How should the government handle the producers of the video that sparked the ME riots?

I usually stay out of religious topics, but this one makes me a little upset. And while I have not seen the video in question. Usually I see parts of it at least to know what's in it, because I'm not offended by anything and I hate censorship.

This got long pretty quick, so I'll break it up into four parts that are kind of related, but has different questions this brings up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: The first amendment to the US Constitution as it applies on-line and internationally

Here is the great 1st amendment as it applies in the US and in it's embassies around the world.

Does freedom of speech in the US apply to showing everything in other countries? Shouldn't this video have been banned in the Middle East from the start? And the big question, is the Internet a place really ruled by any country? (Rule 88) Rules of the Internet Do they need to know about Rule 20 in order to use the Internet?

Why can't they show an uncensored female breast on TV, let alone more? They have that freedom in Europe, yet European TV shows and news broadcast in the US has to be censored (or just not shown). Yet, there doesn't seem to be any obscenity laws on-line except for nudity among kids and bestiality. The rule of law has not kept up with the rapid growth of the Internet and ease to get information and news anywhere in the world almost instantly. Even if it could, some would still be able to get around it.

Is this video commercial speech or religious speech? Is religious speech only derived from a holy book or spoken at a place of worship? Or do parodies, criticisms, and anti-religious messages count as protected religious speech or some other type of free speech?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2: Obviously intentional hate speech

While one version of hate speech should be protected to allow you to use other hate speech without fear from the government someday, should some truth or decency be required? How do you approve the slander of one religion that is peaceful or non-violent? Couldn't the producers be sued for defamation? What about this movie? Root of All Evil? (TV 2006) - IMDb It's on YouTube. It would offend plenty of religious people, but it doesn't have anything crazy in it. There is a way to attack religion, but neither of these YouTube videos* will do a lot to move societies around the world to a post-religion age. *One through offensive slander that caused the riots, the second one through scientific reason. But even then, the vast majority of religious people are peaceful. And proving that you can piss off tens of thousands of them doesn't prove the point that your religion is any better than theirs.

What do we do about all the racial, ethnic, religious, sexual bullying intentionally going on, and even getting organized? Is it best not to draw any lines in the sand when pro-choice, small family size, science, and other issues would have issues forming any argument against anything because it would be anti-religious?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3: What should happen to the instigators?

Should the police be spending taxpayer money protecting this guy at home instead of locking him up? Did the media actually name the right guy? How much proof is there?
Should the people involved with making the movie be charged with inciting a riot or disturbing the peace at least, even if the riots happen overseas? I could throw a small party and get in more trouble.

If the Danish cartoons had come out now instead of a while ago when there were more dictators in control, would we have seen the same level of protests? Have people in the middle east forgotten about it?

If people have the freedom of speech, should they have to live or die by the consequences of what they say? Or are the murders of innocent Americans that happen to be close by and find the movie equally offensive and tasteless more appropriate?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 4: Ah politics...

And for the conspiracy theorists... was this done on purpose by some typical players? They put the 'Ground Zero Mosque' in the headlines right before the 2010 midterm elections, and seeing the Middle East descend into chaos, not because of anything Obama did, but because of what the far right-wing religious members did, and to a lesser extent what the Egyptian media decided to broadcast. While I think the media should be able to broadcast anything, they need to use that power responsibly. However, the political coverage is of how Obama is handling this, will he or won't he apologize or do anything with the movie producers, and how does this help stability and prosperity in the Middle East?

What motivates people like the 'pastor' that threatened to burn a Qu'ran/Koran except to get famous and piss off millions of people who stereotype all Americans as bad people? Are the moderates in all religions and non-religions not doing enough to show what the reality is and to encourage more acceptance of other faiths and non-believers? I don't think the media has done a very good job at it, even though I will say I was impressed that there was a few minutes of local Libyans saying that this doesn't represent us on the 6:30 news.

What would be the best way to handle this both diplomatically and peacefully and keep it from happening in the future?

 

My opinion is that i think obama should stop sending money over there. Why not go aftet the person that made the video, why kill americans. Just spite?? Either go ovwr there and take care of the problem or get everybody the hell out and Say fuck em.

 

nothing should be done to this guy in regards to free speech. sometimes free speech hurts. the bigger threat than crazies flipping out is a government that curtails your 1st amendment.

now with that being said i don't buy any of this. a christian/jewish funded anti muhammad film makes the muslims flip out. it just fits the global war on terror narrative too perfectly as well as the 'hate speech/1st ammendment' crackdown.

we have been force fed 'blame the movie' by the administration and media. i believe it has more to do with us meddling in middle eastern affairs: propping up dictators, facilitating regime changes, drone strikes, killin bin laden, and funding both sides of many of these conflicts. call it blowback, or the reap what you sow foreign policy.

 

The film was released back in July, the riots just happend to start on 9 11. This shows that its a planned thing. The movie is a McGuffin.

 

It was released in the US in July. The pro-Muslim Brotherhood reporter talked about it in Egypt a few days before the protests happened. It is a smaller world, but I still think that it takes some time for non-promoted things to gain exposure.

Who planned it is the next question? I don't think anyone has really benefited. Well, the media has something to talk about and viewership is up.

 

This is somewhat tangential to the subject but a bit of a pet peeve of mine: religious affiliation is categorically different than the other groups that you've listed in that it is not inalienable. Religious affiliation is much more like political party than it is skin color, sex or orientation specifically because it can be changed at will. So, like other ideological frameworks that one freely associates with it should not be immune from attack or criticism in the same way that we protect inalienable characteristics like race and sex.

 

I personally believe all that has happened in the last week is an act of war. Not that i want to go to war.

 

I never said it was right. But you do have a point

 

i have been curious about how this "film" got differentiated from the vast pool of stuff that is youtube. this is the first information i've seen about who dropped the dime:

McClatchy: DC : Anti-U.S. outrage over video began with Christian activist’s phone call to a reporter

 

The video made me do it? The video made me murder? The video made me burn and destroy the property of others? The video made me disresect the freedoms and rights of people who had nothing to do with the video?

What happened to holding people accountable for their own actions? What happened to common sense?

Why do we hold some to one standard of civility and other people to a different standard of civility? A person may be deeply offended when other people burn the American Flag, anyone going to give that person a pass or sympathy if they respond irrationally?

I have no understanding regarding the line of thought implicit in the concept that a video has anything to do with what has been occurring in the ME over the past few days. I feel like I am from a different planet or a different era. I know what to expect from my posts here, there is no need to go into an exchange about how I am insensitive, don't understand the ME, anti-Muslim, etc., etc., I am just putting my point of view in writing.

 

I would say that freedom of religion is an inalienable right because it literally cannot be taken away. You can be persecuted, tortured and killed for exercising it but you can also take it to your grave and nobody can stop you. Although, I realise you probably meant something more along the lines of it being recognised by governments and society in a way that we doesn't try to suppress it. That isn't really what I was talking about though.

Personally, I don't have a problem with discriminating against people on the basis of their ideologies or beliefs. I'll cherry pick a fairly straightforward example. I wouldn't want these white supremacist assholes around my kid: not babysitting, not teaching, really not even at the playground across town. Were I in a position to do so I would ruthlessly turn them away from my business. They're a blight on humanity. I think that it's fair to discriminate, within the context of my own life and decisions, against them on that basis.

This is not to say the government should discriminate against them. They should have the right to be bigots, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's ok or that I'm ok with it that they are. The key here is that being a white supremacist is different that being white in that you can do something about it. I don't see any reason to respect or treat fairly people who voluntarily adhere to ideologies I find abhorrent (Except insofar as a basic level of respect afforded to every human).

And of course none of this is to malign Islam (as if guilt by association could do such a thing) or even pass judgement at all on Muslims. It's to point out that religion as a voluntary belief systems deserve no more special respect than any other kinds of ideological framework. And people should be free to mock, ridicule and insult any ideas or beliefs they so choose. The amount of respect that Islam and those that voluntarily associate with it deserve is to be decided not on the basis of Islam's membership in a special class of ideologies but on the basis of it's content. If a person finds the content of Islam worthy of ridicule or contempt, they should be free to treat it and the people who associate with it as much or as little respect they see fit.

You example is spot on in this way. not wanting to fly with Muslims because 'they might be a terrorist' is idiotic because being Muslim doesn't in any way that I can see necessitate actually being a terrorist. But if it did, then surely you would be ok with folks not wanting to fly with them or at least demanding extra security checks for them, right?

 

Where I fault the governments around the world, is that all of this is always reactionary, and none is preventive.

Think of it like you have the Muslim extremists throwing wood and paper into a big pile. The terrorists bring the lighter fluid and the oil companies throw gas on it (money). Then you have the Jews and Evangelicals walking around it with torches and lit flares. It is much easier for those of us who want to prevent a fire and dismantle the pile to do so before it catches on fire.

 

i find it funny to read complaints about the actions of the salafis to use this film as a wedge issues in order to solidify relations with their political demographic coming from people in the states whose conservative identity politics rely on similar uses of the same kind of wedge issues to solidify relations with their political demographic.

of course, many who react this way are protected by a thick veil of ignorance from being able to make that connection.

but i find it less funny to see the racist underpinning of that reaction. o why can't those backward people be more like me? well, it must be islam.

the level of idiocy in that line of "thinking" is astounding.

as to the question at the origin of the thread: i think there's a difference between "making" this "film" and dropping the dime that differentiated it from the millions of other clips on youtube for the benefit of an egyptian newspaper first, then a salafi television station second. that strikes me as incitement, the functional equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. but i am not an lawyer, so am not sure that is actionable. that the "bacile" character may have committed parole violations by making the film strikes me as dubious---but it does give the states the chance to engage in a bit of theater. there is the appearance of a response.

that said, i remain quite suspicious about the timing of it. so i am not sure we have the whole story yet. but i have no information that allows me to go further than to be suspicious about the timing. but it is funny, isn't it?

 

o and here's a new poll just chock-a-block with awesome results:

Voters more likely to back an anti-Muslim party than reject it – poll | UK news | The Observer

 

That poll is a bit far fetched... I could similarly ask a question "Which candidate would you prefer Hitler or Stalin?" No matter the results there will be a headline that makes the people taking the poll look like idiots...