Another Film That Created a Violent Reaction

[MineralMan]

In 1915, D.W. Griffith directed a silent film, Birth of a Nation. That film was used for many years as a recruiting tool for the Ku Klux Klan, and its depiction of black men as animalistic rapists led to many violent situations and lynchings.

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

It was a deplorable movie, and helped cause people to do unspeakable things. Yet, the film is taught in film schools and is still shown as an example of the power of film to motivate people. There is no attempt to destroy this movie, and nobody is saying that it was a violation of the First Amendment. It was written and produced with the express intent of stirring up racial hatred. It is protected by the First Amendment.

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

Highly-charged speech that is designed to stir up emotions is protected under the First Amendment. Sometimes, that leads to terrible things happening. Sometimes, such speech is actually created by the government itself, as witnessed by the propaganda films of many nations, including the US, that stir up hatred of an enemy during wartime.

Such speech, writing, and publications are disgusting, and can cause misery and violence. Yet, such speech is protected. If it were not protected, any administration who was in power in the United States, for example, could make writing, film, and publications that encouraged protest against that administration illegal.

Sometimes, our freedom of speech produces material that is abhorrent. Sometimes bad things happen in response to such material. It is the price we pay to be able to produce writing, speech, film, and other things that create movements that go against the current state of affairs.

The people in Egypt, Libya, and other middle-eastern countries who did violent acts, for the most part, probably did not even see the short trailer for the movie in question. Others did, though, and stirred those people up into violent acts. The speech used to do that is illegal, even in the US. It's called "incitement to riot," and calls for immediate, specific acts of violence. It may be stimulated by some film or writing, but only the direct call to violent action is an incitement to riot. The source for the anger, in the present case, a poorly-made film attacking Mohammed, is not an incitement to riot, because it does not advocate any particular action. It is disgusting, deplorable, and should be condemned by people. It is not, however a violation of the law, and is protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

[MadHound]

1. Thank you for some sanity on this matter,

It seems to be sorely lacking around here.

[MineralMan]

4. I am disgusted by the violence in the Middle East.

It raises a lot of emotional response. And emotional responses often cause people not to think through the entire situation. I brought up Birth of a Nation, as an example of why freedom of speech is important, even though it sometimes produces abhorrent material.

[Go Vols]

63. +1

[jsr]

2. Agreed.

[cali]

3. Excellent comparison.

It is indubitably and absolutely protected speech.

The folks here and elsewhere who want it banned as "incitement" and are comparing it to yelling fire in a theatre, scare the bejeebus out of me.

[lunatica]

5. I would add that such films are of historic importance

History can never be overrated.

[MineralMan]

6. They are.

We still look at some of those old films to help us understand why things happened. But, it was more immediate things that stirred up the actual acts of violence.

Some of the writings that led to the American Revolution were considered illegal by the British Government. They were "seditious" and designed to create discord and revolutionary actions. Of course the British Government would prefer that they not be disseminated. And yet, we now revere those writings as fundamental to our system of government.

In order to preserve the right to publish unpopular ideas, the First Amendment is the first point of our Bill of Rights. It should be at the top of that list.

[Scuba]

7. Thought you were gonna go with "Reefer Madness". Your choice is better.

[MineralMan]

8. I always thought "Reefer Madness" was an ad for

dope-smoking.

Really, though, it's a good example of a propaganda film that owes a lot to "Birth of a Nation." In reality, most propaganda films owe a debt to D.W. Griffiths. The US Government made many propaganda films during WWII, for example, that demonized the Japanese people. In all of those, the same techniques used in "Birth of a Nation" were employed.

[awoke_in_2003]

25. I remember a project...

I did in a pop culture class in high school. It was on US propaganda during WWII. It was really interesting and eye opening, to say the least. Thanks for posting this.

[MineralMan]

32. There are a number of anti-Japanese propaganda films

produced by the US Government on YouTube. They're very informative to watch, but very, very frightening as well. Frightening in the sense that they were produced by our own government, with effects that lingered long after WWII.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. I will have to check them out...

since video was a hard thing (compared to today) to obtain in the 80's, most of the material I had available was print. Yes, it is shocking how dehumanizing the stuff was in regards to the Japanese. They were usually regarded on the level of animals, and always myopic.

[Progressive dog]

9. Freedom of speech is necessary for all other rights to exist

The film is protected speech, we may not like it, but most of us have learned that speech and action are not the same thing.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. That's why it's in the First Amendment.

Right up top. Without freedom of expression, possibilities die and hope for a better world dies as well.

[frazzled]

11. I don't think this is an apt comparison

First, to our knowledge, there is no Innocence "film" (or at least no human has come forward to say that they've seen it). There is a poorly made, cheap, embarrassingly bad 14-minute Internet video. Its sole purpose is to denigrate Muslims, and its sole objective was to incite its victims.

The Birth of a Nation, for better or worse, is a great film made by a great director that contains truly offensive material. I will not defend it, but let Roger Ebert explain to you the difference here:

Griffith and "The Birth of a Nation" were no more enlightened than the America which produced them. The film represents how racist a white American could be in 1915 without realizing he was racist at all. That is worth knowing. Blacks already knew that, had known it for a long time, witnessed it painfully again every day, but "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated it in clear view, and the importance of the film includes the clarity of its demonstration. That it is a mirror of its time is, sadly, one of its values.

To understand "The Birth of a Nation" we must first understand the difference between what we bring to the film, and what the film brings to us. All serious moviegoers must sooner or later arrive at a point where they see a film for what it is, and not simply for what they feel about it. "The Birth of a Nation" is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl’s “The Triumph of the Will,” it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil.

But it is possible to separate the content from the craft? Garry Wills observes that Griffith's film "raises the same questions that Leni Riefenstahl's films do, or Ezra Pound's poems. If art should serve beauty and truth, how can great art be in the thrall of hateful ideologies?"

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030330/REVIEWS08/303300301/1023

Please read Ebert's whole article for a better understanding of his argument. But to recap my point: Innocence of Muslims is a poorly made, cheap video whose sole purpose was to incite a reaction. Birth of a Nation, while equally reprehensible in its outlook, was a sad and evil reflection of its times but, minimally, had the aim of being a work of cinematic art. I don't see how you can compare the two. Both may be propaganda in a way, but one is worth studying for its virtues and follies. The other is a piece of crap, incendiary, worthless diatribe that we should not give the time of day.



Note on edits: Sorry, it's Saturday morning and I can't seem to type, spell, or edit very effectively at all yet!! More coffee.

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not talking about the quality of either film.

I'm talking about the right to make a film. That has nothing to do with the quality of the film at all. There are many films of terrible quality made each year. Some of them are box office hits, despite their poor quality.

You're confusing my support of the right to make a film with my opinion about the quality of the film. My point is that both films had similar, violent results that followed from the emotions they stirred in people. Quality is irrelevant. Rights are always relevant.

[frazzled]

14. The right to "make" is not in question

The right to distribute, in my opinion, is in question. I don't believe hate speech should be disseminated by a commercial site that claims to maintain terms of service rules, and which rejects material every single day. First Amendment absolutism is a fundamentalist position as much as any other fundamentalist position.

I believe YouTube should take it down. I believe it should not be posted on our own site here, as it is now.

[MineralMan]

15. Many people are questioning the right to make.

As for distribution, that's an issue to raise with each organization doing the distribution. Any YouTube member can object to any YouTube film, and we have an alert button here on DU.

Creation and distribution are two entirely separate things. There has been much talk against the creation of this film.

[frazzled]

18. That's like the tree in the forest argument

Make anything you want if nobody sees it: which would have been the case if YouTube had not chosen to, and not persisted in, distributing it. Millions of people, including the President of the United States, have alerted Google/YouTube that they object to its being shown. I have alerted (apparently to no avail) on its being posted here. Private sites have no obligation to observe first amendment principles ... they can only choose to do so.

[MineralMan]

21. Not really.

Your freedom to object and others' freedom to distribute are also protected by the First Amendment. It works all around. Your objection was ignored by YouTube and, apparently, by a jury of your DU peers on DU. Whether you agree with that or not, you objected, and that is an exercise of your freedom of speech.

Without that freedom, you would not be free to voice your objection, either. What protects one thing protects the opposite thing. If you give it up, it will be gone forever, and someone or some government will have the power to stop you from expressing your objection. You cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid.

[frazzled]

22. Posts are hidden and rejected all the time here

Rightly or wrongly. There is no free speech guarantee on this site, nor on YouTube, where as you know, thousands of videos are rejected every day for their content.

I think you're confused about private sites on the Internet. DU and YouTube are both private sites, not the government.

[MineralMan]

23. I'm not confused at all.

I'm simply saying that your right to object is the same as the right to publish. Publishers are protected by the First Amendment. Your right to object is also protected.

The publisher may decide to honor your objection or ignore it. Both are protected by the First Amendment.

I know the difference between government and private when it comes to the First Amendment.

[caseymoz]

29. Because it's privately owned.

And the government has no right to force private entity to publish something. It comes down to who owns the website resources. There's no contradiction to the First Amendment, and no way to force absolute free speech for everybody here without contradicting the First Amendment for the website owners.

The members, BTW, are still free to say what exactly what they want, but not necessarily using this website.

[frazzled]

33. Yeah, so is Google/YouTube

Which was my point. Their own terms of service suggest it shouldn't have been uploaded, due to "hate" content. But they could for any reason at any time remove it. They're private. But they won't. Why is that?

[caseymoz]

38. I didn't know, I haven't looked

Knowing some things about DMCA's on Youtube, (knowing a lot of atheists whose vids were taken down) I do know that it's likely anti-Muslims have mirrored it and keep putting it back up. It has been downloaded, and other websites have probably picked it up, too. It will almost impossible to get rid of it by now. I wouldn't doubt somebody incorporates it into a worm.

Those rioting people had better drink their Red Bulls.

[caseymoz]

39. And it also raises the question,

Why is criticism or parody of the prophet "hate speech"? It doesn't take or threaten anybody's life or any type of religious or ethnic cleansing. Hurting somebody's feelings very very much is different from hate speech, or even harassment.

[frazzled]

40. You don't think that was tantamount to hate speech?

What if someone made a video saying that gay people were pederasts and child molesters (some of the charges in the Muslim film), and then posses of right-wingers reacted by dragging some gay people from chains on the back of a truck, killing them.

Would you say that it was a "parody" and just fine?

What if someone made propaganda saying Jews were filthy swine who killed Jesus, ate Christian babies, and were responsible for the Depression in your country. And then everybody went into the streets and burned down all the synagogues and allowed 6 million Jews to be deported and killed? Oh, that happened. Was it just parody?

Words have consequences.

[caseymoz]

42. I think you don't know something here.

Mohammed was a pederast.

And that's according to Islamic sources. They make no secret of it and there's no disputing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives

One of his wives, Aisha bint Abu Bakr, was 7 years old when he married her, and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. That was young for even then. Mohammed was 53 at the time.

Do you still feel that calling him a pederast is out of bounds? So, there is a huge difference between saying it about gays and saying it about the Prophet. With him, it's true. Since that's the truth, it's fair game, and the rest of the film sounded like satire, or low comedy.

What bothered Muslims was not that the pederast part was a lie. What upset the rioters is 1) it's blasphemous in Islam to make a physical image of The Prophet, even by way of an actor playing him. That's a serious offense, I don't know if it's a capital crime but they'll at least beat you for it; 2) The Filmmakers depicted Mohammed in a physical image in order to subject him to ridicule; 3) Muslims are rather touchy about that pederast thing, even when it's true, but isn't it fair game when they themselves can't dispute the fact?

Now I haven't seen the film, I don't know if it says anything worse than depicting him as a pederast. Then again, in our culture, there are very few things that are worse.

As for the final point you made: the movie that depicted Jews as filthy slime who killed Jesus. We already had that movie. It was Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ. I believe all of Western Civilization, including the Jewish minority, tolerated that without rioting.

And again, if your religion requires that the unbelievers never make an image of your favorite historical figure, that's too touchy. Then what you're doing stops being religion and crosses the line into repression. The line for violence must be moved back.

[frazzled]

43. Thanks for the bigoted rant

As a Jew who detests seeing Muslims calumnied, I say to you, L'Shanah Tovah Tikatevu

[caseymoz]

44. Sex with a 9-yo isn't pederasty?

As an atheist, who doesn't "calumny" anybody ever (and that's not a verb, thanks for showing your command of Hebrew) I say to you if I'm a bigot that makes you a pederast. But I'm not bigot, therefore you need take no insult.

And why do bring up that you're a Jew? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Being Jewish is supposed to be the Higher Authority here? Or are you saying that you're going against the stereotype, that Jews hate Muslims, but you don't, so you're an independent thinker. Therefore your stereotyping your own religion by way of making that point? "I'm a Jew, and even I think you're persecuting Islam." If you believe it shows your thinking independently, it fails.

Thanks for taking the discussion down beneath the Three Stooges level, and showing that your brain is in your kneecaps.

[caseymoz]

45. Last: Perhaps you only read the opening line?

Not the post. I get that feeling. Though it's hard to tell when you switch to Hebrew for some reason that has nothing to do with communicating.

[Go Vols]

61. +1

[riderinthestorm]

17. There are plenty who are arguing against the filmmaker's right to make the film.

And plenty who are accusing anyone who defends that right as somehow bigoted or even supporting the premise of the film.

They are confused.

Mineralman is simply trying to clarify for them. I hope it works.

[justiceischeap]

13. The argument he is making is clear

Birth of a Nation achieved basically the same reaction as this 14-minute YT video. Cinematically they may not be on the same level (obviously) but their message and the 1st amendment make them apt for comparison.

There are lots of videos on YT that would be considered questionable. Including diatribes against BushCo, Romney, etc. Who gets to decide what is so offensive that we are going to deny their Constitutional rights? If we are going to pick and choose who gets to say things, I think we've learned by now, that all though they are the minority, the religious right would win this battle at the detriment of us all.

[frazzled]

16. I think it's only clear if you are an absolutist on the First Amendment

I am not of that opinion, and there are many examples of limits on that right that have been upheld.

In addition, we need to add in the unchartered waters of free distribution on the Internet (by a commercial site) that has reaches beyond our own shores.

[justiceischeap]

19. I am an absolutist

there is no one I would trust to tell me it free to speak about and what isn't. I would say the majority of people use common sense when it comes to freedom of speech, and those that don't abuse that freedom but it's not for me to tell them they can't say it. Do I wish they would use good sense in what they say? Of course, do I want to be the one to tell them that their choice of expression is bad? No, because then they'd have the same right to turn around and tell me that condemning their video or speech is wrong.

[snooper2]

57. I think it would be better to compare the "innocence" "film" to Florida banning 2 Live Crew

Me so Horny


Lots of fundies went off the fucking deep end with that one, stupid ass fundies always getting their undies in a wad regardless of the mythology they follow---

Remember that fucking twit Tipper Gore?

And for your pleasure

[lapislzi]

49. This may be a quibble, maybe not.

But, a film doesn't create "victims." People who commit violent acts create victims. The role of film or other art form in the choice to commit violence is worthy of discussion. If anything, the people who take violent action after viewing propaganda, are themselves actors. They're tools, useful idiots.

[Zoeisright]

20. Nope.

This anti-Muslim film was deliberately made and released to foment violence and to put the President of the United States in a difficult position shortly before a critical election. The two instances are not remotely comparable.

[caseymoz]

24. And, what's your evidence?

Timing is not proof. The man most associated with the movie is an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and a felon. Other people known to be involved seem to have in common an hatred toward Islam, their sentiment toward the President unknown, though, true, they probably aren't friendly to him, Islam appears to be their target. Can you prove that they would know this particular video would catch fire on the Internet?

(Really, to the protestors I would say, the man behind the film is Egyptian.)

Unless you were on the set and heard the scheme, or you have the email correspondence proving intent, you're conjecturing. Timing is often coincidental.

And if there were a conspiracy to do this, you would at least think that Romney would be ready to say the right words and not stick his foot down his throat up to the knee.

Unlike, say, with Bush's National Guard memo, which had a quicker than quick, well-coordinated response. That release looked deliberate. It looked timed.

[hedgehog]

26. thank you for a needed reminder!

[hlthe2b]

27. Yet Birth of a Nation is scarcely available to view today... (not fully unavailable, but largely).

Even the comparatively far more innocent, yet offensive, "Song of the South" has been self-censored by its owners and the commercial market place today.

So, there is precedence for society's more's to dictate in these matters--without true censorship (i.e, governmental interference).

[jsr]

30. Netflix has it

https://movies.netflix.com/movie/The-Birth-of-a-Nation/309264

[MineralMan]

31. Not so at all. You can stream it online at several websites and it's available on DVD.

Here's a streaming site:

http://archive.org/details/dw_griffith_birth_of_a_nation

Anyone can watch it anytime they wish.

It's also available on YouTube, but you have to view it in parts.

So, it is more available now than it ever was. It's rare to see it in a theater, of course, but it's easy enough to see on the little screen.

[hlthe2b]

35. To my knowledge it has NEVER been on tv and not in commercial movie theaters in many decades

That one can find anything arcane on the internet does not disprove my point. And as to Song of the South, changing societal more's have caused the distributors to self-censor and thus it has never been released on DVD nor for screening on tv in the past many decades.

[MineralMan]

36. I saw it on PBS in the 1980s,

and it is a regular in silent film festivals. Back in the 1980s, it was restored and orchestrated.

You don't see any silent films from 1915 on the TV or in theaters much today. As for Song of the South, I saw that on TV back in the 1950s, when I was a kid.

[hlthe2b]

37. Obscure showings or those that date back five or more decades...

Underscores that changing social mores' have served to cause these films to be "self-censored" by their owners/distributors and not put in wide distribution.

[zeemike]

28. I am against censorship in all it's forms.

The problem is not with them it is with us....evil exists because good men do and say nothing.
Were we to speak out with a much louder voice then there would be none of this hate mongering.
But we have not done that in the past and we are not doing it now....except to each other.
the only reason racist don't use the word nigger any more is because too many people would call them out for it...and the same thing is true for the hate mongers today...they do it because we say nothing about it.
And we let them call us traitors because we then try to chip away at the first amendment...

[BarackTheVote]

41. Bad example.

"Birth of a Nation" was harshly criticized by the NAACP who protested it across the country and organized petitions to prevent its exhibition. Riots broke out in several major cities, including Boston and Philadelphia, and the cities of Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis refused to let it open and in New York, the NAACP was successful in pressuring Griffith to extract several particularly offensive scenes. Eight states banned "Birth of a Nation" outright.

However, "Birth of a Nation" was an unprecedented masterpiece of the fledgling art of filmmaking; the longest, most expensive epic ever seen up to that point, costing over $110,000 in 1914 currency. "Birth of a Nation" also solidified many of the visual conventions of cinematography and editing. President Wilson called it "history writ with lightning." D.W. Griffith was truly a master of his craft, and beyond that, an INVENTOR of his craft.

Comparing "Birth of a Nation" to "Innocence of Muslims" is like comparing the Sistine Ceiling to a dirty note scrawled on the wall of a truck-stop bathroom. And even then, your basic premise that it was never suggested that "Birth of a Nation" should be banned due to its obvious hateful content is patently and historically WRONG. Now, we recognize "Birth of a Nation" for its import in the history of filmmaking, and indeed, in the history of our country--back then, it was regarded with outright and legitimate fear by blacks, who saw an increase in lynching and a rise in KKK recruitment. And what's more, not only was "Birth of a Nation" protested, but states and cities actually DID take action to mitigate its influence.

[Bonobo]

46. I thought this was going to be a post about "Ishtar".

[MariaM83]

47. speech/expression intended to incite hatred should be excluded from protection nt

[MineralMan]

48. And who decides which is which?

You see, that's the problem with what you propose.

[BarackTheVote]

50. Lies, hate-speech, and fighting words should be self-evident

It's funny (in a sad way) that those who claim to believe in absolutes of black and white have apparently been the ones most behind this skew toward a relativistic view of reality. But, there is an objective reality and an objective truth. Something either happened, or didn't. Either a person is lying, or they aren't. Either words were spoken in pure hatred, or they weren't. Either words were chosen with the intent to stir up violence, or they weren't.

[MineralMan]

51. Actually, I disagree. I don't think there are very many

objective realities and truths at all. If there were, we wouldn't be a country as deeply divided as it is. For religious zealots, their religious beliefs are things they consider to be objectively real and true. I consider them to be nonsense. Who is right? That's my point. Your idea of what is true and real may not be even close to someone else's.

[BarackTheVote]

52. Sorry, I was talking about RW evangelicals

when I said people who believed in black and white morality. Ask any of them, they'll say there's good and evil and nothing in between. And yet, their strategies to gain power and influence in the public sphere inevitably revolve around lies (Fox News).

We have freedom of religion and religious practice in this country. I can say God is true, and you can say the opposite. This is is a "jury's still out" kind of situation... ultimately, the only place the final answer can be found is in "that undiscovered country from whose borne no traveler returns." However, when something is demonstrably false (like 90% of RW talking points), those lies should not be tolerated in the public sphere or regarded as a matter of relative perspective. Someone is right, and someone is lying; one time can be an ignorant slip, multiple repetitions of the lie once you have been corrected is blatant and should be punished.

[MineralMan]

53. Oh, OK. I get what you're saying.

[Skip Intro]

55. Rec, but not sure I buy this video as being the real cause of the violence.

Regardless, there is no excuse for the murderous actions of mobs of thugs.

Good post, though. Kinda scary seeing an anti-free speech contingent on DU.

[MineralMan]

56. Not everyone thinks completely through issues like this.

Some people tend to form judgments first, and then think about them later, or not at all. That's true across the political spectrum. Not everyone is a historical scholar or a political science graduate.

And as for the Muhammed video, there are no single causes for stuff like what happened in Libya and Egypt and that are happening elsewhere. Sometimes things can act as triggers, but unless the thing is loaded, it won't go off.

[Skip Intro]

58. Good points. nt

[LeftinOH]

59. Except... Birth of a Nation was a major US film industry roduct by a top director, and with

real stars of the day in it, and it was widely seen at the time. Subject matter aside, it's also well made. This "Innocence of..." has nothing to do with the Hollywood system, and precious few people have even seen it.

[MineralMan]

60. Everything you say is true, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Both films caused some major upheavals. It is not the quality of the film, and I know that Birth of a Nation incorporated some revolutionary new techniques in filmmaking. It is the nature of what is depicted in the films that produced the effect.

Now, how much actual influence this crappy video had on the Libyan and Egyptian attacks, I do not know. I suspect that few of those who actually were involved ever saw it.

[Go Vols]

62. Louis CK with more free speech.

y*outube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k


Definitely not suitable for work.But this seems more over the top than the movie in question.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. Quick question. . . Does anyone think "Zero Dark Thirty" will provoke violence?

I have to confess I was a little queasy listening to Joe Biden yelling at the campaign stop "Osama's Dead, GM is Alive!" 3x as loud as he could. The jingoism of it bothered me, and the way it was repeated at the DNC didn't make me feel good either.

Huffington Post reports demonstrators in the ME are yelling "Take a picture Obama, We are all Osama". Is it time to put the bin Laden thing away for a while?

To me, Joe Biden's claim about bin Laden and GM wasn't "spiking the football", it was rubbing someone's nose in the mud. I sure hope that doesn't come back to bite someone in the ass. . .