It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suspected Anti-Islam Filmaker Taken After Midnight - Questioned By Feds

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
This isn't about the film .. this is about RIGHTS.

MSNBC - Suspected Anti-Islam Filmaker Taken After Midnight - Questioned By Feds


The man purported to be the filmmaker behind an inflammatory anti-Islam video being blamed for sparking violent unrest in the Middle East and North Africa was escorted by deputies from his Cerritos, Calif., home shortly after midnight Saturday morning, NBCLosAngles.com reported.

Media and law enforcement had been staking out the home at the end of a cul de sac in the Southern California city for about 48 hours when the man emerged wearing a coat, hat, scarf and glasses.

L.A. County Sherrif’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore confirmed to NBCLA that Nakoula was taken to the Cerritos sheriff’s station for interviewing by federal probation officers aimed at determining whether he violated the terms of his 5-year probation by uploading a video to the Internet.


So ...

- A fella exercises his right to free speech and right to his opinion.
- Using freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, he makes a low budget anti-Islamic film.
- Feds went to his home after midnight last night and hauled him off.
- They claim they are trying to determine if he violated his parole by loading a film on the internet.

Are they freakn' kidding? They haul a man down to the police station .. in the middle of the night ... to see if he violated his parole by putting a low budget home made film on Youtube??

- In 2009, he was indicted for a $860 bank fraud.
- Way back In 1997 he spent a year in jail for having METH.

How on earth could he have supposedly violated parole by using Youtube like that? And there would be no need for him to be taken from his home at all, let alone in the middle of the night, to find out if he violated parole. All they had to do was just get his parole officer to look at the PAPERWORK and they'd instantly know.

They claim he went of his own free will. But I highly doubt it. Most Americans don't understand that if a cop comes to the door and says 'we are taking you downtown for questioning' .. you don't have to go. Only if you are under arrest do you have to go. I have no doubt they leaned on him.


edit on 9/15/2012 by FlyersFan because: spelling




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
It is odd they pulled a midnight caper. Maybe they didn't want to cause a scene or have a riot break out. I wonder who his first interview will be with....and when.
edit on 15-9-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
Maybe they didn't want to cause a scene or have a riot break out.


There aren't riots against this guy in the USA. Not yet anyways. Or do you mean that there would be riots FOR this guy and his right to express his opinion (even if we don't like what he did)? Unfortunately, people are sleeping and don't see that their rights are being taken away.

I see no danger of 'riots' here at this time over this guy.
I have no doubt that there will be civil unrest here at some point. But not at the moment.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


not that i'm a stickler for the law

but isnt crying fire in a crowded theater
or inciting a riot
considered a criminal abuse of "free speech"

various frauds and
putting nasty words in others people's mouth
[or rather, dubbing] is not protected either

if i were to walk up to some latinos
and tell them you had called their mothers whores
and you were hospitalized or sent to the funeral home as a result,

would you [or your soul from beyond rather, in the 2nd case]
post a thread claiming i was just exercising my free speech
and should be left free to carry on as usual?

somehow i doubt that.

lol

edit on 15-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


He hasn't incited vilence. Or any other such behavior. Some ignorant folks overseas are, but that is not our concern, nor his, to how other peoples in other countries react to his movie.

Offense cannot be given, it can only be taken.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The YT upload might have to do with not using computers due to a previous fraud conviction. Nit picking, could be.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   


In 2009, he was indicted for a $860 bank fraud


Are you sure that wasn't some amount around 800K? He was to repay 700K+ dollars.

ETA: maybe that was bank case only did not account for ID theft monies.
edit on 9/15/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




They claim he went of his own free will. But I highly doubt it. Most Americans don't understand that if a cop comes to the door and says 'we are taking you downtown for questioning' .. you don't have to go. Only if you are under arrest do you have to go. I have no doubt they leaned on him.


He could be feeling quite guilty at the moment and decided it was best to cooperate.

As far as the video, yes he had the right to make and post the video to youtube...but with every right comes responsibility. Given the current social/political environment in which we live, anyone could see that the video would be very controversial and it was most likely made for that specific purpose.

So while I stand up for his right to free speech, I condemn his stupid logic in posting the video at all and he deserves a smack in the mouth for being a dumbass.

Edit ti add: I am trying to find some more information, but I believe he may have been banned from posting stuff on the internet due to his convictions.
edit on 15-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


True, online computer use had to be approved by his probation officer. Not sure a video would typically be rejected unless it was leading to fraud, etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




They claim he went of his own free will. But I highly doubt it. Most Americans don't understand that if a cop comes to the door and says 'we are taking you downtown for questioning' .. you don't have to go. Only if you are under arrest do you have to go. I have no doubt they leaned on him.


He could be feeling quite guilty at the moment and decided it was best to cooperate.

As far as the video, yes he had the right to make and post the video to youtube...but with every right comes responsibility. Given the current social/political environment in which we live, anyone could see that the video would be very controversial and it was most likely made for that specific purpose.

So while I stand up for his right to free speech, I condemn his stupid logic in posting the video at all and he deserves a smack in the mouth for being a dumbass.

Edit ti add: I am trying to find some more information, but I believe he may have been banned from posting stuff on the internet due to his convictions.
edit on 15-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


If responsibility came with free speech, then probably 80% of all youtube clips sould be removed. They are mostly dumb, unfunny, un-cute, and a total waste of time.

I want the creator of the film to go straight to prison, but only because making a film THAT freakin' bad
SHOULD be against the law!

edit on 9/15/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



Offense cannot be given, it can only be taken.


Good thing, too, since Americans are so good at offending. And after all, its about the only right we've got left. Use it or lose it. Right?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 




If responsibility came with free speech, then probably 80% of all youtube clips sould be removed. They are mostly dumb, unfunny, un-cute, and a total waste of time.


Dumb or unfunny is a little bit different than specifically making a film to inflame a group of people.

Although I can only speculate, I have no doubt that this man made this video and released it with the direct intent to get Muslims riled-up.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by jiggerj
 




If responsibility came with free speech, then probably 80% of all youtube clips sould be removed. They are mostly dumb, unfunny, un-cute, and a total waste of time.


Dumb or unfunny is a little bit different than specifically making a film to inflame a group of people.

Although I can only speculate, I have no doubt that this man made this video and released it with the direct intent to get Muslims riled-up.


And, what should we do when ONE individual deliberately attempts to insult us? My response would be to either insult them back or ignore them. Imagine what the world would be like if we destroyed property and killed people every time someone burns a flag or calls us decadent.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


If true, then utterly unacceptable- even if he is a complete moron.


Yet even more disturbing than this individual's outrageous cultural perspective is a state that feels it must compel him to think a certain way, or punish him for it, by dragging him in the middle the night for police questioning.

How is this any different than the tactics employed by the Islamic fascists we oppose?

Seems to me everyone has gone mad.


Spooky times indeed.








edit on 15-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Dumb or unfunny is a little bit different than specifically making a film to inflame a group of people.


You can't really believe that's a workable standard can you?


Under that philosophy there would have been no American revolution, no civil rights movement, or any political speech in this country for that matter.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Get rid of youtube the official CIA disinformation center on UFOs and Tesla science.
USA is youtube to the non western peoples.
They care less about worldly Illuminati conspiracies of UFOs and Tesla.
But insult their intelligence on their next world fulfillment means down with Illuminati workings.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

reply to post by loam
 


I agree and defend the stance that this man had the right to make the video and post it as an exercise in free speech.

But I also have the right to say that this was completely dumb and he may have to deal with some unintended(or intended) consequences.

Although we have certain rights granted to us by the constitution, we have to use those rights responsibly and not exploit those rights to poke the chests of groups of people that are already on the edge of the societal abyss.

I hope I was a bit clearer this time.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


The CIA got caught in their own big lie machine.
JFK wanted the CIA gone and Bush kept it going for oil profits.
Thanks to the CIA we have religious unrest.

They don't rule the next world and too bad they don't behave in this one.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Although we have certain rights granted to us by the constitution, we have to use those rights responsibly and not exploit those rights to poke the chests of groups of people that are already on the edge of the societal abyss.

I hope I was a bit clearer this time.


I understood what you said the first time. It's you that I think did not understand me.

The quote above is an unworkable governance standard. It is NOT the responsibility of the State to protect you from mere offense.

Plain and simple.

I too think the guy is a moron. But it does not make him a criminal for that alone.



edit on 15-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 




The quote above is an unworkable governance standard. It is NOT the responsibility of the State to protect you from mere offense.


I didn't say that it was the responsibility of the State to protect us, nor do I believe there should be any "standard" applicable to this case or any other.

The consequences this man is realizing is that he got caught posting on the internet when he probably was forbidden to do so according to his probation.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that the government control speech at all.
edit on 15-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join