No surprise. Read some of this propaganda. The Associated Press, and most big media seem to want this guy to face Islamic justice. via US free speech rights complicate handling of maker of anti-Islamic film – Yahoo! News.
While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.
Huh? The government should not be in a thorny position at all. Article VI of the Constitution states they are bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution. They have no obligation to condemn a film maker’s message or the message of any other American.
It’s a paradox that makes little sense to those protesting and calling for blood. To them, the movie dialogue denigrating the Prophet Muhammad is all the evidence needed to pursue justice — vigilante or otherwise — against Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an American citizen originally from Egypt.
Proving Islam’s incompatibility with freedom and the need for immigration bans.
In America, there’s nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie’s treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you protect free speech or you express faux outrage and use bullying, dictator-like tactics to send a warning to those who exercise free speech rights. The dhimmitude from our centers of higher learning continues:
“The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that … we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don’t appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University’s School of Law in Orange, California.
72% of Americans polled cherish their freedom of speech more than offending others. This professor is out of touch. Hate speech is a sham.
But Nakoula’s case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film “Innocence of Muslims” has had such far-reaching and violent implications.
Bullshit. The violence was planned and warnings were given prior to September 11, and for several months the video sat unwatched on Youtube. If anything should invite the scrutiny of the media and governments it is the violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Muhammad as Islam commands. But no one is looking into that. They know what they’ll find and they are scared to face reality.
Department spokesman Steve Whitmore stressed the agency is not providing protective custody. He referred questions to federal authorities, who have declined to comment.
Of course not. Why would they protect someone they could care less about? They want him gone. As we’ll see later in this article, the AP admits all parties are attempting to find a way to jail Nakoula for violating sharia law by finding a probation violation.
Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with “insulting religion,” a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of “upsetting national security,” which carries a life sentence.
More bullshit. He would have been killed just like the U.S. ambassador who was raped, murdered and dragged through the streets. Lara Logan found out first hand too.
“It’s not clear that there is, on the books today, a law that makes what (Nakoula) did a crime,” Rosenthal said. “This is an extremely difficult problem.”
What is the extremely difficult problem? Freedom of speech? Now we see why college’s are failing our children.
Indeed, federal officials have said they are looking at Nakoula only in the context of whether he violated his probation for the fraud conviction. Under terms of his sentence, he was banned from using computers or the Internet as part of his sentence.
The probation issue “gives the government a relatively low visibility way of prosecuting him but not technically for what he said and how inflammatory it was,” Armour said.
But nonetheless, prosecuting him for what he said.
Please take all this with a grain of salt as we know the violence was not about a movie and it’s not even clear who Nakoula is or who funded the movie.
Nakoula may be the
false flag fall guy, but the real target is our freedom of speech.
Filed under: Creeping Sharia