Is freedom of speech an absolute right in the USA

[Zabaniyah]

I am loathe to post the trailer here but is this the trailer you are talking about? 'Innocence of Muslims' Trailer [HD] - Egypt Protest Film - YouTube

I actually thought the movie was supposed to be some sort of 'documentary' that twisted truths and demonized muslims on top of showing insulting depictions o f Muhammad, but this looks like just another crap low budget movie (though I had the sound low and only saw the trailer, so I may have missed something). The reaction to those Danish cartoons was wrong as well, on their merits alone no civilized person would be expected to riot or murder. To justify it because a person feel's their 'identity' has been offended instead of something that is almost universally reviled (such as snuff films) would set a dangerous precident for the censoring of free speech, from arrests for the burning of American flags (because that offends me) to the arrest of 'fifth' columnists and government dissidents such as Noam Chomsky (because they offend the government) and I do not want to walk down that road.

That people would murder and riot over this movie is...disturbing to say the least.

Overall it is indeed crude, in poor taste, and clearly below the level of Borat, but it is not a movie I feel the creator could be tried on by its merits alone or as an incitement to violence by the vast vast majority of courts in the United States. That said if the actors were misrepresented I guess they could sue with the intent of removing the film from the public eye, I am not so familiar with how that woud work, so maybe they couldn't.

May be we are focusing too much on this 'film'?

Now why has all these extreme riots occur in middle eastern nations that were 'liberated'?

Nothing 'extreme' happened in my country, and many others. Just some middle eastern countries that are politically volatile.

 

[Peregrine]

I remember a few months back, they took off a video of Ashton kutchers from youtube because he was talking in Indian accent and it was labelled as "racist" but apparently its "freedom of speech" to insult Muslims and their faith. WOW!!keep up the hypocrisy and the world surely will be an embodiment of peaceful co-existence and please don't even get me started on how people are arrested in so-called developed west for just drawing a swastika sign around a jew.

 

[doublemaster]

But you can't Say Merry Christmas, that phrase is not allowed to be said in public......

Why? Are you joking?

 

[doublemaster]

Can you prove the video was made to provoke violence (clear intent by the author), instead of being made to educate based on the authors own pov? Are there any direct statements in the video that directly incite illegal action? (such as saying go murder Muslim women and children).



Again, prove its intent was to provoke violence or incite illegal action. The video certainly didn't call on Muslims to riot outside US embassies, and depictions or defamation of the prophet are not considered illegal under US law as has already been proven in court. It would also not be considered as obvious that Muslims would take human life and riot because their religion was defamed. Such arguments to the counter only serve the agenda of anti-muslims by depicting Muslims as a violent and savage people simply looking for an excuse to take human life.




In practice a successful conviction of such does not have jail or prison as a consequence, but (usually) monetary compensation. Thus the Libel and/or Slander must have incurred a monetary loss on the part of the victim or the victim's emotional damage must be given a value.

Also in practice this is very very hard to convict in a court of law. Malicious intent must be proven to have existed.

You dont learn lessons from previous mistakes?

 

[Elmo]

The US is as imperfect as any Third World country - reason, well simply put all humans face the same issues, and some do better PR in covering it up. Hypocrisy is present everywhere. Don't fret too much about it. This too shall pass.

 

[airmarshal]

Why do we have to understand each and every US law? The US law applies to US only. If they have freedom of speech and it becomes a freedom of abuse for others, then US must understand that this freedom of speech has limits. It knows that it has limits. But its the disdain in which it holds the rest of the world, it does not want to do anything.

The US laws provide for penalties against abusive language used for gays and lesbians but it does not have penalties for religious offence and abuse. IF they want to interact with Islamic world, they need to understand the sensitivities too.

Terry Jones of 'Burn a Quran day' fame. And now this movie.

 

[Developereo]

Again, prove its intent was to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

I don't see where, in the laws listed here, it requires proof of intent. All it says is what reaction it would provoke.

In practice, unless the law specifically demands it, prosecutors can use the argument of how "reasonable people" would react.

 

[Bang Galore]

Why do we have to understand each and every US law? The US law applies to US only. If they have freedom of speech and it becomes a freedom of abuse for others, then US must understand that this freedom of speech has limits. It knows that it has limits. But its the disdain in which it holds the rest of the world, it does not want to do anything.

The US laws provide for penalties against abusive language used for gays and lesbians but it does not have penalties for religious offence and abuse. IF they want to interact with Islamic world, they need to understand the sensitivities too.

Terry Jones of 'Burn a Quran day' fame. And now this movie.

Actually, there is very little the U.s. government can do. The U.S. constitution protects the right to free speech & the courts will uphold it regardless of whatever happens in the Islamic world or anywhere else. The U.S. government cannot & will not try to interfere with that right.

 

[VCheng]

Actually, there is very little the U.s. government can do. The U.S. constitution protects the right to free speech & the courts will uphold it regardless of whatever happens in the Islamic world or anywhere else. The U.S. government cannot & will not try to interfere with that right.

You are correct in that the Constitution will always be upheld, but limits on propagating speech that might be deemed offensive or insensitive can still be placed, for example, certain Youtube content may be available to US IP addresses only.

 

[Elmo]

You are correct in that the Constitution will always be upheld, but limits on propagating speech that might be deemed offensive or insensitive can still be placed, for example, certain Youtube content may be available to US IP addresses only.

What difference does it make? It will leak out eventually.

But then again the issue is more of upholding the law since it's sovereign US territory, and well the US can do as it pleases.

It really has some high moral claims, and is just so impressively fair and just. Wonderful country, that never ever goes wrong. Ever.

 

[Elmo]

The US law applies to US only. If they have freedom of speech and it becomes a freedom of abuse for others, then US must understand that this freedom of speech has limits. But its the disdain in which it holds the rest of the world, it does not want to do anything.

The US doesn't care about you, period. Why be so disappointed?

There's always that option of using common sense, but it's sense of upholding the law to the best of its abilities is far superior.

You know common sense is really not that common.

 

[cyphercide]

What prominence does upholding of the finer aspects of law have when it's detractors have displayed by their rioting and murder, in no uncertain terms, that they care two hoots about it?

The law is applicable to only those who live within it's purview.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I don't see where, in the laws listed here, it requires proof of intent. All it says is what reaction it would provoke.

In practice, unless the law specifically demands it, prosecutors can use the argument of how "reasonable people" would react.

Perhaps the argument is that "reasonable people" should not be provoked to violence by such a film.

 

[fallstuff]

Freedom of speech is by no means an absolute right, it is subject to judicial quarry !!