Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the onward-with-the-conspiracy-theories dept.

Crime 747

sycodon writes "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the film Innocence of Muslims, has been arrested and jailed in Los Angeles for probation violations. The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world, but at the same time simply enforcing the law, as all evidence indeed suggests Nakoula violated the terms of his probation."

cancel ×

747 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490587)

Hope they have enough on him to keep him locked up.

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41490765)

Clearly, he's a dirtbag

It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken

Hope they have enough on him to keep him locked up.

Is he really being locked up for violating his probation, or is that just a justification to arrest someone for saying something inconvenient? Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41490805)

No.

He should be locked up for his own safety because you know there are people looking to literally cut his fucking head off and shit down this throat.

But if he is being locked up for his own safety he should have the option to refuse.

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (4, Informative)

xevioso (598654) | about 2 years ago | (#41491005)

He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490825)

> > Clearly, he's a dirtbag

> It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.

Clearly you see the word "illegal" everywhere, even when it hasn't been written.

The trouble with freedom of speech is that speech isn't just words.

Otherwise Islam's fatwahs are merely free speech.

Imams calling for the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan are just free speech.

And talking dirty to children is just free speech.

Point is you only support free speech that YOU agree is free speech but use the fact that you agree something is free speech that another disagrees is free speech as "proof" that you agree with free speech more.

You just have a different range of what you call free.

At least the Muslims demanding this movie be banned aren't being hypocrites over it.

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490889)

Yes, he really is being jailed for his actual wrongdoings. You are not allowed to use aliases on probation. He used an alias and did something infamous with it.

Certainly, I imagine people do this all the time and are not caught, usually because it simply does not come to light, particularly since an alias has the effect of making it harder to tie a person to what they do under their alias. In this case, what he did is not the issue, it is that it was infamous enough for him to be caught violating his probation. It would be a very, very dumb Probation Officer who, when faced with his convict's publicly obvious non-compliance, did not enforce the conditions of Probation.

Remember, he's already a convicted criminal who is only free on probation on the guarantee of good behavior and specific provisions meant to ensure he remains on good behavior. He's not so much being thrown in jail as simply returned to jail.

Is this incredibly convenient for the Obama Administration? Hell, yes. Is it a matter of silencing him? Not at all.

Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41490945)

What was it they got Hoffa for? Not for being an organized crime boss...

Win-win for Obama... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490591)

Or, actually win-win-win after the election, as we watch the Romneybot continue to self destruct. Every time he opens his mouth and speaks his true feelings, it's another gaffe and pisses off more middle class Americans.

not news for nerds, this does not matter (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490601)

do not care, why is this on slashdot?

Why? (4, Informative)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#41490633)

What does his apparently violating parole have at all to do with this site?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 2 years ago | (#41490657)

Because it is quite likely that this arrest is about censorship to appease jihadists.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490683)

this is not news for nerds.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

lilfields (961485) | about 2 years ago | (#41490929)

Uhm, his video was distributed on the internet and no other medium....you don't think the curbing of free speech is a nerd issue? Not even when the internet is the primary pipeline of free speech? How would you like it if you posted a video on Youtube, or a post on Facebook that was very offensive. It offended your community, neighboring county (or country,) so instead of outright saying "we don't accept this free speech" you were arrested for an unpaid parking ticket or any other minor offense? Sort of a big fucking deal.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490709)

Good point. Normally they never arrest people for probation violations.

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490731)

Durka Durka! Mohammed Jihad!

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41490783)

Thank you. This is selective prosecution that wouldn't occur but for the outrage. As such it should be thrown out as government doesn't (in theory anyway) get to hold in reserve violations and then arrest when the person gets uppity in perfectly legal ways.

Re:Why? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#41490893)

Had his violations been "harmless", it might not have been prosecuted. However, people have died as a result of his parole violations. Tell us again how this shouldn't be prosecuted?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 2 years ago | (#41490939)

His film killed no one. People reacting to the film may have. Most likely it wasn't over the film but an organized terrorist attack which had nothing to do with the film.

Nothing held in reserve here (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41490953)

This is selective prosecution that wouldn't occur but for the outrage. As such it should be thrown out as government doesn't (in theory anyway) get to hold in reserve violations and then arrest when the person gets uppity in perfectly legal ways.

That would make sense...except that the violations at issue occurred during the investigation of whether or not he posted the video, which itself would have violated the terms of his probation.

Its not about violations known in advance and held in reserve and then used as retribution for a "perfectly legal" act, "uppity" or otherwise.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490995)

And if you were a probation officer, you would be allowed to not send your convict back to jail when they publicly broke the terms of their probation?

There is no prosecution here, he's already convicted. He has to agree to probation terms to be freed on probation. He always had the option of refusing and being sent to jail to serve his time.

He is in no way a free man being convicted of something new, he's a convict who is clearly not a model probationary candidate and he's heading to jail.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490807)

That is unlikely. It is more likely that his celebrity status brought about his arrest. It is obvious that he violated his parole when he accessed the Internet and used aliases. Prosecutors and courts can't ignore that when it is pointed out by so many people. Whether this is fair or not is a separate question. But the likeliness of a witch-hunt ordered by the Executive Department is unlikely. It is simply a fact that if you are famous and then violate your parole then you will become a target of prosecutors and the courts.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490881)

It's literally impossible to use the internet without using an alias.

Re:Why? (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#41491001)

However signing employee's checks using one isn't all that common. The guy was convicted for some sort of bank fraud. And here he is writing fraudulent checks.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490813)

It sounds like he certainly was caught because of the video, and I'm sure the administration was glad to hear it, but it's not as though it's an unfair censorship. I imagine it's unclear if the video even comes down over this.

That said, it sucks that this will be interpreted as a win by the degenerate animals overseas.

Re:Why? (-1, Flamebait)

raydobbs (99133) | about 2 years ago | (#41490815)

The freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash (ie - yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, calling in bomb threats). The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant entirely to inflame and incense a volatile situation.

How this item made it onto Slashdot would probably be because the film was released online via YouTube, and the arrest of the filmmaker has clear online rights implications.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490961)

Well then, I guess we better arrest the LA Lakers and Chicago bulls. Everytime they win a championship, it incites people to loot and riot!

Re:Why? (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41490821)

Because it is quite likely that this arrest is about censorship to appease jihadists.

Indeed.

Looking at the wikipedia link it says "Following a hearing before a judge, Nakoula was ordered to jail without bail on September 27, 2012, with the judge citing probation violations including lying to probation officials, "danger to the community", and "lack of trust in the defendant".....

Ok, I can see lying to probation officials...I can see lack of trust..but danger to community???

This guy exercises free speech, and now is accused of being a danger to his community because of how some insane extremists might react if someone sneezes and it sounds remotely like allah or muhamad or something else they hold sacred?

And...while any probation violations are one thing...definitely prosecutable, the LAST thing we need our president doing, it even making the appearance of prosecuting this man over his film and the free speech rights that stand behind that!!!

Re:Why? (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41490913)

Ok, I can see lying to probation officials...I can see lack of trust..but danger to community???

If I lived next to you and I did my best to inflame the drug cartels wouldn't you consider me a danger to the community?

the LAST thing we need our president doing, it even making the appearance of prosecuting this man over his film

I honestly have not been paying attention, what makes you think that Obama is behind his prosecution?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490877)

You mean someone violating their parole on multiple accounts, which is then thrust upon international stage and therefore into the sight of his parole officer and various authorities should be ignored simply because you disagree with external politics?

Damned if you do...damned if you're on slashdot.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

fadethepolice (689344) | about 2 years ago | (#41490921)

Get off slashdot. The people that modded you insightful need to get off slashdot as well. Please stop astroturfing our website with you propaganda. This guy is an egyptian criminal who came here with an agenda. The video was popularized through his contacts in egypt to stir up hatred of americans. He is a foreign terrorist operative. Locking up foreign criminals who are purposely trying to get americans killed is not censorship. I repeat. Get off slashdot your opinions are not welcome here. I hate to say that, but I have seen several posts this week that are obviously repeating propaganda with no attachment to the reality of the situation.

Re:Why? (1)

hazah (807503) | about 2 years ago | (#41490667)

Because, once in a while, random bits of information, give us a hardon.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490771)

Because, once in a while, random bits of information, give us a hardon.

1001100011010101100101000110111011101000111101011101000000111111

There ya go, you pervert.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490903)

Here's it for the heterosexuals;

0110011100101010100110101110010001000101110000101000101111100000

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490697)

What does his apparently violating parole have at all to do with this site?

Because it's quasi-censorship in a truly American fashion. The government wanted to jail this guy for having an unpopular opinion, so they needed an excuse. And they found their excuse.

Re:Why? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41490883)

The government wanted to jail this guy for having an unpopular opinion...

It would be bad enough if this was the case of this guy's opinion being unpopular here in the US....(and from what I can see, most in the US couldn't care less)

But now...we worry about someone on US soil's opinion offending some radical idiots on the other side of the world??

We shouldn't suppress anyone's views, if they are unpopular here...but we sure as shit shouldn't do it because it pisses off someone outside the US.

Re:Why? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41490769)

Although I think that there is no problem with them posting the occasional general interest news story, that doesn't answer your question though.

The reason this has been posted is because it involves some elements that create a lot of .........well not debate, I guess page views, and therefor it should be profitable for them to post it.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490901)

His parole terms specifically included that he not use a computer or the Internet without prior consent from his parole officer, that he not use an alias, and that he not lie to his parole officer.

The ban on computer/Internet use as a term of parole would qualify as "News for Nerds".

Well, let's see what happens. (5, Informative)

xevioso (598654) | about 2 years ago | (#41490637)

They should have done this weeks ago. It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.

It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.

I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.

Re:Well, let's see what happens. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490737)

They should have done this weeks ago. It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.

It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.

I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.

Well, we already KNOW what happened:

Obama's come done squarely on the side of censorship.

When's the Piss Christ artist going to get arrested?

Re:Well, let's see what happens. (5, Insightful)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about 2 years ago | (#41490745)

It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.

I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.

There's no chance that the Muslim world will see this as anything but censorship. First of all, let's be clear -- they are right when they see it that way. That's what it is. He would have never come to the attention of anyone had the state not been embarrassed by this.

Second, these are people who are protesting about a youtube clip that the vast majority of them haven't even seen, and only know of by word of mouth. That sort of Telephone game is never going get that sort of nuance across, even if it were true, which of course, it isn't.

How is it understood as anything but punishment? (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41490761)

It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.

The beginning of what? What were the terms of his probation? If it's so "clear" why are the terms of his violation sealed from public view?'

It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie

You know who believes that statement? Approximately no-one. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that had the protestors not claimed that movie was provoking them that he would be in jail, or even in trouble? Lots of other terrible movies are made every day and the producers run free to make more.

He was jailed EXACTLY because of the content of the movie. He is being punished to try and appease the protestors.

You know what other countries are doing by way of thanks? Jailing some guy who ripped up a bible in Egypt. Is this really the road we want to go down?

And the really funny thing is, the howling mobs care not, they continue to protest outside many embassies.

Re:How is it understood as anything but punishment (2)

jonnythan (79727) | about 2 years ago | (#41490869)

I think that's not at all true. I assume the local police don't give a shit about foreign policy. If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?

What's much more likely is that once media reports of him apparently violating probation, the local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations. Nothing more.

Re:How is it understood as anything but punishment (4, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 years ago | (#41491013)

At the court hearing about his parole violation he told the Judge that the original name he used during his criminal prosecution and incarceration wasn't his real name.

Think about that for a minute, he's jailed for fraud and ordered as a condition of probation not to use aliases, only his legal name and he tells the judge evaluating his compliance that the name he used in the previous trial was a fake. It's highly unusual in situations like this for a judge to incarcerate a parolee before the hearing, she threw him in jail because she said the court has no confidence he's not a liar and flight risk.

And might I add, just because you haven't bothered to follow the case that it makes your assertion that no one believes this isn't political asinine. Obama and the state department has almost zero influence over department of federal paroles (it's mostly courts administered). His parole conditions were public nearly a day after the whole thing went public, including links to all the PDFs on popehat.

Re:Well, let's see what happens. (-1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#41490773)

To say nothing of the local teabaggers who will see this as appeasing people who are different from them.

How to detect morons in two easy steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490925)

1) Look for use of term "teabagger" or other sexual slang instead of reasoned argument.

2) That's it!

P.S. works as well on XBox Live as it does in political stories!

Re:How to detect morons in two easy steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490983)

Also people who post simple steps for /anything/ as AC, amirite?

Re:Well, let's see what happens. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490917)

I think the protesters will understand. They simply wont care as they believe that anyone who depicts Mohammed should be put to death. For them, there is no grey area.

Even murderers get released on bond (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41490643)

But this guy? No no no. Lying to a cop is a much bigger offense

Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the "Innocence of Muslim" production is central to the government's new charge.

Makes sense..

Re:Even murderers get released on bond (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490689)

Not if they're a flight risk, which Nakoula most likely is.

Re:Even murderers get released on bond (2)

Mononoke (88668) | about 2 years ago | (#41490707)

If you've violated probation, you've shown to the courts that you cannot be trusted. No bond is the correct action here.

Umm, I don't get it (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41490651)

The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.

This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?

Re:Umm, I don't get it (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#41490747)

No clue. It's really an unwinnable situation from a public opinion perspective. Its one of those things like gun ownership. Yes you should have the right to own a gun. No you should not own a loaded AK-47 if you live in an apartment building in a city. Yes the idiot in question should have the right to post such a movie, but he really shouldn't exercise that right. Not because of the response, which is unjustifiable, but because its a moronic thing to do that serves no purpose other then to annoy people. Like holding up "god hates fags" signs at soldiers funerals.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490819)

Apparently, God must hate us ;-)

Re:Umm, I don't get it (0)

raydobbs (99133) | about 2 years ago | (#41490799)

Maybe its a waste of time to explain this - but the freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash (ie - yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, calling in bomb threats). The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant to inflame and incense a volatile situation - made stronger by the fact that the producer hid the true content of the film from the cast and crew until it was released; by then, it was too late to revoke their appearances or exercise their legal rights.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490915)

That isn't true. Westboro being a great example.

Making a movie does not cause harm (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41490965)

the freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash

You mean like Piss Christ?

Oh wait. That seems to be fine. Even though the intent plainly was to generate backlash.

It looks like you have decided it only matters when people who would riot anyway use a movie as a pretext.

This movie was obviously not designed to "cause harm". It was just a bad, bad movie.

I could claim that watching Mortal Kombat: The movie drove me into a howling rage and it would be just as stupid. People need to take responsibility for reactions to media they never even had to watch, which is QUITE unlike the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater which no-one can avoid hearing or being part of the reaction to.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (5, Informative)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41490973)

freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash

No, as long as the movie did not call for immediate lawless or violent action, it does not satisfy the definition of "Incitement" under the First Amendment. Therefore, it is still protected speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement [wikipedia.org]

Re:Umm, I don't get it (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 2 years ago | (#41491015)

There is a difference between yelling "fire" and dealing with a group who can't control their outrage.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (2)

gnomff (2740801) | about 2 years ago | (#41490811)

Because many people outside the US don't have the concept of free speech as deeply ingrained in their culture as we do. They think the US government is at worst in league with the video's creator and at best complicit by allowing the video to remain uncensored. The fact that he is going to jail can maybe shake some of the idea that they are complicit.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41490827)

Think internationally. The zealots in the Muslim world who are fueling the anti-US outrage over this movie are screaming for this guy to be charged and imprisoned for slighting their faith. Now that he's in jail, they're not going to be concerned with the details. They're only going to see the headlines in much the same way that they don't know the nuances of US freedom of speech. The people who were perceptive enough to understand that what he did isn't a crime in the US were never protesting anyway.

Win-criminal in jail; satisfying zealots without resorting to violating the Constitution
Win-international incident wrapped up without concessions

Lose: Everyone (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41491003)

The next time you are jailed to appease people in a foreign country I guess I'll not say boo about the matter.

And if you think this "wraps up" the international incident then you are a fool; they are still protesting and want him dead, not arrested.

Kind of funny how when you start to try and appease people they keep wanting more.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490879)

It's win-win because to Americans he can imply it was for parole violation, and to Muslims he can imply it was for blasphemy. You have to look at it from politician-logic, it doesn't have to be consistent.

It is clear America loses when we don't have a president who defends free speech.

Re:Umm, I don't get it (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | about 2 years ago | (#41490897)

The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.

This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?

Because the people who want this guy punished don't give a fig about the reasons, or pretext as the case may be (though it isn't). They have enough distance to see through the self-righteous bleating about "freedom of speech" from Americans. Many of the live in countries where making a video critical of America may put you in the crosshairs of a American drone, possibly being actively controlled from American soil.

At the same time, this guy has availed himself to punishment for something other than is speech at a very convenient time for the current Administration.

Win (he is jail) Win (legitimately).

Celebrity? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41490655)

He's not jailed for the film he's known for, so why are we hearing about it? Is he the new Lindsey Lohan? Are we going to follow him through the courts and rehab?

Re:Celebrity? (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41490859)

Not Lindsey Lohan. He's the new Billy Mays. He's already sold us one product. Next, he'll unveil OrthodOxy-Clean and the Sham-Tao!

Hate Speech (0, Troll)

unixguy99 (2702107) | about 2 years ago | (#41490659)

He should be jailed for spreading hate speech [wikipedia.org] , not accessing Internet while being under probation. Free speech is letting others criticize you, so letting stupids like Nakoula insult more than 1.5 billion people has nothing to do with free speech.

Re:Hate Speech (1, Insightful)

donaggie03 (769758) | about 2 years ago | (#41490733)

Free speech is letting others criticize you,

That's a very specific, contrived, and useless definition for free speech you have there.

Re:Hate Speech (1)

unixguy99 (2702107) | about 2 years ago | (#41490837)

I'm focusing on "You" in that sentence. If I respect your free speech, I'll give you the right to criticize me. If you claim you respect free speech, then you insult me and you don't let me even say a criticism of your insulation, then I can call you a hypocrite.
Don't take it personally, I'm talking about governments and rights of people.

Re:Hate Speech (1)

jonnythan (79727) | about 2 years ago | (#41490911)

Not really.

The best way to figure out who has power over you is to figure out who you can't criticize. You have the freedom of speech when the answer to that is "no one."

Re:Hate Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490757)

At what point does it not have to do with free speech? 1 billion? 1 million? 6? maybe 2-3 if they are powerful enough or popular enough? Free speech means you have the right to insult anyone you want. Insult the entire global population if that's what floats your boat.

Re:Hate Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490759)

Right after hate speech is though crime. The only free speech that needs protecting is offensive speech. Nobody ever has a problem with inoffensive speech.

And right after taxes is communism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490873)

Why does offensive speech deserve to be protected?

I'll tell you why: because it isn't offending YOU.

Re:Hate Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490801)

Is this sarcastic?

Re:Hate Speech (3, Insightful)

hammyhew (2729501) | about 2 years ago | (#41490829)

Are you suggesting it's possible to have free speech and yet ban hate speech? That's highly offensive to me. You should be arrested!

uuuuh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490671)

uuhhh no, it doesn't look like President Obama is "punishing" this guy. The dude violated his probation, this has no connection to the film or unrest in the middle east.

This is not a "win" (1, Insightful)

FLoWCTRL (20442) | about 2 years ago | (#41490673)

Appeasing the Muslim lunatic fringe is not a "win" for anyone. We should not apologize for free speech, no matter who it offends. If anything, authorities should have gone the other direction and NOT arrested him despite his parole transgressions, in light of the political statement it creates.

Re:This is not a "win" (0, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#41490789)

STRAWMAN SIGHTED.

Nobody's apologizing, failfuck. Take it to FreeRepublic.

Re:This is not a "win" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490985)

No one has apologized, but the news will run with his arrest, so the rag head extremists will assume it's because of their murdering protests. You, sir, are the failfuck. As such, we can expect them to increase the number of people they kill each time someone in the West doesn't something their ridiculous religious perceives as offensive.

Re:This is not a "win" (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#41490861)

If anything, authorities should have gone the other direction and NOT arrested him despite his parole transgressions, in light of the political statement it creates.

So to you, the application of justice should be dependent on the political views someone espouses? The law should treat someone differently based on what he's said in public? How did you get from free speech to there?

Re:This is not a "win" (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41490909)

Appeasing the Muslim lunatic fringe is not a "win" for anyone. We should not apologize for free speech, no matter who it offends. If anything, authorities should have gone the other direction and NOT arrested him despite his parole transgressions, in light of the political statement it creates.

And what political statement would that be? "Ridicule a large fraction of the world's population, and we'll let you out of jail free"?

Re:This is not a "win" (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41490967)

Nope, not much of a win-win; not until he is beheaded and his corpse paraded through sandy streets and trampled in a death-crazed frenzy. Not until that will anyone be satisfied. 'tis the way.

Re:This is not a "win" (2)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | about 2 years ago | (#41490969)

We should not apologize for free speech, no matter who it offends.

Unless a foreigner makes a political video that offends the US, in which case we reserve the right to brand him a terrorist and send a drone to assassinate him in his own country.

Re:This is not a "win" (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#41490997)

That'd set an entertaining precedent.

"Your honor, my client pleads guilty to murder, bank robbery, and to violating the DMCA by watching a Blu-ray movie on his Ubuntu computer. However, he asks that this picture of Mohammed having sex with a horse be taken into consideration."

"My goodness, that'll offend Muslims everywhere. What a prime example of controversial speech. Case dismissed!"

Selective Prosecution (-1)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about 2 years ago | (#41490695)

He wasn't arrested for parole violations. He was arrested for embarrassing the state. The alleged violations are just the excuse they happen to be using. If they didn't have that, we would be hearing some BS about child porn on his computer instead.

it didn't (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490705)

It didn't spark riots around the world. At least the ambassador in Libya was killed in a targeted attack by Al Qaeda [smh.com.au] . The ambassador was worried about his safety for weeks before his death. We know this because CNN reporters walked into the compound and looked around [cnn.com] . Security was NOT good at this place.

So much for the First Amendment (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490711)

I'll be so fucking glad when we kick Bush out of office....

Obama is a Muslim (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490715)

Don't forget that.

Forget about free speech. You can't hurt a muslims feelings in the USA.

If Julian Assange had only drawn a cartoon of mohammed with his pants down, he'd have been caught, extradited, and sitting in Guantanamo by now.

American priorities!

retroactive setup (1)

cathector (972646) | about 2 years ago | (#41490717)

ho-hum. yet another example of the guvmint's access to time travel technology.
there's no way this guy had violated his parole in the past until the current hooplah.

Re:retroactive setup (3, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#41490919)

That's how parole works...

They set up enough hoops and demands that you have to spend all your time keeping up. Mostly, that's to keep you out of trouble.. But it also provides plenty of technicalities when you become a nuisance. There's something you missed for them to violate you over whenever they need it.

Changed his name, too (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41490763)

He's now Commodore Burrito or Angleburt Hinkydink or Mohammed Jolly or Fred Flagstone...

sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490847)

There goes home of the free and the land of the brave...cryst

Well now (-1, Troll)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41490849)

Time to have a funeral for the 1st Amendment.

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490927)

Kill yourself.

two faced (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490905)

Only two things can be taken away from this event:
1) killing ambassadors and US citizens by not so crazy Muslim fanatics WORKS and is an effective strategy.
2) If the Constitution cannot protect this guy, it sure as shit won't protect you either.

Re:two faced (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490947)

Excellent points, it's a shame that even they have to be posted as AC.

Huh? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41490923)

The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world, but at the same time simply enforcing the law, as all evidence indeed suggests Nakoula violated the terms of his probation

Obama can't be seen as punishing him for exercising free speech.

Anybody who believes that is going to subsequently demand than anybody who says anything equally inflammatory be equally punished. And if those hypothetical people haven't broken their parole, nothing at all will happen.

It needs to be clear, this guy is being arrested only because he violated the terms of his parole in terms of using an alias or the internet. But it's essentially unrelated to the film and that has to be made clear.

There is simply no way the US government can be seen to be suppressing free speech. The last thing Obama wants to do is use this to his advantage. Because the reality is, that he isn't being punished for free speech -- he's being punished because he's a shady guy who violated his parole.

YAAAAA! for Freedom of speedh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41490979)

Ohhhh wait. My bad.

We should stop appeasing Muslim rage (0)

Nova Express (100383) | about 2 years ago | (#41490981)

Instead of looking civilized, we look weak, as athiest commentator Pat Condell makes clear [battleswarmblog.com] :

"There was a time when Islam was given the benefit the doubt by many people in the west. Now we think it’s poison and we wish we’d never heard of it, because 20 years of baseless grievance mongering and knee-jerk offense have shown us this religion for what it really is. Now we don’t like it, we don’t trust it, and we are never going to respect it. And we don’t care how Muslims feel about that."

It appears legitimate: (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about 2 years ago | (#41490987)

Aside from the people who feel this is a free speech issue where Nakoula was really arrested for making the film, no matter what else he did, there are at least two perfectly ligitimate reasons why he can be charged with probation violations:

1. He's been using aliases to do this - that's usually specifically prohibited by the terms of probation. The normal right to use an alias for non-fraudulent purposes does not usually apply while a person is on probation, so if he's got typical restrictions, the state does not have to prove he had some sort of fraudulent intent. They can void his probation automatically, although that doesn't stop them from also bringing charges if they are willing to try and prove the alias did entail fraudulent intent.

2. Reckless endangerment - His actors were placed in danger, and they are much more identifiable than he is as a producer, so their danger is actually greater than his (That may have changed due to all the publicity, but at the time of his actions, it was undeniably true, and that's the timeframe a court would have to consider). If he took steps to protect himself, but did not warn the actors of what sort of risks they were about to take on his behalf, that proves he had knowledge to elevate his actions to a felony level. So even if he trys to claim that his use of aliases was for the legitimate reason of protecting himself from Muslem retaliation, he demonstrates depraved indifference to the consequences of his actions with regard to his innocent employees. He really can't offer evidence to even mitigate the severity of sentencing on the one charge without simultaniously giving the state evidence to use on the other charge. His probation officer does not have to wait until the state decides to charge Nakoula criminally to act, either - he can bring the man in and ask just about any questions he chooses and all those answers become testemony admissible later if there is a court case filed. He can void the man's probation for conduct that doesn't rise to the level of new charges as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>