Are you not familiar with the fact that people can, and often do, react to something that's said or done, especially if and when they take offense at it?
Isn't that what people like you do? I'll defer to your experience.
Don't you remember how certain Muslim extremists reacted to cartoons that portrayed Mohammed in an unflattering way?
Yes? And? Should we ban people from drawing cartoons of religious figures in an unflattering way? I don't go lopping someone's head off if they draw a picture of a gay Jesus. I'll disagree strongly with it, but it's still free speech.
You should understand that in the Christian context of Thou shalt not make any 'graven images.' That means that ANY depiction of Mohammed would be met with scorn and anger.
You don't even know what that commandment means do you?
A graven image is a false idol; a manufactured idol that people sometimes worship. A depiction of Muhammad by Charlie Hebdo was of what Muslims considered to be one of their key religious figures, so to them, not a "graven image."
Nice way of mischaracterizing what the Commandment intended.
So, it should be no surprise to ANYONE that an image of Mohammed (or, in this particular case, a video that openly MOCKS Mohammed) is going to be received with anger and vitriol.
So, you're outrightly blaming the video, even in the face of what Hillary said to the Egyptian Prime Minister?
Even the law recognizes the concept of an 'incitement to riot' as a causal factor when it comes to civil discord.
I find your knowledge of the law to be sorely lacking.
The definition of "to incite a riot" under 18 USC 2102 (b) shall not be defined as an expression of a belief or advocacy of ideas, clearly what the maker of the video was doing.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot,
but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
The video clearly was not intent on causing riots or causing violence. The man was expressing himself and what he believed in. See, you're lying again.
Nakoula (the filmmaker) was sentenced in November 2012 to a year in federal prison, not for inciting riots as defined under the law, but for using false names in violation of a probation order in a bank fraud case. See how that worked? They, and you, didn't have a case under federal riot laws. But they used his probation violation as a convenient way to jail him given the circumstances. Now we all know that wasn't why he was put in jail, now do we?
Conservatives just make themselves look ignorant when they routinely dismiss causal factors as if it's not possible which is downright funny seeing as how easily conservatives take offense at just about everything when they don't feel they're getting the respect they deserve.
Nice, seeing as how I exposed your colossal ignorance, you have no place lecturing me.
