Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[Quantum Windbag]

None of the protesters murdered anyone. A militant did kill. And rioting and Protesting happens there a lot. It's not such a evil thing that you try to make it be. Those are pissed off Muslims. There's your answer. You don't need to have a 300hundred page discussion about it. Your intention is just to make protesters to be considered as evil criminals. Which is not true. The people who killed were a militsnt group in Libya and are the criminals who Libyans have stormed and went after

None of the protestors? Does that include the protestors in Pakistan? Or are you going to pretend that that nobody died there?

That's only Pakistan which always seems to have deadly riots. I'm not sure what caused all the deaths. Some deaths blame police. Probably a few due to tear gas. Im gonna look for Pakistani Reports or other reports in a bit. But that still means the protests were generally non violent in most of the middle eastern countries

wrong.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

None of the protestors? Does that include the protestors in Pakistan? Or are you going to pretend that that nobody died there?

That's only Pakistan which always seems to have deadly riots. I'm not sure what caused all the deaths. Some deaths blame police. Probably a few due to tear gas. Im gonna look for Pakistani Reports or other reports in a bit. But that still means the protests were generally non violent in most of the middle eastern countries

wrong.

I wasn't wrong at all

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's only Pakistan which always seems to have deadly riots. I'm not sure what caused all the deaths. Some deaths blame police. Probably a few due to tear gas. Im gonna look for Pakistani Reports or other reports in a bit. But that still means the protests were generally non violent in most of the middle eastern countries

You were wrong, as usual.

I wasn't wrong at all

Your statement that the murders were the acts of militants wasn't wrong even though you admitted that the protests in Pakistan have killed people? Can you explain that one?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

wrong

I wasn't wrong at all

Your statement that the murders were the acts of militants wasn't wrong even though you admitted that the protests in Pakistan have killed people? Can you explain that one?

Protesters weren't the cause of deaths in Pakistan most of the deaths so far have been as a result of the police. That still makes the majority of the protests generally non violent.

 

[Aristotle]

You got that quote wrong. The quote is "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." The key word in that thought is falsely, and is used to distinguish it from speech that is truthful. In other words, if you are telling the truth, it is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to engage in any other type of dangerous speech.

That actually makes the motive irrelevant to the discussion, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

First off, I'm not quoting anyone. But thank you for proving my point. If the motivation is to falsely demonstrate that Islam is dangerous through satire and theater, then it has been achieved. The various depictions of Muhammad is protected speech sure, but what has been said or written or discussed hasn't refuted nothing about Islam. It's all opinion! Saying Muhammad is a pedophile doesn't make Muhammad a pedophile! Making a movie about Muhammad doesn't mean its an accurate depiction of Muhammad.

What they are doing is painting Islam with a tainted brush based on internal feelings. As an agnostic I have to say critics of Islam are doing a poor job convincing me as well as the masses that Islam is a negative religion. So alas, it is screaming fire in a crowded theater. By the way screaming fire in a theater is against the law.

You were actually misquoting Oliver Wendall Holmes, whether you are aware of it or not. The fact that you are unaware that the quote is wrong and the source of the quote does not absolve you from being wrong.

How did I prove you right? The intent of the speech is completely irrelevant unless the speech is false. Parody and/or satire is neither true nor false, thus the intent of the video is, legally, irrelevant. Strangely enough, even if we assume that the video is both a deliberate lie and that the intent was to cause outrage in the Muslim community, you are still wrong. Even under those circumstances the fact that he is not actually urging anyone to break the law or commit violent acts means he is legally not liable for the resulting backlash.

By the way, screaming fire in a crowded theater is not against the law unless the intent is to cause a panic. If, for example, you are an actor in a play and scream fire, it is always legal. As another example, if the theater is actually on fire, or you believe that it is, it is legal to scream fire even if it causes a panic and it turns out it is not on fire.

The law is never black and white, stop pretending it is.

You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.

By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.

 

[Aristotle]

I am not trying to win some kind of popularity contest in order to please the secular west.

River Dance much?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't wrong at all

Your statement that the murders were the acts of militants wasn't wrong even though you admitted that the protests in Pakistan have killed people? Can you explain that one?

Protesters weren't the cause of deaths in Pakistan most of the deaths so far have been as a result of the police. That still makes the majority of the protests generally non violent.

You just said you didn't know if the police caused the deaths or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First off, I'm not quoting anyone. But thank you for proving my point. If the motivation is to falsely demonstrate that Islam is dangerous through satire and theater, then it has been achieved. The various depictions of Muhammad is protected speech sure, but what has been said or written or discussed hasn't refuted nothing about Islam. It's all opinion! Saying Muhammad is a pedophile doesn't make Muhammad a pedophile! Making a movie about Muhammad doesn't mean its an accurate depiction of Muhammad.

What they are doing is painting Islam with a tainted brush based on internal feelings. As an agnostic I have to say critics of Islam are doing a poor job convincing me as well as the masses that Islam is a negative religion. So alas, it is screaming fire in a crowded theater. By the way screaming fire in a theater is against the law.

You were actually misquoting Oliver Wendall Holmes, whether you are aware of it or not. The fact that you are unaware that the quote is wrong and the source of the quote does not absolve you from being wrong.

How did I prove you right? The intent of the speech is completely irrelevant unless the speech is false. Parody and/or satire is neither true nor false, thus the intent of the video is, legally, irrelevant. Strangely enough, even if we assume that the video is both a deliberate lie and that the intent was to cause outrage in the Muslim community, you are still wrong. Even under those circumstances the fact that he is not actually urging anyone to break the law or commit violent acts means he is legally not liable for the resulting backlash.

By the way, screaming fire in a crowded theater is not against the law unless the intent is to cause a panic. If, for example, you are an actor in a play and scream fire, it is always legal. As another example, if the theater is actually on fire, or you believe that it is, it is legal to scream fire even if it causes a panic and it turns out it is not on fire.

The law is never black and white, stop pretending it is.

You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.

By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.

It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Your statement that the murders were the acts of militants wasn't wrong even though you admitted that the protests in Pakistan have killed people? Can you explain that one?

Protesters weren't the cause of deaths in Pakistan most of the deaths so far have been as a result of the police. That still makes the majority of the protests generally non violent.

You just said you didn't know if the police caused the deaths or not. How did you suddenly gain knowledge you didn't have 10 minutes ago? Did God tell you?

Read again I said some deaths have been blamed on the police and are now confirmed by reports.

 

[Intense]

You both are making valid points. Please try harder to do it without the putdowns. Peaceful Protest is always encouraged. Even Non-Violent Civil Disobedience. That is a true catalyst for reform and change. Rioting, Looting, and Murder are not. Part of the cost of Liberty and Free Speech, is hearing things one may prefer not to. That still does not give one the Right to stop it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Protesters weren't the cause of deaths in Pakistan most of the deaths so far have been as a result of the police. That still makes the majority of the protests generally non violent.

You just said you didn't know if the police caused the deaths or not. How did you suddenly gain knowledge you didn't have 10 minutes ago? Did God tell you?

Read again I said some deaths have been blamed on the police and are now confirmed by reports.

Some? When did some become all?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

You just said you didn't know if the police caused the deaths or not. How did you suddenly gain knowledge you didn't have 10 minutes ago? Did God tell you?

Read again I said some deaths have been blamed on the police and are now confirmed by reports.

Some? When did some become all?

I said most.

 

[Aristotle]

You were actually misquoting Oliver Wendall Holmes, whether you are aware of it or not. The fact that you are unaware that the quote is wrong and the source of the quote does not absolve you from being wrong.

How did I prove you right? The intent of the speech is completely irrelevant unless the speech is false. Parody and/or satire is neither true nor false, thus the intent of the video is, legally, irrelevant. Strangely enough, even if we assume that the video is both a deliberate lie and that the intent was to cause outrage in the Muslim community, you are still wrong. Even under those circumstances the fact that he is not actually urging anyone to break the law or commit violent acts means he is legally not liable for the resulting backlash.

By the way, screaming fire in a crowded theater is not against the law unless the intent is to cause a panic. If, for example, you are an actor in a play and scream fire, it is always legal. As another example, if the theater is actually on fire, or you believe that it is, it is legal to scream fire even if it causes a panic and it turns out it is not on fire.

The law is never black and white, stop pretending it is.

You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.

By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.

It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.

The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?

 

[sealadaigh]

I think it is a shame that you broad-brushed Muslims with your thread title.

The vast majority of Muslims didn't protest the video or the cartoons.

But your thread title does one good thing, it makes me realize that the people acting like children by disrespecting someone's belief to this extent are also broad-brushing and when protests and riots occur they can say, "see I was right, Muslims are nothing but animals."

i heard on the news this morning that thousands of libyans stormed the islamic brotherhood(?) offices, burned them, and turned over to the authorities those suspected of burning the consulate.

 

[Intense]

Reminder: This is the CDZ. Options besides Banning Members from Participating here include, Editing Posts, Removing Posts, Closing Threads, and Removing Threads. No Insults or Name Calling Other Posters, No Flames, No Derailing Threads.

 

[Intense]

You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.

By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.

It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.

The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

 

[Ravi]

I think it is a shame that you broad-brushed Muslims with your thread title.

The vast majority of Muslims didn't protest the video or the cartoons.

But your thread title does one good thing, it makes me realize that the people acting like children by disrespecting someone's belief to this extent are also broad-brushing and when protests and riots occur they can say, "see I was right, Muslims are nothing but animals."

i heard on the news this morning that thousands of libyans stormed the islamic brotherhood(?) offices, burned them, and turned over to the authorities those suspected of burning the consulate.

Yes, I heard that too, good news! Sounds like the moderates may finally win.

 

[Katzndogz]

You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.

By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.

It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.

The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?

Now all you have to do is prove that the same people who made the film dubbed over the actor's voices. That should be easy. Just prove it.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

I think it is a shame that you broad-brushed Muslims with your thread title.

The vast majority of Muslims didn't protest the video or the cartoons.

But your thread title does one good thing, it makes me realize that the people acting like children by disrespecting someone's belief to this extent are also broad-brushing and when protests and riots occur they can say, "see I was right, Muslims are nothing but animals."

i heard on the news this morning that thousands of libyans stormed the islamic brotherhood(?) offices, burned them, and turned over to the authorities those suspected of burning the consulate.

No they're not called Islamic brotherhood. They go by Ansar al sharia I believe

 

[Intense]

‘It Makes Me Sick’: Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam
Adrian Chen

The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya and Egypt gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.

The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.

"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago," Garcia said. "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."

'It Makes Me Sick': Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam