I agree wholeheartedly but I don’t think it would help if somebody who hadn’t seen the movie makes the claim it is “backed by freedom of speech” - that’s the only reason I asked.
Despite it’s seemingly obvious literal interpretation, ‘freedom of speech’ as a policy does not mean you can say anything you want. One could be locked up for threats, racism and even inciting hatred - just three examples.
I’m going to reserve judgement for now until I’ve seen the vid, thanks for the link btw 
I understand it is a movie portraying Muhammad in a ridiculous, untrue, or true light… On that alone, it is backed by freedom of speech.
Wouldn’t disagee there.
I checked out a BBC article on this whole nightmare and they said the origin of the video (the source) was still unknown.
Based on that, I don’t believe we can fairly say with certainty until we know the purpose of the video; if the vid was meant as satire it seems to be so poorly done as if made by children (like a school nativity scene), but if the vid was created to incite hatred or increase multicultural tensions in the US or abroad then its motive is political - in such a case, the question of whether it falls under freedom of speech laws would need to be determined.
Im not saying one way or the other, but I do think it important not to jump the gun, because it may not be so clear cut.
There is a case in the UK which was controversial at the time because British Muslims were protesting the war by picketing at the funeral procession of a dead UK soldier. He was being carried through the town in a coffin and they were screaming abuse and although many people felt it was permitted under freedom of speech laws, they were arrested and their organisation outlawed because the resounding public outcry was for their heads on a stick (naturally, lol). Sometimes even freedom of speech laws are put to the side if & when the public demand it, which imho makes it even more important for the general public to be continually educated in this regard.
I think ‘Freedom of speech’ is a concept which is embraced to varying degrees, and with good reason. Yet it is very often misunderstood because of its clear literal suggestion.
EDIT:
TO ANYONE READING:
Check out the documentary movie ‘My Trip To Al’ Qaeda’ for a rare and truly enlightening insight into the modern Arab Muslim mindset. I truly believe watching that movie would help us all here to better understand why the Muslim world is overreacting; why they are set off as easily as they are by such things.
all I can say is that I’m glad there were muslims in libya apologizing and distancing themselves from the nutters
This sounds an awful lot like the ‘Mohammed cartoons row’ of 2005-2006, which was a manufactured controversy cooked up by, among others, Daniel Pipes, son of Cold War paranoia generator Richard Pipes.
They used ‘freedom of speech’ and their excuse/defence/justification too, and the little clique behind it even set up their own ‘freedom of speech’ journalism award which they give to the position who has bitched most loudly about Muslims each year.
It is quite amusing how few people realise that to do something like this takes very little effort.
The burden of proof is on the U.S. government to explain how this movie violates freedom of speech. Their initial statement of course sidesteps the issue. Of course we will never see any argument like this come from the U.S. administration, because that will only raise hell to my initial post. Do you think the U.S. admins responsible for this statement watched the whole movie before they issued this statement? Hell no, they condemned the movie because this administration is quick to point the finger at ourselves because of this type of backlash. But that, I do not agree with.
Me too.
Fear of consequences is “absolutely anti-American”? That’s… odd.
That’s an incorrect paraphrase.
It honestly seemed a literal restatement to me. I substituted “consequences” for “reprisal”. I’m glad it’s incorrect though. Can you clarify?
Any time anyone calls anything at all “absolutely anti-American”, I shudder. It really gives me the creeps.
The key here is “To condemn a statement or movie, backed by freedom of speech”
What’s up with calling things Anti American giving you the creeps? Obviously we Americans have the looming decay of our nation at the front of our minds for good reason, as our once strong ideologies that once provided strength to this nation has been attacked not only by outsiders, but from within and everyone here see’s the end of our abundance is only a few steps away… so yes, the people of America are attempting to grasp control over the situation. Of course, the majority here is a little too stupid to recourse, this being a “somewhat” Democratic process. I might add that’s a huge somewhat… if anything the only Democratic process we have here is the uproar of citizens via the Internet, which really, is not so far from the way the Arab Spring has brought about change. I may have rebutted your response prematurely, but I’m still interested in an answer to my question.l
Which of “our once strong ideologies” is it that concerns you so much? I guess it’s that word “absolutely” that gives me the creeps. Well, that and the word “American” when used as a synonym for some trait, as if other nations don’t also value such a trait. So for instance, let’s say “democratic values” are “American”. Does that mean that it is anti-American that prisoners on death row can’t vote? I mean, how absolute is “absolutely”? Also, does it mean that other nations don’t share the same values? Are we fundamentally exceptional somehow? Just asking. I know this might not be your view.
When I stated absolutely, I meant this instance was absolutely Anti-American. Nothing more. I’m not speaking for other nations or anything else than the situation I described and it is just an internal issue caused by Americans, specifically this administration.
There a few ideologies that are attacked here, that being one would be freedom of speech. This is particularly concerning in that we can condemn a movie that makes fun of Islam, but of course, this would never happen if it was condemning any other religion instead, particularly Christianity which is a majority religion here. This is rather unsettling as a bias towards Christianity would be a little more acceptable, however this whole occurrence is more evidence of our own self defeating nature among the “bleeding heart” liberals in this nation. There is anti american sentiment from within this nation, that is doing more damage to our honor than any foreigners can accomplish and is dividing our nation as well. I do not enjoy making this distinction of pointing the fingers at liberals here, because I do not want to imply that by doing so I back the conservatives in this country, but I do so as it is a common referent, for the sake of conciseness and clarity for those who understand the concept of bleeding heart liberals that are problematic towards the interests of the United States, which in turn is beneficial to the interests of our enemies and possibly the world. Not to get sidetracked here, but in general, perhaps the bleeding heart liberals have some great ideologies that benefit all the world, but I see this as premature, the world is not ready for this type of unity and the United States in particularly is most certainly not capable of sustaining God-like benevolence to all but itself, we are simply not almighty.
Wait a minute, before I continue - which instance? When you say “To condemn a statement or movie, backed by freedom of speech”, what exactly are you referring to? Pardon my ignorance.
Some moron in the U.S. made a crappy movie that made fun of Muhammad, and now Muslims are attacking U.S. Embassies in the middle east due to it.
Here’s the movie trailer:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&bpctr=1347722328[/youtube]
In a statement online, the Embassy of the United States in Cairo said that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
But upon looking for this quote, I have found this:
"The statement was issued before the attacks on the compound, but given the subsequent attack — and the interpretation that the statement was somehow apologizing for free speech — the Obama administration itself took issue with it.
An administration official tells ABC News that “no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.”
Hilary Clinton has used some of her harsher language against the film, as shown here. You can bet your ass she didn’t speak this harshly when speaking about how Libyans attacked the embassy. I have also found this as well:
“Clinton says the YouTube film, titled Muhammad, is “disgusting and reprehensible” and termed it a cynical attempt to offend people for religious beliefs.
Hillary noted, however, that the U.S. would never stop Americans from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful, as they are central to freedom.”
This may have all happened, being that there was some immediate backlash after my initial quote. Who knows who approved what. Anyways, I feel a little better now.
Our diplomats are diplomatic? I see that as quite positive.
I haven’t seen the film, so I admit I’m assuming it really is completely rude and reprehensible from pretty much any reasonable perspective. Unlike, say, Rushdie’s writing, which I’d say is only reprehensible to Muslims unless you’re an especially sensitive non-Muslim.
Lol I can’t believe the idiots who made the film now have the honour of their ‘work’ being compared to Salman Rushdie’s, lol
I’ve seen the trailer on YT and it offends me and I’m not even Muslim. Its a disgusting and vulgar attack directed at a religion. Any and all attempts at humour fall flat on their face.
It might be that the White House released that statememtn before they’d actually seen the video, who knows?
It seems clear after viewing what I saw that this video was created to aggravate Muslims more than strengthen Anti-Islamic sentiment. But that’s just my opinion I guess.
The US Gov’t should be firm and state that such a video can be made with any idiot with a video camera and does NOT represent the views of the US public or Government.
For World War 3 to break out over such a thing woud be a condemning testament to our species’ continuing decline into idiocy.
If you ask me, such (above) is the truth and I’d be pleased to hear it issued by the White House in their next statement. That said, Muslims will continue to react sensitively to such things in the future
so we all need to better understand the Muslim world and the things they are all going through in order to end this ‘cold war of ignorance’.
A confused enemy knows not what he fights for, and so he keeps comng back for more.
I agree.
And this is what ‘we’ ‘helped’ them get rid of Khadaffi for. It was an extremely prosperous and well educated country, but it didn’t have any international banks (hence the lowest deficit of all countries in the world). I suppose Sarkozy needed to secure some position for himself for when he got voted out. Obviously no one in his right mind ever expected conditions in Lybia to move in any direction but this one, but it’s disgusting anyway.
The BBC Q&A about the film and the people believed to have made it…