Would you have made that film had you known it would cause this kind of violence?

[cynatnite]

Most people would say they wouldn't and for very good reason. It's wrong for one thing and for another there is a history of violence and death over things like this.

Of course those responsible for the death and violence are at fault, but so are those who produced this.

[slackmaster]

1. I would, but it would be much better and I would make it look like someone else made it

[spanone]

2. made to incite violence.

[cindyperry2010]

3. some do not care

and they feel the reaction they got validates whatever idiotic point they thought they were making

[cynatnite]

5. I think you are exactly right. n/t

[Posteritatis]

16. I figured the reaction was not merely expected, but sought. (nt)

[magical thyme]

19. the filmmaker in this case wanted to incite violence

He said he knew it would. He intended it to demonstrate that Islam is "a cancer" on the world.

That is why I think he is guilty of some crime or another. His goal was a violent attack on America by proxy.

[aquart]

4. Wrong question.

Right question: Who would pay you to make this movie and release it now?

[Brigid]

7. Excellent question.

Classic "follow the money" scenario.

[Brigid]

6. Nope.

This little opus was made for one purpose and one purpose only: To provoke this kind of response. It's like poking a bear with a stick -- you know damn well what's going to happen.

[HopeHoops]

8. No.

[tjdee]

9. My film would have been damn well better made, for one thing.

For 5 million that's an embarrassment.

I also would not make a film mocking someone else's religious beliefs in such a manner. I think that is abhorrent, and the people who bankrolled this schlock should feel ashamed.

[-..__...]

10. Depends if DeNiro, Pachino or DiCaprio was available.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. The makers have every reason to believe their film would cause violence.

Remember the cartoon in Norway? 2010
Remember the burning of the Korans in Afghanistan? 2010
Or in Afghanistan? 2012

This film was done to cause violence, to spur Muslims into attacks.

The film was made by people with an agenda who want to incite hatred of Muslims.

Damn if it didn't work.

[HooptieWagon]

12. They knew the movie would provoke an angry response.

That was their intent, and they even translated it into arabic. Free speech is one thing, deliberately fanning the flames with hate speech falls outside that protection. No-one would be defending it if it were fanning flames of racism or anti-semitism.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. Absolutely not - I believe in peace and love whenever possible

but there's no film on Earth short of maybe WWII death camp footage that would ever compel me to murder another human being, either. The religious nuts on both sides can go fuck themselves.

[liberallibral]

14. I wouldn't have made THAT awful film, but I wouldn't hesitate to make a film...

...just because some ANIMALS might commit violence because they don't like it, and because they feel they have to right to kill people over cartoon, books or films...

[egduj]

15. They're as much as fault as the rape victim who was dressed like she was asking for it.

I hear ya!

[treestar]

18. That is all the rage but it just doesn't work as an analogy

Sex and rape have nothing to do with each other.

The cultural issues involved here are quite different. If you make fun of Mohamed, you know there's going to be some reaction and it's going to be related to your making fun of him. You know there is some tenderness of Muslim religious feeling out there. You're just doing it to anger some Muslims. A woman sexily dressed isn't doing it to be sexually available to everybody on their demand.

[treestar]

17. I agree they at least contributed

If they knew it would really make people mad, and there is some history of Muslim anger at such things - we may not understand it, but there's clearly some element there and it's more than just the religion - they don't have separation of religion and state.

[spanone]

20. some people's goal is to incite violence...i suspect the makers knew exactly the reaction they'd get

[nanabugg]

23. ++++1,000,000 nt

[TheKentuckian]

21. I wouldn't make this film but by the same token I wouldn't let extremist dictate my creative license

No one has a right not to be offended and if they try to enforce such should expect the reaction the behavior demands.

Acting fucking crazy should not be used as a ransom and placing blame on the film makers validates the tactic and builds incentive for more acts of violence.

No, the people who produced this bullshit are not also to blame. No, not even if they expected the reaction because the reactions is criminally insane and is not a reasonable reaction, no matter how predictable.
These folks are not in any responding to a threat to life or limb. They are saying that if they are offended then their will be violence. OFFENDED! Not threatened or harmed but offended. BULLSHIT!

If that is to be the deal then I am not interested in playing ball. There can be no peace save rolling over and to that I do not believe peace is a realistic or tolerable answer because I have little doubt that each cave will only bring new offenses.
Not interested, won't play along for a single round.

[hugo_from_TN]

22. The movie incited a protest. The violence had nothing to do with it.

That is revenge for OBL.