The "Innocence of Muslims" movie and the embassy attacks

[mlp]

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, we're not exactly in a position to pat ourselves on the back about how *advanced* we are in comparison to other societies. It's only been about fifty years since crowds had to be forcibly retsrained from physically attacking young children walking into school, and even then, they covered them with spittle. Lynchings based on skin color were also occurring and being widely applauded by certain segments of society. Hell, certain segments of our society still openly yearn for those good old days.

We live in a world where people fail to exercise compassion, good sense, and/or good taste in their exercise of free speech. And appealing to the lowest common denominator, to prurient interests, seems to be sure fire way of making money and gaining attention. Publication of photos of the dying/dead envoy being dragged to the hospital, the photos recently taken of Kate Middleton, the popularity of *reality TV* are all just examples of how crass human beings are - both those who provide a ready market for such stuff and those who supply it.

 

[mlp]

Apparently the actors don't read the scripts before doing a movie? I have a hard time believing that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/anna-gurji-innocence-of-muslims-letter_n_1890041.html

 

[cornsail]

We live in a world where people fail to exercise compassion, good sense, and/or good taste in their exercise of free speech.

Remember the only point of the right to free speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, which would presumably include speech deemed compassionate, sensible and tasteful, doesn't need protecting.

 

[mlp]

And as I've said before and will say again - there are many ways in which the right to free speech is limited. I have yet to see anyone in this thread or others argue that those limitations should be removed. Which makes it appear to me that you and others don't actually believe in absolute freedom of speech, you just happen to be satisfied with the status quo.

 

[led.boots]

And as I've said before and will say again - there are many ways in which the right to free speech is limited. I have yet to see anyone in this thread or others argue that those limitations should be removed. Which makes it appear to me that you and others don't actually believe in absolute freedom of speech, you just happen to be satisfied with the status quo.

One of the many reasons I treasure free speech laws is because it makes it easier to keep track of the lunatic fringe and what they are up to.

 

[mlp]

And I think it solidifies their position in their own minds and in those of people who might otherwise be "on the fence." What is said publicly and repeatedly is eventually believed by most; this is true of even the most outrageous lies. There are actually quite a few studies that have tested this effect.

I don't necessarily believe that a lot of the kind of stuff I'm talking about should be criminalized, but I do believe that when people knowingly or even recklessly provoke violence, the families of the victims of that violence should have recourse against them.

 

[K-II]

And as I've said before and will say again - there are many ways in which the right to free speech is limited. I have yet to see anyone in this thread or others argue that those limitations should be removed. Which makes it appear to me that you and others don't actually believe in absolute freedom of speech, you just happen to be satisfied with the status quo.

I don't think there should be restrictions on an individual level (I support quite a lot of them placed against corporations and such though, like in advertising or reporting). There didn't seem to be a reason to point that out in this thread before, though...

 

[Skylark]

I wish more people who were upset by the movie would respond the way this poet did, with words:

 

[cornsail]

And as I've said before and will say again - there are many ways in which the right to free speech is limited. I have yet to see anyone in this thread or others argue that those limitations should be removed. Which makes it appear to me that you and others don't actually believe in absolute freedom of speech, you just happen to be satisfied with the status quo.

I think I'm for the most part in agreement with the way freedom of speech works in the US and the restrictions on it. I don't necessarily agree with the anti obscenity laws. The limitations of free speech here are not that you can't express uncompassionate, unsensible and untasteful views, though.

I think free speech protection is pretty good in Japan too. But I would have to learn more.

A lot of the limitations in Canada and many European countries (Germany, France, Denmark...) I do not agree with. In France, for example, it's against the law to express contempt for a person or group of people on the basis of their race, sex, sexual orientation, disability status or religious identity. In Germany you can sue someone simply for insulting you.

Obviously I don't agree with countries that limit things like blasphemy and speaking out against the government.

I like this quote by Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

 

[K-II]

I wish more people who were upset by the movie would respond the way this poet did, with words:

Somewhat rambling here, but this made me wonder... what are the rules about portraying Muhammad, anyway? People make a lot of fuss about pictures and films; is it only visually that's not allowed? Or would a novel be (um... blasphemous? Whatever the word is) as well? I mean, this guy can make a song/poem/thing describing Muhammad, but he seemed less concerned that there was a film and more that it was deliberately insulting, so he might just be more progressive for all I can tell.

It seems to me that if someone really wanted to send a message to these people instead of just making them flip their **** over it, and happened to have 5 million ******* dollars, the best way would be to actually make as epic a film as they could out of it, and maybe make some cracks appear between the ones who flip their **** anyway and the people who think 'you know, it wasn't actually that bad...'. I mean, if they were conservative with the special effects and hired unknowns with decent skills rather than big names, I bet 5 million could go a pretty long way. Instead of whatever this lot blew it on. Expensive beer, maybe...

 

[Freesia]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/bachmann-obama-most-dangerous-president-ever-on-f

Obama is not starting enough new wars, and she is sad : ( .

 

[mlp]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/bachmann-obama-most-dangerous-president-ever-on-f

Obama is not starting enough new wars, and she is sad : ( .

I think could look at Bachmann, who keeps getting re-elected and is a fundraising powerhouse, and come to a lot of conclusions about Americans. The same way we seem to come to a lot of conclusions about Muslims.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

I think could look at Bachmann, who keeps getting re-elected and is a fundraising powerhouse, and come to a lot of conclusions about Americans.

Funny you should mention her. She plays an ENORMOUS role in this (especially as it pertains to Egypt) that is unappreciated.

Remember her recent allegations about Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff? (I might have the wrong title) The allegation involved (but never stated directly) Abedin being a potential mole for the Muslim Brotherhood. This played out well amongst paranoid conspiracy theory fueled Americans. But guess what? It played out well amongst paranoid conspiracy theory fueled Egyptians as well.

In America the story line is "Muslims infiltrating to destroy Western civilization". In Egypt the story line is "America engineers Egyptian election to create puppet state led by a party (Muslim Brotherhood) that it controls behind the scenes".

When Clinton was in Cairo recently her motorcade was met by protests and pummeled with thrown stones. Why? When journalists on the ground asked the protestors, they were told how Hillary Clinton personally masterminded fraudulent elections in Egypt. One of the main "proofs" they offered were the comments by Michelle Bachman. What better proof of a connection between the US and the Muslim Brotherhood than the words of an honest-to-God US official?

 

[Dave in MPLS]

Oh, and there is a Wikipedia page on depictions of Muhammad.

 

[Digger]

I am so freaking tired of people defending these Muslim wackjobs. Call me a bigot or whatever you want, I really don't care. Nobody has a problem equating Christianity with the outspoken nutjobs here in the U.S. who are constantly quoting scripture as a basis for their vile actions, so I have no problem pointing my finger in the other direction as well. I'll die before I let these Islamic radicals force the U.S. to subvert freedom of speech.

 

[Second Summer]

No, I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance

But I still do find it interesting to see who is behind this movie, follow the money trail etc. They knew in advance it would put a strain on relations between the West and the Muslim world.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

Nobody has a problem equating Christianity with the outspoken nutjobs here in the U.S.

Try looking at these two pages on Facebook: Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented (22,749 'likes') and The Christian Left (104,746 'likes').
That's a lot of nobody.

 

[led.boots]

Edited because I don't feel like arguing. I agree with Digger. Freedom of speech means people are going to be offended.

 

[Second Summer]

I guess I should also say it's interesting to see how the movie has been used by islamists in the Middle East. It's given them something to be outraged about, a rallying point. Funny how the protests just happened to coincide with 11. Sept.

 

[Digger]

Try looking at these two pages on Facebook: Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented (22,749 'likes') and The Christian Left (104,746 'likes').

I guess I'm confused because you are helping to make my point and I doubt you intended to do so? Those pages lend support to my statement that Christianity is constantly being equated with the vocal bible-thumping nutjobs in this country.