Let me get this straight. The 1st Amendment right to free speech allows
blasphemy when referring to God .... but not when it refers to the prophet
Muhammad? Got it!
2riflemanSo please quote me exactly where in this article it says anything
about taking away this directors free speech? He used his free speech and now
others are using theirs to speak out against this trash "movie."
Free speech doctrines have limits. Crying "fire" in a crowded movie
house is not unlike what this man did. If past experience is any guide (google:
Danish cartoon of prophet Mohammed), Muslims are just about as sane as
stampeding movie-goers fleeing a fire (real or imagined). Few if
any of them actually saw the movie. It was a crowd looking for something to
crowd. Muslims are unusually intolerant of anything remotely negative said
about their prophet. In the film makers defense, the Coptic minority is treated
abominably by the Islamic majority in Egypt. He probably has good
reason to hate them. But it does not excuse his actions. Some are
calling for the maker of this film to be charged as an accessory to the criminal
acts that caused the death of the US Diplomat. Now the film maker is scared.
He fears both US authorities and Islamic retribution.How scared were
the diplomats he put into danger in the last moments of their lives? Perhaps he
needs to be charged.
@Terra NovaThis is absolutely not the legal equivalant of screaming
"FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Brandenburg v Ohio settled this in 1969.
From that case the imminent lawless action standard was derived. "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press DO NOT permit
a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation
except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing IMMENENT lawless
action and is likely to incite or produce such action" - Emphasis mine.For free speach to be lawfully abridged imminent danger must be caused
by said speach. That is clearly not the case here.