Almost as baffling as trying to figure out what murder has to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Printable View
Almost as baffling as trying to figure out what murder has to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Any references?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Might be a bit interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I had also heard this, but can't recall where.
I heard an audio clip of a guy with a middle eastern dialect saying that this film was the equivalent to yelling "fire" in a movie theater. He went on to say that you can't blame the people for stampeding after you have incited them. I thought to myself, "What a stupid asshole to try and make that connection."
Then today, I caught a piece of an interview on NPR where the reporter was having a discussion with a guy about the exact same line. The guy's defense was that even in the US, there are laws against inciting a riot and you cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater.
First:I just quickly pulled that from Dictionary.com.Quote:
in·cite [in-sahyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·cit·ed, in·cit·ing.
to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.
I read this as saying that if you incite a riot, you are encouraging people to riot, like you are on the same side as them. Now I suppose you could incite a riot against you; but I don't know if that would be a more difficult thing to be charged with or not.
Second: This movie is more the equivalent of yelling a racial slur in a movie theater, not yelling "fire." When you yell fire, people are not insulted, they are concerned for their lives. If you are in a crowded movie theater and a fire breaks out, your choices are to leave, or die. Fire is indiscriminate and it doesn't matter if the yeller was yelling "fire" at you, you are still in danger.
Conversely, if you are in a crowded movie theater, and someone yells a racial slur, there are many different actions you can take, and none of them puts your life in danger. You are only in danger of being insulted. This is a stupid comparison, and I wish someone would stop repeating it, and instead stop it in its tracks. Seems easy enough to do to me.
So according to these mental midgets...
Being offended=cause to riot=not constitutionally protected under the first amendment (akin to yelling fire in a theatre)
Voila Now the right to not be offended is protected by the constitution.
Horse shit.
So, if the protesters burn our flags and scream nasty things about us, and it "incites" us, I image they'd be very understanding if we got so angry we carpet bombed the crowd.
Supposedly the original script title was "Desert Warrior" and it was supposed to be an adventure movie . . . at least according to a couple of the actors.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
So let me get this straight... a supposedly 'peaceful' religion has a problem with a simple movie (First amendment right... pretty important one) and resort to killing and attacking to get said expression of free speech pulled. That sound like a religion (term used loosely as it's more than just a religion) that fits with our nation & constitution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
Don't leave out the part where we APOLOGIZE for it, and our government tries to get youtube to pull it. We need to speak up for our freedoms, and defend them with zeal. Not discard them and cower to a culture of sick murderers. Stand up to the idiots, damn it!
Next, youtube owners will be on the hit list.