Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Left lane's the fast lane

Freedom of speech? Or abuse of our freedoms in order to incite?

Advertisement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests/index.html

Let me first say, I couldn't stomach watching the entire clip of the "movie." I made it half way. I'm fairly confident anyone else that can sit through that much would probably come to some of the same conclusions I have, though probably not all.

I'll also say that the maniacal and homicidal rage this POS has incited is unbelievably sad and irretrievably stupid. There are no excuses. However, the 'stupidity' needs to be considered. To wit, we're talking about Libya and Egypt. I've only done cursory research on each education system, but if one wants to argue literacy rates and what that really means, our nation probably doesn't fare much better. But I do believe it's fair to say neither country's population has had a liberal exposure to media of any form, and certainly not outside media w/ out a solid censoring from Big Brother. I think this is proven true just by watching the clip; I mean, let's say any Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent were to make a similar movie with Jesus in the role of Mohammad, it would be little more than a joke to any of us. Forget motivations and any political/religious connotations, this thing isn’t watchable outside a high school AV project. It's horribly laughable. With the possible exception of only the most certifiable religious zealots (and the Klanesque bigots looking for any opportunity), the person responsible would merely be a subject of ridicule here, nothing more.

The adherence to the word and teaching of fanatics certainly lends to the 'stupidity' here. This is true anywhere, granted. Initial reports state that a number of the rioters hadn't even seen the 'film' but had heard about it through leaders or the crowd. And it is the ultra-conservatives one has to worry about violence with anywhere, as well. Gee, I wonder who’s stirring the pot.

Like I said, no excuses though. At least one American has been killed, more injured. Two embassies attacked. All because of a ridiculous excuse for a ‘movie.’ (I do apologize for returning to the quotes around “movie” and “stupidity”; I vow I’m not following the moronic format of FHNC; I’m merely using “stupidity” in the context I lay out, not that the populace is inherently dumb, and I refuse to refer to this POS as an actual film, movie, or short, therefore the sarcastic quote font)

Now, Sam Bacile is the writer and director of this garbage. He supposedly financed this masterpiece w/ $5 million from one hundred Jewish donors. All this news is still breaking while I write this, but this is Bacile’s reaction:

“Bacile, an American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction. “I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad,” Bacile said.”

He feels sorry for a building and he’s mad?! He’s a liar. Anyone that can generate 5 mil for such a project has certainly heard the story of the Danish cartoonist and that backlash. And he never anticipated this kind of “furious reaction”?!!! Who’s buying that?

Which begs the question: what’s the true motivation here? I fully believe in our freedom of speech and expression, but can anyone truly watch this garbage and believe it was meant for any other reason than to incite? This isn’t art or expression. It’s a cattle prod to the privates of inciteable Muslims. And I fully believe the reaction it’s generated was indeed intended. The timing sure is coincidental, of all days, and many in the crowd in Egypt supposedly chanting “we are Osama”. I’m not one for civil litigation for the most part, but in this case, if all this proves true, I certainly hope the family of the envoy that was murdered and anyone else so affected sue this guy and any cohorts back to the Stone Age. I want him living “in a van down by the river.”

Not to make light of the situation, but the writer in me wonders if this isn’t the most elaborate suicide plot this side of “Seven Pounds.” (Sorry for the spoiler alert, but if you haven’t seen it by now….) I mean, who in his right mind puts this together and immediately cops to it? Ya gotta wanna get capped, don’tcha? At least Rushdie actually published exceptional prose, true art. Putting something out like this, you have to know you’re life will probably not be safe ever again. So you put out the worst, most inflammatory crappola you can think of? At the very least, his donors must be wondering, “Where’d all the money go to?” He almost had to be thinking one faction or the other would come after him.

Comments

riverdrifter 1 year, 11 months ago

Try again. I'm going to hit the sack.

0

riverdrifter 1 year, 11 months ago

This post ended up in the wrong place. WTF?!

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

FS,DR (formatting screwed-up, didn't read)

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Yeah, sorry, I know. I've requested help from Alex, I'm sure he'll have it straightened out before long this morning. For the life of me, can't figure out how to avoid this, this is twice in a row.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Are you copy/pasting from another application? Try something else.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

No, because I had problems before, I wrote it out in Word then pasted. Looks fine until i actually hit 'post' and then .......blech.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"I wrote it out in Word then pasted"

Word is your problem as it is inserting it's own formatting. Use textpad instead.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

Okay, now I can read it! ;-)

Let me first say, I couldn't stomach watching the entire clip of the "movie." I made it half way. I'm fairly confident anyone else that can sit through that much would probably come to some of the same conclusions I have, though probably not all.

I'll also say that the maniacal and homicidal rage this POS has incited is unbelievably sad and irretrievably stupid. There are no excuses. However, the 'stupidity' needs to be considered. To wit, we're talking about Libya and Egypt. I've only done cursory research on each education system, but if one wants to argue literacy rates and what that really means, our nation probably doesn't fare much better. But I do believe it's fair to say neither country's population has had a liberal exposure to media of any form, and certainly not outside media w/ out a solid censoring from Big Brother. I think this is proven true just by watching the clip; I mean, let's say any Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent were to make a similar movie with Jesus in the role of Mohammad, it would be little more than a joke to any of us. Forget motivations and any political/religious connotations, this thing isn’t watchable outside a high school AV project. It's horribly laughable. With the possible exception of only the most certifiable religious zealots (and the Klanesque bigots looking for any opportunity), the person responsible would merely be a subject of ridicule here, nothing more.

The adherence to the word and teaching of fanatics certainly lends to the 'stupidity' here. This is true anywhere, granted. Initial reports state that a number of the rioters hadn't even seen the 'film' but had heard about it through leaders or the crowd. And it is the ultra-conservatives one has to worry about violence with anywhere, as well. Gee, I wonder who’s stirring the pot.

Like I said, no excuses though. At least one American has been killed, more injured. Two embassies attacked. All because of a ridiculous excuse for a ‘movie.’ (I do apologize for returning to the quotes around “movie” and “stupidity”; I vow I’m not following the moronic format of FHNC; I’m merely using “stupidity” in the context I lay out, not that the populace is inherently dumb, and I refuse to refer to this POS as an actual film, movie, or short, therefore the sarcastic quote font)

Now, Sam Bacile is the writer and director of this garbage. He supposedly financed this masterpiece w/ $5 million from one hundred Jewish donors. All this news is still breaking while I write this, but this is Bacile’s reaction:

“Bacile, an American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction. “I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad,” Bacile said.”

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

He feels sorry for a building and he’s mad?! He’s a liar. Anyone that can generate 5 mil for such a project has certainly heard the story of the Danish cartoonist and that backlash. And he never anticipated this kind of “furious reaction”?!!! Who’s buying that?

Which begs the question: what’s the true motivation here? I fully believe in our freedom of speech and expression, but can anyone truly watch this garbage and believe it was meant for any other reason than to incite? This isn’t art or expression. It’s a cattle prod to the privates of inciteable Muslims. And I fully believe the reaction it’s generated was indeed intended. The timing sure is coincidental, of all days, and many in the crowd in Egypt supposedly chanting “we are Osama”.

I’m not one for civil litigation for the most part, but in this case, if all this proves true, I certainly hope the family of the envoy that was murdered and anyone else so affected sue this guy and any cohorts back to the Stone Age. I want him living “in a van down by the river.”

Not to make light of the situation, but the writer in me wonders if this isn’t the most elaborate suicide plot this side of “Seven Pounds.” (Sorry for the spoiler alert, but if you haven’t seen it by now….) I mean, who in his right mind puts this together and immediately cops to it? Ya gotta wanna get capped, don’tcha? At least Rushdie actually published exceptional prose, true art. Putting something out like this, you have to know you’re life will probably not be safe ever again. So you put out the worst, most inflammatory crappola you can think of? At the very least, his donors must be wondering, “Where’d all the money go to?” He almost had to be thinking one faction or the other would come after him.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Changing our laws to avoid offending the Muslim Brotherhood would be no different than changing our laws to avoid offending Phred Phelps. Do you really want to go down that road?

2

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm not for changing our laws, snap. What I'm pondering here is whether this can actually qualify as freedom of speech or expression. Because the "film" doesn't seem to be a legitimate take on Islam, Mohammed, or Muslims. It seems specifically geared to incite, period. And THAT is not a protected freedom.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

I have an MFA. I say it is art.

See you in the courtroom.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

I was looking for the date of release last night but couldn't find it. If it came out 4 months ago one has to wonder if the "outrage" was kept bottled until yesterday by the pot stirrers in the ME, most certainly.

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Figures it was right under my nose, thanks.

0

somedude20 1 year, 11 months ago

I am not even Muslim or from the Middle Eastern and I found this "movie" to be a POS!!!! Many of the bad actors are white with the worst brown face makeup and recite their version or another's religion. Yeah, it seems to me that this spitbox was made just to jab the Muslims and to get press/money for himself and his "church."

2

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

No doubt. I'm sure I didn't catch all the prods, but the ones that stuck w/ me:

  • Mohammed sure looks like Jesus, that was no accident.
  • Being disobeyed by the girl eating his scraps, then being "commanded" by his mother to sit.
  • The whole scenario where he's crawling between mom's legs, then the implied sexual encounter "there."
  • repetitive "bastard" and "man of an unknown father" retorts.

This was meant for nothing more than a big middle finger to Muslims.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Once you tune out the god babble, it kinda looks like Gilligan's Island outtakes strung together.

My wife watches those B movies on the sci-fi channel. She say's they are funny because they are bad. There is some artistic merit in "badly done", and the trailer definitely sunk to that level. Art it be.

It is your own free speech you are taking a whizz on. You might want to stop.

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

If you truly have an MFA, you would know an artist has some responsibility for the message in their art.

1

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

No they don't. Have a look at a Pollock and tell me the message. Do you think the message will be the same for you and Fred Phelps? If the message cannot be defined, just what is the artist responsible for?

Besides - art has no message, it asks questions.

Propaganda has a message.

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Pollock eventually numbered his paintings instead of giving them titles because he did not want preconceived expectations of his work. The message was in the making of the art, don' t you see?

I think if you read Serrano's artist statements, it will answer your question.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Mohammed sure used to love bacon. He'd wake up in the mornings and tell his nine-year old wife to "get in that kitchen and fix me a bacon sammich!" Does that incite you? Are you stuck in the 14th Century?

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Like I said, no excuses for the rioting or murders, no excuses for anyone so off-the-wall that such behavior is expected. But the point of this blog is that last word: expected. Just like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, if the reaction is a foregone conclusion and someone gets hurt because of it, the inciter is particularly to blame.

2

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, it was meant to incite some kind of reaction. Every single artistic work or piece of text is supposed to do so.

When I say ghosts don't exist, there is no god, the Dali Lama's a jerk, Jesus never existed, or Muhammad was a pedophile, I fully expect a reaction. The hope is to engage in a discussion that will leave folks more informed. Rarely ends up that way.

No, it wasn't an abuse of freedom of speech. I think it's dangerous to suggest that it was. Problems happen and get covered up when there's things you can't question.

The fact that these folks are so easily riled up to an angry, violent, murderous mob is a problem. Pretending that it's not their own fault is a greater one.

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"Yes, it was meant to incite some kind of reaction. Every single artistic work or piece of text is supposed to do so."

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Art is meant to elicit reaction. This was clearly made to incite violence. And therein lies the difference.
And nobody has been pretending the mob violence isn't the mob's fault. But pretending this thing was made for anything other than to incite that violence is ignorant.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

Eh? Did you say something, then say it again, then claim that there's a difference between two basically identical sentiments?

If I make a movie spoofing "Brokeback Mountain" using Jesus Christ and John the Baptist as the main characters, is that inciting violence? It's pretty much the same thing.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Discover something called a dictionary and a thesaurus. Elicit and incite are not synonyms of each other.
Then take a couple minutes and watch the clip. We have the freedom of speech in this country. There is no freedom to incite to violence.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

My analogy is ridiculous... seriously?

I saw the clip before I began to respond to you. I didn't comment on it, because the content isn't relevant. The acts of violence are. But, for your benefit, here's my opinion on the movie...

The fact that 5 million bucks was the budget for that movie is insane. Give me 20 grand and two months and I'll produce something that eclipses it in quality. I can't comment on how it would survive any real fact-checking. In any case, the intent is clearly satirical.

My analogy was about taking some fictional thing that people liked, and making fun of it.

I could have easily replace Jesus and John with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Peter Rabbit and Scrooge McDuck. Darth Vader and Darth Maul. Captian Kirk and Captian Picard.

I could have been more detailed about what Jesus and John would be doing. Are there women going to be involved? Maybe animals? WWJD.... to a chicken?

My analogy is accurate. So, I want to know what Muhammad would do... to a chicken.

If my analogy was NOT accurate, then that must mean that Islam isn't complete crap like buddism, christianity, wicca, scientology, hinduism, and others. In that case, explain to me why Islam isn't complete crap like all the other religions.

You can be mad at the people who made this movie, and say it's without taste. You can suggest that the motivations weren't honorable. You can wish harm on the folks who made the movie. This is all fair play. Honestly, I agree with these sentiments.

However, the moment you come within a mile of suggesting their actions might be illegal, you start sliding into a reality where people have to be careful about what they say.

Other than Islam, what should I watch my tongue over?

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Your analogy is garbage, but thanks for the equivalent diatribe trying to say otherwise. Even more ridiculous. Well done.

Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't protected speech. Casually mentioning 'bomb' at the airport isn't free speech. If some moron wants to gather youths and fellow morons together to discuss the "plight of the Aryan Race", that is free speech. If the leading moron uses speech to incite violence, it isn't free speech.

If you've actually watched the clip then it should be apparent that it was made for no other reason than to inflame. There isn't a shred of artistic intent. Just because someone films something and calls it a 'film' or a 'movie', that doesn't automatically make it so. And if the intent, which couldn't be clearer, is to incite violence - which from the faction it's aimed towards is regrettably inevitable - then, if it's not a crime, it's a severe perversion of what we supposedly hold dear.

If you know a dog goes bat!@$% when he hears a doorbell and will bite the most unfamiliar person in the room if he hears one, and you ring the bell, and that person gets bitten, sure, the dog did it. But you're the !@#wipe that made it happen. And you're criminally responsible.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

You've come very close to comparing the attackers to dogs. Interesting.

Anyway, I just want you to answer a question.

Can I make fun of islam?

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"You've come very close to comparing the attackers to dogs. Interesting."

That's incredibly disappointing. Pity your mind works that way.

Can you make fun of Islam? Certainly. Anyone in this country can. And I celebrate such freedom. This wasn't made simply to make fun of someone or something; it was made with the intent to incite others to violence. Period. Read the NYT piece I posted this morning.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

"If you know a dog goes bat!@$% when he hears a doorbell and will bite the most unfamiliar person in the room if he hears one, and you ring the bell, and that person gets bitten, sure, the dog did it. But you're the !@#wipe that made it happen. And you're criminally responsible."

I'll say it again, you've come very close to comparing the attackers to dogs. From the text you posted, I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret it.

Again, you say "Yes and no!" I can make fun of islam, but I can't hurt people's feelings.

In any case, we're beyond any rational conversation on this subject. I don't think you were capable of it to begin with, and I'm tired of your double-speak.

In my opinion, you're wrong in a very basic way. As long as you're willing to limit freedom of speech, you will remain to be so.

Please stop that.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Can I make fun of islam?"

Do you have any good Islam jokes?

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

High art asks questions. Low art entertains. Mobs burn buildings.

Quit getting things mixed up.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

Jaywalker, you're making me agree with Liberty...

That doesn't happen very often...

Not exactly sure how to respond...

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't bother responding if you can't grasp this wasn't "art."

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

You should read more, I would suggest starting with Levine, something you should have read when you were working on that MFA. Your art bias fits pretty perfectly with your other predictable biases.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

You read Levine, I'll read Nietzsche.

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Ahhhh. So you agree art is the supreme delight of existence? Art sustains and enhances life? Of course all this talk of art in this instance is moot. The creators of this film were not artists.

0

Amy Heeter 1 year, 11 months ago

I agree. Some may applaud it. Others may not. Critics be damned, its out there. If you don't like it then don't watch it. The creator is not responsible for the acts of others.

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Nice try, arti, however, there are limits to free speech as you well know. The creators had intent to do harm and have admitted same. By all means continue to support your distorted view of the right to say anything, while a weak cover for your racism, whatever floats your boat.

2

somedude20 1 year, 11 months ago

"Mohammed sure used to love bacon. He'd wake up in the mornings and tell his nine-year old wife to "get in that kitchen and fix me a bacon sammich!" Does that incite you? Are you stuck in the 14th Century?"

Have you ever been to Egypt ( no, watching a History Channel show about the pyramids does not count)? I have while in the Corps back in the 90's and yes, some of their beliefs are more like 14th Century than the rest of the world (although some of your buddies on the LJW could give them a run for their money). Add in that many are not well off and they have Fox-like news programs that feed them the same kind of BS that Faux does here. Grab a Weegie Board and ask Tiller about extremists and their14th Century views (yes, we have them here). Ask yourself why this "man of God" went ahead with this "movie" when the last time he tried a stunt like this (burning the Quran) it incited riots(calling it a movie is a stretch as it seems like a bad SNL skit)? Asking questions is good, asking the right questions is better!

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Do you want Islamic Rage Boy to decide what is acceptable speech in America?

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

I guess the issue is just a touch to much for some folks to wrap their minds around.

1

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

If you read the news you might think that the only two religions on earth are Islam and Protestant Christian. Why? Because they are the only two who are at each others throats? I think that all Muslims should be horrified and furious at this movie. Also, manipulated as they movie was made to incite them. But, some things are worth fighting for, it is up to the individual to decide just what that is.

1

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Being horrified and furious is one thing. Going out and killing people is a different kettle of fish.

3

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

While I think you may be right on some level, it's fair to say this 'movie' had something to do with the attacks, if only used as a tool to incite. It wouldn't be surprising that ultra-conservatives in these countries timed their "outrage" to coincide w/ the date, but the movie seems to have been the prod some used to stir up the crowds.

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

This from the Washington Post:

"Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate.

At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-death-of-an-ambassador/2012/09/12/ed3b719e-fcfa-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?hpid=z3

So, now I ask. what are we supposed to believe and when are we supposed to believe it?

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Freedom of speech unless it called for a very specific action and the audience was capable of taking such action.

Hands off!

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Hasn't any characterization of Mohammed in ANY way other than complete respect drawn out violent reaction? And obviously our embassies and citizens in such countries have been subjected to such attacks before, as mob violence there is common. So yeah, I'd say they're "capable."

And I say again, watch the clip. This isn't art; it was made for the sole purpose of inciting violence. That's not a freedom.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

It does nothing to incite violence. They could make a similar movie about atheism tomorrow and I wouldn't care. Now there may be some other atheists that hate the movie and cause some harm to it's writers or - in their absence, suitable proxies. Does that tell you the hatred is incited by the movie, or is it just looking for an excuse to get out.

No, the movie remains protected because:

A: It does not incite violence. At best it might be a good excuse to go do something you'd do anyway.. 2. It is unconstitutional for American's to be deprived of rights because of the actions of people outside of American jurisdiction.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"It does nothing to incite violence"

It just did!

"They could make a similar movie about atheism tomorrow and I wouldn't care"

That's swell. But this isn't about you.

Your fictional movie analogy is off base. I say again, watch the clip.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"That's swell. But this isn't about you."

It's about people that are no different than me.

You couldn't stomach but half of it. I watched the whole thing. Some of it was funny, some of it was offensive. None of it would make a person violent. It is nothing but an excuse for violence.

It's wrong to even consider censoring an American citizen for the acts of people in a different country. Millions have died to protect the constitution. You should be ashamed for using this tragedy to undermine one of it's most important amendments.

I'm ashamed to see an American do what you are doing.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"It's about people that are no different than me."

Have a lot in common w/ radical Muslims, do you?

" None of it would make a person violent."

Again, it just did!

"It's wrong to even consider censoring an American citizen for the acts of people in a different country."

Right. Because everything all Americans do is righteous. Gotcha. And for the umpteenth time, freedom of speech is NOT a catch-all. If the sole intent of someone's words, actions, "art" is to incite violence - IT'S A CRIME.

"Millions have died to protect the constitution."

Pretty sure none of them died in order for ignorant bigots to abuse our freedoms in such a way it purposely causes violence and the deaths of more Americans.

"I'm ashamed to see an American do what you are doing."

Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy. Coulda sworn we were talking about freedom of speech and I am just exercising my right to express an opinion.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Have a lot in common w/ radical Muslims, do you?"

Genetically, like 99.99%. You?

"Again, it just did!"

Hogwash. Tell me something, which video made radicals fly planes into buildings or behead Daniel Pearl? Which one?

"Right. Because everything all Americans do is righteous."

Right, because taking away the freedoms of Americans because of something done across the Atlantic by non-Americans is unconstitutional.

"Pretty sure none of them died in order for ignorant bigots"

Pretty sure they died to protect the constitution, which in turn protects all Americans.

"I am just exercising my right to express an opinion."

You should be ashamed of that opinion.

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Seriously? That's a fitting analogy to you?

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

There is no censorship on this forum, it is privately owned. Try again. BTW who is this we you speak of? I do not support terrorism in any form, be it christian, Israeli or Muslim.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

There is censorship on this forum.

Anytime you see something to the effect of "Post removed for violation of term.." is an example of censorship. It's just a matter of who's doing the censoring.

1

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

No, there isn't. This is not a public forum, the owners of this forum have kindly invited us for tea in the equivalent of their livingroom. To call any action by the owners censorship debases the English language, don't you see? The word becomes meaningless, or, in the case of those on this forum screaming censorship, it amounts to no more than screaming. " Wah, I didn't get my way!"

3

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

No, it is editing. My point is, censor is misunderstood in this arena giving the impression someone all powerful is determining what is free speech and what is not.

1

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Sigh.......

Definition of censor

noun

1an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security: the report was approved by the military censors the movie has been given an adults-only rating by film censors Psychoanalysis an aspect of the superego which is said to prevent certain ideas and memories from emerging into consciousness. [from a mistranslation of German Zensur 'censorship', coined by Freud] 2(in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals. verb [with object] examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it: the report had been censored ‘in the national interest’ the letters she received were censored

Derivatives

censorial Pronunciation: /-ˈsɔːrɪəl/ adjective censorship noun

Origin: mid 16th century (in censor (sense 2 of the noun)): from Latin, from censere 'assess'

For an explanation of the difference between censor and censure, see censure (usage).

censor in other Oxford dictionaries Definition of censor in US English dictionary

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh good Lord. It's there, but you have to read the entire def.

If this is how you scan text, I see why you are confused about art. :-)

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

They can delete a post from THEIR database, but they can't censor you.

I understand you are using the word somewhat differently, but if you want anything close to a true lack of censorship, you'll have to go to a chan. Number 4 is usually the most interesting.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

The world corporation and it web site are private property. You are allowed to post withing the guidelines spelled out in the TOS.

Basically, this forum is like Dillons. They want you to come in because when you do they make money. Also like Dillons, they can toss you out.

Only the government can censor. The World Corporation isn't government.

Hope that clears things up. Generally if you don't call people patently derogatory names or use offensive language - or spam - they will let you say what is on your mind. I think they do a pretty fair job.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

" We are Osama" Huh. I believe the appropriate American response should have been lock and load

1

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 11 months ago

Will your guy Mitt be sending his children? How about yours? Otherwise...chest pounding by a chickenhawk.

2

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 11 months ago

If that is true, you seem pretty quick with the trigger finger then at all our peril. So much for letting cooler minds prevail.

0

fu7il3 1 year, 11 months ago

Even if it was, that isn't illegal in our country.

Entire TV shows have made their reputations on trying to inflame Christians, conservatives, liberals, and just about any other group. Why does Islam always get a free pass? If the tea party went and burned down Trey Parker's house after something on South Park, no one would say that it was Parker's fault.

People burned an embassy and killed an ambassador, none of whom had the slightest thing to do with the movie. There is no way that is okay. There is definitely no way we should be making excuses for it.

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"Even if it was, that isn't illegal in our country."

YES, it is!

And read the blog; there's no way that behavior is ok and I certainly haven't been making excuses for any of it.

1

fu7il3 1 year, 11 months ago

It is illegal to specifically incite a riot. It is not illegal to make people angry, insult them, or hurt their feelings. This is not inciting a riot.

I wasn't speaking specifically about this blog, but in general. But saying the movie incited them takes the responsibility at least partially off the people who did the killing and put it on the people who made the movie. The movie was just an excuse for violence. If it hadn't been that, they would have found some other reason.

1

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Couldn't agree more that this clip was manipulated in order to whip others into a frenzy and the date was no coincidence.
Nor am I saying we should surrender our freedoms to avoid anything. What I'm saying is this was made for one purpose and one purpose only: to incite radical Muslims to violence. Freedom of speech is about discussion, persuasion, opinion, artistic license, an exchange of ideas and ideals; it is NOT about inciting violence. That's criminal.

2

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

Ultimately, while this video is a cringe-inducingly clumsy piece of junk, its intent seems comparable to how South Park has lampooned Mormonism or Scientology, i.e. mocking the extreme leaps of faith inherent to the religion’s theology. And the video was not initially translated into Arabic, so I'd suspect that the intended audience was most likely American/English-speaking. The fact that Muslim fundamentalists are more violent and incitable than Mormons or Scientologists does not mean that such expressions of ridicule equate to deliberate incitement or sedition. So I’d be surprised to see litigation against the filmmakers.

2

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Mormons and Scientologists aren't remotely prone to mob violence.

"The fact that Muslim fundamentalists are more violent and incitable..."

....and the makers of this crappola knew this and exploited it. That's criminal. I used the example earlier: if an Aryan holds meetings in his house, distributes pamphlets, movies, posters that urges others to "stand up for the white race", that's freedom of speech. If the same person does the same thing with the clear intent to incite violence, that's criminal.

0

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

And yes, I recognize that "Mormons and Scientologists aren't remotely prone to mob violence."

I mentioned them because their history and theologies are often ridiculed, mostly in the U.S., for being even less believable than other religions.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-master

0

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

I respectfully disagree. I think they knew this was poking a hornet's nest, but I doubt any of them wanted to see embassies being overrun or jihadist attacks with loss of life. While it would have been naive/stupid of them to think that this outcome wasn't entirely possible, I just doubt that it was their primary motive. If they suggest otherwise in their reactions, then perhaps they open themselves to being accused. But, I would much sooner estimate their intent to be to persuade Americans less familiar with Islam that it is an absurd and inherently violent religion.

And, to address your neo-Nazi metaphor, I think that tone plays a major role, and because this clip makes lame attempts at mockery and humor, it may be best classified as satire. I think satire is one of the least accuseable mediums when it comes to inciting violence.

1

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

It is interesting, if this was done in the name of free speech, why the creator(s) are hiding. All religions are absurd, most are or have been violent.

1

verity 1 year, 11 months ago

Sorry, it won't let me delete the double post, just change it.

0

verity 1 year, 11 months ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anybody excusing what was done. I think we all agree that these murders are inexcusable.

However, if I don't care that the neighbor's pet runs across my yard, but I know that it infuriates him if my pet runs across his yard and he might shoot my pet or even me, then it would be stupid of me to encourage my pet to run across his yard. Seems pretty simple.

Not exactly on topic, but related---inciting/encouraging/participating in the overthrow of a government in another country often does not lead to the results we anticipated or want.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Interesting question.

If I know a group might become destructive if I publish something they may not like must I refrain from posting. Does that allow distasteful groups to avoid criticism by threatening violence? Does such a requirement lead to self-censorship? Does it lead to group censorship? How do we sort out which groups need protection and which groups should be open to public censure? Who makes the call that a particular criticism is “over the top”? Who is the censor?

For a couple of hundred years we have elected to error on the side of freedom of expression, however distasteful the form that expression has taken. We have endured all sorts of hateful speech against religion, culture, ethnicity, and so on. We have survived it all. Are we now to reexamine our time tested approach because one particular group reverts to violence if we do something they do not like? Where does that stop? Must we ultimately impose Sharia law to satisfy them?

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Who makes the call? Ultimately the Supremes.

1

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

As I’ve said in previous blog posts: There is nothing wrong with Americans expecting the rest of the world to “change the channel” if they see something they don’t like in American media.

We should not apologize for our constitutionally protected rights, most especially the freedom of speech. We should champion our first amendment to the rest of the world – not express regret for having it. We shouldn’t urge terrorists and murders to be patient with us. Remember what Vladimir Putin just did to the female punk rock band who sang a song he didn’t like? In how many countries on this Earth can you expect to be jailed, maybe even tortured for saying something the government doesn’t like?

The American record is rife with examples of reprehensible examples of free speech, there is something there to offend just about any belief system, but none of it justifies violence such as attacking an embassy or killing an American diplomat. Remember the Danish Cartoon about Mohammad? Remember the crucifix in the bottle of urine? Remember the reaction to these things? Who changed the channel? Who rioted and murdered?

The apologists who compare the "Innocence of Muslims" to shouting fire in a crowded theater are as predictable as the sunrise. They demonstrate their ignorance. The shouting fire example contains malice. The legal concept of malicious intent to cause harm (in this case panic). Where is the intent to cause harm in this clumsy, offensive little video by this well-established kook/trouble maker? Where was the intent to cause harm when the soldiers put the Quran in the burn pit in Bagram AFB in Afghanistan? Are these things stupid? Insensitive? Repugnant to some? You bet.

Are they designed to cause harm, or just express an objectionable opinion? Wise up apologists.

"The freedoms of speech, press, petition, and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate, or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish."

-- Justice Hugo Black

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Comical you should quote Black.
Have anything in common with the guy?

1

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

Burn the US Flag? No problem.

Burn the Holy Bible? No Problem.

Christ on the Cross in a bottle of urine? No problem.

Post a 13 minute YouTube video critical of the Prophet Mohammad no one forces you to watch?

Riot and murder.

The same clowns who think all the aforementioned should be protected speech in the US, are the same ones now stammering apologies to the Muslim world for the US constitution permitting such a slight to Islam. Despicable.

56 days folks. No matter what someone may think of him personally, or of his policies, it’s pretty obvious Mr. Obama is in way over his head and is surrounded by ideologues who are just as incompetent. At the very least they are rank amateurs who don’t know what they are doing. We can do better.

1

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

Mr. Quantrill, you keep repeating the same accusations of incompetence as if the "apology" came from the White House...

For the umpteenth time, I repeat: the Cairo press release was a not only unauthorized but disapproved posting of a man named Larry Schwartz. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/inside_the_public_relations_disaster_at_the_cairo_embassy

Have you any legitimate critiques of the administration's handling of this incident? And if you're not voting for Romney (whose handling of this incident has mostly been condemned as far worse), just who do you recommend as a replacement?

Or are you just cynically committed to repeating a lie to help it gain traction, even if only to help elect a candidate you don't even really support? Until you start making actual sense, that's exactly how it appears.

1

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

The US Embassy in Cairo (aka; the US Ambassador to Egypt) did the following press release:

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

The fact some staffer named Larry Schwartz handled it is irrelevant – unless – you would like to make the point that some flunky named Larry is running things in the Cairo Embassy and the people who are supposed to be in charge just can’t figure out how to supervise him.

0

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

"...the fact that some staffer named Larry Schwartz handled it is irrelevant" Irrelevant?? What facile B.S. is that?

Read the article. Schwartz didn't just "handle" it; he was the author and publisher, without which your precious political spitwad wouldn't exist. It was an obvious breakdown in chain of authority/approval. No doubt you'd blame Obama for his even being employed in the first place, and scoff at the staff's duress as the compound came under siege.

And you tellingly didn't introduce any factually supportable criticisms or clarify who you're endorsing. Is this just your rhetorical equivalent of firing for effect as your retreat into the woods?

1

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

Listen up Sport, you might learn something.

People working in US Embassies don’t just sit down and “do” press releases. There is a lengthy, very structured process that requires vetting up a chain of command, most especially for cases responding to the Embassy being attacked, the security perimeter being breeched, and the flag torn down and burned by an angry mob that is all over the television. Given the severity of the circumstances in this particular case, the ambassador himself would have had to vet this release. In my experience in the Embassies of Iraq and Afghanistan, a similar sort of incident in those places would have required the SECSTATE to approve it before it was released, probably even the President because it’s an election year.

So one of two things is going on: The process was followed and the Embassy’s Press Release was genuine, or some lone flunky just took it upon himself to fire off an official embassy press release to the media. Which one do you believe?

Once the amateurs running things figured out they screwed up, this BS about the lone-flunky was trotted out to walk this back. The facts are pretty plain: The United States Embassy in Cairo published a press release to the media that denigrated America’s constitutional freedoms and it had to be rejected by the White House.

Lets keep track of Mr. Schwartz. If I’m wrong, he will be the very first State Department employee I have ever heard of that decided to demonstrate some personal initiative and take matters into his own hands and ignore a lifetime of professional training and a huge body of regulations and SOPs about official communications, state department cables and public affairs, and just fire off a press release without an ounce of supervision or permission. Draw your own conclusions folks.

Regardless of the scenario you chose to believe, how does the Obama Administration come off looking like anything other than incompetent?

0

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

"So one of two things is going on: The process was followed and the Embassy’s Press Release was genuine, or some lone flunky just took it upon himself to fire off an official embassy press release to the media. Which one do you believe?"

Obviously, Sport, I believe the latter, because the former amounts to a conspiracy theory, which I naturally view with more skepticism based on Ockham's Razor. And it would be much easier for an official to violate this vaunted protocol than it would be to keep this sort of cover-up a secret. The details will be coming out. My side is the much safer bet, but I'm sure if this Schwartz was actually taking the fall for an approved release, then that will come out as well. You are betting on much longer odds.

"Regardless of the scenario you chose to believe, how does the Obama Administration come off looking like anything other than incompetent?"

Because there are rational limits to my partisanship, I don't blame the administration for a panicked and impulsive public affairs officer 5000 miles away. Meanwhile, Romney's entire policy team decided he should launch a political attack before the bodies were even cold. There's a real group of idiots that you can blame; they make McCain's 2008 team look like a MENSA summit.

0

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

Any time. Enjoy your retreat into the woods, psychopath groupie.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"The same clowns who think all the aforementioned should be protected speech in the US, are the same ones now stammering apologies to the Muslim world for the US constitution permitting such a slight to Islam. Despicable. "

What about us clowns that condone burning your American flag, burning your copy of the bible, or putting your your cross into a bottle of urine (anyone;s urine will do)?

If you see me as despicable, I'll understand and will admit to being such. You are a better man than me. I respect your opinion, even when you are wrong.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh, and we also condone making dumb movies that offend people.

0

tbaker 1 year, 11 months ago

You missed my point Liberty. The same people (clowns) who believe it should be OK (protected) to do all those vile things are the same one's who now think the dope who made the movie that insults the Muslims should have his speech limited. It is hypocritical. See what I mean? I believe ALL of it is protected speech.

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Aha the H. Black influence, conduct is not speech. Hmmmmm.

1

pizzapete 1 year, 11 months ago

From the video clip that I've watched of this movie I'd have to say it is art. It's not high art, it's really bad art, but it is art. Even if we can't agree if it's art or not, I think this should be protected freedom of speech. It's my understanding that people in Islamic countries can be killed for depicting the prophet Mohamed in any way, that would include drawing a picture, a painting, or making a movie. Mocking Islam or the prophet Mohamed will also result in a death sentence in many Muslim countries. So, if I paint a picture of a man with beard and put a title under it saying it's Jesus or the Buddha, it's art. If I change the title of the same painting to say it's Mohamed, I might be put to death in a Muslim country for painting the image of Mohamed. It's unfortunate that some religious fanatics take things to such extremes, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to limit our freedom of speech and expression. It's a founding principal of our democracy that we can express our ideas and opinions. In the USA anyone can make a movie that implies that Jesus was gay and a child molester, That same movie shouldn't be illegal just because instead of Jesus the object of ridicule is Mohamed. Where would we be if our government decided that someone wasn't allowed to say they think Jesus lived with the American Indians and he'd like for us to all wear special underwear? Freedom of speech and religion are what make our country great, let's not use this tragedy to change that.

2

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

Here's an image of Mohamed wearing a kitty cat mask: (=^・^=)

0

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

You didn't talk about the limits to speech, pete, it can't be ignored. High art, explain just what you mean by this,if you would be so kind.

0

pizzapete 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm thankful that in the USA we have very few restrictions on free speech. I support our rights to make a movie critical of Islam or protest a funeral with an inflammatory message. I don't agree with either of these examples of free speech and find them both troublesome, but our right to free speech trumps my objection to their message and the negative response they incite.

Sure, we have laws against yelling fire in a crowded theatre or joking about having a bomb on a plane. Those are reasonable restrictions that I think we can all agree on. I don't think we need to have more restrictions on speech because a small minority in a foreign country are offended any time Mohamed or Islam is depicted in a negative way. I don't think it's reasonable that our embassy was invaded or that people were killed because someone made a film mocking Mohamed. Although the producer of the film could reasonably expect people to protest his movie or even call for his head, I think most people are surprised by the unfortunate consequences and responses to this film. Do we really want more laws that further restrict our freedom of speech to appease a small minority of religious fanatics in a foreign land? Does the government need to tell us we can't yell fire in a theatre, say we have a bomb on a plane, and we can't make a picture, movie, or write a novel questioning Islam or the prophet Mohamed?

What do I think of as high art? Well, I would consider those works that are universally excepted as the height of human achievement, works that are timeless, those that inspire us to greatness. Almost anyone can write a book, make a painting, or create a film, but there are few artists that have a worldwide appeal and are commonly regarded as deserving of being taught in school, of being displayed in our finest galleries, or worthy of repeat inspection. Some examples of artists that I think have created high art would include Michelangelo, Pablo Picasso, and Vincent Van Gogh. In music, the composers Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, all come to mind. In literature, there are a few that stand out for me, such as, Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and William Shakespeare. In architecture, I would point to Antonio Gaudi, Oscar Niemeyer, and Frank Lloyd Wright. In film, some of my favorites include Louis Brunuel, Alfred Hitchcock, and Francois Truffaut.

0

oldbaldguy 1 year, 11 months ago

all I can say is this. talked to my son this morning after he came off shift. back when we had the koran burning fiasco in afganland, some of his squadron mates were involved in that, they had to fire on people and they were attacked. afgans and others were killed. now more people are dead and we have to worry about our embassies being attacked. the clowns who put out the film should be held accountable

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

It's looking more and more like a planned attack, not a riot incited by a cheesy video. Even so, some of you had your pitchforks out and found it perfectly acceptable to deprive an American citizen of his rights.

How does it feel to abandon the constitution?

2

oldbaldguy 1 year, 11 months ago

actions have consequences. all of you are talking in the abstract. the folks that give the radicals an excuse to attack us cost lives, our people and the attackers if we kill them. it does look like the attack in libya was planned. the others may have been incited by the video. the constitution is not under attack, our people are under attack. stand on a battlefield or in a street after a firefight, smell the burning bodies, the blood, the burning vehicles and equipment and then tell me these clowns do not deserve retribution.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Those guilty of attacking our consulate deserve justice, not retribution. We are a nation of law, not barbarians.

And yes the constitution is under attack, right here in this forum and all across America, right now. The really sick part is that the movie isn't being attacked because of it's repercussions but because it serves the interest of the religious right. Just like the mobs in Egypt or Yemen, some Americans are using the video as an excuse to throw stones and forward their religious (or in America, anti-religious) agendas.

I hope your son has a safe tour and your reunion is a happy one.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Been there done that - what is your point? Perhaps the reason I was told to do that (defend our constitution) is no longer valid?

0

booyalab 1 year, 11 months ago

I already knew liberals were iffy on the first amendment. This isn't a surprise.

1

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

How weak-minded do you have to be to change your opinions so others respect them?

1

oldbaldguy 1 year, 11 months ago

i was referring to the dink who calls himself a pastor in florida and the egyptian who put this video out. we will get the guys who attacked the consulate. not a liberal and i took an oath to defend the constitution a long time ago.

0

deec 1 year, 11 months ago

"An American right-wing extremist called Steve Klein, linked with various anti-Islamic groups in California, promoted the video, but said he did not know the identity of the director.

He contradicted himself in media interviews while expressing radical views, and eventually admitted he thought Sam Bacile was just a pseudonym.

Pastor Terry Jones from Florida, whose anti-Muslim actions have included burning Korans, said he had been in touch with a Mr Bacile over promotion of the film, but had not met him and could not identify him."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19572912

0

remember_username 1 year, 11 months ago

So why is shouting "fire" in a theater not protected under the first amendment? As I recall free speech that is likely to, or intended to, cause "imminent lawless action" is considered not covered by the first amendment. The people who made this video, or burned another cultures holy books, knew exactly what their actions would trigger.

We in America (Liberals and Conservatives both) hold the right of free speech to be critical to our civilization. To us the loss of that right is more repugnant than what others often say upon exercising that right. But we are not the only group of people on this planet and there are civilizations that consider blasphemy to be the greater insult than the loss of certain freedoms - even the loss of life. Surely, most Americans are aware of that fact, even if we don't understand it.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, you see, those brown people see movies deriding a prophet and it makes them mad. Jesus was a prophet to Islam and you remember all the embassies that were attacked after that Mel Gibson flick where Jesus got killed, right?

They just can't control themselves.

0

Greg Cooper 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, all I can say is that I'd be eminently po'd, to, if someone made a movie about my country and the acting was this bad. No wonder there's been so much violence.

0

Amy Heeter 1 year, 11 months ago

Obsession. Yes when you stop obsessing the object of contention fails to trigger reaction. Haha, you'll never get over me getting over you.

0

1957 1 year, 11 months ago

Wow-

This is a frightening thread with so many people willing to surrender their freedoms and take away the rights of others.

The Bill of Rights was written and passed into constitutional law to protect us from the likes of the speech police.

Also why is it so hard to understand when you protect other's free speech you are protecting your own?

On a side note the violence is not connected to any stupid movie anyway. If you believe it is then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. News flash, people lie.

So sad on so many levels.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Speech doesn't harm. Violence harms.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

A large portion of people posting in this forum believe the only speech that deserves protection contains words they agree with. The difference between them and the mobs in the mideast is degree, not intent.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.