your definition of free speech, and how it applies to the United States, which was flatly wrong. Finally, I was separately attacking the idiocy of your last statement regarding a lack of Muslim hypocrisy.
It makes sense that you did not get it, as you did not refute a single point that I made, nor do you coherently make any of your own. For example:
The original poster literally called the person a dirtbag in the title of his post, which is synonymous with scumbag. The poster that you responded too was making the--apparently to you--audacious point that simply being a dirtbag is not illegal in-and-of-itself, linking the idea that him being locked up because of making a film that has incited Muslim rage goes against free speech. Then you made a series of misinformed, or downright wrong points.
In summary, you were wrong in your last post on all but one thing: the OP never literally said "illegal." And you're still wrong about everything, except that.
As I ended my last post, continue moving forward with your blinders on.
Why would he be offended at you asking him to help bag your tea? Sometimes when I buy a lot of tea I need assistance in bagging it. Seems reasonable enough.
I don't know how anyone could sit through it. maybe it's more entertaining in Arabic..
If you have ANY loose legal ends that you have not tied up, don't make a public statement that the government doesn't like.
Your 'rights' end at the door.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You should go to a higher class establishment. :)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
"Freedom of speech does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
Why?
It doesn't harm anyone.
it harms people because they are obligated on pain of a fiery death to flee the building. during that time they are exposed to an increased risk of being trampled by the other people you obligated (on pain of a fiery death) to flee the building. Believing you when you yell fire is rational because fires happen on a regular basis, and people are killed in fires on a regular basis.
"Freedom of speech does not cover incitement to violence"
Since this is the entire point of this movie, you therefore agree it is not free speech.
Well done.
The movie is not an incitement to violence.
If some imam gets offended and tells people to commit violence then it is the imam who is inciting. The movie never told anybody to kill anybody.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Yes, but I suppose it could be that it's the stupid they know, rather than the stupid they don't (obama over romney)... ;) Politicians in general are all big friggin' idiots, so it's really trying to pick one that didn't eat as much lead paint chips as a child. (Sometimes I wonder....)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
he wasn't jailed for making this movie. he was jailed for violating his parole. someone else could have made the exact same movie without any consequences. In fact he might still be acquitted for violating his parole if he can establish that the police went far out of their way to nitpick his activity beyond what they would normally do for other parolees. Everyone is supposed to be treated with the same legal standards and not be treated more harshly simply because some legal activity pisses off a a religious group.
And make no mistake, Muslims were pissed off because of the movie, not because of a suspected parole violation.
If his detention is motivated by political purposes and not merely because of a parole violation, he could very well have a lawsuit against the State.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
"Innocence of Muslims" was produced by Islamists.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is Meth-dealer-Egyptian-Coptic-anti-Muslim-activist-fundamentalist-Christian. Then on the other hand, Eiad Salameh appears to be a Muslim-fundamentalist-Palestinian-scam-artist-terrorist.
We're being duped again (and that includes me as well) by the ill-informed Media.
Walid Shoebat has the drop on these guys on his blog.
As this looks to be a movie designed to enrage "Enemies of the State" yes they did track down the guy that made the movie to see WHY he made the movie. Im not sure that anything "fishy" is happening since they could have arranged for him to
1 be found by US based extremists
2 been "shot while resisting arrest"
since we do have paws on him i say ring up the Libyans and tell them " we have the guy that did that movie you wanna trade him for the guys that killed our ambassador??"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
we have been doing that for a long time now. they fuck up and blame someone else. just like with islam do they really think they are gonna quit being asshats just because we tell them to stop. they will quit when there is not enough of there country left or enough alive to be a threat. and until that happens i tune out on this garbage because that's all it is. and im not talking bought like iraq where we went in and have are dicks around then left.
I thought it was for the criminally bad acting and scripting of the movie.
If this was true, most of Hollywood would be arrested, and Michael Bay would be in GitMo solitary.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You misunderstood my stance on the matter. I think even the founders would agree that the WBC stands on the unfortunate side of free speech. They are protected, when clearly no one wants them to be,
No, it seems I understood your stance on the matter very well. It is not "unfortunate" that these people have free speech rights, nor is it entirely clear that "no one wants them" to have such rights. (Clearly, they, themselves, want themselves to have such rights; just as clearly, many many service members have fought and died to protect that right for others, even those they do not agree with.) The First Amendment was created specifically to protect such speech. Not the specific content, but most assuredly the kind of speech.
This is the problem with someone saying 'I don't think THEY ought to have that right' whilst enjoying that right themselves. "I don't think people who form a corporation should have the right to free speech" (paraphrashed), wrote a local nonprofit corporation board member in a corporate publication. The very epitome of "I want mine but you can go screw yourself". Our city council appears to be speaking in support of "Move To Amend", which seeks to remove the right of free speech from "artificial entities" (and a local city government is just as artificial as a corporation formed to promote the production and presentation of a political movie.)
If you think that the First Amendment is "unfortunate" because it protects speech you don't like, then rest assured that there is someone who will not like what you say and your right is enshrined in the same amendment that theirs is. If you are willing to be silent when others don't like what you say, then you may seek that from others.
No matter how abhorrent the movie, what sparked the violence was the acceptance that violence in the name of Islam is justified.
Currently hooked on AMP
So much for Freedom of Speech; political showboating is the win-win.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
I believe we'd have to put most government employees in jail. Yes, we do have many really good people in government service, but the real problem is that government "service" tends to attract the worst in society. I could use words like "greedy," "avaricious," and "corrupt" but that would tend to denigrate them. I know people who have worked in government and left in disgust. If I knew only one, I'd write it off - but I know several.
but let's not pretend that once he got the attention that it didn't become somebody's job to dig this up.
You have the timeline ass-backwards
There really is "nothing to see" here, there was no star chamber determining his fate, just a parole officer doing his job watching yet another arsehole who thinks laws and morals only apply to others. To me the most offensive part of all this is that he (morally, if not legally) defrauded the young actors. I don't object to him daring his enemies to cut his own head off. However he did set those actors up as a kind of human shield for himself when he dubbed his words into their mouths. Maybe he was just short sighted, or maybe he was secretly hoping one of the more actors would get hounded/killed/maimed by his enemies thus "proving his point" as to how evil they are. I don't know I'm just speculating here, but it wouldn't be "out of character" for the nasty little cult he belongs to.
Parole is a small mercy granted by society, it gives the prisoner a chance to prove to society he has regained some self control over his impulses. It became his parole officers " job to dig this up" the day he was released. In this case the prisoner failed the test in a spectacular fashion, the whole world knows he's been lying and 'defrauding' people, this time with absolutely no regard to his victims personal safety. His parole officer would have to be blind and deaf not to pick up he had broken his conditional freedom. I don't know what US law says about that, but my moral compass says he belongs behind bars. I have the same attitude to a couple of drunks I have been related to for decades, several jail stints ranging from 3mths to 2yrs, without a drop to drink, but they just don't have the self control to last a week on the outside without getting shit-faced to the point where someone they are abusing calls the cops.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Your entire posts proved Muslims are hypocrites.
Otherwise Islam's fatwahs are merely free speech. Imams calling for the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan are just free speech.
Name one Muslim, just ONE, who insists Muslims speaking such, should be send to jail.
Yet how many Muslims call for the death and KILL those who dare use free speech on the subject of Islam?
Oh wait, I forgot, there is one rule for non-muslims and no rules for Muslims am I right?
Muslims can do anything they want and everyone else must bow to them. Typical.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Bedroll finds black people to be abhorrent, he therefor gleefully celebrates when one is beaten to the ground and dragged of in chains for jaywalking or another frivilous offence for which no white person is arrested but for which people Bedroll disagrees with, he expects full and vigorous enforcement.
--- you are not just a bigot, you are a hypocrit. Lady justice is supposed to be blind. ALL are equal for the law, even people you don't like.
Have we learned nothing from Larry Flint?
Defending free speech isn't just about defending the bits you agree with.
For everyone, a simple test:
The cast of Monty Python, makers of Life of Brian, a vicious assault on the Christian fate and a slur against this religions most important figure, have confessed on camera to countless small crimes, such as drunk driving and illegal use of narcotics. Should the entire cast have been put in jail for it just because they made a movie that upset a religion? They are real crimes just on a level (rich white guys taking drugs and making a nuisance, rather then black guys) nobody bothers to enforce much. But then they made a movie some disagreed with, so to jail?
Would you have called such a move a gross miscarriage of justice DESPITE such a case being perfectly sound on pure legal grounds? Yes?
THEN YOUR ARE A BIGOT.
People seem to have forgotten (some by the lame excuse of not having actually been born yet when this happened, kids today, always got an excuse) the huge upset that happened when Life of Brian was first released. I am old enough to have gotten some of it although for myself it was the dutch comedy song "Popie Jopie" that was the big one (taking the mickey out of the pope) which was popular when the pope was supposed to come to Holland a move that caused a huge shift among Catholics but also protestants as it forced the daily reality of dwindling religious influence to be realized. The 8 may movement had made it common practice for Catholics in Holland to ignore official doctrine even among those not part of the movement. The visit forced people to make a clear choice, follow the Pope or tell him to take his doctrine and stay the fuck out of dutch business. This was at a time when the use of condoms for birth control and aids was a very hot topic with repeated jokes/rumors off the pope/priests putting holes into condoms. This might sound silly but remember, official Catholic doctrine is that condoms should NOT be used, a priest therefor has no reason to put holes in them, since his flock won't be using them, that he is, means he knows his flock is using them despite them burning in hell for it. Jokes often reveal a great deal about society.
Anyway, Life of Brian was not banned, its creators not arrested on convenient laws lying about that nobody would normally bother with.
So why are Muslims treated so differently? Why are so many here suddenly defending the arrest of a person for using an alias online? It is not like when Google forces a real name policy, many here agree with that. But a maker of a movie that upsets Muslims, well, clearly he shouldn't be allowed to use an alias online.
The Atlanta had a very apolegtic posts about Free Speech, about how Americans just don't understand free speech. He tried to link this movie with things as denying the holocaust and mein kampf (which are forbidden in most of the world BUT not most Islamic nations). But this movie never calls Muslims less human beings, it just calls one of their religious fantasy figures a dickhead. Just as a life of Brian completely took the piss out of Jesus. Remember that Christians still get upset at the suggestion their muppet might have been married (how something that never existed could have been married I don't know, surely in a work of fiction, whatever the author wrote is the truth in that fictional universe), yet such mockumentaries are shown with some regularity. And nobody dies or goes to jail.
And America protects free speech far further, it allows the KKK, it allows the black p
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, he was not allowed to use aliases on probation. Probation conditions are specific to the individual, and linked with the previous offending (fraud in his case).
You got it. The followers of the prophet wouldn't be nearly as upset if it was just nonsense that was spouted. They are upset that it was truth that was said. Makes their entire belief system seem a bit silly.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
... no one has ever been killed in prison... and there are no muslims in there.
Much like Christianity. .. What you say? The Crusades? The Inquisition? TO THE PYRE WITH YOU!
If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?
No. The Ceaser must be above reproach. Also known as "plausible deniability". But there is 0% chance that state department did not put pressure on the local police (now that states and municipalities get a lot of federal money it's easy to apply pressure).
he local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations.
There is 0% chance of that. No one gives a damn about parole violations unless the person is actively violent. Exercising free speech is not considered an act of violence, regard of how offensive the speech is.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 88 :: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Is this a religion full of angry teenagers? Constantly overreacting to slights against the precious prophet (who was only one of many)?
I say some desensitization is in order.
Let's has a monthly slight against Muhammad that is widely publicized. Not racist insults against Muslims, no comments about towel heads or sand niggers, just humorous cartoons and documentaries about his life that uses the best available info with no pandering to either the Muslim faithful or those opposed to Islam - and not backing down to intimidation.
Keep this up for a few years - that should (I hope) exhaust all that misplaced fervor.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Yes, he really is being jailed for his actual wrongdoings. You are not allowed to use aliases on probation. He used an alias and did something infamous with it.
If he committed an actual crime and was arrested and gave an alias to the police, I'd be all for considering that a crime (that should be a crime regardless of probation).
Using an alias to post a video on a website or youtube shouldn't be considered a crime no matter what some judge might declare. Just because judges can legally get away with this stuff doesn't make it right.
Only if you're a witch.
My take on things is that this film is really made to show something else. 'Innocence' can also be explained as 'naivety'.
If we see this film, then we most probably react with a facepalm. 'Plan 9 from outer space' probably has more going for it.
Yet (some) Muslims react violently. These actions come more from naivety than from knowledge.
For me, it is like this film has been made to show how naive some Muslims are, and that is also what I think that the title stands for.
I'm sure their anger is all from that video and has nothing to do with the unmanned drones dropping bombs on their family members in the name of the USA. And now this guy who was outed as being an informant for the FBI makes a film attacking Islam.
Now the FBI wants to go into Libya and and investigate and the USA acts surprised that the Libyan government and Libyans in general don't want the FBI in their country? Would you want the FBI in your country after this?
People in the USA are so naive and don't even consider the different perspectives other than their own.
On one hand, they got the guy who broke he law, that's a win. But on the other, it makes it look like he's being jailed for expressing his opinion about something controversial. That's a not a win, that's a loss.
Who cares how it looks? He's still a scumbag. His video was trash and hurt the USA. He's not a hero of free speech any more than George Zimmerman is a hero of the first amendment. If you believe in these principles as I do, then lets find some better heroes than this. Don't you think it's a bigger concern that Julian Assange is now an enemy of the State for publishing classified information?
I think that is a far bigger concern than this peon FBI informant Film Maker who committed bank fraud and who accomplished nothing positive or useful with his video beyond pissing people off and getting people killed.
Freedom of speech does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Freedom of speech does not cover incitement to violence.
Oddly enough, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is from a court case about inciting peace (voicing opposition to a military draft) not being covered as free speech.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Generally, yes. If you're on probation, it means even the slightest screwup gets you arrested and hauled before a judge to potentially be tossed back in prison.
Lying to your parole officer is a really good way to go back to jail.
Just call it the outside of the asylum.
Is he really being locked up for violating his probation, or is that just a justification to arrest someone for saying something inconvenient? Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Duh. A normal person does not make any statements whatsoever to a probation officer, because a normal person is not on probation. He's been convicted of serious crimes, and is only out of prison subject to strict conditions on his behavior.
He is not allowed to use the internet at all without specific permission, precisely because of his established history of using it in criminal activity. So yeah, he can go back to jail for doing something on the internet which would be well within the rights of a normal person.
If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
You say that, but I'm sure that there are downsides as well.
The only downside I see is that it wouldn't include the rest of our politicians.
"Islam" more closely translates to "[peace] through submission".
So, it's the religion of choice for the S&M community?
Simple.
Would he have been arrested for the probation violation without pressure from the feds?