shore did .

I tend to agree with you. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi seemed far too well planned to be a spontaneous demonstration about this "movie." Also, the apparent complicity of at least some of the security guards at the consulate lends credence to this being a pre-planned attack.

As for this woman's suit, I hope that she wins. Your name and image is everything in the movie business and this producer tricked these actors and over dubbed most of the dialog to completely change the content of the movie. People have a right to not have their name and likeness associated with something that they did not agree to. What this producer did to these actors is reprehensible and he deserves to be sued for everything he has for his actions. Also, anyone involved with the distribution of this film should be held liable if they were aware of what the producer had done. I do not think that you can hold YouTube or Google responsible, since they had no knowledge of what went on during the film's production. My guess is that they were added to the suit simply because they have deep pockets and the lawyer is looking or a big payoff. It is doubtful that the producer has much money himself, so there would be little incentive to take the case just to go after him (this is no doubt a contingency fee case). I do think that Google and YouTube should be forced to remove the video from their sites now that they are aware of what was done. I think that all further distribution of this "movie" should be stopped, not because of the content, but because of the fact that the actors were misled and would never have willingly allowed their names and likenesses to be associated with a film of this nature.

I feel sorry for this woman being fired and not being able to care for her grandchildren for now, but if her presences is placing others at credible risk it is unfortunately a warranted and prudent action on the part of her employer. If they did not get rid of her and an attack against her resulted in other employees being injured the employer could be held liable. She should be allowed to collect unemployment even though she was fired since the firing was not the result of anything she did wrong or due to poor job performance. Hopefully this will blow over quickly and they will rehire her once the danger has passed.

she is running scared and thinks a Muslim will whack her...and if I was in that movie I would be scared too...those people are nuts...ah yes...all religions have done so much for this world...wars, killing, beheadings, crusades, inquisitions, persecutions of all kinds....people are SO gullible.

I don't feel sorry for her,evidentlyshe did not read the script before excepting the part. as for the vidio part I saw it is purely made and low quality for 5 million Dollars. Let her go after the people that funded it and expose them ???????

So Garcia didn't know there was any sexual content in the film even though you see her right there telling another actor to place his head between her thighs and asking him if he sees satan. BWahahahahaha. Sounds, and from the film, looks like her acting career never really existed in the first place and she is wanting someone to repay her for her acting school fees that went to waste.

But what really cracks me up is the muslims want an international ban on anything denigrating religion (mainly theirs). If that was to happen then islam would be banned world wide. Theirs is the most intolerant religion that ever existed.

I'm with you Ryan, if you're saying she should put any (and all) cost of what was done to her career on the shoulders of those who imposed and exacted the toll. She won't get nickel from either company if I'm on the jury (which, obviously, I won't be).

Odd that this should really be over Muslims saying "It makes us want to kill you all!" and Americans saying "That's what makes you beautiful!"

But then they go out and really do kill people, and that is not okay. 'And that I do not forgive', --for you Godfather aficionados. Eventually all is, of course.

I believe if we dig deep enough we will find that Al'Queda money financed this movie for the sole purpose of blaming the United States for it's content.........

MyTurnWi....

The script was for a movie called "Desert Warrior," and the audio was dubbed over. I doubt any of the scripts read just like the current movie audio or arabic subtitles indicate, but she would no better than either of us.

Big Al.....

I would say you would be much more likely to find a religious right-wing republican extremist behind the production and distribution of this film instead. Remember, it was that crazy pastor in Florida that was going to air it at his church, but it blew up before he had a chance to do so. Ironically, it gave terrorists in Libya the perfect cover for launching the attack. Besides, how does a multiple offender and felon get $5 million to bankroll a film shot in a church anyways? Last time I checked, those weren't exactly the kind of credentials that will get you a loan from a bank or any upstanding professional investor. This lady should sue the Church where the film was shot as well.

MyTurnWi - supposedly, according to other sources - the story here doesn't make it clear - the script was not what the movie ended up portraying. The original dialogue was dubbed over by Im-Bacile. Her image and her actions were obtained under false pretenses and then used to portray this piece-of-crap movie about Muhammed through dialogue that was dubbed over the script as performed by the actors. As she said, nothing of what they did during the filming is in the movie - the movie was unrecognizable to her. I think she should sue him until every hair on his body falls out and every brain cell - the few that he has - is shrunk to nonexistence. We do have free speech, but the risk we take with free speech is that there are Im-Baciles like this out there who have no sense of responsibility as to how to use it.

A lawsuit and article w/photo is not a very good way to keep your identity from fanatics....as though any fanatic would read up on a perceived infidel and think, "Oh, never mind, she was duped."

Good luck with the law suit, I hope you get it before Muhammad's followers get him.

I actually watched the 13 minute "trailer" of this movie on-line. If this production wasn't associated with so much tragedy it would be funnier than PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It was SOOOOOOOO bad. The acting was average, really. But what makes it bad is the script, the direction and the green screen CG backrounds. Oooboy. The re-dubbing of the lines was just sad. So obvious and poorly done.

My favorite example of how BAD BAD BAD this movie is and how awful the writing was is the scene where they producers accuse the prophet of being a homosexual. One follower says to the other in surprise "You mean Mohammend is GAY?" Gimme a break. There was an almost Mel Brooks quality to the writing and the whole production.

This movie is SOOOOO bad I don't see how the folks in the Middle East can take it serious enough to be offended. It's a joke, a very bad, terrible, awful, no-good joke! I would think it would be laughed off of every movie screen in the world.

But that's why I believe we should get out of the middle east PERIOD. We (obviously) don't understand them and they (obviously) don't understand us. We are doomed to offend each other and cause unnecessary death, destruction and heartache. Get us out now.

And in the meantime I still believe this movie qualifies as a hate crime and the producers, director, screen writer and backers should all be charged with a crime and complicity in the death of our Ambassador to Libya and the three Americans at the embassy.

The very small part i saw was lame. I don't condone disparaging anyone or anyone's religion BUT there are people that do.....and honestly, that is their right. We absolutely CANNOT give in! We cannot start censoring ourselves due to a few religious zealots. We CANNOT lose our freedom of speech which is one of our basic American cultural beliefs. Americans come in all shapes, colors, sizes and religions but the two things that keep us connected is our belief in our Constitution and the belief in our "freedoms"

AMERICA is NOT a muslim society THIS Is a land of freedom and the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it.

And the Libyan Government agrees with you. There statements conflict with our President's.

Who is telling the TRUTH!?

What is interesting is that she never went to see the movie she acted in when it was first shown. If she did see it why complain now. Could it be her greed for money behind the lawsuit? The suit should be thrown out on the grounds that she never came forward when the film was first released, and only came forward after things got ugly to try and avoid her implication.

Opportunism at it's finest!

No system can rely on 100% compliance from the participants. At least one person WILL do something unpleasant, and that cannot be permitted to bring down the whole structure.

Example: If your fire prevention system is that no one ever, ever start a fire, intentionally or accidentally, then your system is doomed to failure. You need a better plan.

Someone WILL urinate on a US flag or a picture of Mohammad. Be prepared for that.

7.62x39mm said;

What is interesting is that she never went to see the movie she acted in when it was first shown.

The full 3 hour movie was only screened once that I have heard, and there was no promotion or anything--reportedly someone was standing on the sidewalk asking passers-by to come in and see it--which no one accepted. It was screened to an empty theater and never shown again after that.

Usually after a successful screening with positive reaction a production company will put in the bucks to make a DVD and release it--with an unsuccessful screening a movie would never be released. Take the recent success of the film 'Paranormal Activity'--it was a low-budget independent film initially screened in only a few theaters, but the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. More theaters asked to be able to show it, paid the producers money to be able to screen it in their theater, and more and more positive reviews came in until all the theaters wanted to screen it and the producing company decided to release it to video. The movie and DVD were so successful that they decided to make another, that was successfully screened, shown in all theaters, and the rest is history....

With no advertising, and the title of the movie changed, how was she to know that the movie she acted in was being shown only ONCE at only ONE movie theater?

There is a LARGE difference between identity theft and being lied to by an employer.

An employer cannot fooled someone to perform work that may endanger her/his live. Sue!!

Enjoy your winter while we enjoy our second summer.

Sunset, I'll be skiing while you're doing what,dodging bullets from the gangs in LA and waiting for your next gov. handout?

It's amazing how people that live in crappy places envy people that live in the beautiful state of California............ Not to mention the fact that they don't have a clue about what a great place California is to live.......... BTW aworldofhurt your comment [post 3.2] shows true ignorance. I lived all over California for over 30 years and not once did I dodge bullets from ANYBODY. I visit my kids and grand kids in L.A. all the time and they have never dodged bullets either.

Huh. I've skied in California. Almost as good as Colorado. Much preferable to ski in a place where in just a short time later you can be at a beach than to ski at someplace where you'll be scraping your car windows Monday morning after a weekend of skiing. And it's funny how the uninformed think LA covers all of California. When I was growing up in Florida everyone thought Miami was it, that was all there was to Florida. Then when Disney came in the all thought Orlando was all there was to Florida. As for idiots, Apple and HP and others are headquartered in California. Real maroons, aren't they? Little early for a Wisconsin brain freeze, isn't it?

Google and YouTube are making money off the video.

She is sueing Google/Youtube to have it removed as a illegal publication, she isn't directly sueing for cash from them.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Egypt-born Coptic Christian who lives in Los Angeles.

He is on probation for convictions relating to federal financial crimes and was twice sentenced in the 1990s on drug charges, NBC News reported.

And he remains in the USA, why? He should be deported back to Egypt and dealt with there.

I wish this lady the best and hope she is re-united with her grand children.

The producer, no, if they were merely speaking their mind, happy in being able to make this film (as bad as I hear it is) - nothing. Google or youtube etc (deep pockets for lawyers) NO. She has been harmed and can hope to recover only from those whose actions cause her harm by (violent) action. These people may be "happy" producing what others find repulsive and they should not have to pay the account of people who insert violence (and, wrongly, the constant threat of violence) into the equation.

Her career is not damaged in my eyes, but then, I've never heard of her - and hope to never hear of her again (unless she's a good actress - and I don't mean in court).

She is fired and receiving death threat. It is highly possible some nut may like to kill her. She certainly suffer damages.

They seem to ignore the fact that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are NOT universal concepts.

We have freedom of speech on our soil, but other countries couldn't give a hang about our historical documents and the Freedoms that we're granted. They have no knowledge, information, respect or desire for such things to infiltrate their countries.

Anyone who cries "freedom of speech" as an excuse for this is right in that it IS... within our respective free, democratic countries. But there is not a worldwide acceptance.

In most Democracies freedom of speech is central to their governments. But most Democracies ban hate speech. We do not have any laws in the US covering this type of speech so we get to hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and a host of others and people like Nakoula who hide behind our freedoms.

Stephan,

You forgot the names of hate speech professionals like Rachel Maddow, Keith (Failed sports caster) Oberman, Bill Maher, Alan Colmes, Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, Rosie (Drunk driver with the kids in the car)O'Donnel, Rahm (dead fish) Emmanual, Jessie (Himeytown) Jackson, Al (it's all whities fault) Sharpton, Wolfe Blitzer, Paul Begala, John Stewart, Steve Cobert, James Carville, Chris (tingle legs) Matthews, Roseanne (The cancer wisher) Bar, etc. etc.

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert as hate speech professionals??!!!?? They make jokes about everyone who uses deception for their own political purposes. You, sir, need to lighten up.

"Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are NOT universal concepts"

Actually, they ARE universal concepts. Other countries merely try to control speech and religion. I assue you though, behind close doors people talk freely.

Stephen Coder said;

In most Democracies freedom of speech is central to their governments. But most Democracies ban hate speech. We do not have any laws in the US covering this type of speech

The federal government has ruled that there are exceptions to free speech:

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”:

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

One must distinguish “obscene” material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from “indecent” material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that “higher standards” may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.”

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

Now, that being said, let me explain why I think this should not be protected under free speech:

Criteria: Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

By calling the Muslim prophet a homosexual, pedophile, etc it could be argued, depending on his confessed motives, that he knew it had the possibility to provoke violence.

Criteria: Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

According to the Qu'ran, the prophet Muhammad did indeed have wife/wives who would by today's standards be considered children, and said action would be considered child abuse/child molestation. However, that is by today's standards, and not by the standards of 610 CE, so by portraying him as a pedophile that would fall under something 'put in a context that makes true statements misleading.'

Criteria: Obscenity

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

#1 & 2: prurient is defined as--"marked by unwholesome sexual interest: having or intended to arouse an unwholesome interest in sexual matters". I can honestly say that IF the full three hour movie depicts or portrays anyone as having sexual interest in children, it would qualify:if the full three hour moves does not mention it, then it would not qualify.

#3: Absolutely it lacks literary, artistic, scientific or political value.

Criteria:Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

I would say that yes, this would qualify under that. The Middle East is a powder keg, we've just started pulling our soldiers out, and then this film gets released and it gets used as an excuse for fundamentalists/extremists to escalate conflict.

Read my post below.

I never posted to this POS. It has nothing to do with what I believe. The above post is BS;.

I will never post again here if someone or something raids posts.

When you make a film you know what part you play. That is actually what I posted.

The supposed star who said, "I didn't know what I was doing".

That is the POS.

...was a democrat, and now, you're ignored.

Are you even mildly aware of what Post-Production does to a movie? How much things change in the editing room? How voiceovers work, how actors' words can be manipulated, and--failing that--how anyone off the street can be called in to dub over actors' voices if the director decides to do so?

As a non-union actor, she would've been lucky to be handed anything of the script beyond her scenes.

Tell me your experience and how you can call it BS. I've already stated mine below.

Read my post below. And BTW, the name was given as "Master George" and everyone was dubbed over in Post. Do you know what Post is and how that works?

Are you sure that was his agenda? or someone else's who used the movie to start terrorist acts all over the world ?

It might've been his agenda, and those who financed him (which were NOT Jewish people, as the initial lie said, but fellow anti-Islamic folk), but it's almost certain that nobody he hired off Craigslist had anything to do with it. Those were what you'd call blind casting calls.

I should add that, as non-union (and particularly in background work, which is what I do), if you get pushy and you demand to know as much about a production that you're going on, then your curiosity is going to remove that job opportunity. If you call up, or get a call about, a production and demand to know what it's about, they are NOT going to give you too many details. If you push and ask for the name of the project, so what? Titles can and often do change. If you ask for the name of the director, so what? This guy, Nakoula/Bacile was working under an alias (and even Nakoula isn't his real name, according to the Egyptian government). If you inquire about the production company, payroll company, etc., then you're being overly nosy and your behavior is going to be regarded as suspicious, and therefore you are not going to get the job. Productions want talent to arrive on time, be camera-ready and stay the hell out of the way until they're needed. The more you make your presence known, the less your presence is going to be appreciated.

The more you push, the higher the odds are that you're going to lose that job, even if you do believe that you're doing it for your own good and to try and protect yourself from scenarios like this. And it's a bit hard to stand by your morals and your decisions when you've had to give up your apartment for lack of work.

Not everyone who calls themselves an "actor" actually WORKS as that full-time, you know...

From Cracked: Among the miniscule number of actors who actually book jobs, there is an even tinier fraction of people who manage to make a living doing it. First, there is the matter of digging yourself out of a hole of expenses. The costs surrounding a struggling actor can seem almost like a malicious scheme to take money from naive, handsome people. I've already mentioned that headshots cost hundreds of dollars, but you'll need one for commercials, and one for dramas, and one for vampire movies, and one for sports stories. Ultimately, you will have around five different headshots of which you will need to print hundreds. On top of that, you can expect to do the whole process over again in three years when you no longer look like the person in the picture.

You mean, those great men who were so determined to change the world and tell the "truth" about Islam... who are now in hiding and don't even have the courage to talk to the media?

I do have to say, I believe people are too caught up in conspiracy theories on this one. Everyone pictures some big movement going on, but all it really took was a handful of Muslim-hating guys in southern California to finance and make the film. I have my suspicions about why the film made such a big impact as crowds were alerted to its presence by their leaders, though--who, surely, knew there would be a violent outcome.

The reality is that in this world of social media, it only takes one Facebook page, one Twitter post or one YouTube video to create a worldwide sensation--positive or negative.

The Oklahoma City bombing was not a major militia movement to take down the Federal Government--it was nothing more than a handful of nutjobs, only three of whom were ever really nabbed by the FBI and formally charged--yet 168 people died. One lone shooter at a theater in Aurora killed twelve and injured 58.

It only takes a few determined souls to create a massive amount of havoc.

Aye, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That's about the only way. If they want to shun Western society and block off elements that don't agree with their religion and their politics, they're going to have to take the matter into their own hands and create their own internet system--with blocking to shut out other countries' material. Seems to work for North Korea.

Too bad for your ignorant rant in this case it was a mideast christian sect huh.

John...

Please get out of the coal mines... the dust has really affected your mental abilities.

On the contrary, when shot scene by scene it is very likely no one but the producer had any idea what the finished product was to look like. This is not a big project where those involved had a script of the entire film. You hire someone, tell them the lines for the scene they are in then send them home. I have been in one of these low dollar projects and have no idea what the finished product looked like, other than it was supposed to be a shoot-m-up spy thing.

ippster said;

Freedom of speech means the govt can not tell us what to say or write.

Yes, they can. If all speech was truly free, then child porn, or anything advocating sex with children, would be completely legal. The US does have freedom of speech, but it stops where it infringes on someone else's rights or advocates harm to another.

To be completely honest, I think some kind of global resolution banning hate speech, defamation and suppression of another's personal beliefs, might be a good idea. I don't agree that it should be limited solely to Muslims, I think it should apply to all faiths and all religions, equally. Look at what China does to the followers of traditional religions in Tibet. Look at the Falun Gong. The Native African tribes people in Africa. The Native Americans, who were forced to stop practicing their religion, language and customs by the European invaders, and a little further down south the Mesoamericans, the Maya and Aztec, to whom the Spanish conquistadors did the same thing. The Christians did the same thing to practitioners of my faith (they called it the Inquisition). And then later, the Salem Witch Trials.

The practitioners of my belief systems have been around for far longer than any of the rest of your belief systems, Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc--humankind was worshipping the Great Mother when we were all still living in caves and fingerpainting on cave walls. The polytheists of Greece and Rome did their best to wipe us out, the Jews and Christians did the same thing, people still kill witches worldwide. To me, the argument that 'my god is better than your god' is specious and without merit since the three major religions of the world share the same God.

There is no one true way, and the way you find may not be god for anyone else because no one ever sees the world exactly like you do. And it's what you do that matters, not whose name you do it in. if someone saves a baby stroller from rolling out in traffic, is the life saved worth less because the person who saved it is a professed Satanist? If a US soldier dies in war, is his sacrifice worth any less because he is a professed Muslim? Are Adolf Hitler's actions during WWII any less reprehensible because he professed to be Christian?

On what grounds would she sue? Nothing misleading was done by producer, any harm to her is not from the film but from third parties. I dont see any grounds to sue other than attempt to extort money. She may have grounds to sue her ex employer for unlawful termination, or sue any muslim group threatening her, or any individual threatening bodily harm. Sounds like she is just looking for media P.R.

Had the maker of the movie been honest with the actors and told them he was making a smear film about Mohammed, would they have taken the job? I'm not a lawyer but it sure seems like deception used to receive the actors' services must be illegal. For instance, let's say you were paid to allow your picture to be used as a spokesman for a product, then you see an ad where your picture is used to promote a hate group you want no part of. Can you sue?

You're being very generous with the "D" rating.