Is the filmmaker who made the film re: Mohammad be liable for the killing of a U

1. 62

   alexandriaruthkposted 12 years ago

   Is the filmmaker who made the film re: Mohammad be liable for the killing of a US diplomat in Libya?
   
   On Sept 2012, there was an uproar plus protest in the Middle east about a film about Mohammed made here in the US. This led to the killings of four US citizen including the US diplomat in Libya. Should the Filmmaker be jailed for it?

   replyreport
2. 75

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   This is the United States and good, bad or indifferent, we allow for the freedom of speech. We don't have any disclaimers for hate speech and although many of us may find it distasteful, this is one of our unique freedoms. I cannot understand how a film, no matter how disrespectful, disgusting or off color can and does incite people to violence. Personally, I think the killings and subsequent attacks overseas have more to do with outside forces and unemployed men being paid than it does with this film. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I want to. Should the Royals attack France and Italy because they are showing topless photos of Kate?
   
   So, as repulsive and repugnant as the film you reference may be, I do not feel the filmmaker should be jailed because this is a freedom we protect.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      fpherj48posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      pagesvoice....a film did not incite these savages.   They personify violence, hatred and death..need no excuse nor reason to kill.  It's their Sport.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think your comment mirrors mine, but in a more abbreviated way.  As I wrote, the killings and attacks have been planned and most likely paid for by others. These people just wanted an excuse to go after the U.S.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It used to be that way in America. HR 347, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and others are threatening free speech more and more.
      
      And the "savages" may merely be our own CIA agent provocateurs stirring things up. Just look at Operation 9/11, Northwoods, etc.

      replyreport
3. 69

   Admiral Murrahposted 12 years ago

   It is presumptuous and prejudicial to blame the killing of a diplomat and their staff onto a film. The United States has a long tradition of freedom of the press. There have been many controversies surrounding books and publications, which includes film, but that does not lead to making them liable for the actions of others. That kind of logic would lead to blaming the largest loss of life we have seen in the War Between the State on Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. I do not view Stowe as a murderer any more than I do the film maker. 
   
   Although D. W. Griffith's flim, Birth of a Nation stirred quite a controversy, he was not held liable for the riots and reactions to the film. Nor was Spike Lee held accountable for reactions to his film Jungle Fever.
   
   When 8,000 students at the University of Texas protested firings over John Don Passos' USA, the author was not held liable. Nor was James Joyce held liable for the sexual revolution when his controversial novel Ulysses came out.
   
   It is dangerous to hold a filmmaker or author liable for the reactions of others to their creative works. It is even more dangerous to do so on an international level. Holding authors to legal standards of other nations is a dangerous precedent. When James Joyce's Ulysses was being confiscated in the United States, no one was suing him for breaking United States decency laws in French courts. Although Salmon Rushie and Alexander Solzhenitsyn were wanted in their home nations for what they published, they found safety overseas partly due to the fact that the laws of those nations did not extend to other nations.  In a similar manner it is dangerous to have other nations attempting to enforce their standards on the United States. You may not like the films of filmmakers or the books of various authors, but that does not mean that you hold them liable for the reactions that people have to their works, especially when the reactions are in foreign nations.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good points, but America is losing its freedoms. The Constitution is becoming thinner and thinner. Little things like making protest a felony. SOPA, PIPA and CISPA attempted to bring tyranny to the Internet.

      replyreport
4. 61

   duffsmomposted 12 years ago

   The filmmaker being liable sort of negates our whole freedom of speech thing we have going here in the US.  That is like blaming a woman wearing a tiny bikini for getting raped. The responsibility for the crime lies with the persons committing the crime.

   replyreport
5. 61

   newycposted 12 years ago

   The Film maker was an Egyptian Coptic Christian from California and, in my opinion, should be deported back to his home country of Egypt to face the turmoil. Why didn't he go back there and make this film?  Hiding behind the respected USA he makes a nasty film to incite his fellow Egyptian Muslims, wherein he depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a Womanizer, and all other evils, is highly repugnant.

   replyreport
6. 73

   billd01603posted 12 years ago

   This was an excuse by the rioters to make trouble. If there was no film they still would have done what they did. They would have found another excuse. They hate us and will do anything to us. They percieve us as week right now.
   
   As for the filmmaker, he should have known his film was controversial and people would get hurt. I'm all for Freedom of Speech, but this is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

   replyreport
7. 73

   lone77starposted 12 years ago

   And if someone kills the filmmaker after reading your question, should you be held liable for their death?
   
   I think not. We have too many tyrannies in America, now. Too many reactions to the Power Elite stimuli. 9/11 was a perfect example. The Rockefellers and their puppets in Washington orchestrate a classic "False Flag" operation, creating a Problem with the expected Result of fear, to justify their Solution they had prepared the months and years before 9/11.
   
   George Bush and his White House should be held accountable for attacking a country that had not attacked us and about which they had lied in order to gain access to their oilfields. When it was discovered that WMDs had indeed been a lie, George W. merely made a mockery of the sacrifices made by our troops and the suffering of the innocent men, women and children of Iraq. Laugh it up, George, all the way to the gas chamber. Guilty of murder and treason.
   
   Too many Americans are sitting back, hypnotized by their Corporate Party media and being fooled just like the Germans 80 years ago.
   
   Already we've lost so many of our freedoms -- Habeas Corpus gone and Obama broke his promise to have it restored. HR 347 made it a felony to protest. Multiple pieces of legislation in rapid fire attempted to put the Internet in chains -- SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, TPP and more. NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for Americans. And we already have residential centers for those the government doesn't trust -- swing sets for the kids and 20-foot high razor-wire topped fences (Jesse Ventura investigation). And Obama has his "Kill List" which includes Americans -- no trial, no warning, Bang! Your're dead by presidential executive order.
   
   Bush and Obama have broken their Oaths of Office so many times I've lost count. They swore to protect the Constitution against even domestic enemies, but they turned out the be the most dangerous enemy. Treason!

   replyreport
8. 0

   danielabramposted 12 years ago

   The filmmaker is not liable for the violence occuring in the Middle East.

   replyreport