Comments on: “Innocence of Muslims” film test First Amendment beliefs by Marjorie Arons-Barron

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:51:22 +0000

The goal of dubbing the film could have been to create havoc, but it is still not a crime to dub a film. What we’re jumbling is bad intent and crime. If you make an anti-Catholic film or a film mocking Jesus, and I kill you, I committed the crime, not you. No one suggested Bill Maher committed a crime in making the film Religulous (sp?), nor should they have.

As for graffitti, the problem is that the tagging is generally done on another person’s property, You absolutely have the right to question the motives and to condemn them

By: Arthur

Arthur — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:39:45 +0000

A lot of issues that shouild be separate are jumbled together here.
1. I am not aware of any American in a position of prominenece asserting that the group that made the film should have been prevented from making it . They had the right under the Constitution .
2. Similarly ,however , any American has the right to question the motive for making the film . When it did not catch on as an English language trailer on Youtube , someone dubbed it Arabic and shoved in the face of Egyptians.To what end? Recent history gave us all an excellent idea of what would ensue . Was that the goal ?
3. When contacted , Nakoula Basseley Nakoula posed as Sam Bacile , a Jewish Israeli , and claimed that a number of Jewish investors had financed the project . How can that be viewed as anything other than an effort to direct the likely violence against a group that had nothing to do with the movie .
4. In my view , this so closely matched what an agent provocateur acting for al Qaeda would have done , it is incumbent on the authorities to inquire of the parties responsible .
5. The First Amendemnt gives you a right to publish , but not to require someone else to make your publication available forever .Can the City scrub graffitti or is that suppression of the speech contained in the tagging ?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:36:42 +0000

Yes, I keep hearing about the guy who made the movie. I’m really not interested in who made the movie or why. It’s not a crime to make an offensive movie in this country. We don’t have a Ministry for the Prevention of Insults to any religion.
I heard someone say that the deaths of the four Americans are not a tragedy but an atrocity, and that is a distinction worth considering. I don’t endorse gratuitous insults to any religion, but if we let those crazy church of whatever people go to the funerals of dead soldiers and scream all their rubbish, if we let the KKK march, I really don’t see how we can prevent someone from making a distasteful movie. As far as whether the price of freedom of speech is worth it, I’m shocked that we’ve come to the point at which we’re even asking that question.

By: Marjorie Arons-Barron

Marjorie Arons-Barron — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:35:21 +0000

Well said, Cliff. Thanks for your insights, thoughtful as always.

By: C R Krieger

C R Krieger — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:31:01 +0000

I believe, US UN Ambassador Susan Rice notwithstanding (I go with Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf on this) that the attack on Ambassador Stevens was preplanned and was a response to US drone attacks on al Qaeda. : They would have happened whether the video was made or not. A lot of people think that using drones to attack our enemies is risk free. It is not. The enemy, if at least one survives, always gets a vote.

As for the riots across the Muslim world, they are NOT about us. We are just the poster board upon which the rioters write their messages. No matter how many of our rights we give up, they will still have grievences against their governments and the Salafists will still think the Muslim Brotherhood is not firm enough in the pursuit of Islam.

As an American I am embarrassed that we would drag the video maker out of his home at midnight to interrogate him about the video. I would hope this is not Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, or Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union from the 1920s through the 1950s and beyond.

One of the things that makes the United States exceptional is our belief in free speech. Why does Canadian Mark Steyn live in New Hampshire? Could it be the lack of Free Speech in Canada? He got tied up in a Canadian Human Rights Council case when the Canadian Magazine McLeans printed extras from one of his books. He offended a Muslim, who turned him in.

How does that line go in The American President? “America is hard, Bob. You have to want it bad.” Something like that.

Free Speech in the US did not kill our Ambassador to Libya, nor the three people with him. Free Speech in the US did not touch off riots in various Muslim majority nations. That said, the date of 11 September was a convenient marker for those behind the riots.

If we roll on this we will not only diminish our own freedom, but we will wave a red flag in front of those overseas who would like us to conform to their way of thinking.

And, it would make me, and others, a lot less willing to accept the Free Speech argument for taxpayer funding of people like Robert Maplethorpe.

Aside from that, I have no strong feelings. I think that calling for the resignation of the President over the treatment of this video maker is a bit over the top. On the other hand, calling for the dismissal of Jay Carney and Eric Holder might not be. As I say, I am embarrassed, as a US Citizen, by the photo of the man being taken from his home at midnight. And, for that I blame Bush (and Holdeer)!

Regards — Cliff