"Innocence of Muslims" doesn't exist ???

Post Reply New Topic

This just in, the Hollywood Reporter says there is no such movie. It doesn't exist. The whole fuss is over a 14 minute "trailer" that was posted on YouTube. An actress who was in the "trailer" wanted to sue the "film maker." Her suit has been dismissed.

My question is this: Isn't there some thing called a "First Amendment" in the USA ???

Yes there is. The people who made that trailer will not be subject to any legal penalties because they violated no U.S. laws.

In the U.S. nasty, disgusting unpopular speech and expression is protected by law. Pleasant popular speech or expression needs no protection.

In Europe there are laws protecting the dignity of persons against insulting speech (so called "hate" speech). In America we say f*ck dignity. I am proud to be 'Murican.

ruveyn

I think the Innocence of Muslim was made by the Joker, because he wanted to cause anarchy an chaos. I condemn the film, but at the same time, I condemn certain Wahabi/salafi extremists killing an american ambassador. I supported the peaceful protest in Egypt with Copta and Muslims against the blasphemous film.

ONE MORE TIME: there is no such film. There is, however, a 14 minute "trailer" video. And why, please tell me, is blasphemy limited to Muslims? What about Christians? Hindus? Jews?

Stay tuned. There will be fresh protests over the French cartoon soon.

Sad but true. News is coming now regarding France shuttering their embassies.

"Free expression" is not, and never has been an absolute right. Fraud is not protected expression. Libel and slander are not protected expression. The issue is not whether there is a right to free expression, but rather where the boundaries of that freedom lie, and what the consequences of the exercise of that freedom are.

Legally, in the USA, there appears that there can be no penalty for this trailer. While every report that I have read of it suggests that it is odious and entirely lacking in merit, it does not appear to give rise to criminal sanction.

But criminal sanction is not the only means by which the law interests itself in expression. Whether this trailer gives rise to civil penalty will depend upon whose interests have been harmed, and whether there are contract or tort basis to force the utterer of this expression to make good their losses.

For free expression comes at a cost--and the cost is taking responsibility for the consequences of such free expression. Nothing in the constitutional guarantees of free expression provides that a person is immune for the response of others to their expression.

How can fraud be considered to be expression at all?

Agreed. Blasphemy happens all the time. Muslims have no respect for anybody else's religion, yet they demand that their own should be untouchable and that nobody should be allowed to say anything negative about it at all.

Muslims blaspheme Jesus all the time, by claiming that he was not the Son of God. However, they demand that nobody should be allowed to blasheme Mohammed.

You will not see Western Christians out rioting in the streets because of Muslim blasphemy, so why do Muslims feel they have the right to get so indignant when somebody blasphemes their prophet?

Thank you for posting, yer Honor. Perhaps you could then explain the 1st Amendment to us in light of this landmark case? And also, if it pleases Yer Honor, could you explain to us how a Broadway musical that slanders Mormonism be protected??

It seems the director thought he could make his point without bothering to make the whole film. All we have is the trailer, which itself is a loosely associated montage of takes, each of which by itself is highly ambiguous. For example, the seemingly offensive question "Is the messenger of god gay?" at 9:20 could be a question about any religion's prophet. Also, lots of ordinary people are named "Omar".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM[/youtube]

It is within the possible range of interpretation, that this disjointed set of takes is about an ordinary raider who just happens to be named "Muhammad". Lots of ordinary people have the name "Mohammed" or some variant of that name. All other names of reference, such as Aisha and others, could be strictly coincidental. Watch the clip again, with the idea in mind that it's possible that the "Muhammad, the Father Unknown" character and the Prophet Muhammad are two totally different people.

The trailer is loaded with ambiguity, probably by design. The takes could appear to form a coherent story, but even that is a bit of a reach. Even the uniforms worn by the constable, doctor, and others near the beginning would not have existed in the Prophet Muhammad's time.

The full film doesn't exist, and neither does the trailer's purported message. It seems that the extremists have "jumped the gun", based on a story that they have assembled in their own minds.

Last edited by sgrannel on 20 Sep 2012, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Because fraud requires three elements:

1) A statement that the declarer knows, or ought properly to know is false
2) Reliance on that statement by another person
3) An actual loss accruing the the person relying on that false statement as a result of that reliance.

Because fraud must always be based upon a false statement, the utterance of that statement must be examined in light of freedom of expression. It has, and it is not protected expression.

Then courts would have to shut down 50% of all websites.

I refer you to a series of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has established a variety of limits to free expression.

1. Incitement:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html), which establishes a narrower limitation than did
Schenck v. United States (1919) 249 U.S. 47. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)

2. False statements:
Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html), although see also,
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
This is not a well settled area, but clearly false statements attract a different level of treatment than bona fide statements.

3. Obscenity
Another unsettled area, but the leading case seems to be
Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
The Miller test is subject to strain in the internet age, of course, but the principle that obscenity is not protected has not yet been vacated.

4. Child Pornography
A much more settled area because the definition and the prohibition are extremely narrow. The leading case is:
New York v. Ferber (1982) 458 U.S. 747 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)

5. Offensive speech
The old, "them's fightin' words" exception. Establish in 1942 by:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 315 U.S. 568 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
Because of it's breadth, though, it has come under further scrutiny. An exception to the exception exists for satire, for example:
Hustler v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S. 46 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html) and for flag burning:
Texas v. Johnson (1989) 491 U.S. 397 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)

6. Threats and common assault
See, Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
At common law, assault is a threat uttered with the apparent means to carry out that threat. It has been a crime and a tort for centuries, and the First Amendment does not alter that. However, there are exceptions within this exception, too. See, for examples:
Watts v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 705 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardward Co. (1982) 458 US 886 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)

7. Copyrighted and other owned speech
Copyright law was acknowledged to be an accpeptable infringement of free expression in:
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) 471 U.S. 549 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)
As are broadcast rights:
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977) 433 U.S. 562 )https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/562/case.html)

8. Commercial speech
False advertising is the most usual place where commercial speech is treated differently than individuals' expression. See:
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990) 496 U.S. 91 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)

9. Circumstances unique to government
Under this rubric come the various restrictions that are established regarding public servants (and some specific reference to teachers, military personnel), federally regulated broadcasters, lawyers, and prisoners.

As for the particular case of The Book of Mormon I refer you to Hustler v. Falwell (supra). Although it is focussed on the protection of satire directed at a public figure, it appears reasonable that an analagous protection would extend to satire directed at a public institution. Further, there is the general principal that satire is protected speech.

I trust that this constitutes a sufficient line of jurisprudence to stand for the principle that not all expression is protected under the First Amendment.



Courts cannot act on their own initiative. Courts can only act on the case before them. If a person defamed or defrauded chooses to litigate, then the court may (depending upon the jurisdiction concerned) have the ability to impose injunctive relief. But typically, that injunctive relief would extend only to the offending material, not to the entirety of a website.

I apologise for my sarcasm.
(Are you a lawyer?)
That is an impressive list, and I've heard of none of those cases. In your considered opinion then, could this supposed film maker be found guilty of "Offensive Speech"?

Fifteen years ago Bob Seger had a video on MTV for a GREAT song (wish I could remember which one...thought it was 'Shakedown', but it wasn't).....

The video appeared to be a trailer for a movie, had some big stars in it, but there was no movie, just the video.
There was no fraud, just a clever and entertaining way to present the song.

If the 'Innocence of Muslims' short film presents the writer/producer's honest opinions of Muhammad, Islam's founder, than he has every right to those opinions.

Sylkat