The AP Solves the Mystery of the Man Behind "Innocence of Muslims"

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


He should...because he is promoting this:


Public order crime should be distinguished from political crime. In the former, although the identity of the "victim" may be indirect and sometimes diffuse, it is cumulatively the community that suffers, whereas in a political crime, the state perceives itself to be the victim and criminalizes the behaviour it considers threatening. Thus, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts the need to use the law to maintain order both in the legal and moral sense. Public order crime is now the preferred term by proponents as against the use of the word "victimless" based on the idea that there are secondary victims (family, friends, acquaintances, and society at large) that can be identified.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm not saying what happened in Libya is justified in any way- those who are responsible should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner. I do not believe ANY violent reaction is justified in a legal sense. Any non-violent protest, I believe, is VERY justified. I'm not saying the film producers should be charged with a crime, BUT they should be condemned morally, and should be seen as responsible for their actions. What these film producers did was HORRIBLE. What happened to our Ambassador in Libya was HORRIBLE.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Syyth007
 


First off. I know the truth.

She isn't any of those things.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


President Obama didn't indirectly have anything to do with the video, Sam Becile, or a dead Ambassador did he?

ZEEEEEE- RO

Conversely, Rev. Jones has already tied himself up in this one...that's what happens when you preach hate and divisiveness. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. And then they'll all be turned to fables...

Sadly...

Those "imbeciles," knew what they were doing when they elected to with-hold the real story-line / arc from the actors, you can tell that by the very bad production-value. It's very very bad. I would expect better from a first-year film student. It oozes "propaganda-film." And for Rev. Jones not to know what kind of effect this would have on Muslims is ridiculous and you have to be kidding, right? Right, darn-right he knew. This goes to motive. And he landed himself right smack in the middle of one huge cow patty... And if that "Reverend" knew that much he probably knew much more. I wonder if this could give additional insight as to the apologetic tweets from the Egyptian US Embassy...who knows...it gets deeper and deeper...get your hip-boots...
edit on 13-9-2012 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by sonnny1
 


He should...because he is promoting this:


Public order crime should be distinguished from political crime. In the former, although the identity of the "victim" may be indirect and sometimes diffuse, it is cumulatively the community that suffers, whereas in a political crime, the state perceives itself to be the victim and criminalizes the behaviour it considers threatening. Thus, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts the need to use the law to maintain order both in the legal and moral sense. Public order crime is now the preferred term by proponents as against the use of the word "victimless" based on the idea that there are secondary victims (family, friends, acquaintances, and society at large) that can be identified.


Yawn.

What "community" is suffering? What kind of "PC" crap is this? Really, your grasping at straws. There is a war going on, and those in it want Americans dead. Period.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No, you don't have the right to kill me, nor did I ever say you did. All I am trying to refute, is that the filmmakers have no responsibility for their actions due to the first amendment. Simple as that. I never said any violent action was justified, but it seems to be assumed by some.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
You can not always hide behind freedom of speech in law.


Defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.



Libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement



Slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.


Legal Dictionary

Thankfully, as a society, we have decided that you can NOT say anything you like when it comes to Lies, ridicule, hatred, malice.....
edit on 13-9-2012 by BritofTexas because: forgot link



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No, you don't have the right to kill me, nor did I ever say you did. All I am trying to refute, is that the filmmakers have no responsibility for their actions due to the first amendment. Simple as that. I never said any violent action was justified, but it seems to be assumed by some.


Guess what?

Rational people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Get it?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
No, you don't have the right to kill me, nor did I ever say you did.


I know, just expanding upon what was posted.


All I am trying to refute, is that the filmmakers have no responsibility for their actions due to the first amendment. Simple as that.


IF ANYBODY should prosecute him it should be the AMERICAN public because due to his stupidity, Americans were killed.

What I'm saying is that certain groups need to grow the hell up and join the modern world and understand they cant go around killing people simply because they're offended.

Back at grade school ?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


and you're completely hypnotized.

That FILM IS SIMPLE PROPAGANDA, it's worthless, it's an EXCUSE to raise hell. Nobody cares about that film, for what it is...it's a TOOL a DEVICE a MEDIUM to blame for the real reason to spread hate and division...

or don't you see that?

But since the protesters in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen have all agreed to use that film as the reason for the attack, it points the finger straight at Rev. Jones who openly and allegedly supports and promotes that film, as with the real KNOWN person who used the alias of "Sam Becile."

They don't realize it yet but since it has gone full circle, there's little doubt that either one of them will escape justice...
edit on 13-9-2012 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 

Here, you DO raise a very good point. There are limits, per say, to free speech. However, it's CRITICAL to note what makes all the difference. You aren't citing criminal law and that speech isn't a criminal act. The U.S. Law provides CIVIL routes to seek damages if someone else's big mouth does real damage to you or someone else over lies and falsehoods. If a jury agrees, a civil penalty is awarded to compensate for those damages.

If Muslims want to sue this guy into bankruptcy and personal destruction, fine by me... Frankly, I'll agree on THIS level, he probably has a few days on the wrong end of lawsuits coming after the damage his stupidity has done. You can sue over almost anything....and often win. Ask some little old lady about hot Coffee from McDonald's.

Civil and Criminal in the U.S. are entirely and totally different things and civil law is largely a matter of concept and a sense of fairness applied where criminal law is banning or outright regulating something with penalties ranging from loss of money to loss of freedom to loss of life itself.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I'm curious for a sensible answer as to how did "Reporters traced the cell phone number used during that interview to Nakoula's address"?

Really? How? I have a few ideas which are either not legal or not possible. (I'm a software engineer who works on phone tracking software). I'm sure there's a lot of illegality that occurs but why would a media company admit they found that if it wasn't legal? This lame ass plonker surely shouldn't be able to sue a media company for that?

BTW - Whoever he is, he a "plonker" !



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 



But what happens when me and a large group of my friends decide that we are offended by the word "Scorpion"? What then?

I'll simply comply with you as soon as you successfully manage to have the word "scorpion" removed from all books...especially the ones with chapters on arachnids.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   


how does anyone feel about the legality of making this film?


Free speech is free speech if some people are so damn barbaric to kill people over that is one them.

Being a Christian and have been insulted everyday it seems haven't killed anyone over it.

Some people need to get in to the 21st century instead of living in the 13th. People cry show them respect well that is a two way street.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I think Syyth's example was a good try but off the mark. Let's instead look at the thread-bare 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example. A guy is screwed-over by his highschool girlfriend and develops a profound hatred of women. Many years later he goes to a huge, indoor women's rally and yells 'that guy has a gun!'. This creates mass panic as women scramble to get to the exits. In the chaos 4 women are trampled and killed and several are injured.

The women's reactions are entirely expected and anticipated. It was the perpetrator's intent to create that panic. Wouldn't that make him culpable?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think those two film-makers / preachers / seditionists should be charged:

That FILM IS SIMPLE PROPAGANDA, it's worthless, it's an EXCUSE to raise hell. Nobody cares about that film, for what it is...it's a TOOL a DEVICE a MEDIUM to blame for the real reason to spread hate and division...

or don't you see that?

But since the protesters in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen have all agreed to use that film as the reason for the attack, it points the finger straight at Rev. Jones who openly and allegedly supports and promotes that film, as with the real KNOWN person who used the alias of "Sam Becile."

They don't realize it yet but since it has gone full circle, there's little doubt that either one of them will escape justice...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


Ahh.. Libel, Slander and defamation. All of those definitions you posted have a couple of things in common. One they apply to an actual person or entity and involve an untruth of some form or other.

Wouldn't this get tricky with regard to religious figures / deities? All you have to prove they exist (existed) is old volumes, hearsay and the faith of believers. It gets into the whole "does God exist" argument.

Would they even apply if I said something about Jesus, Buddha and / or Mohammed?
edit on 13-9-2012 by Frogs because: left off a ? mark



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 
My take on this is .. they did it to incite the riots themselves, yes just what i stated. They being Islams, wrote, produced, and filmed the movie, to do just what it did, incite riots and create violence in the Islam world.
Why? you might ask, because they are losing, what better way of getting more people to join the war than to make us, the west, look bad and put down their spiritual leader, even though it is tripe and dribble, the movie that is.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I think I'm being a bit misunderstood still. I'm not saying the filmmakers should even be prosecuted. If we prosecuted for stupidity in America, most of our population would be residing in a steel cage. There's much much more to the story. The murders in Libya might not of had anything to do with the whole "Innocence of Muslims" fiasco. All of the anger being shown by the middle east population at our embassies isn't solely because of this movie - Many middle easterners have numerous grievances with the west, and I don't believe it is simply because they are backward evil religious nut-jobs. It's MUCH more complicated then that. This movie was just another hair laid on the camel's back.

I am just trying to refute those that would blame the outrage the Muslims feel solely on the Muslims themselves. If we want to make things truly better, we have to be able to see from others point of view. Their culture, their beliefs, their outlook on life is different from ours - not better, not worse, just different.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by sonnny1
 


and you're completely hypnotized.

That FILM IS SIMPLE PROPAGANDA, it's worthless, it's an EXCUSE to raise hell. Nobody cares about that film, for what it is...it's a TOOL a DEVICE a MEDIUM to blame for the real reason to spread hate and division...

or don't you see that?


Ok, after sitting through the painfully bad acting and blatant overdubs from the film "Innocence of Muslims" by the so-called Sam Becile....which interestingly enough sounds like "Imbecile"....I have to say that it was not the most vile idiotic trash on the internet. There are much, much worse things such as child porne and other filth out there. Also it is ridiculous that this stupid film is being blamed for all of the hatred towards the U.S.A. by Muslims is ignorance to the extreme. Seriously people...lighten up. Life is much to short to hate each other and start wars over or as I like to call them "We Are Right" campaigns.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join