From Dominic Patten in Los Angeles & Nancy Tartaglione in Europe:
FRIDAY PM, 39TH UPDATE WRITETHRU: U.S. intelligence officials
issued a statement today saying they now believe the 9/11 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya was a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack” and not sparked by Muslim reaction to the American-made film Innocence Of Muslims. The statement by the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that it represented a change in the U.S. intelligence assessment of how and why the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans happened. A spokesman for Clapper’s office says U.S. agencies initially believed the attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over the film that lampoons the Prophet Mohammad. But as more was learned, officials revised their initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. He said it remains unclear if any individual or specific group ordered the attack.
Related: Film Producer Of Anti-Islam ‘Innocence Of Muslims’ Arrested And Jailed
Following President Barack Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, a right-wing Pakistani Islamist
told Reuters the president’s statements “have caused a religious war.” In Tuesday remarks, Obama explained why the Innocence Of Muslims video has not been banned in the U.S., citing the Constitutional right to free speech. On Wednesday, Hafiz Saeed, who has been accused by India of masterminding a 2008 attack in Mumbai that killed 166 people, called for the filmmakers to be handed over “to us” if the U.S. can’t take tough action against them, Reuters reports. India has repeatedly called on Pakistan to bring Saeed, who has denied any wrongdoing, to justice and Washington has offered a $10M reward for information leading to his capture.
Also in Pakistan, the Taliban has said it is granting “amnesty” to Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, the cabinet minister who offered $100,000 to anyone who kills the maker of the anti-Islam film. Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press that the minister’s views represent the true spirit of Islam and thus he has been removed him from their hit list. The Pakistani government has formally distanced itself from the minister’s remarks, saying the bounty reflected Bilour’s personal view and was not Pakistan’s. On Saturday, Bilour acknowledged that encouraging murder was illegal but said he was willing to go to the gallows in defense of the Prophet Mohammad. Separately, the AP reports that a breakaway faction of the Afghan Taliban announced its own bounty for those behind the film and is offering almost $500K in gold. The Dadullah Group, which broke away from the Afghan Taliban this year in protest of reconciliation talks with the U.S., offered 17.6 pounds of gold to anyone who kills the film’s creators.
Innocence Of Muslims actress Cindy Lee Garcia filed another lawsuit Wednesday (read it here) in federal court in a renewed effort to get the video removed from YouTube. The suit names YouTube, its parent company Google and purported filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Last week a California judge denied Garcia’s request to have YouTube take down the video. As in her previous lawsuit, Garcia alleges fraud, libel and unfair business practices. But her federal lawsuit also asserts a copyright claim to her performance in the video. Garcia claims she was duped into appearing in the film that eventually became Innocence of Muslims.
Garcia says that as far as she knows a full film was never completed, and that the producer known as Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula) told her in a telephone call he made the film because “he was tired of radical Muslims killing innocent people.” Garcia maintains that since the amateurish and explicit film — which ridicules the Prophet Mohammad as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child molester — went global online she lost her job and that “she has been subjected to credible death threats and is in fear for her life and the life and safety of anyone associated with her.”
Nakoula, the purported architect behind Innocence Of Muslims, has been in hiding since he was voluntarily interviewed by federal authorities nearly two weeks ago and has since put his Cerritos home – where some of the video was shot – up for sale. Federal officials continue to look into whether he violated probation on a check fraud conviction by uploading the video.
In his address on Tuesday, President Obama called the trailer a “crude and disgusting video” whose message “must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” As to why the U.S. has not banned the video that was made in California and which has been the catalyst for violent and deadly rioting in more than 30 countries beginning with Egypt and Libya on 9/11, he said, “The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech,” Obama said. Here are more of his remarks:
“I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with…
“I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
“There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”
Obama’s remarks echoed those of U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton who early on said, “Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.”
Also on Tuesday, a Brazilian court ordered YouTube to pull the trailer from its website and gave it ten days to do so. A lawsuit against the film and YouTube parent Google was brought by the National Islamic Union, a Brazilian Muslim group which said posting the video was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion. Judge Gilson Delgado Miranda said in his decision that the case juxtaposed freedom of expression and the need to protect people from action that might incite religious discrimination, Reuters reports. However, he added that banning something illegal should not “offend” freedom of thought and expression.
YouTube’s compliance with the order will mean that the video and/or the site is now blocked in Brazil, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Iran, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini blasted the U.S. administration for taking no official stance against the film, the Iranian Students’ News Agency reported. The country has officially decided to boycott the 2013 Academy Awards to protest Innocence Of Muslims. Hossemi urged other Muslim countries to follow Iran’s lead to show their protest. It already had picked A Cube Of Sugar as the foreign-language submission. Last year, Iran’s A Separation won the foreign-language film Oscar, a first for the country.
Meanwhile, a newly formed unit of the Libyan Army, The National Mobile Force, has evicted militias in nonviolent raids in and around Tripoli. Two hardline groups are among those who have conceded to disperse, including Ansar al Sharia, CNN reported. Washington blames Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the U.S. consulate which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on 9/11. On Friday night, protesters drove Islamist militias out of Benghazi where the raft of violence began with the 9/11 attack. Thousands of Libyans marched in Benghazi on Friday in support of democracy and against the Islamist militias.
On Sunday, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmandinejad criticized Innocence Of Muslims and the unrest it has spawned. Calling the film “ugly,” he told CNN’s Piers Morgan, “We condemn any type of extremism… We also believe that this must also be resolved in a humane atmosphere, in a participatory environment and we do not like anyone losing their lives or being killed for any reason, anywhere in the world.”
In other weekend developments, Coptic Christian activist Nader Fawzy on Saturday told a Toronto news conference he feared for his life because of threats from Egypt. The government there has issued arrest warrants for Fawzy and another Egyptian-born Canadian, Jacques Attalla of Montreal, claiming they were involved in the film. Both men deny having anything to do with it. They fear the warrants have made them targets for Muslim extremists. In total, 8 warrants were issued on allegations linked to the film, including one for Nakoula and one for Florida-based American pastor Terry Jones. All face charges of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information.
While violence has calmed some, protests in Pakistan last Friday led to the death of between 12 and 19 people. It was the worst single day of violence since the video spread. The New York Times reported. Two movie theaters were torched in Peshawar and three were burned in Karachi, according to CNN. It didn’t matter that Pakistan’s government had declared a “Day of Love for the Prophet Mohammad” and shut mobile-phone services in its major cities and closed roads leading to U.S. diplomatic posts to achieve peace. To that end, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan began airing TV ads on Thursday featuring clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the anti-Islam video. But the spots did little to calm unrest.
Embassies have been on alert for almost two weeks now. Last week, the U.S. closed its consulate in Indonesia’s third-largest city Medan as protests continued there. The State Department had already called for the removal of non-essential personnel from some of its missions with Germany following suit. France closed embassies and schools in 20 countries on Friday, after French magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad. French authorities also rejected a request to hold a march against the film in Paris.
Related: Obama Talks With Letterman About Anti-Islam Film
During the first week that the video began to spread, federal authorities interviewed presumed producer Nakoula and are determining whether he violated his probation. He served 21 months in prison on 2009 federal bank fraud and aggravated identity theft charges and a $795K fine. ABC News has reported he “could face more prison time if it is determined his involvement in the film was a violation of his probation, which barred him from either owning or using devices with access to the Web without prior approval from his probation officer.” So far Nakoula has not been arrested. He left his family’s Cerritos home with his head wrapped in a towel to hide his identity when sheriffs escorted him to a police station for FBI questioning.
At first, Innocence Of Muslims was ignored even when trailers were posted on YouTube in July. But then Egyptian television aired certain segments, which sparked protests which intensified. When news of his movie first broke, the filmmaker identified himself to media as Sam Bacile and made up lies about his identity. But the paperwork filed for the Screen Actors Guild was that of Abenob Nakoula Bassely. A public records search showed an Abanob B. Nakoula residing at the same address as Nakoula. Now the filmmaker is believed to be a Coptic Christian with many aliases.
Details about the film and its purported filmmakers have emerged over the past two weeks:
– Court records show that Nakoula was once a federal informant. The Smoking Gun obtained a transcript which shows attorneys for Nakoula pleaded for “cooperation points” when their client was sentenced in 2010 on an earlier conviction for check fraud. The lawyers argued cooperation with prosecutors in a separate case should be taken into consideration.
– Family members of Nakoula left their Cerritos home to join him in hiding. Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies escorted members of Nakoula’s family out of the house early Monday and into sheriff’s vehicles so they could rejoin Nakoula at an undisclosed location.
– News reports claim a second filmmaker, Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, president of Media for Christ, is an associate of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
– Film LA released the permit (read it here) for the film, which lists Media for Christ as the production company. Names and contact information for the producer, director and other crew members were redacted. The permit covers a one-day shoot at Blue Cloud Ranch in Santa Clarita for the film Desert Warriors, which has since become known as Innocence Of Muslims.
– Nakoula was connected to the persona of Sam Bacile, a federal law enforcement source told the AP. A man calling himself Sam Bacile initially claimed to be the writer and director of the film, but doubts surfaced regarding his identity. He has no credits on any movie industry database and SAG-AFTRA tells Deadline they have no information about the film; the DGA confirms they have no ‘Sam Bacile’ on record. It appears that Bacile is one of many aliases Nakoula used, the AP noted.
– The YouTube profile ‘Sam Bacile’ was used to post clips of the film on July 1 and comments as recently as Tuesday last week. It lists the age of the account holder at 74. Nakoula is believed to be 55.
– Another man, Steve Klein, told CNN he worked with Bacile on the movie vetting the script. Klein is an insurance agent and self-described militant Christian activist who resides in Hemet, CA.
– There are accounts of the film being screened in June under the name Innocence Of Bin Laden. According to Klein, Nakoula wanted to give it a title that would draw in and then trick “hardcore Muslims” into watching a movie that slammed Islam. But according to Klein, no tickets were sold and Nakoula was “crushed,” the AP said. Klein told The Times “felt great” about consulting on the film.
– CNN received a statement from the 80 or so people in front of and behind the cameras denouncing the film they say they worked on without knowing it was propaganda. The statement reads:
“The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”


Yeah, it’s the filmmakers fault that these animals went out and proved the point of the movie. The fact that you’re not condemning the actions of murderers is insane, somehow you think they were justified in killing because of a negative film about them?
Guess what, you can be against the violent response AND question the sanity of someone releasing a “film” like this in times like these. And I don’t know that the guy behind it is even a “filmmaker.” It seems to me it’s a person as crazy as the extremists violently opposing this “film” who patched a shitty project together and dubbed it a movie.
Apparently he isn’t who he says he is (surprise surprise). He is a Coptic Christian and if the Coptics didn’t have enough problems in Egypt then they do now. Watch for this guy to start whining about personal persecution now that he is found out. By the way, one can be against the insanity of this violence and also the reckless irresponsibility of this “filmmaker”. Free speech doesn’t come free of consequences.
Just a hint, these riots have absolutely nothing to do with this film. They need no reason beyond their existing hatred. This was just a pretext, if not this movie it’d be a cartoon, or the swirl on a milkshake container.
Free speech is free speech is free speech. This guy committed no crime and it is no business of the US government. How can you Hollywood types not get this?
Alternatively, you’re fine with the government prosecuting filmmakers for movies they think are ‘disruptive’ or ‘reckless’. Keep that in mind when there’s a republican in the White House and all of a sudden it’s government jackboots and theocracy.
You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
If you yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and the theater panics and people get trampled and die, you will be on trial for manslaughter. Plain and simple.
An Egyptian “Christian” (which I doubt. Not saying Christians haven’t done heinous things. Just saying this doesn’t smell right) living in the United States KNOWS how Egyptian Muslims (the majority) feel about Mohammed. They knew what they were doing. They knew if the video was ever seen, it would cause anger and probably violence. Well, it did and American lives were lost behind it. They are partially responsible for those deaths, and they need to be held accountable.
And this is NOT just Arab countries. There are things you can say in THIS country that are so volatile people are prone to violence. Which is why there is a FORUM for doing just that. With permits and police and security to prevent the violence. People are people are people. And we all get passionate over things that move us. And there is a difference between being a provocateur (which I’m assuming you mean when you talk about Hollywood) and an inciter. This yahoo was an inciter and he should be held responsible because of it.
Exactly right. These riots have been happening for 40 years, in the same areas, by the same people, against the same people. Let’s not glorify this idiot man any further and stop talking about his amateur attempt to stir up the kind of controversy we are propagating. Disgusting.
You’re absolutely RIGHT!!!!
Excellent. Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
As for there being some “forum” where such things can be said and the police will prevent anyone from being hurt, where exactly on Planet Earth is such a place to be found? Put cops around the theater where it’s showing in, say, LA, and what’s to stop people elsewhere from riotiing simply because they heard about it?
And in this day and age, it’s naive to think any kind of media won’t be disseminated everywhere. Even heard of bitorrent? How are the cops supposed to patrol that?
There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and hatred. This film is hate. As a filmmaker I refuse to defend it.
Agree.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. This film is just “the shooting of the Archduke” or “yellowcake” excuses for war which is already a given seeking reasons to progress.
There may be a silver lining defining this hatred. It would appear that although the geography of events covers a large area…the size of the hatred is quite limited. The participants have been relatively small groups compared to the total population.
There will always be people making statements which are grossly offensive to some individuals or groups or whatever. I don’t like it at all, but it is the price one pays for FREEDOM OF SPEECH…uncensored!
Maybe he should have told the cast and crew that instead of lying them onto the project.
Is it abnormal to serve and protect? Muslims are honor bound to serve and protect that which we believe and have faith in.
Ever since time immemorial we have had difference of opinion with christians, however the christian radicalism(extremism) is being plainly exposed. It was exposed by the hired actors who realized that they were duped into believing the movie was anything but an anti Islamic film.
..this silly movie trailer had NOTHING to do with 9-11 anniversary attacks…remember it was a Israeli made film with 100 “Jewish: backers ..oh that’s right,no it wasn’t…but if it wasn’t the movie why on earth would a peaceful religion kill people?…gosh, must be our fault…start with a false premise and very often you will get to a wrong conclusion…oh and the dead “US Navy seals” were not security for Stevens..but they did die trying to save Stevens from unhappy movie trailer goers…or something like that…
Thanks for clear thinking. Sometimes it’s hard today in today’s political climate. Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism have been defiled with movies and so-called art of every type and not a word of indignation was uttered. In fact, it was excused as ‘free expression’. These people that liken this absurdity to yelling fire in a theater would not have the same argument if these religious groups rose us here in the U.S. They would be the same ones yelling ‘freedom of expression’. What and why the double standard? Let’s get rid of the hypocrisy. I certainly do not condone the subject video but to condemn one atrocity and accept another is not supposed to the the American way.
This troublemaker knew there would be consequences, that’s why he used a fake name and claimed to be an Israeli. He even claimed that the movie was financed by Jewish donors. This creep knew he was stirring up a hornets nest and the coward pointed the angry mobs at innocent parties.
The administration asks YouTube to “review” this film to see if it violated their terms of use. Translation: You’ve got a nice website their, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it. Good for YouTube for not bowing the dictator in waiting…
Is that a threat? Are you a radical Muslim too? There is nothing wrong or illegal about making a movie in America. If you don’t like a movie then just don’t watch it. The film was made in a free country in which radicals do not belong. The film maker broke no laws in creating a film. It is totally irrelevant who made the film. We need to support free speech not oppression or radical Islam. Those who don’t like the movie or trailer: Don’t watch it…duh!
So I assume everyone here is agreed that Sony must be stopped from releasing Zero Dark Thirty this year. It’s a big-budget celebration of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and is guaranteed to cause rioting and mayhem in the middle east. By the new doctrine of responsible self-censorship, it cannot be allowed to be released.
If it is released and similar bloodshed occurs, will Kathryn Bigelow be dragged out of her house in the middle of the night to answer to the government?
No, she won’t. She has an Oscar. That’s like getting an immunity necklace on Survivor. LOL.
Dunno, did Bigelow trick anyone into making her movie?
Oh, there has to be trickery of the actors as well now. I thought it was just the low quality of the movie that set it apart from normal protection of the first amendment, or the support of they hollywood community.
Just keep telling yourself that the murders and riots are all because of a video and you can feel better about your superior understanding. It has nothing to do with 50 years of US policy in the middle east, or the President continually bragging about killing one of their revered leaders. And when the riots start after Zero Dark Thirty comes out, it’ll still somehow be about this youtube video.
‘Mirza Yousuf Hussain, the leader of one of the two Shiite groups that organized the protest, claimed that violence had broken out in Karachi after police opened fire on “peaceful protesters.” He said in a statement that police fire had killed the brother of the deputy secretary general of his party’s Karachi chapter. He also said two wounded workers were in critical condition. He accused high-ranking police officers of “working to protect American interests.”
In the eastern city of Lahore, thousands of protesters took part in a demonstration led by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the leader of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is accused of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. While the protest remained peaceful, the fiery speeches were filled with anger as protesters gathered at the Mall, about half a mile from the American Consulate in Lahore.
Mr. Saeed said in his speech that the production crew of the video “must be hanged to set an example.”
Protesters held placards and shouted slogans against the United States government. One placard read, “O Obama, we are all Osama.” Another placard read, “Blasphemy is not freedom of expression, and its sentence is death.”’
Waqar Gillani contributed reporting from Lahore, Pakistan. (NYTimes)
Its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH, for those of you that dont understand that concept I hope you dont vote or speak in public. No one has the right to tell anyone what they can and cant say and to harass him over past crimes when Hollywood has many more people who are guilty of far worse crimes still making movies is a total joke.
I question the motivation of these filmmakers. On the surface, it seems to stem from racism, hate and sadism. One could argue freedom of speech blah blah blah all they want but the issue at hand is safety. So for the sake of the argument, let’s say all Muslims violently react in defense of their religion: WHY WOULD YOU RELEASE A FILM THAT WILL INSTIGATE THIS BEHAVIOR?
4 lives lost. More to come. I don’t even feel safe here in this building on Doheny and Sunset. Bacile, show your face… it’s the least you can do.
Yeah, God forbid we insult anyone. I mean, this is never done to the Christians. “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Jesus Christ Superstar” never. It’s crazy how the muslim’s use of violence is used to stifle any freedom of speech, but what is more frightening are the people in this country who do not realize they are being manipulated by the fear and threat of violence. Liberty is not free.
You bet. I know a lot of Jews who were offended by ‘The Passion of the Christ’, and they were very vocal about it, but i dont recall any riots and murders. And i know a lot of Christians who were offended by that artwork PXss Christ and the Last Temptation of Christ and the constant Christian bashing in shows like Law and Order. But dont recall any violence. And all of those anti US, anti military movies that came out in the 10 yrs after 9/11 – a lot of people didnt like it but there were no violent uprisings. Thats because in the US we have a tradition of free speech that includes the kind of speech that may not be touchy feely, full of PC and watered down. I have not seen the film and heard it was pretty amateur stuff but anyone who thinks this was the motivation for violence has not been watching the middle east for the past many years.
Yen. Hardly the same thing at all. Both “Last Temptation..” and “..Superstar” were fascinating (if somewhat controversial) examinations of Christianity and the character of Christ. There is nothing “insulting” about either of these films. I ultimately agree with your point that terrorism shouldn’t have the stifling effect it does, but your two examples are not comparable to this issue. In the least.
Whoah there – who are you to decide what’s ‘insulting’ or not about a movie? Surely that’s the responsibility of the mob.
I’m glad you didn’t find those movies insulting, neither did I. I didn’t find the trailer insulting either. So what? Nobody cares what you or I think because we aren’t out there killing people over our hurt feelings.
Oh, come on! Stop with “we Christians are soooo persecuted” bullshit. Sure, Christians get made fun of but that’s because they can take it which should serve as a compliment not an excuse to offend others. Christianity is by far the majority religion in the United States so to say that you’re persecuted is just silly. I see your point that if one religion is made fun of, any of them should be fair game, I do. As many comedians say, everything can be fair game as long as it is handled the right way. Anything can be funny. But clearly these people didn’t do it the right way, they did a blatantly disrespectful movie and even worse, manipulated people into making this piece of filth.
In the States and Canada sure your right but in the middle east christians are persecuted big time.
Sure there is persecution of Christian. The scale might be different. But it is there. Especially in Hollywood. I was in room pitching last week and someone started in on Christianity and the “believers of a fairy tale.” I’m a Jew and I found this beyond the pale. It’s not the first time either. Sad commentary on the folks pulling the strings on what we see on the big and small screens.
I am a pastor and I can tell you that you are DEAD wrong about Christians not being prosecuted. How dare you say that? Each day, dozens of Christians are slotted around the world – including in Egypt. From China to Istanbul, Christian have been prosecuted for centuries.
I will pray for your understanding and clarity on this matter so you don’t misspeak again from a place of ignorance.
Why release this film? I think the timing – two months before our elections and at a time when Romney was slipping in the polls – is quite curious.
Muslims rioting overseas might presumably make the case that we need more defense and a more conservative government in charge to prevent terrorism. Coincidence? I think not.
I would not be surprised if some “dark money” from conservatives funded this movie and everything about it.
“Why release this film? I think the timing – two months before our elections and at a time when Romney was slipping in the polls – is quite curious.”
Yep, I’ll bet good money it’s no coincidence. Look how fast Romney jumped to slam Obama before all the facts were known–and still hasn’t apologized for making such a potentially inflammatory mistake. Who would benefit most from a September Surprise/international-blowup-ginned-up-to-embarass-Obama more than the Koch crew and their puppet? They are just desperate (and hating) enough to pull something like this–their candidate is going under and their bazillion-dollar ads aren’t working–or even getting viewed by–the voters they would need.
Rats! Foiled again. You guys are good. We held our secret meeting for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy in a tree house in the woods behind Paul Ryan’s childhood home, but you guys are just too smart. We don’t stand a chance while you’re on the case.
Except that Romney was right and it was Obama who ‘shot first and aimed later’. They knew it was terrorism but let that filmmaker twist in the wind, and threw the first amendment under the bus. It’s getting awfully crowded under there.
In true 1984 style it is now ‘self-evident’ that it was a terrorist attack, despite 9 days of beating the drum that a youtube clip caused all the trouble.
And let’s not forget that the US ambassador was brutally murdered and Obama’s response has been – what, exactly? Grovelling apology commercials on Pakistani TV. It’s a disgrace.
what about CNN releasing the film makers name,address obama is going to get that film taken down but he can do exactly what he wants when the media refuse to tell AMERICAN PEOPLE the truth if you want that you have to go to FOX NEWS Google might not be so easy to bully
This movie might not have been the best idea but what it has done is open people’s eyes and see how bad things really are in the middle east at the end of the day i don’t think we will see the film maker charged i do think we will see major changes in the middle east maybe the west pulls out and cuts all funding.
The Supreme Court has said you may not shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, causing people to panic and trample each other. You are liable and responsible.
The Supreme Court has said you may not shout “Bomb!” on a plane when there is no bomb, causing panic and chaos. You are liable and responsible.
What this Bacile did is the same thing, in my view.
I disagree. If you shout ‘Fire’ you are telling people they are in imminent physical danger and alerting them to take action that might cause panic and commotion. If the actors on the screen yell ‘Fire’ they are not telling the audience to panic. This was a fictional movie – from what i hear it was a lousy movie and was tasteless and insulting but it was a movie. A lot of US audiences have found the content of movies and TV to be deeply offensive, it has made them angry but they did not riot and kill people. In a free society all this filmmaker would be guilty of is making a bad movie.
I disagree. Yelling “Fire!” or “Bomb!” in an enclosed space can elicit an immediate physical response that leads to physical danger to those in the enclosed space, including those who don’t even respond to the perceived threat. Releasing a film, book, comic strip, etc., and then days, weeks, or months later having that brought to the attention of a particular group, which then chooses to react with violence, in all likelihood against targets not directly involved with the creation of the offending item, is not the same thing at all.
Bad comparison. Reasonable people might panic in a theater if they think their safety and life is threatened. A movie is incapable of threatening anyone in and of itself, so to suggest an analogy to something truly dangerous like fire or a bomb is just wrong. No reasonable person should riot over a movie, ANY movie, and those who do are children who lack civilized self control.
the filmmaker should be arrested but not for religious or political strife which the film has caused, but for making such a pos film – lousy acting, dialog, art, etc …. ugh. hard to believe anyone would take it seriously .
He should be arrested for running out of ideas of making films. Who the hell he thought would watch his movie without a plot, and not to talk about the ugly actors. Why is it some segments of society get their feelings hurt so easily, and the go out rampage building,burn other countries flags,dont these ediots have any shame. Eye for an eye is a bad way to settle disputes. God have mercy on thnese people who dont know how to use common sense.
This reminds of when studios — and the US government — tried to dissuade Hollywood filmmakers from making anti-Nazi movies in the ’30s. Because, well, we didn’t want to upset those Nazis did we? As Noel Coward sang (sarcastically) “Let’s Not be Beastly to the Germans.”
Wake me up when we finally learn from history.
Like.
Why do you think these religious nutjobs MADE this film? They did everything in their power to make it inflammatory, and when it was obvious no one here wanted to view this garbage, they put it somewhere it could do the most damage. It was pre-meditated and they were VERY much aware of what the repercussions would be. I’m not saying the response is justifiable, but I AM saying the filmmakers are just as responsible as those protesting. Free speech should be used responsibly.
Free speech “should” be used responsibly but it doesnt have to be. That’s what makes it free.
Otherwise,, who decides what responsible is? The majority public opinion? The govenrment? people who use violence to enforce their ideas on others?
Think about it. There’s a reason the laws are written like they are. They’ve worked for centuries, we’re not going to change them because of this current pack of idiots, any more than we did for all the idiots who came before them.
It is just like when Jesus Christ Super Star came out and Christians all over the world went around killing.. Oh wait they did not. Well what about that last movie insulting Jewish people and they then gook out swords and began.. Oh wait they don’t either. What about the respounces from Taoists, Gnostics, Rastafari movements, Buddhists, Shintos, or other several dozen religions have been the butts of degenerate slander or jokes? Oh wait, they don’t go killing random innocemtn people. Just the Muslums, well it’s ok because they are the religion of piece.. Except for pretty much every conflict everywhere in the world currewntly.
People with unpopular opinions aren’t really censored. No one would listen to them anyway. So no one listens beforehand, and no one can listen afterward, so it’s not censorship. Only popular things can get censored.
Children react more maturely.
A Pakistani government minister has just offered a reward of $100,000 to anyone who kills the film’s director. Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour said he will pay the reward to the Taleban or Al-Qaeda if they succeed in killing the filmmaker. The United States should be clear that this bounty on the head of a US citizen clearly constitutes state-sponsored terrorism and that it shall not be tolerated. Western governments in general need to stand up to this ignorance and fearmongering, rather than tip-toing around it because of cultural heritage. The reaction to this film is so backward it is obscene.
all muslims love the last prophit hazrat muhammad pbu as a muslim we can not bear any insult of our prophit any accused of insult is the great crimnal and if any muslim shoot the accused he become the hero.balor is the great may he leavelong.
Thanx for the info. A question concerning free speech: is this analogous to shouting “fire” in a packed theater?
Okay, if you rather live in a world where you cannot speak your mind, your opinion, and must only release your thoughts in private channels or none at all, that is not a world I want to live in.
Whether or not this is a masterpiece of the arts is irrelevant, what is important is this person had a message to spread, people funded it, and he distributed it. People have been making fun of the Exodus, Noah story, Jesus, Book of Mormons and so on and so forth and there are no violence or death, so to Muslims must understand we will not retreat and ban such works.
People, whether they are Islamic or not must acknowledge that fact, that it is not the responsibility of those that create these works but rather those that would inflict violence and death on others.
Best comment in this thread so far. Right on the money.
Consequences, my friend. No one ever guaranteed there would never be consequences; not in law, not in writing, not with winks and nods. Seems people keep forgetting that minor point.
There are consequences to everything. The moral and legal burden for the riots is on the rioters.
Consequences is just a word used by the violent as a disguise for unwarranted bloodshed.
He is responsible for this backlash and he knew he would be. That’s why he lied to the cast and crew to get it made, that’s why he posts everything anonymously, and that’s why he is in hiding now. Free speech is fine, but he must accept the responsibility for his words and actions, just like those who overreacted to a freaking movie and killed innocent people must accept responibility for their actions. Sticking up for a dumbass doesn’t make you a patriot, it makes you another dumbass.
But exactly what did he do that violate any written laws? It was an indie film and how many of us heard of this before this whole riot? This is not some high profile movie that broadcasts its anti-Islam message. Yes, we are responsible for what we are producing but we are not responsible for some extremist’s reaction. Yes people will get angry, but angry enough that will resort to murder and embassy destruction? Like someone said before, they are probably using this film as an excuse to do this. One filmmaker does not equal to the view of an entire nation.
The producers of this film knew exactly what they were doing. They released this film on or near the anniversary of 9/11 and they purposely changed dialogue after the fact by dubbing in new dialogue. They knew that this film would appeal to an element in Islamic societies around the world who would use this film as an excuse to riot and kill. How do we know this person wasn’t working with some Islamic radical groups? Now there’s a conspiracy theory for you. If the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya was planned (as the Feds seem to think), then the films release was impeccably timed to be released prior to that attack. Unhappy coincidence? Perhaps not.
On another subject, I think it is unfair to lump the violent behavior of these extremists and say that this is just typical of Islamists around the world. Osama bin Laden may be dead but al-Qaeda certainly isn’t, and this is just the right circumstance to see their resurgence if they aren’t already influencing the situation.
If you respect free speech, you are forced to stick up for dumbasses, since they utilize free speech just as much, probably more, than intelligent folks. Which explains cable news.
I’d prefer to be defending Salman Rushdie, but understand that the artistic integrity, classiness or intent of the free expression is not the issue. The issue is, if I want free speech, I must defend that right in others, and there is absolutely nothing dumb about that.
Why do you think we have free speech today? Because our ancestors fought for it, and sometimes they stood up for dumbasses, and sometimes they were the dumbasses. Eithervway, I’m grateful to them.
Uuuuummmmmm….
That’s because we’ve grown as a country and are more educated with working (or semi-working) economies and a functioning (mostly) government. Which means we have ways of protesting now…
But maybe you’d like to look a little farther back in our own history at people who were lynched for saying the “wrong thing” or believing the “wrong thing” and riots with violence over people not believing in Christ. Or how about those nasty little crusades.
Socially, we are a little further along. That is the ONLY difference. Upset Muslims in developed countries are protesting the SAME way Christians in this country protested the Martin Scorsese picture.
Thank you black chick for saying this – exactly what I was thinking. The people who are reacting in this way are poor, uneducated, and living in a world of political & social instability. They have been worked up into a frenzy by manipulation, probably because they have been told that this film was made in the west by someone with authority. Muslims in the developed world don’t behave in this manner due to their different, more positive world experiences. It is inexcusable that these mischievous types cause this trouble intentionally. On top of that, they tried to cause problems between Jews & Muslims which is deplorable. One can only shake ones head & wonder why….
Yes, this whole thing reeks of manipulation. It’s not about some stupid little movie nobody’s ever heard of before now. If it weren’t this movie, they’d have found some other pretext.
I totally agree with black chick as well. These extremists were the disenfranchised at the time of the Arab Spring and, apparently, nothing has changed for all the war that was waged to obtain SOME freedoms. Well, so much for the Arab Spring because we’re right back to square one with violent confrontations and the murder of innocent people.
Though I agree, this situation was a powder keg waiting to be lit, the timing of the release of this movie is still suspect and was designed to manipulate a disgruntled group of extremists.
Actually, you’re wrong, black chick. Christians who didn’t like Martin Scorscese’s film didn’t kill anyone. those crazy, bloodthirsty Islamic protestors killed four of our fellow Americans and caused a lot of property damage in a number of countries.
She wrote “Upset Muslims in developed countries are protesting the SAME way Christians in this country protested the Martin Scorsese picture.”
IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
DITTO; Holla.
Glenn,
No, it’s not.
Blaming the filmmaker in this case is analogous to blaming a recently raped woman for the attack because she wore a short dress.
I’m going to have to send you back to analogy school
Actor you are the one that needs to go back to school, his analogy is perfect. I guess that is why Actors are not writers, you simply parrot what others tell you to say.
Thank you for making me laugh this evening. Brilliant.
Perfect reply. Thank you.
Exactly! We all get mad at a movie one point or another. We can boycott it or convince others to not see it. But burning down embassies and killing innocent people just because of a film by an individual?
No, it’s not analogous. Reasonable and sensible people might panic dangerously at hearing someone yell fire in a theater. Reasonale and sensible people will react to some obscure movie that offends them by ignoring it, maybe write simething scathing online at worst. Everyone stll has an obligation to behave like a grownup.
Here’s the real analogy:
An actor on the screen yells “fire”, the audience watching thinks his acting is bad, while people out on the streets go crazy and kill people.
And s/he wins an award for the performance and lands a better agent.
In summary: Anyone says anything bad against Islam, or that could be twisted as against Islam will result in deaths of non-Muslims
Forget about the expose or that it was an amateur production, either we defend our rights to say WHATEVER we want, or we bow down to fear and evil men who would kill over cartoons and movies.
You silly childish fool. Saying just “whatever” you want is what is evil but you’re to busy being gratified to see this.
Seems like there’s a LAWSUIT that the cast and crew ought to file against Nakoula and Klein — if the cast and crew is telling the truth, the producers hired them under false pretenses and defrauded them, among other things. Despicable.
LOL, the answer to everything, lawsuits and more lawsuits……..
In this case, yes, the answer is a lawsuit. Freedom of speech and personal accountability go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other. If the actors in the film suddenly find themselves the target of a bunch of crazies because the filmmakers deceived them about the nature of the film, and the fact that new dialogue would be dubbed over theirs that the filmmakers knew would incite people to violence, then a lawsuit is definitely the part of answer.
The other part is for these cowards to have to stand up in court and identify themselves. Don’t force others to accept the consequences of your actions.
Unfortunately, that would depend on the contract they signed. A producer can loop whatever the hell they want if an actor signs off of it. Probably not in the contract though. Probably wasn’t even a contract. Hope they sue his ass back to prison.
As to the fair-weather free speech “advocates” — it’s becoming clear that the attack was planned by Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist group in Libya — the “film” (not clear that there’s anything more than the 15-min “preview” on Youtube) was just a pretext — in retaliation for the US drone killing of AQ #2 in June.
As to the “filmmakers,” they seem to have wound up doing the bidding of AQ itself — “Manchurian Candidate,” anybody?
Absolutely right. If this movie didnt exist, the murderous psychos would have found another excuse. I guess we have to censor everything in order to placate them, huh? Or maybe recognize that the movie isnt really hat this is about, and placating psychos is not the answer.
Totally true. The attacks on the embassy were planned weeks if not months ago to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11
the movie is just an excuse
-RnsW
This just goes to show you that if one is bright enough one doesn’t have the time or interest for such intrigue and would instead use such creativity to write espionage novels, etc. Smart criminals and smart terrorist are found it seems only in novels. Malice and crime seem to be the domain of the unimaginative and callous dullards. As Gore Vidal might have said to the author of this film, words failed him; this is no “Argo”.
Nothing can justify the attacks on Americans by Mideast fanatics. But this Bacile creature knew exactly what he was doing when he made this “film.” The point was to whip up anger and hysteria among fanatics, get them to attack people who have nothing to do with the film and thus alienate the west and the mideast even further from each other.
The reaction to the movie does NOT prove the movie’s point. That’s absurd. That’s like saying riots in NY and Watts proved that those who opposed civil rights in the 1960s were correct. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Mideast and elsewhere are not rioting or attacking anyone. There is a group of fanatics, either religious or nationalist, who will seize upon any excuse to attack U.S. and/or western institutions and people. They’ve done that again. And that was the point of the “movie” — to toss a match into the mideast power keg.
All this movie proved is that a few hateful bigots can provoke lunatics into behaving like, well, lunatics. The reaction to this movie by some in the Mideast is tragic and shameful, but no more an indictment of all Islam than Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of unarmed Muslim worshipers was an indictment of all Judaism or murderous attacks on family planning clinics in America an indictment of all Christianity.
Well said Tom. I completely agree. Not all Muslims are reacting this way to the blasphemous movie and neither are all Christians attacking Islam like Basile. Let me assure you (and everyone who reads this), most Muslims don’t consider people who terrorize the world like Osama bin Ladin Muslims, let alone bad Muslims. They are murderers and sociopaths, and should not be classified according to religion.
Let’s see if I follow the logic:
1. Jackass makes inaccurate movie (because so many movies are accurate).
2. People start rioting, setting buildings on fire and killing people.
3, The film is to blame for the riots and deaths.
By this logic:
1. Kid breaks car window playing ball in the street
2. Owner of the car beats the crap out of the kid
3. Kid is to blame for his own beating
My logic professor is probably cringing and wondering why people aren’t required to study logic in college.
Regardless how morally/ethically/criminally/sociologically the first action is, it can never justify violence. The only time violence is justified is in self defense or as a result of a prior unjustified attack. You cannot and should not respond to words (and even acts like the case of the window breaking example) with violence and if you so, you should be condemned categorically, because nothing justifies your actions.
Um, problem with your “Logic” is that the kid who breaks a car window playing ball in your scenario sounds like he did it by accident. If that is the case, then no, he shouldn’t get a beating, but if the kid intentionally smashes a car window with a bat he deserves what’s coming. Do you seriously think that the filmmakers accidentally made this film without the full knowledge they were going to piss off a whole bunch of people? Not that the protesters aren’t insane, but these “filmmakers” aren’t exactly Salman Rushdie-level artistes.
Logically, its more like this:
1. Kid makes youtube video.
2. Some watches the video on youtube, gets pissed off and murders somebody he doesn’t like.
3. Everybody blames the kid for the murder.
Exactly!
I’ll bet your “logic professor” is more likely cringing at your poor analogy. As poster Ryan responded, one can’t compare an accidental act with an intentional act. If any class should be required in this situation, you should be required to attend the “analogy school” someone mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.
No sane person is saying the muslims who are perpetrating the violence are justified in their actions. They are not. However, it does not come as a surprise to said sane person that these muslims behave in such a manner. To provoke them to action is morally repugnant no matter how despicable and wrong their actions may be.
Yes, this is America. We have the right to free speech, no matter how odious that speech may be. So, in that case, the filmmakers/propagandists have broken no law. However, what they have done is put the actors (who were seemingly duped into participating in this piece of trash) in danger. While alternate words were dubbed into these actor’s mouths, it is their faces that are representing the “blasphemy”. I don’t’ think it is too big a stretch of logic to think that their safety is in jeopardy.
As someone earlier eloquently pointed out, free speech does not come free of consequences. Were one of these deranged and dangerous muslims to cross paths with the creator of this amateurish film, one could argue that, ethically, said creator would be getting his just desserts. However, if one of the deranged and dangerous were encounter one those poor actors who were duped and dubbed… One might have a different interpretation of the law, but I think the filmmaker is criminally liable for putting others lives in danger.
Morally wrong….of course
Legally wrong…no
The idea that they spent $5 million on this is a joke. I’ve seen home movies with better production value. The fact that people are getting killed over it is even crazier. This remind me of the guy who tried to blow up Viacom’s headquarters in NYC because of South Park’s reference to Mohammed.
The film itself is lousy, but I don’t care who made it. The fact extremists use any perceived slight to their god as an excuse to pillage and murder is the real problem here, not an exercise of free speech. I’m tired of the West walking on eggshells lest the delicate sensibilities of these folks be disturbed.
The point isn’t that we should be more sensitive so much as we need to realize that 1) This attack was deliberately provoked and 2) The attackers do not represent the majority of educated and peace seeking muslims around the world. We need to side with those who seek peace and understanding, and yes we must denounce such attacks but only while recognizing that this entire scenario was fabricated to do just what you are doing… to breed animosity between our cultures.
Personally, I have no interest in protecting anyone who would commit or incite violence, including Christians.
I find it funny that when a non-muslim incites violence by making an inflammatory film, it’s just free speech, but when an Imam incites violence by telling people horrible things about the actions of the US abroad, he should be killed? Neither is acceptable, and we owe it to ourselves and to others to end that hypocrisy.
Amen. A voice of reason!
Spot on!
If Christians behaved like Muslims, every studio in Hollywood would be on fire.
Christians would never act like that right? They wouldn’t call people “Communists” and black-list them in the 50′s ruining their lives or anything. Sheesh.
Was someone raped, tortured, murdered, then had their body dragged through the streets?
Didn’t think so!
Using a movie that has been on YouTube for MONTHS to justify the murder and pillaging of our Embassies is a coward’s way out.
Hat tip, yup.
You’re assuming all Muslims are alike. It’s like saying all Christians are just like the Westboro Baptist Church. If someone released a film distorting “facts” about Christ there would be an uproar in the States, don’t think religious nutjobs only reside in the Middle East
Not true. Sure, lots of Hollywood films glorify behavior that many Christians disagree with. But if a Muslim film portrayed Christ as a boozy, whore-mongering, child molester, many Evangelicals would call for holy war, and the bombing of Muslim areas. Muslims in America would get lynched.
Christian and Jewish extremists are just as bad as Muslim extremists. Don’t kid yourself.
Patrick, almost every Muslim holiday, the TV stations in various Arab countries (including the so-called “modern” Turkey) air “Holiday Movies” in which christians are portraid as “the sons of satan” and Jews as “sons of monkies”. Don’t kid yourself – there is not even the slightest possibility to laugh at Muhamad the way Christ or God are laughed at.
Hi Jerri, I belog to a muslim country and Im sorry but I have never seen such movies. Also please know that as a muslim it deeply saddens me when extremists use the excuse of insult to the Prophet Muhammad to inflict violence as that is not the way of Islam or our Prophet, at least not the Islam I was taught. Also after the unfortunate killings people of libia did take to the streets holding signs of apology to the Americans and pleading that the rest of the world don’t think of them as murderers as they do not support violence at all. But media mostly doesn’t cover such event. Just know that I am a muslim and even though I do feel sad when such movies are made but I don’t think that under any condition murdering of people or any other act of violence is acceptable. And I am sure there are more muslims out there with the same thinking as me.
The tone of this article and the response of 2 of the first 4 comments amaze me. I thought the 1st Ammendment was put into place to protect unpopular speech– popular speech obviously doesn’t need to be protected. I don’t think we in this country need to “bow down” to the beliefs of others, particularly when those beliefs are in direct contradiction to ours.
I think AP found the guy:
Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. Federal court papers filed in a 2010 criminal prosecution against him said Nakoula had used numerous aliases in the past. Among the fake names, the documents said, were Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.
During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.
Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old Jewish writer and director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, told the AP on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that he was Christian.
So not only is he NOT Jewish, he is a Coptic Christian.
wow, if this guy ( or group) believed so much in what he was saying as the truth–why the seven layers of veils and secrecy? And with all these layers, misleading info, and dead ends,it would seem to me that that the group that MADE the movie may have spearheaded and organized what happened at the embassy in Libya? Not too far a leap of logic? It’s almost like a TWISTED, sadistic, murderous ARGO off-shoot.
Wow…
If you were adrift in a history of having been run out of your country, relatives killed or tortured and killed, and you ended up in the “Black & White Society” of Los Angeles, and if, in your lifetime, your country had gone from 80% Coptic Christian to 90% Muslim by seeing entire villages murdered (in a country where everyone owns a rifle and loves to shoot at tho moon.) What would you do?
Is there any way you could get an army together to try to tell your story, or right some wrongs? Remember, you live in the “Black & White World” of Hollywood, where fantasy armies save the world daily… Where one man with a camera and a vision can turn the World upside down, Where one angry Fundamentalist Christian just finished making a movie about Christ that got all the “Black & White” believers actuating about “The Christ” for, perhaps, the first time in their lives…_
Make a movie, people will understand that that man, (who never claimed to be a “Prophet,” merely a “Warning”) that man should not be believed. Yes, there might be a way to revenge his dead relatives, a way to amplify the meager talent that he has, a way to get back on the entire group. It will take an army, perhaps it can be done with an “Army of One.”
Why are we discussing the film and not the acts of violence? It is ridiculous that the blame is being laid at hands of the filmmaker and not the murderers who attacked the embassy and killed the Ambassador. Maybe the film was intended to upset Muslims. Maybe the filmmaker wanted to insult Mohammad. Are we really equating the making of a movie and killing someone?
Why don’t you get the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive? Yes, we have freedom of speech. Yes the violence is wrong.
The first time you get burned by a hot stove is the “stove’s fault” for being hot. If you get burned by a hot stove after that, it is your fault, because you know it is hot. And this isn’t freedom of speech. Contrary to the Conservative belief, freedom of speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want. You can’t tell a blatant lie and present it as truth.
Whoever did this “film” knew that showing Muhammad would incite Muslims. To portray him in the way they did, with very little factual basis, was intentionally incendiary. Then to hide behind the lives of brave Americans abroad is even worse. He is like that guy that stands behind his friends and yells racial slurs. That guy won’t be around once the actual fighting starts. It is easy to make a movie like this, while safely hidden in America.
Do the extremists themselves bear a lot of the blame? Sure. But so does every religious extremist on the planet, regardless of faith. But this guy made a film full of lies, knowing what it would incite, and then cravenly hid. Plus, it seems like he lied to the people making the film, tarring them with the same brush as his cowardly self. Wussy with a “p”.
But you can say a blatant lie and present it as truth. That is freedom of speech.
Pat–Nice try, but you need to read up. Google United States v. Alvarez.
Or continue to lie about not being able to lie under the First Amendment.
So are you saying Marilyn Manson is responsible for Columbine? The Beatles are responsible for the Manson family? Is the Dark Knight Rises resposible for Aurora?
Either art and film is free speech for all or none. Speech is only free when people you disagree with have it as well.
Those were works of fiction and presented as such. You can’t simply say what you want and present it as fact.
Get this through your substandard, conservative minds: THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT LET YOU TELL LIES. You can express an opinion, but you cannot present it as a documentary.
Um, yes.. you absolutely can. It’s not “freedom to tell the truth” it’s “freedom of speech” I could make a documentary about how the sky is green. I know that it is, in fact, blue… but I can say whatever I damn well please.
Patrick, do you know that Mohammed wasn’t a womanizer, etc? Sure, someone can sue the filmmaker for libel, but the burden is on him/her to prove that Mohammed was a virtous, holy man and not the person portrayed in the film. Sure, passing this off as a documentary is disingenuous, but this isn’t the first film to call an opinion piece a documentary (*cough*Michael Moore*cough*).
Patrick says, “Get this through your substandard, conservative minds: THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT LET YOU TELL LIES. You can express an opinion, but you cannot present it as a documentary.”
United States v. Alvarez. First Amendment covers lying, not just in opinion.
Get that through your deranged mind.
Yes, the first amendment does allow you to lie.
Perhaps you should pick up CONSTITUTION FOR DUMMIES, Patrick.
-RnsW
I’ll probably be deleted,
None of the films or songs you referenced were INTENDED to incite violence. This anti-Muslim film had an objective, which was to foment violence. Those murderers in Libya just needed the slightest provocation and this douchebag gave it to them intentionally.
My issue is when someone mocks Christians many see it as funny yet when you mock muslims its hate speech don’t get me wrong i think this movie is stupid and i question the film makers motive but i think there is a double standard.
Did anyone bother watching the 13-minute trailer? It was awful. The white actors were had brown makeup, some of it partially applied. The dubbing was terrible. It was a mess. And the green screen scenes were obvious.
It’s impossible to see how he could have spent $5M on this.
Of course, it’s even more twisted to think that human beings would murder other people for this tripe. I just don’t get religious insanity. Whether it’s slaughtering people or covering up the rape of children like the Catholic Church.
Did it ever occur to anyone that this film was just the ruse that this group used to carry out this MURDER on the anniversay of September 11th? They were chanting Osama’s name after all. Is there anything the Muslim radical will do that the left won’t blame on either America or Israel?
Isn’t the fact that the left accepts this radical Islamic logic the reason that they feel it justified to carry out a murderous terrorist attack against an Ambassador who had nothing to do with the movie at all?
Instead of focusing on this red herring film, how about you focus on what the murderers did.
“This increasingly volatile situation underscores the power of film as an international medium and multicultural influence.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What it does is underscore — again — the value of media education. The real question is being overlooked, too, which is: What does it say about a culture, any culture, that something as essentially trivial and meaningless as a film can cause entire groups of people to work themselves into a homicidal rage? What does it say about that group, and their beliefs.
The solution, to me, is something as simple as worldwide media education, or at the very least, a crash course in media literacy. I’m not holding my breath, though.
The rioters need an education, that’s for sure, but it goes far beyond media literacy. How about How To Be A Decent Human Being 101?
In their culture they are doing precisely what their Holy Book & their Religious Leader tells them to do. If you disagree, then what are you going to do about it? They are, in their Religion, and to their Preachers/Mullahs, Angels. If you killed them, they would become famous and go immediately to Heaven.
Precisely what do you have to offer them that is better than that?
This is not a matter of placing blame or debating who/what is right or wrong. It’s not a black/white matter; this is just a matter of wrongness all around.
The filmmaker created an inflammatory film insulting to a specific religion for very serious reasons (according to their beliefs) – shame on him.
Militia groups in several countries storm US embassies, blaming our government for the film, injuring and killing in the name of their god – shame on them.
I can’t believe people are actually defending [im]Bacile over this. Yes, he has the right to say pretty much whatever he damn well pleases in America because of protection of free speech – but common sense says just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should (or coincidentally, that it won’t enflame the passions of the people you’re targetting).
The militias’ actions are also terrible, yes, there’s no denying that. From our POV, the reaction doesn’t match the offense and is the worst way of demonstrating disapproval.
I defend Bacile’s right to free speech, but do not defend his poor choice in making this film.
Why should there be shame on the filmmaker? So he made a film that was insulting to a religion. SO WHAT? Are we all required to be deferential to all religions no matter how absurd? Supposedly The Master is a reference to L Ron Hubbard, should PT Anderson be ashamed that he disrespected Scientology? Should Monty Python be ashamed of Life Of Brian?
The filmmaker has some gripe with islam. Pretty understandable that a coptic christian from egypt would be less than impressed with islam. People can be angry at theologies and want to express that anger artistically with satire or mockery, even if it’s done amateurishly. It’s not immoral and it certainly shouldn’t be illegal. Definitely no way should it ever excuse or remotely equivocate for brutal violent actions. If muslims can put a mosque one block north of the former WTC then they can also put up with some film that virtually nobody will ever watch all the way through.
You call shame down upon the film maker, yet this may be the only revolutionary act that he is capable of.
Shame on you.
You didn’t wait for all the back story to come out before you decided that this tiny backgrounded creature is guilty of what could easily become starting World War 3.
The Muslims are right now at war (blowing things up) in Spain, The Philippines, Germany, Finland, Holland, Turkey, Russia, Tunisia, most of Africa, most of the middle-East, America…
When are you people going to put this together?
I’m not sure Deadline has a lot of info on the horrible attacks on the embassies. This site does report on the film industry. If you want more info on the embassy attacks, there are plenty of places to get that news.
When I heard about the attacks, and that they were inspired by a film, I thought, “what film?” So did millions of other Americans. I am glad that there is reporting on it.
Here’s what we do know according to the NY Times: ‘The original idea for the film, Mr. Klein said, was to lure hard-core Muslims into a screening of the film thinking they were seeing a movie celebrating Islam. “And when they came in they would see this movie and see the truth, the facts, the evidence and the proof,” he said. “So I said, yeah, that’s a good idea.”’
Well, if you bother to watch the absurd “trailer” on YouTube, you will find that the film gives nothing of “the truth, the facts, the evidence and the proof.” It is a series of sketches where the filmmakers have dubbed in the offensive references. It is like a bad SNL skit from the 70s in most places.
More importantly is the intent with which it was made – specifically designed to inflame Muslims. And that it where it gets interesting to me. It would seem so amateurish and foolish in this regard as to amount to a total failure. But then, true to stereotype, it has managed to launch riots and give cover for a more sophisticated attack on the Libyan embassy!
It is like everyone is playing a parody of themselves: The filmmakers who seem to believe they have some “truth” on their side, but end up lying to their cast and crew and producing something painfully stupid, the rioters who seem to confirm the worst clichés many in the US hold about their culture, and the Right-wing who rant on the “War on Christmas” and other perceived slights to Christianity but who professed to be outraged that anyone would dare question the taste or good sense of these filmmakers who hoped to humiliate Muslims, and in doing so wrap themselves up with Pastor Terry Jones and his ill-informed hate-group kin.
Anna makes a comment about the “logic” of this.
“Let’s see if I follow the logic:
1. Jackass makes inaccurate movie (because so many movies are accurate).
2. People start rioting, setting buildings on fire and killing people.
3, The film is to blame for the riots and deaths.”
By this logic:
1. Kid breaks car window playing ball in the street
2. Owner of the car beats the crap out of the kid
3. Kid is to blame for his own beating”
Anna, I think there is another way to look at it:
1. Boy at school continually taunts a girl, telling her he is going to rape her, kill her mother and rape her sister.
2. School says that these are just words and the school can not stop the boy from making these threats. Over the years, the girl has observed many teachers making comments about how girls “ask for it” and how girls themselves are their own worst enemy, even though the school claims to be a champion of young women.
3. The boy in question does a class project where he presents an illustrated story about how much he will enjoy raping and killing this girl and her family.
4. That afternoon, the girl goes into the school office, screams, yells and smashes stuff.
That series of events more accurately portrays how many Muslims feel about this crap. It doesn’t justify violence, but it is important to understand it.
Yes, yes, the first amendment protects fools like these folks who made the film. But it also protects my right to call them a “cancer” on America, a vile, idiotic troupe who wishes to become the next version of the Klu Klux Klan. They may not have known the would instigate these riots, and there may not be a way to hold them responsible, but let me assure you, there will be no good place to hide for those who defend them on their mission of hate.
Based on the “quality” of the movie in question, I’m almost sure the filmaker is Tommy Wiseau.
South Park makes a show mocking Tom Cruise. Scientologists are up in arms and storm Viacom headquarters. Summer Redstone and Phillipe Dauman are murdered in the melee. Seems about right. Maybe we should get the Farrelly’s to rewrite the first and second amendment.
That would be the funniest South Park of all time.
Matt and Trey you must do this it’s too funny not to.
Can we please leave this stupid piece of hate behind? The producer deserves no more glorification or attention.
Clearly the people committing the acts of violence are wrong. That’s not in question for anybody, and nobody is “apologizing” for America.
The discussion around this film (which is normal on a blog that covers film and television) is built around the idea that making this so-called movie was very stupid, and purposely incited violence.
Imagine this hypothetical: A French filmmaker makes a movie in which George Washington is a pedophile, Ben Franklin is a British Spy, and Paul Revere raped a bunch of women. Yes, the constitution gives him the right to make that movie. But if that filmmaker went to Tampa during the Republican convention and promoted it to everyone, he would get his ass kicked and we would have people telling us to boycott all things French. Just because he has a right to make the movie, it doesn’t mean that he should. Because the man in this hypothetical is an idiot. Now imagine if that film had caused a riot in which three people were killed. Of course the filmmaker is partially to blame for inciting a riot.
I would be extremely surprised if the filmmaker was actually beat up. And, even if he were, I doubt that a fellow American would kill him. I doubt even more that ANY fellow American would kill the French ambassador and three of his colleagues in retaliation for the French film.
Really? … You believe the extremist protesters are attacking over a film that was shown over a month ago… and those violent people waited PATIENTLY for 9/11 to show their hatred? Think about it… How was it that an Embassy only had 3 people on deck? The rest were evacuated! It isn’t over a film.
AND if you really believe it is over some American-Israel-Jewish person’s film… then they are basically throwing a fit over FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
Think about which is more likely.
Hi WakeUp – The YouTube was posted in English in July getting about 11,000 hits – On Sept. 4 it was translated & posted in Arabic and got 70,000 views. Then an Egyptian TV show featured the Arabic trailer and hits went up to 500,000.
I’ve been looking for that — do you know of where to find it -and some dates? Thank you
The general population of the countries rioting live in poverty much worse than anything in the US and have little hope of improving their lives. The governments and religious institutions use these cartoons, videos, and movies to incite riots to direct the anger of the population at an easy target, rather than have that anger directed at them.