Feds ID California man's role in anti-Islam film

[nebula]

Feds ID California man's role in anti-Islam film

By EILEEN SULLIVAN and STEPHEN BRAUN | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago..

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-id-california-mans-role-anti-islam-film-164554115.html

~~~~

His name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

The previously released name "Sam Bacile" is a false identity.

He was previously charged with federal bank fraud.

[other one]

There are laws about doing things that cause riots being illegal...... this could get really complicated with our present administration.

[Guest]

Supposedly he is a Coptic Christian refugee from Egypt. Arrest and send him home. Freedom of speech which causes death is not a Constitutional Right in my opinion!

[Steve_S]

Supposedly he is a Coptic Christian refugee from Egypt. Arrest and send him home. Freedom of speech which causes death is not a Constitutional Right in my opinion!

He didn't incite anyone to violence or suggest violence occur, to my knowledge. He just made fun of a heathen counterfeit deity that a bunch of people worship. If he didn't specifically incite to violence then it's protected speech.

[Guest]

Supposedly he is a Coptic Christian refugee from Egypt. Arrest and send him home. Freedom of speech which causes death is not a Constitutional Right in my opinion!

He didn't incite anyone to violence or suggest violence occur, to my knowledge. He just made fun of a heathen counterfeit deity that a bunch of people worship. If he didn't specifically incite to violence then it's protected speech.

Having grown up in a muslim environment, he knew exactly what would happen. If you take a gun to a movie, someone sees it and starts a panic where someone gets killed in the mad rush to get out of the theater, are you not responsible for that death even if you are in a state where carrying a concealed weapon is lawful? Of course you are. Then they dragged that body through the streets in celebration! Come on, Steve. Freedom of speech is not an absolute and you know it.

[winsomebulldog]

I've got to say that I think calls to somehow punish or blame this man for the violence are absurd. It brings this to mind:

President Obama, Stop Blaming the Victim for Mideast Violence

My question then becomes, if Christians suddenly rose up and began attacking everyone who ever said anything bad or offensive about Jesus, would everyone still be calling for those who offended us to be punished? I think not.

I understand that there are laws about inducing panic and the consequences from that. But I don't see how this could be applied in this case. The man didn't openly call for violence. He did not make this movie, then devote his time and energy to getting it shown in Muslim nations with the express intent of hoping it would cause violent mobs to attack American, and other, embassies. In fact, the so-called movie was actually released, if you can call it that, back during July. Knowing that, does anyone truly believe that the movie being brought to the attention of the Muslim world within days of the 9/11 anniversary is nothing more than coincidence? It was actually a hardline Egyptian who played clips of it on Egyptian television and called for the film's makers to be executed. Oh, but he says the violence isn't his fault, because he didn't make the film, he just brought it to the attention of the radical Islamists that follow his show. How was he supposed to know they'd go and attack embassies across the Middle East? reference

The point is, the ultimate responsibility for the violence rests solely on the shoulders of those who chose to be violent. The "gun in a theater" analogy is flawed because it isn't the fault of the gun carrier that someone panicked and caused a stampeed. Not unless he was in some way behaving in an unlawful or reckless manner that would have caused a reasonable person to be frightened. Just wearing a gun in a situation where he was doing so in accordance with the law would not be a crime. In this scenario, I'd say that no one was likely to be charged with any crime, unless the person who initially screamed "gun!" and started the whole chain reaction did so knowing that there was no real threat. Then that person becomes responsible.

I get the point behind the analogy. In America, the first amendment does not cover any and all situations. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded building or room comes to mind. But that isn't what happened here.

[MorningGlory]

Supposedly he is a Coptic Christian refugee from Egypt. Arrest and send him home. Freedom of speech which causes death is not a Constitutional Right in my opinion!

It's complicated....he has freedom of speech even though he's from another country and his 'speech' didn't cause deaths or riots in the United States (although I believe that putting that video out there was a STUPID thing to do). If he was sent home, he would certainly face death; would we really want that?

[nebula]

The man is a deceiver. First with finances. Then with the actors.

That said, a stupid film that hardly anyone saw causing this kind of uproar is insane.

Punishing him would be bowing to Islam, plain and simple.

[winsomebulldog]

I get the definite sense that the guy is anything but trustworthy. I haven't seen the film and don't intend to. It may very well be blatantly offensive, even to someone who sees Islam as a real threat to the entire world. But none of that makes blaming him for what's happening valid. He's a big-mouth bigot like countless others, and he's entitled to his opinion and has the right to voice it, even if it's offensive. The violence is not his fault, he's just the convenient scapegoat.

[Guest]

Supposedly he is a Coptic Christian refugee from Egypt. Arrest and send him home. Freedom of speech which causes death is not a Constitutional Right in my opinion!

It's complicated....he has freedom of speech even though he's from another country and his 'speech' didn't cause deaths or riots in the United States (although I believe that putting that video out there was a STUPID thing to do). If he was sent home, he would certainly face death; would we really want that?

As opposed to any more Americans being killed by infantile muslims hiding behind the skirt of "outrage"? Consequences.