Free speech, religion clash over anti-Muslim film
CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) - While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.
It's a paradox that makes little sense to those protesting and calling for blood. To them, the movie dialogue denigrating the Prophet Muhammad is all the evidence needed to pursue justice - vigilante or otherwise - against Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an American citizen originally from Egypt.
In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election - how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom.
"The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don't appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world," said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University's School of Law in Orange, Calif.
The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.
But Nakoula's case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film "Innocence of Muslims" has had such far-reaching and violent implications.
If the government were to overtly protect Nakoula, it could be seen by some as tacit approval of the film, and further enflame protests. Leaving him to fend for himself could have deadly consequences. There are examples of violence against others who have written or spoken against Muhammad.
So far, the government has acknowledged offering very limited assistance. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted Nakoula to an interview with federal probation officials. They did so in the dead of night and allowed Nakoula to cover his face. And early Monday, deputies answered his family's request for help leaving the house where they'd been holed up for five days so they could reunite with the 55-year-old filmmaker. All remain in hiding.
Department spokesman Steve Whitmore stressed the agency is not providing protective custody. He referred questions to federal authorities, who have declined to comment.
Jody Armour, a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law, said it's "not unusual at all for the government to step in and give a citizen in distress or danger special protection, but it can't unlimited. They're going to have to strike a balance."
A 14-minute trailer for the film posted on YouTube sparked violence in the Middle East, including an attack in Libya in which a U.S. ambassador was killed. Nakoula, a Coptic Christian and American citizen who served federal prison time for check fraud, told The Associated Press in a short interview last week that he was involved in management and logistics for the anti-Islamic film. Federal officials, however, told the AP they have concluded he was behind the movie.
Furor over the film has been widespread. Bahrain protesters used Twitter to organize demonstrations that included burning American flags in the nation that hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Pakistan's conservative Islamist parties sent out text messages, mosque announcements and made phone calls to bring out protest crowds, including about 1,000 people in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Sunday and hundreds who rushed the U.S. consulate in Karachi, sparking clashes with police in which one demonstrator was killed.
"Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."
Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.
In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
"This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere," the company said in a statement.
That's precisely the point about the First Amendment, Armour said.
"The reason it is a constitutionally protected interest is precisely because it may prove unpopular," he said. "Words and images don't just convey information, they are attached to consequences. That's when we really have to ask ourselves, 'What price are we willing to pay for that First Amendment interest?' And these are the times that really test our convictions."
In 1975, former CIA agent Philip Agee published a book detailing agency operations and disclosing the names of a number of CIA agents working undercover overseas, Rosenthal said. Even in that instance, the U.S. government didn't press criminal charges but instead revoked Agee's passport and sued him for the book's profits.
"It's not clear that there is, on the books today, a law that makes what (Nakoula) did a crime," Rosenthal said. "This is an extremely difficult problem."
Indeed, federal officials have said they are looking at Nakoula only in the context of whether he violated his probation for the fraud conviction. Under terms of his sentence, he was banned from using computers or the Internet as part of his sentence.
The probation issue "gives the government a relatively low visibility way of prosecuting him but not technically for what he said and how inflammatory it was," Armour said. "It may be a way of splitting the baby."
It's a paradox that makes little sense to those protesting and calling for blood. To them, the movie dialogue denigrating the Prophet Muhammad is all the evidence needed to pursue justice - vigilante or otherwise - against Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an American citizen originally from Egypt.
In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election - how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom.
"The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don't appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world," said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University's School of Law in Orange, Calif.
The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.
But Nakoula's case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film "Innocence of Muslims" has had such far-reaching and violent implications.
If the government were to overtly protect Nakoula, it could be seen by some as tacit approval of the film, and further enflame protests. Leaving him to fend for himself could have deadly consequences. There are examples of violence against others who have written or spoken against Muhammad.
So far, the government has acknowledged offering very limited assistance. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted Nakoula to an interview with federal probation officials. They did so in the dead of night and allowed Nakoula to cover his face. And early Monday, deputies answered his family's request for help leaving the house where they'd been holed up for five days so they could reunite with the 55-year-old filmmaker. All remain in hiding.
Department spokesman Steve Whitmore stressed the agency is not providing protective custody. He referred questions to federal authorities, who have declined to comment.
Jody Armour, a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law, said it's "not unusual at all for the government to step in and give a citizen in distress or danger special protection, but it can't unlimited. They're going to have to strike a balance."
A 14-minute trailer for the film posted on YouTube sparked violence in the Middle East, including an attack in Libya in which a U.S. ambassador was killed. Nakoula, a Coptic Christian and American citizen who served federal prison time for check fraud, told The Associated Press in a short interview last week that he was involved in management and logistics for the anti-Islamic film. Federal officials, however, told the AP they have concluded he was behind the movie.
Furor over the film has been widespread. Bahrain protesters used Twitter to organize demonstrations that included burning American flags in the nation that hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Pakistan's conservative Islamist parties sent out text messages, mosque announcements and made phone calls to bring out protest crowds, including about 1,000 people in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Sunday and hundreds who rushed the U.S. consulate in Karachi, sparking clashes with police in which one demonstrator was killed.
"Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."
Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.
In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
"This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere," the company said in a statement.
That's precisely the point about the First Amendment, Armour said.
"The reason it is a constitutionally protected interest is precisely because it may prove unpopular," he said. "Words and images don't just convey information, they are attached to consequences. That's when we really have to ask ourselves, 'What price are we willing to pay for that First Amendment interest?' And these are the times that really test our convictions."
In 1975, former CIA agent Philip Agee published a book detailing agency operations and disclosing the names of a number of CIA agents working undercover overseas, Rosenthal said. Even in that instance, the U.S. government didn't press criminal charges but instead revoked Agee's passport and sued him for the book's profits.
"It's not clear that there is, on the books today, a law that makes what (Nakoula) did a crime," Rosenthal said. "This is an extremely difficult problem."
Indeed, federal officials have said they are looking at Nakoula only in the context of whether he violated his probation for the fraud conviction. Under terms of his sentence, he was banned from using computers or the Internet as part of his sentence.
The probation issue "gives the government a relatively low visibility way of prosecuting him but not technically for what he said and how inflammatory it was," Armour said. "It may be a way of splitting the baby."
Unfortunately our troops and envoys have to pay for this so called FREEDOM- free-speech !
"But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."
Â
That pretty much says it ALL right there...!
Â
Wake up citizens and recognize the facts.Â
Â
We are dooming our most cherished beliefs... dooming our children... and dooming our very Civilization if we continue to keep our heads in the bloody sand!
"The reason it is a constitutionally protected interest is precisely because it may prove unpopular," he said. "Words and images don't just convey information, they are attached to consequences. That's when we really have to ask ourselves, 'What price are we willing to pay for that First Amendment interest?' And these are the times that really test our convictions."
Â
Â
Really? What price to pay. I thought paid for it with blood and guts of our fore fathers.
I thought we continue to pay with the blood of our sons and daughters.
Iâve left skin there and have skin in the game now. are we going let these people tell us what we can and cannot watch, produce or listen to?
These people live 500 years in the past. how or why would let these people try and run our country? They could barely run one of their own. I really suggest some of our people here would understand what the enemy is. Take trip get out a little.
 @BocaBob Great comment. Agreed 100%. Thanks for sharing.
The guy that made the film is a Egyptian Coptic Christian who was allowed to come to the USA because of Humanitarian Visa . Maybe he got tired of his fellow Christians being beheaded etc (In July 2012 200+ Christians killed by Radical Muslims, Churches set of fire with families inside) and the rest of the world not paying attention or the bias media not reporting it. Attacking ones religion via a video is not cool but it seems turn about that the islamists seem to think its okay for them to attack another persons religion, jail them and even kill them.Â
 @flowerpnl23 Also, the US media have been covering the Coptic/Muslim conflict in Egypt for years now.Â
Â
Â
 @flowerpnl23 From what I've read, he was actually a Muslim who converted and then went off the deep end trying to prove to everyone how his new Christian religion was the right one.Â
Well they just uncovered pretty solid evidence that Jesus was married. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and all the other "prophets" were just snake oil salesmen preying on the ignorant.  Â
Â
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=0
Maybe he should get a restraining order against all Muslims who want to attack him?
Let's see...buring our flag doesn't result in riots, but a crappy film about a religion does. Suggest to me that America must be stronger than Islam (based on the actions of the extreme). Pretty sad statement being made on the behalf of Islam, in my opinion.
 @WalletVoter Hey did you hear one of the demonstrators involved in the flag burning died as the result of smoke inhalation.
Got a good Idea make all of our flags used in the middle east give off toxic fumes when burned
In my feeble mind trying to figure out a motive for this movie/skit, I'm trying to think outside of the box here.
What if this could be a explanation:
the filmmaker was a Christian and when the Muslims in Egypt last year abused and killed many of his people. There was no help from the government to stop the killing and the killings went on without justice. In revenge and to fight the injustice he made a film that told a story that from his perspective exposed the people who did these crimes to his people. The guy's motive had to be driven by some type of hatred.
Â
Hopefully we will sometime soon get some type of a explanation for the video
This guys not even an American, He's an Egyptian that became an American citizen. Revoke his citizenship and send him home.
 @DarkParty He is more of an American than you. I say keep him and send submissive betas like you to Egypt for their head-cutting follies.
 @LockesChild Besides just being an ASS, would you like to explain to me how he is more of an American than I am?
 @DarkParty He isn't such a coward that he wants to revoke anyone's citizenship over free speech. He probably understands the Bill of Rights better than you. I'd take 10 of him over jerks who want to push him out from fear.
Â
I'd say take your cowardice somewhere it is appreciated, like France, but Charlie Hebdo has caused some rethinking of that destination. But sharing citizenship with jerks who would punish people for free speech is embarrassing.
So it's ok to have freedom of speech as long as you agree with the message? Â Well that is not free speech at all then. Â Most of our constitutional rights work for and against us as citizens. Â The right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure almost always protect the criminal rather than the victim. Â So aren't we all adults here and realize that just because one wacko decides to make a movie that it doesn't represent the views of every American? Â
Here is America we understand that. Outside of America people are just looking for a reason to hate all of America. That movie fed the animal or animals.
Ah yes It is possible to defame anyone here in America and legal eh. It should stay here . But then again there are no set rules on the electronic devices of the world.  On a side note don't come to someone else s country and start $h!t, and then hide there and expect to be protected.
 @Cindertang This man is an American citizen. And clearly worth more than you
 @LockesChild  @Cindertang "This man is an American citizen."
That I will agree with.
Â
On the other hand, when you say "And clearly worth more than you", are you saying that you support his actions, his movie, his position?
If so, what IS it he was trying to say, what was the purpose of the movie?
Here Obama I will save your presidency and make you save face over this since you are struggling with this little brushfire. Say this: "The video that has surfaced on the Internet is disgusting and I find it personally offensive. As a country we should publicly ridicule someone who acts in such a way. However, we as a country also have to respect our tradition of political discourse as we have been known to make some pretty questionable and offensive statements about previous heads of state or political institutions. I myself have been the target of some political cartooning and wicked attacks. BUT we must also respect that we as a nation are founded on some very basic principles. One of those is the principle of free speech, and our Constitution protects us but also allows us to say what we feel. The freedom of speech is not their for the 90% of statements you agree with, it is for the 10% you don't. No one including this film-maker knew this would have the reaction that it did(although we knew they would that whole area of the world isn't know for calmer heads), and the people that feel that violence is a justifiable means for voicing opposition are in my opinion worse then the film maker. These United States will not tolerate any attacks on our sovereign soil nor any attacks on our most basic principles that have stood as a foundation for this country for 236 years. Thank you, good night, and god bless America."At which point fighter jets fly over blowing out red, white and blue smoke and fireworks and strippers...or something to that effect.
Doesn't this kind of 'free speech' fall into the realm of yelling into a crowded building the word 'fire!' or 'gunman!' It causes mass panic and in this case killing. He knew that this kind of thing would cause the Muslims worldwide to go on the rampage. Is that what he wanted? The killing of other people? Why didn't he choose an easier way to commit suicide? Or what the hell was his point anyway? Be better for him to have stuck his hand in a fire ant's nest than to do this - at least he'd be the only one with the stings. I don't know if he is a Christian or not, but I don't see any purpose in this kind of action. Jesus didn't do actions like this, there was always a purpose behind His actions, so I can't see how this man is calling himself a Christian.
 @Elaine2 Go look on YouTube you will see around 20 anti Muslim videos that have been posted since 2009. These videos are almost identical to the content of this most recent video. This video was used as a excuse to rally the masses of Muslims to the new order. It was put on Egyption TV by the Muslim Brotherhood just before 9-11.
OIC - well more 'flak' and 'cr@p' from our 'friends' the Muslims. thanks for the update!
This is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. This has been out for months and is being used as an excuse to attack Americans and try to make us comply with Sharia law. It was a stupid video not worth getting mad about. The video did not cause panic, it is a scapegoat for the murderers and vandals.
Aaaah - well, that's a better explanation than the media's. Thanks!
"It's not clear that there is, on the books today, a law that makes what (Nakoula) did a crime"
Â
Give Obama another term and we might find such a law on the books.
 @LockesChild well played sir
 @LockesChild Actually, I head that if re-elected, his first act will be to burn all the bibles.
I know it is true, i read it in an email with the subject "FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD"Â
Â
Obviously, you get most of your "facts" from the same source
 @T H I S Don't assume that everyone get their "facts" from the same place you do
 @LockesChild Or just an Executive Order. What's stopping him?
So some christian guy makes a hate film (because that is what jesus would do) which  financed by a jewish guy, and the muslims respond by killing people.Â
Â
Derpalicious.
Â
Â
While you guys are busy fighting over who has the better sky monster, I, a rational scientificly minded athiest, will be in my kitchen making pancakes. Â
Â
When you retards have your s--t together, let me know and I will make some for you.
Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Cougsfan34  @T H I S I think he meant spiritual retards. Perhaps spiritually deficient might be the more PC way to say it.
Â
Not that atheism isn't also a belief system for most atheists... that is, they cannot prove their atheism any more scientifically than any other religious story.
Â
Agnostic (not knowing, aka, "not this, not this") is probably the most spiritually honest term. Though if you use your western devotional belief system like an eastern Bhakti Yoga, that is, like a temporary ladder that you eventually throw away -- that can also get you to the same place -- most in the west don't.
If you ask me it's a risk the guy took when he made the film. He has the right to free speech and the right to make the film but he also has the right to suffer any consequences from his actions. He should get no "protection".
 @Hachee_Bungwhy He has the same rights as we all do, including free speech. There are consequences to free speech- and those are that others may not like what you say and might call you out. Physically assaulting someone remains illegal.
 @two loons Unless, of course, you are a Muslim. Many leftards foolishly believe that free speech that offends and causes violence is the responsibility of the speaker.
Â
In one way, I wish it were so. Then beating the *(#&$ out of these fools for saying such anti-American garbage would be legal.
 @Hachee_Bungwhy If he doesn't get protection, then his right to free speech isn't protected under our First Amendment, is it?
 @IslandAtheist  @Hachee_Bungwhy You do not have a right to protection from your free speech, If the cops had to give special protections to every dumb ass that pissed people off, there would be no more cops on the street.
 @IslandAtheist They arrested someone for posting threats online, they never posted a cop outside Trey Parker or Matt Stone's houses.
@DarkParty The posts implying he is on his own seem to suggest he is 100% on his own and no one should protect him. He should get the same treatment anyone else would that got a credible death threat.  I have suggested this is nothing more than an effort to force Sharia law on the world through murder and terrorism. There could be consequences for stating that. Do you suggest if there could be angry people out there we should say nothing?
 25 years of prison for the Muslim that threatened them.
 @IslandAtheist  @Hachee_Bungwhy How are they being protected, do that have a 24/7 police escort?
 @DarkParty  @Hachee_Bungwhy  So your saying the South Park creators shouldn't be protected from Islamic extremist?
 @Nitroxman He knew what the consequences could be, He is from Egypt. If someone gets a death threat and they believe it, does that mean they get free 24 hour police protection?
Anyone should be treated equally under the law don't you think? If there are legitimate death threats against a person isn't it reasonable that those here to enforce the law do so?  Or if someone says something that offends someone else do we just toss them under the bus?
 @Hachee_Bungwhy Really? So all that money we pay police, security, etc. don't cover him because some irrational animals are angered?
@Hachee_Bungwhy I agree with you. I would take it a bit further than that. We all have the right to free speech. With it, I think we should also carry the responsibility for our actions. People are dead because of this film and it has promoted extreme unrest. Maybe he should be held accountable, as he is the one who caused it. You may say what you like, but be prepared to account for the harm you cause.
He did not cause anything. Can we start blaming the murderers and terrorists for their actions for once? They look for any excuse at all. The video was stupid and not worth getting upset over. What next? Do we appologize that our women do not wear tarps over themselves next when they murder people because of that?
Â
This is nothing more then them attempting to force Sharia law onto the world by terrorism and violence.
 @Gottadance  @Hachee_Bungwhy I wouldn't got that far. His film didn't kill anyone. Stupid people's reaction killed people. The police shouldn't guard him 24/7. There are private security firms for that. They should respond to an attack on the guy if there is one though.
 @Hachee_Bungwhy No harm came from this speech. The harm came from those who committed those acts of violence. If you think otherwise, then what else will you excuse because of unpopular free speech?Â
 @LockesChild  @albion No need to be so hard on yourself. I don't think you are a village idiot, just less world wise then some.
 @albion so you agree. Apparently even village idiots can learn.
 @LockesChild  @Hachee_Bungwhy Sort of like how no harm comes from homosexuals who get married. Those who don't like same sex marriage are harming themselves..