Comments about ‘California man confirms role in anti-Islam film’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 12 2012 11:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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!

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

2rifleman
So 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."

terra nova
Park City, UT

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.

Sabrecat
South Jordan, UT

@Terra Nova

This 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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments