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

personally, i don't equate the mainstreaming of neo-fascist ideology (and that's what this xenophobic nonsense is) with people suddenly become idiots. i think it's better to look at it as symptomatic of the cognitive paralysis that's beset mainstream neo-liberal style politics in a period of crisis, one that is of its own making. it's almost like these organizations have no way of introducing basic problems with their own socio-economic viewpoint into that viewpoint. people sense there's something quite wrong but aren't quite sure how to articulate it. whence the appeal of this simple-minded racist politics. by projecting problems onto some imaginary Other, a sense of stability is imputing to the equally imaginary heimat that is the basis of the projections, their reverse image. i think it way too easy to assume that everyone who is attracted to this stuff is simply an idiot. it underestimates the power of ideology, and of the top-down media systems that traffic in it.

 

This whole discussion is pointless. Clearly there is an issue with how far Americans perceive the limitations of Free Speech to go, whereas us Europeans (and much of the rest of the world) have a problem with your interpretation of things.

Then again, who cares? You believe your own thing, we believe ours. Most believe the film makers went too far, you guys ( Hektore as a case in point) believe that Free Speech/Freedom of Expression lets one insult another system of belief in its entirety.

I happen to disagree with that. But much of any disagreement on both parties in this discussion is one based on complete subjectiveness, without substantive merit on anyone's side. So why bother? Let the retards in the ME go be rioting and killing, while the retards in America keep producing inflammatory material. It's not like anyone bears their own share of responsibility in all this.

All is good while the Human Rights are perfectly secured, ain't it?

/Plan9-esque jadedness

 

Why differentiate between conservative ideology and liberal ideology in the US? Do you believe one uses wedge issues more or less than the other? Isn't it by definition that any people(s) with differing ideology have an inherent "wedge" and that any promotion or support of an ideology will be grounded in the "wedge"? Can you elaborate on where you are lead with your line of thinking here? It is not clear, because in some cases there is legitimate cause for complaint and in some cases there is not. Example - My ideology is small government limited to powers expressly outlined in the US Constitution - I will always complain about the actions of people with a big government ideology with any false appeal that big government is morally correct and small government is not. The complaint is based on the false argument not differing ideology.

I do not project any falsity on the term, ideology. We all have one. I am not sure I recall what your notion of ideology is, could be that just certain ideologies are o.k. and some are not - my view is that there are differences and people have a right to hold them and should be prepared to defend them when challenged.

 

ace---i am not sure that i want to debate you about something this basic. but i'll indulge for the moment. i use the word ideology to point to logics that people use to shape how they think about the world. it is not the case that all ideologies are equivalent simply because people happen to invest in them. that's the logic of the old line: eat shit. a hundred million flies can't be wrong.

your economic ideology, translated into policy logic, has objectively produced the largest transfer of wealth into the hands of the financial aristocracy that the world has ever seen. that you believe otherwise indicates to me that your thinking is simply wrong. but it travels along lines set out by the ideology that you invest in. that ideology, then, is wrong: demonstrably, materially wrong. it does not produce anything like the results that it claims. it is possible to make arguments that your way of thinking is simply wrong by pointing to the outcomes of its implementation. and that is basic to democratic debate. i don't think you like democracy very much. you like believing things.

as for wedge issues, what you're saying is nonsense. the right has used identity-based arguments for quite some time now in order to enable its demographic to by-pass the unfortunate reality that your economic ideology is a disaster. it also enables maybe a different demographic to invest in retrograde social politics without considering the realities they correspond to. the wedge issues that the right routinely uses are designed to reinforce this sense that conservatism is not, in the main, a matter of argument. it's a matter of identity. so it's not falsifiable. its just a belief. that's entirely anti-democratic. to rationalize that, the right has routinely indulged this quirk of projecting what they do onto the democrats, so as to make what they do appear to be reactive. but nobody other than conservatives are fooled by that.

the reversion to identity as the basis for a political ideology is what makes the mainstream populist right the equivalent of the salafi.
the problem is that reversion to identity. the comparison to the other salafi simply follows from that.

 

So a group of thugs go around killing innocent people, burning down buildings and attempting to overrun embassies at the slightest insult to their religion or it's heroes and the problem is a shitty, insulting short film? Or a panel of denigrating political cartoons? Or a blasphemous novel?

Or at the very least both parties are equally to blame?

You cannot possibly be serious.

 

Yeah, about as serious as you are.

How did you even infer equal responsibility from my post?

But don't let that blind you from defending complete idiocy. It's not like reckless behavior should be condemned, let alone outlawed. Oh wait, it is.

Then again, what's that and contributing to the deaths of over a dozen people, including one of your own ambassadors, next to the ability to wave the First Amendment banner?

To quote Eugene Young from The Practice: "This is the UNITED. STATES. OF. AMERICA."

 

Two problems:
1) Across most of the world, changing one's religion implies rejecting one's family and community. Even if you're lucky enough to live someplace where the risk of violence isn't an issue, simply being excluded from your community for non-conformance can have a serious impact on your life.
2) Even if you change your religion, many people will still consider you to be of the religion that is most commonly associated with your race or country of origin.

So, in many places, changing your religion can get you shot or excommunicated. Plus most folks won't even recognize it! Not much of a choice for most people.

On the larger topic, I don't think that the government should do anything to the person who created this movie. I abhor bigotry, but I but I love freedom of speech even more.

On the larger, larger topic, I think that the movie was a trigger event rather than the cause of the recent attacks on the embassies. Our problems across the middle east are well known; I'm not going to list them here. There are a million simmering grudges out there just waiting for something to help them boil over. It only takes a few hundred people out of a population in the tens of millions to conduct a riot.

 

the story gets curiouser and curiouser:


Anti-Muslim Christian Activists Responsible For Inflammatory “Innocence of Muslims” Film » ADL Blogs

| Pamela Geller's Blog Solicited Funds For anti-Muhammad Film

the first of these is less interesting: it simply positions some of the names that have been floating about associated with this story since the fiction of "sam bacile" imploded by the end of the 12th. the second is more interesting in that it points to at least possible connections with some of the more obvious racist right-wing suspects. all that one can really infer from this is that the project was known in the tiny hothouse world of people who conflate the huntington thesis with a description of something beyond american conservative racist fantasies about islam.

at this point, i am not even really gathering this information--comrade on the planet facebook pointed me to these two pieces.
my personal view has not moved too much beyond the initial sense of smelling a rat in all this. that rat smelled in the direction of the october surprise type shenanigans that the us ultra-right has already shown itself willing to engage in for political gain. but i don't think we *know* anything at this point. there are merely dots that one can amuse oneself with by drawing pictures.

 

I don't understand how those are problems. Real world decisions can be difficult and have serious consequences. That doesn't make them any less a decision.

Maybe because you came down equally hard on both sides, deciding both were without merit, without making any distinction between what both groups are actually doing.

Free speech is not idiocy. Arson and murder are. What is idiocy is limiting speech on the basis of how much someone whines about how much that speech hurts their feelings.

Contributing?! Not even close. There is simply no way to justify burning buildings or murdering people on the basis of being offended at what someone said. No way.

 

This is not correct. My economic ideology is based upon US capitalism within a representative democracy. Other economic systems within different forms of government have seen greater transfers of wealth (in relative terms) than what we have seen in the US. Simply consider historical European Monarchies and their ruling classes for an example.

I do not dispute wealth transfers occur under my economic ideology, what I argue is what is the most effective means to correct inefficiencies that can be exploited resulting in unfair wealth transfers. But this is outside the scope of this thread.

We all use them when it is to our advantage and when others use them to their advantage we complain. If you take the position that some groups with conservative ideologies do it more than others, we disagree. Otherwise you have not made your point clearly.

 

ace, dear, this is why i was not necessarily interested in debating this with you. you don't even recognize what your markety market ideology is. you flatten it into the images that people who agree with you pretend the ideology refers to. that's an aspect of the ideology, but isn't the ideology itself. in this case, it's about gubmint being the problem, opposition to the redistribution of wealth except toward the military and other patronage network elements for the political position you support, the belief that markets are somehow rational, acceptance of that milton freidman sociopathy that would have you believe that the only ethical requirement for a firm is to maximize shareholder values, blah blah blah. that's about as far as i am going in this thread on the matter.

insofar as the use of wedge issues is concerned, what you don't like is the fact that the american right does things parallel to what the salafi are doing with this movie. it is of no consequence to me that you don't like it. it's the fact regardless of whether you like it. you clearly do not understand your own party's modus operandi, and i would expect you know nothing about the salafi organizations in north africa, the middle east and elsewhere, so there's no point in having a conversation with you about them.

 

I'd prefer a candidate who wasn't required to announce his religious affiliations at all. If the poll is far-fetched, the overwhelmingly religious mindset of the American public in their requirement that a candidate be Christian is off the charts crazy. All the poll has done is reinforce the existence of that mindset.

 

I agree that there should be no debate on my economic ideology.

If you ever re-read what you write you may see that you do what I occasionally do. On issues that I have given much thought to, I occasionally present my thoughts in the form of a shorthand that does not take the reader from A to Z, outlining B to Y in enough detail for the reader to fully understand. When I ask you a question be assured this is typically the case - it is not always necessary to get defensive or assume I am an idiot for asking a question.

 

The media coverage of this has been among the poorest of any foreign affairs story in recent memory. The attack on the US Consulate (it wasn't an embassy) in Libya was a separate event that happened to coincide with the protests and use the commotion as a distraction. Heavily armed individuals with precise targets do not spontaneously arise from protests. It was a planned attack by a Salafist militia who oppose secular government in Libya, possibly in retaliation for a recent drone strike on one of their training camps. There is unconfirmed speculation that they may have been targeting intelligence regarding portable anti-aircraft weapons that were widely looted during the Libyan revolution, but I can't find anything definitive.

That's because there is a fundamental difference in culture that never gets pointed out in media coverage of these events. In most of these middle eastern countries where outrage is the strongest, movies don't get made without government approval and the concept of an inflammatory movie being made without any official endorsement or approval is unthinkable.

 

there's also an injunction to defend islam. conservative political movements find it convenient to remind their constitutencies of that when it suits them. when it suits them is typically when they are out in front on an issue and want to generate theater designed to create an association between that organization and that issue. so when the 200 or so people protested at the us embassy in cairo, that was the situation. it was a muslim brotherhood call that brought those people out. libya was a different situation. the other protests that have happened are all equally tied to local political situations as much as to this piece of shit "movie" that the us press seems committed to presenting as *the* cause in a typically one-dimensional manner. (especially television. i do not understand why anyone takes nonsense like cnn seriously for anything except maybe footage. best to watch that footage with the sound off. in the main, what people say is fucking idiocy.)



ace---actually i have no problem with debating economic issues. in this context, it's kind of a thread jack.

 

I agree that there should be no government intervention in either protecting the film maker or punishing him unless it can be determined that his actions as a US citizen have posed/caused a threat to US national security.

I don't agree that it's a US freedom of speech issue or even a US vs Middle East issue (though it's obvious that many Muslims living in Islamic countries believe the US government and it's entire citizenry is somehow responsible for the bigoted actions of it's crazy right-wing Christians much in the same way many Christians in the West blame the entire Islamic world for the bigoted actions of it's own crazy element.)

Islamic countries have a problem with their fundamentalist Muslims
The US (and the West) have a problem with their fundamentalist Christians
Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians have a problem with each other
Fundamentalist religion is a problem.

The US government considers radical Islam a threat to it's national security. It should be just as concerned about the threat posed by the new brand of radical Christianity breeding inside it's own borders. Right wing radical Christianity has yet again instigated a situation that in my opinion, threatens US security. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's been my impression that freedom from government interference is not a high priority when the threat levels are at red which they evidently were this weekend as I made my way through the US airport security system.

So I'm sorry but this is not a freedom of speech or freedom of religion issue in regard to those who incite violence and violent reaction through the media or the internet. It's an issue of national security and should be treated as such.

The fact that it may or may not have been the main catalyst for all that followed is somewhat beside the point. When it comes down to it, the greater Muslim community has been fairly tolerant of the increasing amount of Anti-Islam hate rhetoric coming from the radical Christian community. How long will they remain tolerant?

I hope they don't get Pat Robertson on their cable channels.


--- merged: Sep 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM ---

There is also no way to justify bigoted and intolerant hate speech - not under the banner of free speech which should be held to a higher standard. If it's not then it's consequences shouldn't be either.

 

I didn't come down equally hard on both sides. In fact, I came down on the inane stubbornness people display in these controversial discussions, on both sides. One side thinks it is completely justified in wreaking havoc in response to the video's horrible portrayal of Muhammad, and the other side is blindly maintaining that any speech/expression from its camp is in no possible way even remotely a contributor to current events. Both sides are wrong.

Of course it is a gross oversimplification to state that the current situation is caused entirely by the video. However, what I'm talking about is reckless behavior in the face of the current situation that ultimately caused deaths and social unrest.

I'd need someone like KirStang or greywolf to clarify this, but I believe it is legally determined how reckless a certain action is by the foreseeability of it causing, or contributing to, the current damages inflicted on families and businesses on both sides.

It is a fact and well-known that the world's Muslim population reacts violently towards defamation/indecent portrayal/treatment of its holy book, God and Muhammad. It is a fact that not too long ago a simple caricature caused unrest and killings. It is further a fact that a book, The Satanic Verses, caused a major uproar in the world's Muslim population, with a sanctioned death warrant issued by a Muslim leader against the book's author. The relationship between the Western and Islamic worlds is tense at best, with a range of military conflicts and clashes in the past 50 years culminating in the current climate. 9/11 was merely another event in a long line of events, and that line has steadily continued to grow since.

Given that the large majority of those individuals involved in the production of this film are apparently Coptic Christians with personal histories in the toxic situation between Copts and Muslims in Egypt, they were more than perfectly aware of the overall situation, its dynamics, and how to throw the various factors into chaos.

It's one thing when a satirical production such as this video was distributed as a limited release to a select audience, or just within the USA. Its release on Youtube, thus giving the whole world instant access to it, and the provision of Arabic subtitles really put into question the intent with which these clowns operated. It is in no way a far stretch to assume with the Youtube release that Muslims who will find this video offensive would eventually find it and react to it.

You can't possibly deny the existence and prevalence of these issues. For you and others to maintain Freedom of Speech/Expression to be more sacred than the value of human life, is laughable in its entirety. Because that is exactly what you are doing. We do not live in an ideal world where X leads to Y, nor are the two variables mutually exclusive. The reality of the world cannot simply be discarded in order to blindly exercise one's right, whenever and however one wishes to do so.

This is clearly reckless behavior that caused significant damage to third parties. Based on the intent with which these producers acted, it may be much worse than just recklessness.

And to clarify: I do not find the Muslim world's reaction to this video excusable, as my previous statement in Pointless Announcement made that more than clear.

---

Regarding this statement of yours: "What is idiocy is limiting speech on the basis of how much someone whines about how much that speech hurts their feelings."

Emotional distress comes to mind. Or hate speech. It's not a black and white issue. No matter what one may believe to be entitled to, it is nobody's right to cause damage to others.

---

The reason I find these discussions inane is simple. There is a clear disparity in the cultural perceptions of the individuals on both sides. Americans are extreme Individualists. Europeans tend to lean much more towards social harmony. Other regions treat the same matter with different principles. It always causes disagreement, and no consensus. We love to stick with our perceptions.

 

I just watched the beginning of the video. It's all I could stomach. It doesn't even rate a review it's so poorly done.

A silly, white Mohammed prancing around like a goat. I can see why they'd be pissed but in all honesty, the video deserved a quick death while still in the editing stage for being an insult to the craft of video production. The producers should be shot for bad casting and the script writer should have his hands cut off.

And I was so hoping it was at least well done.

Obviously, even Californian Coptic Christians lack cinematic skills.

.

 

Yeah, same here.

I laughed hard when I heard one guy claim it cost $5 million to produce.

 

Why does a speech need to be justified in order to be made?

It's simply not the case that I'm wrong about free speech not causing these riots and murders. As I said before there is no reasonable way to get from hearing the speech of another person to killing innocent people. None. This is anything but the cliché of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre because panicking at the thought of burning to death is a perfectly reasonable action by reasonable people. It's the equivalent of a toddler swinging his arms around in the air while bellowing "I'm going to go like this! And if you get hit it's your own fault." It's the equivalent of saying "Well of course she got raped, did you see what she was wearing!?" Any attempt to shift the blame is to be an apologist for disgusting immoral behaviour. It is to confuse the recognition of the existence of human dysfunctionality with the expectation of reasonable action which is, very plainly, a mistake.

It is also much worse than that. To restrict speech on the basis of 'muslim outrage' is to give tacit approval of silencing opposition to a small group of theocratic fascists. It is to look at a riotous mob and say "If you'll only burn enough buildings, if you'll only swear to being hurt in your deepest feelings, if you'll only kill enough innocent people, then we will silence anyone you wish for you." It is to voluntarily revoke your right to criticise, to condemn and to dissent. Those are freedoms that people have been lining up to die for at least hundreds of years and they are inseparable from the right to speak freely. It really is that black and white.