The movie has poor acting, poor sets, and is a joke. If this had been a movie about Jesus, it would had never even brought to our attention. Oh, but we have to be overly considerate when we hurt the little muslims feelings.

Once again MSNBC does not publish the correct facts. This video did not spark the attack on 9/11 at the US consulate in Benghazi. Does MSNBC keep up with what is really going on a daily basis? We now know this was a well-planned terror attack, and the Obama administration (via Susan Rice) lied to the American people until after the election.

I watched the video and it is no worse than what airs on TV. Bravo to this judge for making the correct ruling.

raleigh dolly, I'm sure you got that upset over the Cheney/Bush Administration sending Colin Powell to the UN with false information that, in effect, lied to the world.

And, I know you called for Condoleezza Rice's removal when she towed the Cheney line that, 1. We don't torture, 2. We had no idea terrorist would use aircraft, 3. We've killed (she gave a certain percentage) of the Al Qaeda leadership. When asked how many people were in that leadership, she did not know). Add to that 4. Saddam has nukes, and add to that many other lies she told the nation and the world.

I'm quite sure you called for her sacking, right?

Powell and Rice were given false information and their mission was to tell the world what the US intelligence community told them to say. That was an integral part of their jobs. Same with Rice. So, let's not be a hypocrite.

wire557, you display the common traits of a very low information hater with your own callous disregard for innocent human life. Not only that, but it is clear that you have a problem with reading comprehension.

And, you seem to suggest that you are a Christian? Are you acting as Jesus would want you to act. Was he a hater as well and would hold you in high esteem? Have you ever read Matthew 25:32-46? Do you recall his admonitions of kindness? Do you consider yourself a shining example of Christianity, and are leading by example?

Hobbes' Notes~

While speaking of Matthew, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

It might help to use the 'Rest of the Story' Your fellow liberals seem to ignore Matthew as they reach into my pocket for the fruit of my toil and give it to those unwilling to rise from the cot...

Well at least they went to the U.N., doof-in-charge has been killing women and children in Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan with total disregard for human life.

Hobbes' Notes

raleigh dolly, I'm sure you got that upset over the Cheney/Bush Administration sending Colin Powell to the UN with false information that, in effect, lied to the world.

I guess that a lot of people don't realize it but the Constitution only is a legal Document in the United States. When you exercise your rights intensionaly to irate or interfere or it causes such with another countries Government or beliefs of the people you are in the wrong. Your rights only go as far as the coast and Borders and what is considered territorial waters. Rights and Freedoms have Limits even in our own country. Once you overstep your freedom and interfere with somebody else and you get told by an Official to back off some, your always the first to say my rights are being taken away. When you use your rights to cause Death and Destruction, you have gone to far.

you display the common traits of a very low information hater with your own callous disregard for innocent human life. Not only that, but it is clear that you have a problem with reading comprehension.

And, you seem to suggest that you are a Christian? Are you acting as Jesus would want you to act. Was he a hater as well and would hold you in high esteem? Have you ever read Matthew 25:32-46? Do you recall his admonitions of kindness? Do you consider yourself a shining example of Christianity, and are leading by example?

Hobb's Notes: Another person who thinks Christians should act powerless when faced with opposition. Jesus never responded in that manner. In fact, do you remember how angry he was when faced he faced the moneychangers in the the courtyard? Why do liberals only reflect on Jesus acts of kindness, but forget the fact that Christ was bold. He would never had tolerated you putting down the words of God as a means to save people.

And he would of stood up to this kind of opposition, the same way he stood up to the Pharisees and the Saduccees.

wire said:

Once again the 1st Amendment wins out in the face of politically-correct...censorship. This is a great day for free speech.

The Supreme Court has decreed that there are limitations on free speech. Below are some of the criteria for thise exceptions; I leave it up to you to decide for yourself if this film, and the intent behind it, would violate any of these criteria:

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.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a “gag” order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.

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.

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.

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?

* prurient is defined as--"marked by unwholesome sexual interest: having or intended to arouse an unwholesome interest in sexual matters".

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.

But they never miss a beat to bash Christians or Jews and it is tolerated, yet anything bashing muslims is oh so PC wrong!

Hobbes' Notes Did you have a problem with this judge?

Judge denies bid for nativity scene in California town
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-denies-bid-nativity-scene-california-town-022634027.html

President Obama's words to the UN about the film, and the resulting violence, sum up my personal feelings on the whole issue perfectly:

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be open without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story_3.html

We now know this was a well-planned terror attack,

Funny how people who buy into that the admin lied BS actually kill their argument with stuff like this. Of course we NOW know it was an AlQueda attack and it was not well planned as you state. It took hours to complete agaist and not to well armed intallation stupid! Time to put that dead horse away because it is strating to stink. You guys ran anti Obama crap for four years and he was still elected because you lied so much and the people saw through it. Go back under your rock This is a story about copyright infringement and not benghazi. You want to wallow in that mire turn on FOX

raleigh dolly said:

This video did not spark the attack on 9/11 at the US consulate in Benghazi.

Here's what I found;

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

When you exercise your rights intensionaly to irate or interfere or it causes such with another countries Government or beliefs of the people you are in the wrong.

That is so wrong. Irritating people or challenging their beliefs is how we make social (and scientific progress). There were many people who were offended, down to a religious level, by the ideas of women voting, birth control, interracial marriage, gay rights and so many more. But, if you can't talk about something simply because it might irritate others, nothing gets changed. I'm am not violating your rights when I talk about something that you find offensive. You don't have to listen.

A victory for freedom of speech.

Patrick Sanford

This wasn't a First Amendment issue. It's a copyright issue.

Agreed. She was sure to lose on First Amendment grounds, so her only recourse was to stand up in court and claim she was too stupid to read the script or understand the content of her "performance" before signing on the dotted line. (Kinda like most actors ..... stand in a spot dictated by a director and mouth lines provided by a writer.)

Once again MSNBC does not publish the correct facts. This video did not spark the attack on 9/11 at the US consulate in Benghazi.

Raleigh dolly - this is exactly what I thought while reading the article. NBCNews.com even published an article stating exactly what you describe, which is why I couldn't understand how the people who wrote this current article had not seen it. Writers for NBCNews.com demonstrate on an hourly basis that they can barely comprehend what they read and write.

Hobbes - Raleigh dolly is right. Go check your facts.

Amanda - OK. We can all see that you've learned how to copy and paste. Now go find something more constructive to do.

Why is it that Republicans can understand that they have lost the election and move on for the betterment of the country?

That should be "Why is it that Republicans can't understand that they have lost the election and move on for the betterment of the country?"

@Barry-NJ

I hope that you do realize that actors make scenes of video clips and the producer puts them together as a final movie. Even some professional actors don't know what the movie's final version will be when they act in a movie. She claims the producer misled the actors on what the movie was going to be about and since we weren't there and the producer is in jail who are we to doubt her word?

The outbreak of violence coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in September that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Proven to be a bunch of BULL$H!T from the mouths of obama and his minions and yet NBCNews continues with it.

BAN it?!!!

It should nominated for an Academy Award!!!!

Oh, but we have to be overly considerate when we hurt the little muslims feelings.

It should nominated for an Academy Award!!!!

It's the blatant ignorance of cultural/religious differences that explain why we have the problems we have in the world.

Hobbes' Notes

I'm sure you got that upset over the Cheney/Bush Administration sending Colin Powell to the UN with false information that, in effect, lied to the world.

So Clinton, Berger, Albright and Pelose were lying to the world in 1998?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

I guess Hobbes doesnt take offense to this either?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tree-lighting-20121130,0,5981126.story

Rhode Island’s governor, Lincoln Chafee, got so fed up with the debate after an uproar at last year’s state Christmas tree – er, holiday tree – lighting, that this year, he gave only 30 minutes’ notice before flicking the lights on the towering fir in the Statehouse rotunda.

MERRY CHRISTMAS GRINCH!!

Great, the director of this video remains in jail for "other" legal matters.

This administration seems to have gotten OFF the bandwagon for the Benghazi "video did it" theme.

Then, the U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald of Santa Clara, California, has ruled FOR FREE SPEECH.

Wait a minute....here comes the DOJ backed by the bah humbug Progressives after Judge Fitzgerlad.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merry CHRISTmas and Happy CHRISTmas tree lighting, Governator Chaffee.

FINALLY watched it. Well worth the wait and a very good laugh. Insulting to Islam? You betcha (like I care.)

So tired of the "Cheney" BS... for crying out loud, he was the Vice President. Look up the facts on his position... he has no control, no power, he is nothing more than a "stand-by". Heck, most he can do is be the swing vote, in the case of a tie in the Senate.

As for the tactics of terrorist interrogations, that would be controlled by CIA... not the State Dept... much the same as Clinton is not close to being connected to the gun runner in Mexico.

Not sure why Liberals do not see, when they open the door, it becomes accessible to both sides. If you are going to blame one, you have to be ready for others to follow in suit, even for those you oppose.

Fact, Hussein refused to allow NATO inspectors into areas suspected. It was NEVER said they DID have, it was always said "they believed"... you should understand the difference, considering this is a common liberal play on words.

The initial attack was supported by NATO, based on NATO's collected information, and Hussein's defiance to ultimatums that began under the Clinton Administration.

Worst of all, I love the fact that liberals (using the Cheney/Bush lied excuse) overlook the inevitable question... was the Democratic led House and Senate so incompetent, that they did not second guess a few Republican Cabinet members?

Where the Democratic majority Congress so incompetent, they were incapable of making a rational choice, in support of the views of the USA?

Next, why were the people, you apparently deemed incompetent, still in office? Reid, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, just to name a few key Congress persons still in office....

How is it, that NATO and the US was so blind to the lies from Cheney and Bush, but they were soooo clear on the views of many of the other international events, that we have opposed, like slave trade and deplorable civil rights problems in Asia and Middle East?

In short... move on.

oh, btw, best to know that the UN is going to force the issue soon enough...

But word of warning, this can be used and abused, imagine anyone making a video that states religious beliefs are wrong...

Sad part, this was co-supported by President Obama. US will push any violations to the International level..

raleigh dolly, the thinker-318752, & Amanda

Once again MSNBC does not publish the correct facts. This video did not spark the attack on 9/11 at the US consulate in Benghazi.

The article states:

The outbreak of violence coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi

Is English a second language to you people? To coincide with the violence does NOT MEAN it was involved with, related to, or started by the violence. This article ONLY stated they happened at the same time. That is the definition of coincided.

To lj""""

Really

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction

.Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

George Bush
Radio address, October 5, 2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

George Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio speech,
October 7, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.

Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons
. Ari FleischerPress BriefingJanuary 9, 2003

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."
Colin PowellRemarks to UN Security CouncilFebruary 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George Bush

Radio Address
February 8, 2003

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Vice President Dick Chaney
March 16, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari FleisherPress BriefingMarch 21, 2003

on Iraq WMD

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview

To..Jax

Look up Operation Desert Fox

Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Origins: All
the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.

....http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

larry: Repubs are working for the betterment of the country. Just because they didn't win the WH doesn't mean that they are supposed to roll over and play dead and let Obama destroy the country. The dems failed to elect 535 members of Congress. So, they don't get carte blanche to destroy the country. As long as there are those who appreciate this country and are willing to fight for it, then there will be opposition to what the dems are doing to it. All one has to do is look at what each side has proposed. The dems have proposed nothing that helps the country.

On the issue of the film, I get a boot out of the fact that Obama's PR machine is still lying to the public (which we know will never stop). The idea of the violence in the middle east and the killing of our Ambassador in Libya being caused by this dumb video has been totally debunked. Yet, here they are trying to again attribute the violence to the video.

raleigh dolly

Once again MSNBC does not publish the correct facts. This video did not spark the attack on 9/11 at the US consulate in Benghazi. Does MSNBC keep up with what is really going on a daily basis? We now know this was a well-planned terror attack, and the Obama administration (via Susan Rice) lied to the American people until after the election.

______________________________________________________________

Well said raleigh dolly,,,,,,,,

,,,, your post is spot on. Thank you !

______________________________

.

Hello Amanda,,,, once again,,,

,,,,,who are you working for ? (You never responded first time I asked several days ago.)

.

Amunaka

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"

.Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

(and on and on ),,,,,,

#1.42 - Sat Dec 1, 2012 12:07 PM PST

_______________________________________________________________________

Thank you Amunaka,,,,,

That is a fine statement to some of the lies supporting the war crimes committed by the Bush administration/criminal empire.

(It is important we remember the lies of our government, right up to the present.)

IDO,

You're confusing an establishment clause issue, with a free speech issue. That nativity scene was banned, because the same consideration could not be given to all faiths and non-faiths, in addition to it being on publically funded land.

That's not the case with a video on YouTube. And, YES, I think this judge made the correct ruling. You all want to talk about liberals being hypocrits, yet check out your so-called "small government" agenda.

Amunaka....That was my point. Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi and Berger ALL said Iraq had WMDs back in 1998. All of them. There was NO context ANYWHERE that proves they DIDN'T believe Iraq had them. NONE!!

But go ahead...prove those quotes from 1998 (well before Bush took office) were taken "out of context"...give the "full quotes" and context where Clinton, Pelosi, Berger and Albright said they DIDN'T believe Iraq had WMDs...go on, I'll wait...

You can't call Bush a liar in 2001 and 2002 when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 FOR THE EXACT SAME reason...the belief that Iraq had WMDs. And NO ONE believed, at that time, for a second that Clinton's Desert Fox wagging-the-dog would have completely destroyed Iraq's capabilities:

Other critics, such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the attacks did not go far enough: "I would be amazed if a three-day campaign made a decisive difference," Kissinger said just after the operation ended.

[W]e did not do, in my view, enough damage to degrade it [Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction] for six months. It doesn't make any significant difference because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are and we cannot keep repeating these attacks. [...] At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be two to three years from now. If Saddam is still there, if he's rearming, if the sanctions are lifted, we will have lost, no matter what spin we put on it.

Stop trying to rewrite history. Clinton wouldn't have bombed Iraq if he didn't think they had WMDs. So you can't say Bush lied, and Clinton didn't.

To Jax"""

I'm not the one trying to rewrite history here again look up Operation Desert Fox...it apparently was a success... If you would of read the link from snopes it puts those quotes in context so wait all you want it's all there

Henry Kissinger ..wow

And you can't blame dems for cheney/bush's war of choice based on lies ...the quotes I provided were real time quotes not something they got from the dems past tense.. ..sorry if I ruffled your feathers but blaming the Iraq war on dems ..don't work and you know it..

More Vietnam War Papers Released

Kissinger Told China U.S. Could Accept Communist Takeover

By Calvin WoodwardAssociated Press
Saturday, May 27, 2006; Page A22

Henry A. Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops -- even as the war to drive back the communists dragged on with mounting deaths.

President Richard M. Nixon's envoy told Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai: "If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

Kissinger's blunt remarks surfaced from a collection of papers released yesterday by George Washington University's National Security Archive. The collection, from his years of diplomacy, was made up of documents available at the National Archives and obtained through the research group's declassification requests.

Kissinger's comments appear to lend credence to the "decent interval" theory posed by some historians who say the United States was prepared to see communists take over Saigon as long as, to save face, that happened long enough after a U.S. troop departure.

But Kissinger cautioned in an interview yesterday against reaching easy conclusions from his words of more than three decades ago. "One of my objectives had to be to get Chinese acquiescence in our policy," he said.

"We succeeded in it, and then when we had achieved our goal, our domestic situation made it impossible to sustain it," he said, explaining that he meant Watergate and its consequences.

The papers consist of about 2,100 memorandums of Kissinger's secret conversations with senior officials abroad and at home from 1969 to 1977 while he served under Nixon and President Gerald R. Ford as national security adviser, secretary of state and both. The collection contains more than 28,000 pages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601926.html

Sometimes you have to read posts from Amunaka to believe it.

People like him claim Iraq had WMDs in 1998....but not in 2001.

Then, they think for one second that a piddly little 3 day bombing in Iraq magically would have wiped out all those WMDs that they surely had proof of...and that there would have been no way, whatsoever, for Iraq to re-start that WMD operation (you know, the one they claimed was REAL in 1998, thus the bombing) and build more WMDs in three years. Nope. Impossible...Saddaam sure would have learned his lesson from Desert Fox. Yeah, that's it!

Because the proof of WMDs in 1998, was real... of course.

Unfortunately, even as he laughably tries to rewrite history and have you believe that the democrats had REAL proof of WMDs in 1998, but no one did in 2001 of 2002, that pesky little UN 1441 resolution just keeps getting in the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Darn those pesky facts. Of course, the UN was lying, too, right?

To..Jax"""

And ...so it was the UN now huh...

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

January 24, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations

The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.

"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/#cnnSTCText

Amunaka...NOWHERE in any of the quotes I posted from the democrats in 1998 suggest that they DIDN'T believe Sadaam had WMDs. NOWHERE. What was "taken out of context?" Again, show me where in snopes, or ANYWERE for that matter where Clinton, Albright, Pelosi, Berger, et al, said they didn't REALLY think Sadaam had WMDs. Show me what was "taken out of context." Stop referring me to that article and deflecting the question...Clinton wouldn't have bombed Iraq if he didn't believe those things he said in those quotes.

Explain to me how the democrats "proof" (and what that "proof" was) of WMDs was any more "real" in 1998 than the "proof" in 2001 and 2002.

I'm sorry that the reality of the UN and1441 offends you...it obviously did because you won't even address it.

So let's all understand the left's version of history... Bush was lying, Cheney was lying, the UN was lying...everyone was lying about WMDs in 2001 and 2002....but the democrats were all telling the truth about WMDs in 1998. Everyone clear?

Close the Fed:

I work for a renewable energy company as a receptionist/administrative assistant and biometrics technician.

Any other questions?

wire557 claims:

No, it's a refusal to kiss arab ass and give in to terrorism

Nobody, especially me, is suggesting that we "kiss arab ass" or give in to terrorism. I suspect he, like so many other bigots, equates all muslims as either being terrorists or sympathetic to them. It's really sad that ignorance like that is so pervasive.

I didn't expect to change your bigotry. It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts.

Close the Fed:

I work for a renewable energy company as a receptionist/administrative assistant and biometrics technician.

______________________________________________________

Thanks Amanda,,, I enjoy your posts.

It is just that you seem to tow the administration line word for word in your support for Susan Rice.

(And in this case, the administration is covering their ass for lying and inept handling of the entire affair.)

Thanks again Amanda, for your thoughtful posts.

The truth hurts doesn't it wire557? That's the source of your tears.

OH shut up. Islam is as violent...if not more violent a religion than Christianity. As a matter of fact, ALL relgion should be abolished...it's mans vanity to say there is any one powerful and ruling religion, and Muslims are pushing very hard to make that a reality, to make THEIR religion that ONE religion. Just like people leaving the Christian faith, Muslims will soon find their own kind leaving the Islamic faith, because it's becoming to violent and overpowering. For me, I consider myself Wiccan and I at least try to respect the views of all others, even if my views are not nor ever respected. I don't go out sacrificing people or committing mass murders in the name of my religion...and that's what Islamic terrorist do on a daily basis, here in the US and around the world. There's just VERY little that is good about Islam...and to be fair, Christianity now adays.

I actually know many muslims as my job has me working with them as colleagues and clients. All of the Muslims I know are just like the rest of Americans except they are usually way more moderate. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the extremists are that squeaky wheel. It's just like how many Christians are totally moderate as well but then we see Fred Phelps and the 700 club and other extremists... America ignores the religion of our murders yet we highlight it in other countries.

My point? Extremism in all senses is bad. Especially so in religion.

Hey MSNBC, why not a article about the 8 Christians sentenced to death in Egypt because of their Religion? Mohammad was a pervert, not a Prophet. " Attacking Islam with a video is much different than the KILLING of Christians in the Countries that have a Muslim majority. While here in the USA Tyler Perry thinks Obama is the Christ.....The Church of the Failure.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in!

OH shut up. Islam is as violent...if not more violent a religion than Christianity

Both are as violent as they can get. Christianity may be more so because they tried to impose their beliefs on Muslims calling them savages in the crusades.

Christianity may be more so because they tried to impose their beliefs on Muslims calling them savages in the crusades.

Islam grew through forcible conquest. I'd be hard-pressed to judge which faith was more violent. Zealots, of any faith, are some of the most violent, dangerous people around.

GoldfishTheDestroyer

Well, people did lose their lives in the following violence. It was noble of her to try and have the video removed.

At least it is noble of you to ascribe altruistic motives to her desire to have the video removed from You Tube. I'm not so sure of her motives. Not to mention that removing something from You Tube after it has been posted is a lot like trying to get toothpaste back into the tube.

I read above the producer is in jail. Seems to me he is being punished for free speach yea i know they said he broke parole but the gov will do what is necesary to accomplish its agenda of bending over for the muslim world that we should not even be concerned with. If we can disrespect God and other religeons what is so special about the muslim religeon.

@Coastal Exchange - You are so right. I have Muslim friends here in the US and Egypt. They are appalled over the extremists of their religion and are ashamed about what those extremists have done. Christians are the same way and killed Lord knows how many during the Crusades (convert or die). Yes that happened 800-900 years ago but it happened. All because the Vatican wanted total control. This whole damned mess be it planned or over this "film" is sad. I think that they were planning the attack and this "film" sent it over the edge. We'll never know the truth because unless the attackers come forward and say why, all we can do is speculate. No matter who takes credit for the attack or what they say was the reason in their "press release" can we really believe it? They are extremists and will say anything to confuse and make a situation even more convoluted.

It might be a freedom of speech issue in Egypt or Libya, but it never was an infraction of freedom of speech in America. I voted for Obama, I'm glad he was re-elected, and I'm happy that Freedom of Speech prevails here. Now, if we can get the Republicans to stop trying to erase the Constitutionally protected Individual Liberty of (pregnant) women - by giving power to government which it does not now possess - that would wonderful!

SOME might wish death on her but most of the muslims I've talked to about it could care less! I've been told several times that they view that "images of Mohammed" rule as being for Muslims only so in this case it was offense only but not worth getting all heated up about. Christians felt the same way when Jesus is made fun of Southpark or something else. Yes, there are Eric Randolphs and Tim McVeighs out there that will blow themselves or others up for Christianity too.

My solution; clearly draw the line in the sand with Church and State. America is hypocritical for partially advocating a "Christian Nation" while simulaneously slamming other countries for doing their version of the same.

Islam and Christianity are the same; both based off the same wacky rules so both religion's fundamentals are evil.

If a non Muslim is the devil or whatever they think he or she is how can they be in the least offended if that person does not adhear to one of their beliefs? Along with being stupid thats almost insane....

Seems to me the only way you would adhere to a rule would be if you believed in the entire package and most Muslims believe the rule on Mohammed is for Muslims anyway.

I bet the Judge was an old, white, republican. The war on women continues......IN EGYPT

You all are damn morons...it has been proven that the video WAS NOT the source of all the violence, especially in Bengahzi...those attacks were already planned out and Obama and the White House LIED about it. Read the damn facts.

.it has been proven that the video WAS NOT the source of all the violence

....

Yes...silence...keep it that way, because you know it's the truth about that dang video....!!!!

oooo my ..... kind of like the difference between a movie based on the records of those who carried out the murders of milliions in communist Russia and comparing it to a movie that makes fun of the victims (the tsunami example). Apples and oranges.

Greg, Benghazi has little to do with this. Fox News has a massive boner for Benghazi right now but the facts are that there were demonstrations all over the mid-east specifically because of that video. Benghazi happened in the midst of that and at first, it was thought that Benghazi was involved... OMG WHAT A GIANT CONSPIRACY!!! Lol, totally laughable that it's in Fox's boner alert world. Talk about "tempest in a teacup".

Well, the rest of the world now knows that the riots were not caused by the film. We were told it was so because of an election.

@Greg, as to Benghazi, what facts are you talking about? The fact that Security was requested or the fact that $440,000 was given to the Congressional Republicans in charge of security to provide security long before Ambassador Stevens even left for Benghazi. The fact that Republicans broke Protocol by not inviting any Democrats to be on the Investigative Committee. The Senatorial Security Committee, which is being run by Republicans at this time are hiding something. You have to be one big time Idiototic Moron to realize that there is more here than meets the Eye. Don't you Clowns ever get tired of taking long walk off short Piers?

Greg said:

...it has been proven that the video WAS NOT the source of all the violence, especially in Bengahzi...those attacks were already planned out and Obama and the White House LIED about it. Read the damn facts.

Here's what I found;

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

Jeeeze...

A coptic christian from Egypt makes a movie that sprarks riots across the muslim world causing death and destruction and it's liberals who are aganist free speech

what on earth is wrong with you cons ..

Coastal Exchange

Fox News has a massive boner for Benghazi ... OMG WHAT A GIANT CONSPIRACY!!! Lol, totally laughable that it's in Fox's boner alert world. Talk about "tempest in a teacup".

_________________________________________________

Hey Coastal Exchange,,,,,,,

I also used to think it was at least entertaining to see what the brainwashed were exposed to on Fox news. I almost felt it was positive (or at least fun) to be up on what those "genius's" were thinking.

But after two years now of just not turning on that garbage , I can't tell you what a positive affect it has on ones day.

It is just so easy and so cleansing to simple ignore Fox news and never turn it on. (The world would be a better place if more informed people did the same.)

It simply doesn't matter how "popular" Fox news is. (When you get right down to it, over all, we are a pretty dumb nation.)

"So in other words it is a documentary!"

Yes, poorly acted but what little I could see based on written records and fairly true to those records.

Right on JohnnyZap, that's how I feel about Jesus too btw. I find most religions "saviors" totally ridiculous.

Do you know Mohammed personally? What is this Documentary based on Facts, or Assumptions?

johnnyZap said:

Oh yeah, lets worship some shumck who had a little girl of 9. No wonder mooslims are so screwed up.

Joseph and Mary were Middle-Eastern Jews.

Jewish law at the time held as sacred God's commandment to 'Be fruitful and multiply'. To that end, the minimum marrying age for girls was set at around 9 and the minimum marrying age for boys was 16. A girl could be engaged as young as nine, though not married until she was cpapble of bearing children, so a Jewish girl could be engaged as young as 9 and married to her betrothed somewhere between 9 and 14.

The Bible itself says that Mary was engaged to Joseph but not yet married when God decided to make her pregnant with Jesus. Therefore, by the laws of the time, Mary would have been somewhere between 9 and 14 when she gave birth to Jesus.

(If a woman had reached her late teens without having had a child yet she was anathema, ostracized or maybe even stoned, because she was a violation of God's command to be frutiful and multiply.)

This is all true, but considering the average life span was close to 40, a 20 year-old person was "middle-aged" and by early 35, if they even lived that long, would be in their "golden" years. Kind of different when you look at today's lifespans.

Bro, just for saying "I'm not religious", I promise you that more Christians in THIS country hate us than Muslims do just because of our nationality. 100,000? I'm sure we'd get 1,000,000 American Christian taliban types feeling worse about us. Non-belief, Atheism, agnostics, etc...must mean your a demon, right?

By and large, these "terrorists" are ignorant poor or come from poverty; just like our gang situations here. The middle-class in that region don't give a squirt about this film and they know it was just some crazy Christian / Jewish dude trying to start more trouble.

The one that demands you convert or kill your neighbors.

Not the one that preaches kindness and love.

Depending on your perspective, of course.

Greg how does Steve sound bias?

Dennis said:

Those records are of his beginnings as an illiterate desert bandit robbing his competitors pack trains, the torture of people after the destruction of conquered cities (even the torture of an old woman for the crime of denying his religion), his greed, rapes and lust for power with "revelations" that changed to fit immediate political goals.

And how is that different from what is recorded in the Christian Bible:

And they went waging war against Midian, just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, and they proceeded to kill every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the others slain, namely, Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; and they killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. But the sons of Israel carried off the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and all their dometic animals and all their livestock and all their means of maintenance they plundered. And all their cities in which they had settled and all their walled camps they burned with fire. And they went taking all the spoil and all the booty in the way of humans and domestic animals. And they came bringing to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the assembly of the sons of Israel the captives and the booty and the spoil to the camp, to the desert plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho. Numbers 31: 7-12

Then Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chieftains of the assembly went out to meet them outside the camp. And Moses grew indignant at the appointed men of the combat forces, the chiefs of the thousands and the chiefs of the hundreds who were coming in from their military expedition. So Moses said to them, “Have you preserved alive every female? Look! They are the ones who, by Balaam’s word, served to induce the sons of Israel to commit unfaithfulness toward Jehovah over the affair of Peor, so that the scourge came upon the assembly of Jehovah. And now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with man by lying with a male. And preserve alive for yourselves all the little ones among the women who have not known the act of lying with a male.” Numbers 31: 13-17

As for human souls from the women who had not known the act of lying with a male, all the souls were thirty-two thousand. Numbers 31:35

"And how is that different from what is recorded in the Christian Bible"

I do believe by christian bible you mean the new testament? The old testament is pretty brutal. Compare the islamic approval if not requirement to lie to those not a follower if it advances the "religion". The approval of cheating a non-believer. Did the christian "prophet" rape pillage torture and amass power and wealth? What other "religion", for that matter, has eyewitness accounts of the actions of the founder written by those involved that approach that level? Heck even myself as an atheist can see the difference.

Not that your question is relevent to the records of this particular "prophet".

It's also a little bit "absurd" to tell her that she "willingly" gave up her RIGHTS when upon being "duped" out of them, without ever even looking into and first "materially and factually" answering to her being "duped" (deFRAUDED out of her Rights).

A restraining order is generally only issued when it looks like evidence looks appears so overwhelming that the plaintiff is likely to prevail at a trial. If this actress signed a release or contract (which she apparently does not dispute), the onus is on her to prove that the contract was executed under fraudulent circumstances. That's a heavy burden of proof and there is no certainty that she would prevail.

You're advocating that this actress should be allowed shut down a film simply on the basis of unproven accusations. The judge did the right thing. If the actress prevails at trial, appropriate remedies can be imposed.

Barry-NJ, #14.1- Thank you so much for replying.

Going off nothing but this article, itself, (not the actual transcript of the Hearing), it says "the Judge [held] that even if she could prove a legitimate copyright interest in her film performance, she effectively relinquished her rights to producers of the film."

The Judge is "effectively" putting the question of "burden of proof" before even whether it is a heavy burden or not, to the side and is wrongly "effectively, pre-judicially and arbitrarily" deciding that she willingly, in the absence of the question of Fraud, relinquished her rights to the producers of the film. He is not even allowing "the question" of if Fraud existed to exist. It's a whole "nuther" story if you signed something and "effectively" relinquished your Rights under Fraudulent circumstances. Again, I haven't seen any actual transcripts or the actual 3 page ruling. I'm advocating that this film should be shut down, by "temporary", or preliminary Injunction because there is enough questioning that has been raised that needs to be answered. One of the 4 prongs of an Injunction is also that the other Party will not be substantially harmed if the Injunction were to be granted. I do not agree and actually OBJECT to the need for a showing of a "likelihood of success" on the merits, as that being too pre-judicially speculative and arbitrary, as I've already stated and think that it (that prong) should be more along the lines of a showing of the merits, including raised questioning, vs frivolity, instead; and actually don't know why it isn't.

Anyway, there's my mid-long short answer, in no way complete, I'm sure. Thank you, again, for replying. I just got back here and noticed a poster, Amanda-2017567, who seems to have very much interesting to say (and did, and I'm going to go back and read some more so I'll be around this post if you want to further reply. And would look forward to it.)

Mystery Rhee:

Per my post above regarding criteria for something NOT being covered by free speech, here's what I believe:

Criteria 1: Clear and Present Danger--Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation?

I would argue that given the volatile situation that everyone knows currently exists between Westerners and Middle Eastern extremists, that yes, the producer of the film knew that the movie could potentially incite illegal action.

Criteria 2: Fighting Words--Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

No.

Criteria 3: Libel and Slander--Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading?

I would argue that it was. To describe the holy figure of another religion as a pedophile would be applying the standards of today to actions which were normal in the sixth century; so while yes, it is true that Mohammed's wife was a child bride, putting that in the context of today's standards of 'pedophilia' does make a true statement misleading. People seem to like pointing out that Mohammed was a pedophile while forgetting the fact that Mary was likely a child bride and teen mother herself (see my post at 7.4.)

Criteria: Obscenity--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?

Having not seen the entire three hour movie, I would have to say I'm not qualified to make that assessment, but if you take only the trailer, I would say that this is borderline--yes, it evokes an indecent, prurient interest in the sexual conduct of others (namely the Muslim Prophet Mohammed).

2) Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?

Having not seen the entire three hour movie, this could also not be determined, and also because different people have different perspectives on what they find offensive. A couple years back at my job I sent a mass email out to my coworkers with the subject line 'Happy Easter' and then in the body of the email, I put 'or happy non-denominational celebration day!' because there are a couple of persons working in the building who are not Christian (in a company founded and run by devout Seventh-Day Adventists). The Exec Assistant went to HR and informed HR that she found my email to have been personally offensive because, as she put it, 'it felt like she gave me my holiday and then took it away from me'. I was suspended for a day for 'misuse of company property'. Offensive would then be a personally subjective descriptive term and therefore difficult to prove. However, I do have a couple of Muslim friends who saw the clip and found it funny rather than offensive--just like Jeff Dunham and his ventriloquist puppet Achmed The Dead Terrorist.

3) Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Again this is subjective and I would be unable to determine this as I have not seen the whole work. However, based on the trailer, I would find it lacks 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.

Now, while I don't agree with taking the movie down because of national security issues, i will say that the production of it interfered with legitimate social interest--namely, that it is evidence of a convicted criminal violating his federal parole/probation terms.

Criteria: Time, Place, and Manner--Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest?

See above. Yes. Ensuring that a convicted criminal followed the terms of his parole/probation is a legitimate government interest, and by violating the terms of his parole (not to engage in fraud/misrepresentation, no access to internet without prior approval from his parole/probation officer, not using aliases) he did use a method of communicationg that interfered with a legitimate government interest.

Here's a link to this guy's parole order:

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/innocence-muslim-filmmaker-probation-bank-fraud-56531

Now, all that being said, I do agree with the judge's ruling. Though I haven't seen the transcripts of the hearing, I don't think that the actress proved her copyright issue adequately as grounds for the video to be pulled, and I also don't think that even if she did, it would still not be pulled. We as a community will have to leave it up just to prove to the rest of the world that we are serious about our rights to free speech, that even if we find it personally offensive we will defend another's right to speak freely.

However, the right to speak freely does not absolve one of the possible consequences of exercising that right. And one of those 'consequences' is that this filmmaker was proven to have violated his parole, so I support his being in jail. Identity theft, bank fraud, stealing other peoples' money by stealing their social security numbers--those are serious, and identifty theft can, and has, ruined people's lives.

Amanda-2017567, # 14.3- Wow! A LOT to digest. AND, continued GREAT information that you've put out here. Although my very first reaction is that you seem to have "clubbed" yourself over the head with all that you've put out there, at the end:). Thank you for replying, also!

I'm going to take some time to re-read and continue to digest for a while, probably throughout this day, and hope to be able to get back to this post this evening to actually try and "expand" on what you've put out here. Again, immediately, my first reaction in that regard was to expansion, involving a few different things, including "Free Speech", as in this situation being viewed as an actual, tangible and "literal" end product posession and inadmissability as in The Fourth Amendment; and Google's possible unwarranted interference in Governmental Affairs by the crossing of International Borders to ban the film to certain Middle East Countries and how that they may actually be conversely playing a part in fanning the flames, etc......

All this just quickly off-the-top of my head this morning as reading your post, above. But again, before having even, yet, digesting anything of your post, which I intend to do. Please feel free to jump ahead and ask or comment on any of the above things that I've just quickly raised, if you'd like. I would look forward to it, if you would be so inclined.

One last thing, here....I thought everything was about a 13 minute trailer on YouTube, not a 3 hour film! Although I'm pretty sure that [that] isn't going to change my position on The Judge's Ruling, to the best of my knowledge and belief; and to Due Process, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

Mystery Rhee said:

Amanda-2017567, # 14.3- Wow! A LOT to digest. AND, continued GREAT information that you've put out here. Although my very first reaction is that you seem to have "clubbed" yourself over the head with all that you've put out there, at the end:). Thank you for replying, also!

I tend to get overly wordy when I respond to stuff, but I don't want to take the chance that something I say could be mistaken, so I err on the side of being thorough.

Yes, I did sort of negate everything I said in the rest of the post with the last paragraph; however, this was a reaction to the ruling. I do not think that this movie qualifies for protection under the Free Speech Amendment clause, but as the judge has decided differently, my opinions don't count.

YouTube/Google/Internet authorities have a legal responsibility to abide by the laws of the country in which a viewing population resides. Remember, when in Rome, do as the Romans do--even if you're not Roman. So the countries in which a specific viewing population resides has a legal right to ask that an internet provider block/ban a certain piece of offensive content, and although Internet authorities have a legal right not to acquiesce to said demand, it (from a business standpoint) may not be in their best interest to do so, as that country could pull their license to do business and in countries where the government owns the communications systems, ban the content anyway at the governmental level.

And in a day and age of instant information sharing and global interconnectedness, if someone in a country in which the movie was banned really wanted to see it, all they have to do is email someone in a country in which it is not banned and say 'hey, can you send it to me'... and voila. In my opinion banning content on the internet is an exercise in futility. There are ways around that kind of thing.

Now, that being said, I agree with you, it's just fanning the flames, but in a good way--have you seen some of the comments on MSN Pakistan or Google India and other middle Eastern countries? The majority of opinion out there among educated middle-Eastern, non-Islamic-fundamentalist bloggers is that the movie was a poorly-made cheap shot made by a Coptic Christian at a religion he neither understands or tries to understand anything about. Mindless drivel, according to one Eqyptian doctor, and the Brit Muslims find it absolutely hilarious. One friend I have is a recent British Muslim immigrant and she thought it was a comedy spoof, a'roast', so to speak. 'Is this really the image you have of Muslims? No wonder you hate us!' and when one of our Christian friends said they were offended on her behalf she just rolled her eyes and told that friend to 'lighten up.'

The more the governments of those middle Eastern countries tries to crack down on that 'free speech', the more people will want to see it just to see what the fuss is about...and the more Muslims are going to realize it's much ado about nothing and the more alienated the Muslim population is going to be from the extremist fanatics.

One last thing, here....I thought everything was about a 13 minute trailer on YouTube, not a 3 hour film! Although I'm pretty sure that [that] isn't going to change my position on The Judge's Ruling, to the best of my knowledge and belief; and to Due Process, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

The trailer on YouTube was 13-15 minutes. Reportedly there is an entire 3 hour movie. Back when this story first broke, it was reported that the full thee hour movie was screened in a CA theater and people were hired to stand outside the theater and invite people to come in and screen it. No one was interested.

When a company makes a movie they don't have a target audience for, they will screen it in a couple of small theaters. People who are interested walk in, watch, and if they like it they spread it by word of mouth. More people will come to that theater to see it. Other theaters hear about this and will pay the studio to be able to screen the movie in their theaters. And it just goes on from there. It happens all the time with independent movies--that's what happened to 'Paranormal Activity'. It was a small independent film, low-budget, people went in to see the screening, liked it, word of mouth spread until all theaters wanted to carry the move and it opened nationwide, got rave reviews and was eventually released to DVD...then another one was made, and another..and the rest is history.

Also look at the success of Natalie Portman's 'Black Swan'--small independent film screened in only a few theaters, got such good reviews, and an online petition signed by thousands who heard good things about it and wanted to see it..and the rest is history.

Thank YOU for replying with sensible, logical rationalizations rather than the profanity-laced attacks that seem to be popular on Newsvine whenever anyone disagrees with the person speaking.

Voiceofreason-4150823, #17- The Antichrist, as a "Dynamic", is a "necessary", if not "the" beginning necessary component, in the whole plot of the story that is "Revelations", No?

I believe the root meaning of the word Religious, as far as merit goes, is "to consider carefully".

President Obama never once suggested taking it down. He just decried the violence that arose from it.

Moses would have known the world wasn't flat. But he never bothered to tell the Israelites while they were wandering for 40 years out in the desert...

Jesus never bothered to tell his disciples that either.

And exactly what did he prophesy? Isn't that what prophets are supposed to do? "Why, of course I speak to God, and he tells me what will happen before it actually does!"..............."Pardon me, Mister Prophet, but we need you to put this nice long-sleeved shirt on, so we can take you back to your nice padded room at the Laughing Academy."

Sure, but he'd only push the message that lined his pockets and furthered his control.

The actress was hired to act in a film called 'Desert Warrior'--that was the title given in the internet casting call. And she was told it was a Lawrence of Arabia type movie. If she only acted in a few scenes, then she might never have seen any of the other scenes and never known what the full film was about. Actors/actresses are not given the entire script, they are only given scripts for the scenes in which they are to act.

Not to mention which, according to what I've read, the words the actors originally spoke were dubbed over later with new content.