Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Government Your Rights Online News

Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed 747

Posted by Soulskill
from the onward-with-the-conspiracy-theories dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sunking2 (521698) on Friday September 28, 2012 @01:47PM (#41490633)
    What does his apparently violating parole have at all to do with this site?
  • by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @01:47PM (#41490637)

    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.

  • it didn't (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28, 2012 @01:51PM (#41490705)

    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.

  • by Revotron (1115029) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:08PM (#41490973)

    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]

  • by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:09PM (#41491005)

    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:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:12PM (#41491069)

    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.

  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:13PM (#41491085)

    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.

  • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:14PM (#41491095) Homepage

    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]

  • by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:21PM (#41491223)

    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.

  • by Vermonter (2683811) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:24PM (#41491253)
    LA has a large number of Muslim inmates. I would hardly consider him safe in jail there.
  • by drkim (1559875) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:30PM (#41491395)

    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.

  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:36PM (#41491521) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DutchUncle (826473) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:41PM (#41491593)
    The government isn't "holding in reserve"; they made a CONTRACT, that he and his lawyer agreed to, for being let out of prison in exchange for behaving himself. As I read the article, part of the contract was that he not use the Internet and that he not use an alias or pseudonym. He has violated both of those. He would have been violating them even if all he posted was a funny cat video.

    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.
  • by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @02:58PM (#41491941)

    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.

  • by xevioso (598654) on Friday September 28, 2012 @03:01PM (#41491993)

    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:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday September 28, 2012 @03:08PM (#41492085) Homepage

    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?

    You do realize "The Ring" is fiction, right? In real life, videos can't kill.

  • by raehl (609729) <(raehl311) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Friday September 28, 2012 @03:50PM (#41492727) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

    by rohan972 (880586) on Friday September 28, 2012 @03:57PM (#41492829)
    You don't get charged with incitement to riot for insulting any other religion. I was sent to a religious school. I defaced the "Holy text" it was compulsory to possess, as did other students. I wasn't killed, beaten or tortured. I wasn't punished at all, they never even spoke to me about it. If the people of that religion can take it then so can Muslims. The video did not cause the riots. Making the video is not incitement. Calling on your followers to riot because of a video is incitement.

    People who go on deadly riots in response to insults should be given overwhelming violence rather than appeasement. Concessions can be made to those who were offended but decide to talk about it instead of going on the rampage.

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley

Working...