Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed 747
sycodon writes "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the film Innocence of Muslims, has been arrested and jailed in Los Angeles for probation violations. The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world, but at the same time simply enforcing the law, as all evidence indeed suggests Nakoula violated the terms of his probation."
Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is quite likely that this arrest is about censorship to appease jihadists.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Good point. Normally they never arrest people for probation violations.
appease jihadists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I can see lying to probation officials...I can see lack of trust..but danger to community???
If I lived next to you and I did my best to inflame the drug cartels wouldn't you consider me a danger to the community?
the LAST thing we need our president doing, it even making the appearance of prosecuting this man over his film
I honestly have not been paying attention, what makes you think that Obama is behind his prosecution?
Re: (Score:3)
If I lived next to you and I did my best to inflame the drug cartels wouldn't you consider me a danger to the community?
Not unless the drug cartels were using Apple Maps.
what makes you think that Obama is behind his prosecution?
The fact that he has spoken at length in multiple speeches against this film, without one word in support of the concept that even hateful speech is Free Speech and protected in America.
Re: (Score:3)
Danger to the community doesn't have to mean "Making a video likely to inflame others".
It can just as easily mean "Giving false aliases whenever anyone at any time, including the Blockbuster video clerk, the bank teller, the bar bouncer asking for your ID, the state car registration authorities, or pretty much anyone legitimately asks, and EXPECTS, you to give them your real name."
In fact, I can guarantee you that is what the judge means.
Re: (Score:3)
While I understand in this guys case...due to his probation, that giving a false alias was not legal for him.....if this wasn't the case, as long as he wasn't giving this out to police officers investigating a crime, etc.....giving false aliases isn't illegal in general...??
I mean, I can't think of many times it is actually illegal to not give your real name, but even to give a false one.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable on very current events, and this is a good example.
"Lying to probation officials" is one of the probation violations at issue.
"Lack of trust" and "danger to the community" are not violations at issue, they are the basis for the decision not to set bail.
Posting a video online in a manner which would violate the terms of his probation is not an exerc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you like it if you posted a video on Youtube, or a post on Facebook that was very offensive. It offended your community, neighboring county (or country,) so instead of outright saying "we don't accept this free speech" you were arrested for an unpaid parking ticket or any other minor offense? Sort of a big fucking deal.
A big fucking deal? How about a stupid fucking analogy? The terms of his 5-year probation strictly said that he was not to use a computer without approval, and that he was not to use an alias without approval. He did both, and nearly immediately after he was released. That means he violated his probation, and that means he gets sent back to the pokey. That's not an "unpaid parking ticket or any other minor offense". The judge gave him specific terms, specific actions that he no longer had the privilege of doing, and he responded by saying FU and doing those things anyway. This is not a rights issue, this is a minor non-issue about some asshole who can't bother to live his life without committing a crime and now he gets to go back to jail. This happens every day across the country. The only reason we are hearing about it in this case is because now it is happening to a man who was in the headlines recently for pissing off a large chunk of the world. That's not what he's being arrested for, that's just the reason why his arrest is news.
So, here's the real question - should this long-term criminal get a free pass for violating his probation because of the video he produced? Does that video and the subsequent response and coverage of it warrant a Get Out Of Jail Free card?
The Daily Beast reported that Nakoula was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1997 after being pulled over and found to be in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash; he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation. According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, he violated probation in 2002 and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail.
In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. Nakoula had opened bank accounts using fake names and stolen Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child, and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs. The prosecutor described the scheme as check kiting, "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money," she said. Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript shows that after being arrested, he testified against an alleged ring leader of the fraud scheme, in exchange for a lighter sentence. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, followed by five years probation (supervised release), and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution. He was sent to prison, then to a halfway house, and was released from custody in June 2011. A few weeks later, he began working on Innocence of Muslims. Conditions of Nakoula's probation include not using aliases and not using the Internet without prior approval from his probation officer.
Please explain again the "chilling effects" that this arrest is going to have on my rights, and why this idiot deserves to get a free pass.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
There where two "crimes".
The first was a political crime, that of creating a US foreign policy issue through a youtube movie. This according to the 1st amendment and the letter of US law is not a "crime".
The second crime was the violation of the terms of his parole, this is the "technical law" that they arrested him under.
The US Administration decided it was politically expedient to have this man in jail for his "political crime". The technical method of achieving this goal, as they are only allowed to wield their power according to the "letter of the law", they hired a detective to dig up the dirt on him and "find a law" which which to charge him. Had his film not caused the diplomatic incident, he probably would have flown under the radar and not been noticed by the authorities, and thus still be a free man.
This is in some ways similar to Julian Assange... his "political crime" was wikileaks, so they dug up his past and thus he was technically arrested on "suspicion of rape".
The Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei was charged with tax evasion.
The "chilling effect" is that in a society where a possibly significant percentage of the population are "technically" in violation of the law, but the law in many cases is not strictly enforced, then this allows the government to effectively arrest people guilty of "political crimes" through the selective enforcement of the "other" laws.
The moral of the story is that if you are planning on creating a diplomatic incident or significantly challenging or embarrassing the political establishment, then you better have a squeaky clean past and not expose yourself to any legal liabilities by "technically" breaking the law. Once you are in the spotlight, the normal rules of flying under the radar no longer apply and if the government can find any dirt on you, and they will be suddenly be looking closely for it, they will find a way to make it stick.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Administration decided it was politically expedient to have this man in jail for his "political crime". The technical method of achieving this goal, as they are only allowed to wield their power according to the "letter of the law", they hired a detective to dig up the dirt on him and "find a law" which which to charge him.
I'd like to see your proof for that claim.
He was interviewed by probation officers shortly after it became public that he was behind the movie. He was interviewed by probation officers, not the FBI. They evidently determined that he had in fact violated his probation, which is actually publicly demonstrable since he used an alias on the casting call for the movie that you can find online. That's a violation itself. Posting the casting call online is another violation. Uploading the video to Youtube is another violation. Posting comments on Youtube is another. As soon as I found information about this guy in the days after the riots started and saw that his probation terms included not using a computer I immediately wondered why he wasn't in jail already. I'm glad they eventually got to it.
Had his film not caused the diplomatic incident, he probably would have flown under the radar and not been noticed by the authorities, and thus still be a free man.
That's correct. It doesn't need to be a diplomatic incident though, he could have posted a comedy video that got viewed by 100 million people and he still would have popped up on someone's radar. Like his probation officer's.
Personally, I don't think the government actually wanted to jail this guy. They have to though, or risk other people asking why they have to stand up before the man for a probation violation when this idiot got off free. This would be equal justice under the law.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I submitted this.
It's clear that Nakoula has been in violation of his parole conditions for quite a while if you consider the amount of time it takes to make a movie (even a crappy, amateurish one), edit, etc. One has to wonder that if he had made a movie about butterflies, would he be in jail right now? I bet not.
But the Administration saw an opportunity to make it appear to the savages that he's "doing something" about the blasphemer but at the same time be technically absolved of that charge.
We all know how easy it is to gen up some kind of violation that can put someone in jail over night or even longer. Will this be done more often in the future just to placate the batshit crazy Arabs?
There is no free speech issue. (Score:5, Informative)
He's a felon on parole. There are conditions to that parole. If a felon offered parole doesn't want to agree to the conditions of his release, he is welcome to stay in prison, where he can continue to say whatever he would like.
Being on parole and violating the conditions of your parole in a spectacular manner and NOT expecting to be put back in prison as a result is ridiculously dumb.
For example, one of the conditions of his parole that he not use the internet unsupervised.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet unsupervised, likely no one notices and nothing happens.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet to start a blog claiming Mitt Romney is a polygamist, and it gets picked up by the media, he's going back to prison.
Parolees should not violate parole. Parolees who do not want to go back to prison should definitely not get CAUGHT violating parole.
You don't get a free pass just because you say something extremely objectionable while violating your parole.
Nothing held in reserve here (Score:5, Insightful)
That would make sense...except that the violations at issue occurred during the investigation of whether or not he posted the video, which itself would have violated the terms of his probation.
Its not about violations known in advance and held in reserve and then used as retribution for a "perfectly legal" act, "uppity" or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you were a probation officer, you would be allowed to not send your convict back to jail when they publicly broke the terms of their probation?
There is no prosecution here, he's already convicted. He has to agree to probation terms to be freed on probation. He always had the option of refusing and being sent to jail to serve his time.
He is in no way a free man being convicted of something new, he's a convict who is clearly not a model probationary candidate and he's heading to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
So doing things that piss people off is now equal to inciting a riot? So if a new law causes a riot all the politicians that voted for it will be jailed?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be extremely disturbed if making inflammatory videos within the borders of the United States or other western countries is made illegal, regardless of the content.
I mean this unequivocally, irrevocably and without reservation, in the spirit of protecting freedom. It's not one of those things that can have a "but maybe when" clause.
Criticism of a religion or political viewpoint, or otherwise CANNOT be viewed as a crime, regardless of how insane the targets of said video are. A radio commentator made a good point the other day when discussing with a muslim cleric. There was a Canadian Muslim who made a comparably incendiary video about Christians. It prompted... get this... a letter to the editor...
There are plenty of equally incendiary videos about Jews. They waive their hands in the air and say "OYE!".
Just because the islamists over in Africa completely freak out and use such things as a flimsy excuse for pursuing sectarian violence against perceived slights doesn't make them right, nor does it make the act illegal.
The guys video was nasty. It was inappropriate. It was seriously morally problematic. But it was NOT illegal.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
True but, I don't think this applies here. They were not holding violations in reserve, they simply did not know he was violating them. It wasn't until journalists investigated the source of the film, and made the trail back to him and a few accounts that it was known.
Now I don't tend to like the form of these restrictions in general, and don't think this is the sort of thing that should land him in jail....except.... there are other violations.
Its pretty clear that any agreement he had with the actors in the film, each and every one of them, was negotiated in bad faith. He lied to them about the nature of the film being released, at the very least they should have known this and been able to either refuse to have themselves associated with it, or demanded more money due to the risk involved. Smells like fraud to me.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
As noted by others, this is *incredibly* convenient. If this video had been posted by someone with a clean record, then it would be a free speech issue. If the same person had created and posted it under his real name, it would still be a free speech issue and I'd hear debate on whether restricting internet access is realistic in this day and age. But because of the record, the government has totally clear reason to collect him without talking about the content at all. The probation contract makes it a very simple crime of fact, not of intent.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Baloney. He was arrested because he lied, repeatedly, to the authorities. He is a pathological liar. Or are you forgetting the part about how he was tried and convicted of bank fraud?
Courts deal with these people all the time, and the fact was this was the tipping point for them to throw the book at him. Had nothing to do with his video.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
His film killed no one. People reacting to the film may have. Most likely it wasn't over the film but an organized terrorist attack which had nothing to do with the film.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not comfortable equating the Muslim world to a crowded theater. They have moral agency and the ability to control themselves.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no evidence that they can control themselves.
There are a few who can't, and that's their problem.
Of course, your comment might make me go berserk and murder countless innocents. When that happens, it's on you.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is them controlling themselves.
You are assuming that 'control themselves' means 'do not kill people for stupid reasons'. Stop projecting your Western morality on them. That is bad, and wrong.
This little movie wasn't a flash point that made them so raging mad they lost control of themselves and went into a psychotic rage. They don't regret having acting badly, because the ones who acted badly do not see what they did as acting badly. They consider their actions to be righteous and not only justified, but MANDATORY.
Yes, not all Muslims feel that way. Some are sane. Many are not, and do wonderful things like stone rape VICTIMS to death.
If you want to begin to understand the Muslim world, first understand the Salem witch trials. That sort of thing goes on across the Muslim world -- people being executed based on unverified hearsay from a single person. Salem was an aberration. It's institutionalized in the Muslim world, it's just How Things Work.
Your concept of being in control would be being able to stop yourself from acting badly. Their concept of being in control would be the same, but their concept of acting badly would be to NOT murder people.
That's really the problem. And I feel real bad for the sane Muslims living in those countries, the ones who actually have respect for human life and freedoms, because those people DO still exist. They can't speak up. They can't speak out. Imagine, if you will, if the Westboro Baptists and the KKK were predominant across the US, maybe not a majority but certainly numerous. Imagine if the government was complicit. Imagine if both groups were not just hateful, but violently hateful (KKK today doesn't tend to commit violence, but they sure used to). Imagine if the government purported to agree and support actions against minorities and homosexuals because of some Divine Mandate -- and in reality the government was using these hateful crowds as a form of easy control over the population, an easy way to wield power over dissenting opinions.
That's really why this continues to happen. If someone were to say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't kill these people..", suddenly they are the blasphemer, suddenly it's their head on the block. If someone were to say "Hey, maybe the government shouldn't let this happen..", suddenly they are the blasphemer. If the government were to say "Hey, maybe you shouldn't do that guys, c'mon now", same deal. Ride the tiger.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because a few thousand people is always representative of a religion with roughly 1 billion followers.
No. It is the leaders of those 1 billion followers who represent them, and without any notable exceptions, all the leaders of Islamic nations have come out and blamed the movie for the violence and used this as a speaking opportunity to argue that it should be illegal to criticize or mock Islam, and to spend more energy criticizing anyone who criticizes muslims for this violence (As you have done) rather than criticize the muslims who are responsible for it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"His film killed no one."
Try incitement to riot with manslaughter being the result. Clearly a probationary violation.
"Mohammed was a child-raping murderous desert bandit who contrived a religion that would make his followers happy to die for him." Kind of a medieval L. Ron Hubbard.
THAT historical truth is incitement to RIOT?
So, when you going on a killing spree?
No manslaughter was the result of this movie (Score:5, Insightful)
The only killing we have seen was from a terrorist attack on an embassy, not from a protest.
How many "protests" also involve quiet ambushes on secret safe-houses?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"these people clearly had no choice"
I see you fail to understand what incite means and implies - choice included.
Re: (Score:3)
"It was organized by an outrage machine and carried on by people who had not even seen the film."
That's how a LOT of riots happen, actually. Outrage machine, a bunch of ignorant people that never saw/heard and just jumped on the bandwagon.
Live in LA sometime.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Had his violations been "harmless", it might not have been prosecuted. However, people have died as a result of his parole violations. Tell us again how this shouldn't be prosecuted?
Y'know, you saying that pisses me off. It pisses me off so much that I just shot five co-workers and a sheriff*. Now your statement is not harmless, right?
Oh, wait, I was the one who decided an appropriate reaction to somebody's speech was to inflict violence on third parties, that makes me, not you, the one who harmed them, and just because I choose to blame you doesn't make you culpable for acts you didn't commit. Funny how that works.
*disclaimer: I actually didn't shoot my co-workers, the sherrif, nor the deputy.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize "The Ring" is fiction, right? In real life, videos can't kill.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Screw yourself. Everyone has an agenda, and people are free to post here just as much as they are free to make a video calling Mohammed nasty things.
He was arrested because he violated the terms of his probation by repeatedly giving false names to authorities, NOTHING MORE.
he was not even arrested for getting on the internet, which was banned under his probation terms. he was arrested for ONE thing and ONE thing only, and it had nothing to do with the movie trailer.
You're confused (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash (ie - yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, calling in bomb threats). The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant entirely to inflame and incense a volatile situation.
How this item made it onto Slashdot would probably be because the film was released online via YouTube, and the arrest of the filmmaker has clear online rights implications.
BULLSHIT
WTF?
You're actually comparing religious satire with deliberately and immediately causing mayhem and probable death?
How the hell is making fun of somebody who has been dead for more then a millennium not protected free speech?
Does free speech mean ANYTHING to you or the morons who modded you up?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't, you fucking retard. How many times are you going to repeat that lie?
Re: (Score:3)
How does his arrest have rights implications? He violated parole. The fact that he published the film just made it very visible - I'm guessing his parole officer would have been unlikely to notice that he was using an alias if he hadn't done it in such a visible way.
It's like a murderer releasing a video of his latest murder, after the victim was ruled a 'natural' death. He won't be arrested for posting the video, but for crimes made known BY the video.
Re: (Score:3)
It's literally impossible to use the internet without using an alias.
...unless your Mom actually named you: "Anonymous Coward" !
Well, let's see what happens. (Score:5, Informative)
They should have done this weeks ago. It was clear he violated his probation from the beginning.
It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.
I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.
Re:Well, let's see what happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very important for Muslims across the world to understand that he was NOT arrested and jailed for the CONTENT of that movie, but because he continually provided false aliases to the judge and the police in violation of his probation.
I wonder if the protesters in Egypt will understand this...my guess is probably not.
There's no chance that the Muslim world will see this as anything but censorship. First of all, let's be clear -- they are right when they see it that way. That's what it is. He would have never come to the attention of anyone had the state not been embarrassed by this.
Second, these are people who are protesting about a youtube clip that the vast majority of them haven't even seen, and only know of by word of mouth. That sort of Telephone game is never going get that sort of nuance across, even if it were true, which of course, it isn't.
Re:Well, let's see what happens. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. This man was not arrested for antyhing he said in any video. he was arrested because he violated the terms of his probation, which included NOT GIVING FALSE ALIASES TO AUTHORITIES, something he apparently has a pathological tendency to do.
He came to the attention of the state because he has previously been tried and convicted of multiple crimes. He was on probation. The state of California is not embarrassed by anything this man said.
It looks like there was one very pissed off judge who refused to give him bail because he is a pathological liar. The California legal system deals with these sorts of people all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. His video could've been some insanely popular stupid viral video with trained chihuahuas juggling - end result would've been the same (assuming the video received significant attention for some positive reason). Jail time for parole violation.
Re:Well, let's see what happens. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it easily could have been that. People are arrested for violating the terms of their parole when those terms involve "Do not contact Person X" and they click a Facebook Like button.
If you are told not to get on the internet, and you post a chihuahua youtube video, you could very easily end up before a Judge. And if you give said Judge a false name, you could wind up in Jail.
Re:What happened was a reaction to free speech (Score:5, Informative)
read the damn article. He was told not to use false aliases.
During the course of the investigation, the prosecutor said he had duped multiple people with false bank accounts, bad checks, and misrepresenting himself to people with business dealings. Being a "Danger to Society" doesn't have to mean being a violent thug. People who make a living by hoodwinking others at every opportunity are just as bad.
The authorities DID NOT KNOW he had been violating his parole after 2010; the interest surrounding the movie brought this to their attention.
So again, I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's not at all true. I assume the local police don't give a shit about foreign policy. If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?
What's much more likely is that once media reports of him apparently violating probation, the local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations. Nothing more.
Re:How is it understood as anything but punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
At the court hearing about his parole violation he told the Judge that the original name he used during his criminal prosecution and incarceration wasn't his real name.
Think about that for a minute, he's jailed for fraud and ordered as a condition of probation not to use aliases, only his legal name and he tells the judge evaluating his compliance that the name he used in the previous trial was a fake. It's highly unusual in situations like this for a judge to incarcerate a parolee before the hearing, she threw him in jail because she said the court has no confidence he's not a liar and flight risk.
And might I add, just because you haven't bothered to follow the case that it makes your assertion that no one believes this isn't political asinine. Obama and the state department has almost zero influence over department of federal paroles (it's mostly courts administered). His parole conditions were public nearly a day after the whole thing went public, including links to all the PDFs on popehat.
Re:How is it understood as anything but punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, let's see what happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
How and where did Obama come down on the side of censorship?
Umm, I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.
This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?
Re: (Score:3)
An analogy:
It's not a crime for a man to visit a public playground, but if the man in question is a parolee with a conviction for child molestation and a court order requiring him to stay 1000 feet away from playgrounds...
Re:Umm, I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
freedom of speech has always been limited by the exception of speech intended to solely cause harm or public backlash
No, as long as the movie did not call for immediate lawless or violent action, it does not satisfy the definition of "Incitement" under the First Amendment. Therefore, it is still protected speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement [wikipedia.org]
Re:Umm, I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It is still incitement. The INTENT is what matters, not the speech itself.
And this film was clearly made to incite people to do violence, knowing the target demographic of the film itself.
You're understanding of 1st Amendment jurisprudence is lacking. Have you even read any of the cases? Where in the world did you come up with the idea that intent has anything to do with it? Intent is specifically NOT adequate. The actual or probable effect must be to incite imminent lawless action. All speech is inherently protected by the 1st Amendment unless it falls into a narrow set of exceptions that exist to prevent very specific kinds of harm. Mass chaos and lawlessness are within the scope of harms that justify limitation of some kinds of speech under some limited circumstances. However, the speech at issue must be directed to cause, and actually be capable of causing "imminent lawless action". Both intent and actual ability to cause an actual dangerous, lawless result are required. And "imminent" means RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Not somewhere else later. Merely intending to incite a riot is legal, and constitutionally protected, unless you have the real ability to make it happen immediately. Merely making a political statement likely to cause your opposition elsewhere to respond violently is also legal, and constitutionally protected, as the resulting lawless action is not "imminent" in the requisite sense. Go read Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Re:Umm, I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't, you fucking retard.
Re:Umm, I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
...made stronger by the fact that the producer hid the true content of the film from the cast and crew until it was released; by then, it was too late to revoke their appearances or exercise their legal rights.
A typical movie release covers stuff like this:
"I hereby waive all rights and release and discharge Production Company from, and shall neither sue nor bring any proceeding against any such parties for, any claim, demand or cause of action whether now known or unknown, for defamation, invasion of right to privacy, publicity or personality or any similar matter, or based upon or relating to the use and exploitation of the Pictures."
I understand that...other parties may reveal, information about me that is of a personal, private, embarrassing or unfavorable nature, which information may be factual and/or fictional. I further understand that my appearance, depiction and/or portrayal in the Program may be disparaging, defamatory, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavorable nature which may expose me to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation.
"...the perpetual right to use or to put the finished pictures, negatives, reproductions and copies or the original prints and negatives of him/her and any sound track recordings, and recordings which may be made of him/her voice, including the right to substitute the voice of other persons for his/her voice, his/her name, or likeness, in or in connection with the exhibition, advertising, exploitation, or any other use of such motion picture or recording of his/her voice, to any legitimate use that may deem proper."
Most include even more stuff about; digitally altering your appearance, using body doubles (so they can make it look like you were naked, or having sex,) etc.
It's very unlikely they didn't sign one of these, especially if the producer knew he was going to be doing with this footage.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you should have the right to own a gun. No you should not own a loaded AK-47 if you live in an apartment building in a city. .
And why's that, exactly?
it didn't (Score:5, Informative)
It didn't spark riots around the world. At least the ambassador in Libya was killed in a targeted attack by Al Qaeda [smh.com.au]. The ambassador was worried about his safety for weeks before his death. We know this because CNN reporters walked into the compound and looked around [cnn.com]. Security was NOT good at this place.
So much for the First Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be so fucking glad when we kick Bush out of office....
Won't stop the crazy rioters (Score:3, Insightful)
They won't stop. They will demand we hand him over so they can slowly behead him [wikipedia.org] and post that on the internet then drag his body though the streets [wikipedia.org] and hang it from some bridge [bbc.co.uk].
Huh? (Score:3)
Obama can't be seen as punishing him for exercising free speech.
Anybody who believes that is going to subsequently demand than anybody who says anything equally inflammatory be equally punished. And if those hypothetical people haven't broken their parole, nothing at all will happen.
It needs to be clear, this guy is being arrested only because he violated the terms of his parole in terms of using an alias or the internet. But it's essentially unrelated to the film and that has to be made clear.
There is simply no way the US government can be seen to be suppressing free speech. The last thing Obama wants to do is use this to his advantage. Because the reality is, that he isn't being punished for free speech -- he's being punished because he's a shady guy who violated his parole.
Probation terms are absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand that, given the amount of publicity both nationally and worldwide, the government really had little choice but to enforce the probation terms once it came out who the filmmaker really was and that he must have violated the terms to go on YouTube to upload it.
But when is someone going to point out that probation terms like these are absurd on their face? The Internet is a basic part of modern life. Everyone uses it, and even someone who tries to avoid it might well find themselves violating the terms by accident. (For instance, is using a GPS device counted as using the Internet? From a technical standpoint, that's often what is happening.) Probation terms ordering people to stay away from computers might have made some sense back in the days of Kevin Mitnick and Captain Crunch, but they are utter nonsense in 2012. You might as well make a probation term telling someone they can't watch TV or read a newspaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting bail has jack shit to do with how serious your crime was, and everything to do with a) your likelihood of commiting another crime while out (very small for most murderers), and b) your trustworthiness, i.e. the likelihood the government will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking you down after you jump bail. In other words, it's an expression of how much the government trusts you to behave. Breaking probation indicates he is untrustworthy: therefore, no bail.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, he's a dirtbag
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Hope they have enough on him to keep him locked up.
Is he really being locked up for violating his probation, or is that just a justification to arrest someone for saying something inconvenient? Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he really is being jailed for his actual wrongdoings. You are not allowed to use aliases on probation. He used an alias and did something infamous with it.
Certainly, I imagine people do this all the time and are not caught, usually because it simply does not come to light, particularly since an alias has the effect of making it harder to tie a person to what they do under their alias. In this case, what he did is not the issue, it is that it was infamous enough for him to be caught violating his probation. It would be a very, very dumb Probation Officer who, when faced with his convict's publicly obvious non-compliance, did not enforce the conditions of Probation.
Remember, he's already a convicted criminal who is only free on probation on the guarantee of good behavior and specific provisions meant to ensure he remains on good behavior. He's not so much being thrown in jail as simply returned to jail.
Is this incredibly convenient for the Obama Administration? Hell, yes. Is it a matter of silencing him? Not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, he's a dirtbag
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
He doesn't need to be a criminal for AC to wish bad things upon him. Always struck me as strange how slashdotters are quick to forget that not everyone is a lawyer talking about laws.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not illegal to be a dirtbag.
Actually, in some cases it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words [wikipedia.org] . See also incitement to riot.
Even in the US, there's provisions which restrict freedom of speech. The US has, far and above, the most liberal free speech laws in the world, and there's still provision in US law that could make what he did illegal. I haven't seen the film in question, so I can't really give an opinion one way or the other on whether what he did actually was inciteful, but there is provision in US law to make incitefu
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Informative)
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:4, Insightful)
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was for the criminally bad acting and scripting of the movie. If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Funny)
If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
You say that, but I'm sure that there are downsides as well.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Informative)
I can understand his motivations for lying about his name.
He had used fake names as part of his original scamming, and one condition of his probation was NOT to use false names.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he started giving out false names BEFORE people wanted to kill him. Sure NOW he has a good reason to do it, but that was his own choice. He knew that he was prohibited from using aliases for his past crimes, so prison shouldn't come as much of a shock to him (at least until the muslim inmates figure out who he is).
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
He's locked up because he violated the terms of his probation. He apparently has a pathological tendency to refuse to give his real name to authorities or anyone else for that matter, and the Judge had enough of it.
If you had people who wanted to kill you and had the means to falsify badges/I.D./uniforms you would be giving out false names too. I concede that his own actions caused his current predicament and I don't condone anything he has put out but I can understand his motivations for lying about his name..
I understand his motivations. I also understand that providing false identities to LEOs while on legal probation is a crime in itself, and that if a person commit a crime, they will be punished accordingly.
This is all much ado about nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
You must remember though that he is locked up in the state of California.
Because of recent goings on here almost no one on parole in the state can be locked up for parole violations.
Only new crimes. Now probation is a little different and on the county level. But seriously. If we are not going to violate parolees in the state then putting a guy in jail for a simple probation violation just would not ever happen with anyone but this guy.
He is locked up right now because people with power found it to be to th
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:4, Funny)
Some men have had their fucking head cut of and sewn back on again without losing the ability to fuck. Having your regular head cut off is much worse. You are not guaranteed to survive, even if it is sewn on again immediately.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't be a problem. Islam is a religion of peace.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly you see the word "illegal" everywhere, even when it hasn't been written.
It's not illegal to see the word illegal everywhere.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:4, Informative)
He's a scumbag con man that violated the terms of his probation. I think we can come to an agreement on the word, "illegal" here.
As for the rest of your rant, start reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Categorical_exclusions [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with freedom of speech is that speech isn't just words. Otherwise Islam's fatwahs are merely free speech.
Fatwahs are murder contracts, that offer a reward for murder. Soliciting murder is a crime.
The video may have offended some, but was not a direct request for criminal activity.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the apologist logic here is pathetic.
That doesn't change the definition of Free Speech. That just means that if you have threats along with your Free Speech, then it changes the issue entirely. It's the threat that is the issue, and not the speech itself.
The issue at hand is from a terribly low budget movie's trailer, which is insulting to Muslims. It is not threatening. Calling for the destruction of Israel is threatening, particularly when said Imam is calling upon his followers to make it happen.
This is no different than the Westboro Baptists that go around protesting at military funerals. They can get away with it it because it's not threatening anybody, and that's why it is the unfortunate side of acceptable Free Speech.
The issue to them is very cut and dry, but it is far from not being hypocritical. You cannot insult Islam in any way. But the reverse is completely acceptable; they can insult your nation (e.g, Great Satan, which also associates religious aspects to it), or your religion (e.g, Jews), and you had better accept it. And they're going to do it while they destroy your embassy, even if your nation wasn't involved at all (e.g., German Embassy protests).
But you're right, I guess I don't see any hypocrisy in there. Keep running around with your blinders on.
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Funny)
Last I heard, they still haven't got Hoffa.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is completely 100% irrelevant to anything that's happening in the Middle East. Go to youtube and in one minute you can find a dozen anti-Islam videos made by various random people. When certain extremist groups in the Middle East want to incite violence for their own political purposes, they will find a catalyst easily enough, just like with Mohammed cartoons etc, it doesn't matter what that catalyst is. The biggest issue here for me is that the administration is still talking about the stupid irrelevant film instead of the fact that the Libya attack was obviously a planned and successful Al Qaeda operation to assassinate a US ambassador and that we didn't do enough to prevent it. But that wouldn't look good, would it, so better to focus everybody's attention on a particular US citizen and make him take the blame. Shameful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good times! Clearly, he's a dirtbag (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, but there is still such a thing as having some taste, and having some common sense. Clearly this guy has, at the very least, poor judgement, and perhaps poor impulse control, and while I'm not going to lay 100% of the blame on him for the violence in the Middle East due to his ill-advised (and poorly produced, from what I hear) video, he certainly is guilty of being the catalyst.
That's very loaded language. He's not "guilty" of anything - at least in the context of the Islamic hissy-fit business. He is a catalyst, like that teacher who sparked an armed and angry lynch mob in Sudan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case [wikipedia.org]
Granted, his actions were provocative, while the teacher's were not. While his actions were inadvisable, 100% of the blame lies with the angry nutjobs and the rabble rousers. If we apportion any blame at all to this guy then we may as well issue mitigation points to anyone taking offence. If some guy in the street says that my mother is a scabby whore, should he share the blame if I were to then pull out a knife and cut out his liver? He's a factor in what happened, but what he did is rendered academic by my crazy response. Staying with that example, if I reacted so badly, is it possible that this reaction is based on more than just this single incident? There's way more happening here than just a bunch of cavemen getting worked up over a video.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting it's possible to have free speech and yet ban hate speech? That's highly offensive to me. You should be arrested!
Re: (Score:3)
There's no legal concept of "hate speech" in USA, thankfully. There's "fighting words", but that's a different concept.
Re: (Score:3)
there is no evidence to support the claim that he was a child-molester (among other accusations).
It depends on your definition of "child molester". If having sex with a prepubescent child is sufficient, then he definitely qualifies based on authentic Islamic hadith.
Either way, slander/libel is a civil offense, not criminal, and it requires the offended party to sue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is not a "win" (Score:5, Insightful)
So to you, the application of justice should be dependent on the political views someone espouses? The law should treat someone differently based on what he's said in public? How did you get from free speech to there?
Re: (Score:3)
We should not apologize for free speech, no matter who it offends.
Unless a foreigner makes a political video that offends the US, in which case we reserve the right to brand him a terrorist and send a drone to assassinate him in his own country.
Don't call Obama a nobody. He doesn't like that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's apologizing, failfuck
I guess you didn't get the memo the U.S. is doing just that [foxnews.com], and paying $70k of your money to do so.
What was that you called people that got things wrong again? Seems like it rather more applies to yourself.
Re:retroactive setup (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how parole works...
They set up enough hoops and demands that you have to spend all your time keeping up. Mostly, that's to keep you out of trouble.. But it also provides plenty of technicalities when you become a nuisance. There's something you missed for them to violate you over whenever they need it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because a check fraud conviction with a judicially applied condition of not using the Internet except under approval of the court appointed authority is such an uncommon offense against free speech that I've seen and heard it described as "a routine condition". When one is convicted of a crime, one loses certain rights. That's completely consistent with the 14th amendment, deprivation of liberty with due process.
Re:Selective Prosecution (Score:4, Informative)
Not arrested for parole violations? He had two parole conditions and he violated both!! In fact he told the judge yesterday that the name he used during his original trial and incarceration was a fake. This is on the order a sex crime parolee with a condition not to have unsupervised contact with children running a bloody day care. They absolutely put people in jail all the time for violating parole. It's so common it's a daily occurrence for nearly every single parole officer.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you prefer them to ignore the law that requires him to be arrested just so that US doesn't "look weak"?
The only sane way to deal with this is to ignore those crazy mobs altogether. Do what's right according to your own laws; not what they demand you to do - nor, for that matter, the exact opposite of what they demand just to spite them.
Re: (Score:3)