If sombody takes an action that they *know* will provoke an attack on the US,

[magical thyme]

knowing that attack is likely to result in violence and death of US officials, is that treason?

If they intend that the US be attacked and that US citizens and officials be killed, and take action that they know is likely to lead to those deaths, is that treason?

Or does hiding behind "free speech" somehow make it legal, so ok?

Or is it legal and/or ok because somebody else did the actual killing, even though they intended it and took specific actions they expected to produce the result?

[CJCRANE]

1. The protests may be a red herring.

It's possible the attack on the consulate in Benghazi had nothing to do with the protests or just used them as a distraction.

ETA: But your point still has some validity because the protests could easily get out of hand.

[magical thyme]

4. which leads to another possibility...

What if the film was deliberately used to spark the protest as cover for the infiltration?

That filmmaker may well have either deliberately been part of an al qaeda operation.

Or may have had his hate film translated and used by al qaeda as cover for their infiltration and attack.

[CJCRANE]

8. Yes, there was definitely a strange combination of events.

It'll take a few days to untangle the facts. The news cycle may have moved on by the time we get a clearer picture of what happened.

[get the red out]

2. It's happened right here

People have listened to RW hate radio extensively and ended up killing people, like the guy that shot up the Unitarian Church in Tenn.

There is always danger involved in free speech, I guess it's up to the people of any country to decide if there is an extent to freedom of speech that is too far. A question I don't have an answer to.

It does look now like the death of our diplomats in Libya was from a planned Al Quaida attack, which would mean that the people protesting the film were innocent of murder and just protesters.

[magical thyme]

9. either way, the majority of the protesters were just protesters.

But it opens the possibility that the translation and airing of the clip was done by al qaeda with the intention of sparking a protest at the right time as cover for their attack. If so, that would make it part of terrorism.

I'm referring specifically to attacks on the government.

Free speech does not come without license. In this case, the filmmaker admits he expected the consequences of his film. He intended it.

I think if you take actions that you reasonably expect to lead to an attack on the US government, that it rises to the level of treason.

[Lint Head]

3. The Glen Beck videos incited the rock throwing at Hillary. I would say the far right knows this

technique works so they are trying it to the max to cause an incident.

[Blue Meany]

5. I think, in this case, this actually may have been intended to stir up a conflict

between Israel and Egypt. It is pretty clear now that the film was the brain child of an antil-Muslim Coptic group in southern California, headed by Morris Sandek. Sam Bacile, the supposed Israeli-American film-maker does not exist. Israel can find no record of him, the Jewish community has never heard of him, and there is no record of land developer by that name in Southern California. Steve Klein a "consultant" on the film, who is close to Sandek, admits that this is a pseudonym.

[Marrah_G]

6. No- we don't tailor our rights to placate religious extremists.

[X_Digger]

26. +1. Heckler's Veto doesn't fly here. n/t

[msongs]

7. people choose their behaviors in reponses. nothing has been provoked here nt

[magical thyme]

18. this thread isn't about the attackers (who may have been al qaeda)

this thread is about somebody who deliberately took action that he has admitted he knew would provoke protests and possible violence against the US and did so with that intent.

In your universe, humans may be totally rational beings who don't react without thinking or who shrug off what they see as personal attacks on their way of life (in the wake of actual physical attacks on their way of life). In the real world, people are not always rational beings, or at least are not rational from our perspective, but are rational from their own context.

Furthermore, if the attackers were al qaeda, then there is nothing that says he didn't deliberately make and release this film in order to provide them cover for their attack.

[cali]

10. the protests were used as a diversion by an group who had planned an organized attack

and no, free speech of the kind you're referring to isn't treason.

And don't use the bullshit phrase "hiding behind free speech". It denigrates the very foundation of democracy and one of the major reasons we don't have a lot of political violence in this country.

So yes, it's almost certainly legal to make a hateful movie denigrating a religion or religious figure and lying about it.

[magical thyme]

13. And don't use the bullshit phrase "hiding behind free speech".

I'll use whatever phrase I choose, thank you very much. Just exercising *my* right to free speech!

I'm just wondering where the line is crossed. We freak out on this board when Rush Limbaugh and others encourage their followers to kill liberals, kill the President, etc.

At what point is the line crossed from exercising free speech to hate speech, to treason, to inciting violence, to committing a crime?

Free speech doesn't come without consequences. It doesn't come without license.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Is it incitement when

gay rights advocates "inflame the passions" of anti-gay factions in the US?

[snooper2]

11. Simple answer, no

fundies need to get out and enjoy the beach more...

Maybe learn how to hook up some subs and pump this in their ride-

[jp11]

12. How about this is it murder when a swat team enters a building where an

armed gunman says he'll kill hostages if anyone tries to enter?

What you are asking is if it is okay to live out your life in one country where nothing you are doing is illegal yet be held accountable for some other illegal action in another country based on what you did legally.

It is a crazy person who kills others for being offended and no reason justifies that, not culture, and not religion.

Does it make the person who 'incited' it pure and innocent? Maybe or maybe not depending on what their intent was with their actions. This guy knew what likely COULD happen and had experience with it in the past but he still isn't guilty because crazy people did crazy things.

If you can prove he intended for people to die then you may have, I think, some legal basis to charge him but I don't see it without some evidence that he knew it could happen and he did it with that intent and desire.

[magical thyme]

16. he has already said in an interview that he knew it would happen and

said what his intentions were.

That is why I ask. I don't have to prove anything. He stated it outright in an interview.

I couldn't quite follow your first paragraph, but if I did understand it that becomes another issue, also important.

What he did was legal in our country, but not legal in the country where the film was published.

If an ordinary citizen goes to another country and breaks their laws, they *are* subject to those laws and while the US Consulate will do what they can to help you, there is a lot they can't do. We have seen citizens punished severely for breaking other country's laws while in their countries. There is only so much we can do.

[jp11]

21. I did not know that he had said that

I wasn't saying *you* had to prove it but more that the government etc.

I think at this point he should be taken into custody for a mental evaluation and if a DA thinks they have a case against him might be able to charge him with something. To me he is essentially saying he yelled FIRE in a crowded theatre and knew it would start a panic fully hoping it would and people would be at risk to die which is exactly why he yelled FIRE in a crowded theatre as he wanted that outcome.

He has a right to free speech he doesn't have an absolute right to speech that he knows and even intends to cause harm to others.

[magical thyme]

22. agreed on all points. nt

[CanonRay]

14. Free speech is limited; that's why Incitement to Riot is a crime

I actually think a prosecutor with some cojones could take this on.

[frylock]

23. a lot of people on this board appear to be ignorant regarding 1A..

believing it a license to say whatever one thinks.

[CBGLuthier]

15. I remember when fascist thugs were the only ones who referred to hiding behind the first amendment

as if it were scandalous. I think that the reaction of savages to being poked is the responsibility of savages not the poker.

[treestar]

24. True but then why poke them?

To prove they are savages? What do we get out of that?

Somebody is getting something out of this.

[rollin74]

17. no. the killers are entirely responsible for their own actions

the stupid film is just... a film. it didn't MAKE anyone do anything

[magical thyme]

19. then why is "hate" speech a crime here? and what is "incitement to riot?"

And, again, this thread isn't about the killers.

This thread is about the person who admits he produced the film knowing it would result in protests and possible violence against the US. And admits that was his intention in making the film.

[4th law of robotics]

20. Definitely. We should absolutely set our standards by what stone age religious fanatics

consider acceptable.

On that note we currently allow homosexuals, women, and non-muslims live and think they're people.

We should work on that. We don't want to incite them to more violence.

[Nye Bevan]

25. YES. If someone threatens violence if you say a certain thing, just don't say that thing!

Ever!

See how easy it is?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. It's a bad idea to consign your rights to a bully's veto.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I love it when people put scare quotes around "free speech"

Ooooo! Free speech! Booo! Hiss!