9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order 158
The Associated Press, as carried by ABC News, reports that "An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will hear arguments Monday by Google, which owns YouTube, disputing the court's decision to remove Innocence of Muslims from the popular video sharing service." At the heart of the earlier take-down order, which was the result of a 2-1 split from a 3-judge panel, is the assertion of copyright by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the film, but in a role considerably different from the one she thought she was playing.
Google is supported in its appeal by an unusual alliance that includes filmmakers, Internet rivals such as Yahoo and prominent news media companies such as The New York Times that don't want the court to infringe on First Amendment rights. Garcia has support from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians. If the court upholds the smaller panel's ruling, YouTube and other Internet companies could face takedown notices from others in minor video roles.
EFF Says: (Score:5, Informative)
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
EFF Says: (Score:1)
I only have to point at Galicula a movie with big name actors not knowing that there would be porn in that movie as well.
Re:EFF Says: (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't Galicula the one about the dyslexic Roman emperor?
Re: (Score:2)
If your an actor, hired to be in a historically based film protrayal of a particularly decadent period of Roman Civilization, when ruled by a Ceaser who was discribed as
and produced by Bob Guccione [wikipedia.org], it's hard to be sympathetic to complaints that it turned into a porno.
Re:EFF Says: (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
I really don't understand what kind of twisted logic they used to arrive at the conclusion that the actor has any kind of copyright claim, it's always belonged to the one pointing the camera or holding the pen. Assuming the cameraman is making a work for hire it'll pass from him to the company who hired him, the subject never had a claim nor was ever given a claim. It sounds like they wanted to arrive a conclusion and made bizarre leaps of logic to make it happen. I'm sorry but she should have filed a lawsuit and gotten a court to take it down, this copyright claim is simply fraudulent and to add insult to injury she should probably be prosecuted under the "penalty of perjury" clause.
Re:EFF Says: (Score:4, Interesting)
Actors can use copyright to control their image. Otherwise there would be no need to pay Schwarzenegger for the CGI versions of him in the next Terminator movie. When an actor plays a role in a film they sign a release allowing use of their image in that film, but the argument here is that the contract was misleading as to the nature of the film and thus invalid, making the user of her image copyright infringement.
It would be like Arnold agreeing to be in the Terminator 5 or whatever it's called, and then the directors decide to make it a porno with his CGI image and his voice acting used out of context. In that case the contract for an action movie would be invalid and he could use copyright to protect his image,
Re:EFF Says: (Score:4, Insightful)
He may be able to use contract law or the misappropriation/right of publicity laws but not copyright. You cannot copyright yourself or your likeness. Copyright is (or should be) for protecting the creative result of an artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is Arnold Swenager the person and Arnold Swenager the brand.
If the media gets their hold of Arnold in some sort scandal. He cannot force that to be removed.
But if they want to use the Arnold brand for a movie then they will need to do so.
One is free speech, the other is branding rights.
Re: (Score:3)
When an actor plays a role in a film they sign a release allowing use of their image in that film, but the argument here is that the contract was misleading as to the nature of the film and thus invalid, making the user of her image copyright infringement.
This is a dangerous precedent for Hollywood. Suppose I am a character actor in a major motion picture and my parts mostly end up the floor in the first release of the print. I could now go to court to stop the distribution on copyright grounds because I was mislead as to the extent of my screen time? Any one of the cast could hold the whole movie hostage under this ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
This all changes when you are being paid for being in said photo, video, whatever.
That is a paid job, and both the law and legal precedent say that in general, when you are a paid performer, copyright goes to the person who paid for the performance.
Sorry to disabuse you of this, but that's the way it works. This person was not just some bystander, but a paid performer.
Re: (Score:2)
I read a legal analysis of this -- when you are hired to act something, it's for that something, and the implied right of whoever hired you to twist it out of all recognition or use it for other things is not infinitely malleable, sans a speific contract for that.
You phrased this as a statement, but it should be phrased as a question: if the work done by the actress is used in a way substantially different than what she was informed by the film-maker, is there an "implied right" which gives the actress copyright over the film (or, more specifically, over her performance in the film)?
So there is precedence for her to be able to put the brakes on it.
Again: you phrased that as a statement, but it should be a question: is there precedent? What is the precedent?
Re: (Score:2)
Again: you phrased that as a statement, but it should be a question: is there precedent? What is the precedent?
There is a precedent for such things if you aren't compensated and haven't signed a waiver granting film rights. That is why the school where my kids attend have asked me to sign such waivers for the schools to film my kids in promotional videos about my kids.
And I think I would be pissed off enough and have a legal right to claim such contract was invalid if it was used for something else like a porn video. So yes, there is a legal precedent for such things.
On the other hand, it would largely depend on w
Let me get this straight (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it goes many ways to Sunday, but long story short this has potential uses. Just imagine if an extra on Stupid Franchise That Needs To Die VII could get it yanked if "I didn't expect a certain character to make any appearances" could be a valid argument. (Though I joke, misrepresentation of contract is legally dishonest but should have been a tort with the production team, not a DMCA claim with hosts. She should have taken it one rung up the ladder, so to speak - Google is "too late" in that process.)
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it goes many ways to Sunday, but long story short this has potential uses. Just imagine if an extra on Stupid Franchise That Needs To Die VII could get it yanked if "I didn't expect a certain character to make any appearances" could be a valid argument. (Though I joke, misrepresentation of contract is legally dishonest but should have been a tort with the production team, not a DMCA claim with hosts. She should have taken it one rung up the ladder, so to speak - Google is "too late" in that process.)
This exactly. Its not that the actress doesn't have rights here, it's that the court affirmed the wrong rights. If the filmmaker materially misrepresented the film or the role in writing, that should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
Valid release (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This.
This isn't just about the freedom of speech of the director of that movie.
It's also about the freedom of speech of the actress.
Not being forced to say something you disagree with is also freedom of speech.
So what is more important; the freedom to say something or the freedom to not say something?
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing about "Freedom of Speech". I don't see how you comment applies to the validity of a legal release.
Re: (Score:2)
We are all whores; always have been, always will be. We perform tasks for money, and have no control over the results of those tasks once performed.
Lay back and enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it's more about whether her release allowed the portions she appeared in to be dubbed over or not, and whether dubbing with different lines is allowed or not. I don't know the details, but it seems her claim is that "but ended up in a five-second scene in which her voice was dubbed over so her character asked if Muhammad was a child molester." If she read the script, and that's what it said, that's one thing.....if she read it out and thought it meant something else...but if she played some rol
Re: (Score:2)
>" as if she had spoken them" //
The actress seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of her vocation. An actress speaking lines is playing a part, it is not her that speaks, it is her character. If the characters comments are altered by playwrights/directors/whoever then over-dubbing can be required.
This all seems to be a construction to avoid idiot Islamic adherents, who make the same misunderstanding, causing people [physical] harm. It's definitely nothing to do with copyright; nor is it defamation
Re: (Score:2)
Craziness is one thing, if you've ever seen foreign films dubbed into English, you'd know it is standard. The issue in this case was a specific kind of craziness that could get her on some whack-job's hitlist. I'm not supporting the crazies that would want to kill her, and I would defend anyone who willing stood up and said those things, but I don't think the ideal of "Free Speech" should trump h
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the exact role is laid out in the release, she could claim she was told anything. If all the release says is that she allows the user of her image as the director sees fit, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
...and the net affect of your assertion would be that anyone... in any video... could demand take down of any video they were in and claim there was no release. Then Google would have to track down the person that posted it, and then the person that recorded it, ask for their "releases" and judge if it covered what was in the video?
Rulings like this are what will kill the internet. If they rule in the way you suggest, no videos will be on the internet at all. No-one will want the hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Google have to do anything? If the producer wants it to be listed, they have to have all their ducks in a line - Google just has to remove it each time its shown that those ducks are not in line and put it back up each time the producer says they are.
Google doesn't have to check to see if those ducks are valid or not, they go by the assertion of the person putting it up.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what you're missing is that this film is newsworthy and publishers of news have a significant interest in keeping that news available. It doesn't matter to Google who gags them, they don't want to be gagged.
Re: (Score:2)
Im not missing anything of the sort, the post I was replying to was commenting that *Google* would be the one who had to verify that all the paper work was in place, when that is patently not true - they accept a declaration of compliance from the poster, and then they accept a declaration of infringement from a third party. Google doesn't verify anything at all, they let the two parties deal with it between themselves while hosting the video in a manner that conforms with the law (eg the DMCA allows for a
Re:Valid release (Score:4, Insightful)
Rulings like this are what will kill the internet.
Do you understand the difference between the Internet and the Web? Do you understand that the Internet has far, far more uses than Youtube, and that the latter is a very minor aspect of what makes the Internet useful?
That aside, your statement is grand hyperbole. Even if every insignificant actor in every insignificant film distributed on the Web rose up and successfully demanded the removal of every film, the Internet and the Web would be no less useful than it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
and the net affect of your assertion would be that anyone... in any video... could demand take down of any video they were in and claim there was no release. Then Google would have to track down the person that posted it, and then the person that recorded it, ask for their "releases" and judge if it covered what was in the video?
This just shows how little you actually know how the DMCA works. Google does not have to track down anything. The procedure is as follows.
1. Google received a DMCA take down request.
2. Google takes the video down and informs the poster.
3. The poster files a counter claim with Google.
4. If the person that filed the take down request does not provide proof that they have filled a case in court the material goes back up.
Google does not "judge" anything. It is up to the courts to do that. Few people would go th
Re: (Score:1)
For a signed document to be upheld by courts the document has to have been part of what is called "a meeting of the minds". It appears this release was signed with intent for deceit.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but the question is whether those rights include any copyright in the resulting work. She's going after third parties who have done nothing wrong, not the guy who deceived her.
Re: (Score:3)
Actors sign release forms such as these [ithentic.com];
I agree that I will not assert or maintain against ___________________________, your
successors, assigns and licensees, any claim, action, suit or demand of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to those grounded upon invasion of privacy, rights of publicity or other civil rights, or for any reason in connection with your authorized use of my physical likeness and sound in the Picture as herein provided.
Actors in effect sign over their rights as they pertain to the movie. One of those right is copyright. Without a valid release copyright to the actor's image is retained by the actor. The DMCA allows copyright holders to have they property taken down. She is not "going after" Google but Google is going after her. She filed a DMCA and the courts agreed with her position. Now Google is appealing the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Actors sign release forms such as these [ithentic.com];
I agree that I will not assert or maintain against ___________________________, your
successors, assigns and licensees, any claim, action, suit or demand of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to those grounded upon invasion of privacy, rights of publicity or other civil rights, or for any reason in connection with your authorized use of my physical likeness and sound in the Picture as herein provided.
Actors in effect sign over their rights as they pertain to the movie. One of those right is copyright. Without a valid release copyright to the actor's image is retained by the actor. The DMCA allows copyright holders to have they property taken down. She is not "going after" Google but Google is going after her. She filed a DMCA and the courts agreed with her position. Now Google is appealing the decision.
You do realize that the statement you quoted doesn't mention copyright at all, right? That would because people don't own copyright to their own image. There certainly are other laws that pertain to this, but not copyright, and not the DMCA. Of course, they're trying to claim copyright because copyright in the US is very strongly enforced, and privacy laws in the US generally are not.
Where in the copyright law is somebody granted rights to any photograph taken of them? If it isn't in the law, then failu
Re: (Score:2)
Moral judgment doesn't even come itnto it. It depends entirely on the wording in the release. If it placed no limits on the usage or intended purpose and she signed it anyway, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit OT, but you reminded me of a similar claim by Kate Mulgrew (aka The Worst Captain) over the geocentrist documentary The Principle [avclub.com].
Re: (Score:2)
>"someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted" //
I suspect you're misunderstanding. If a film portrays a real person falsely then the person has a libel claim (under eg UK law). If an actor plays a role and that role demonstrates that the character is a pathological beacon of hatred, a sadistic coward or whatever, then the actor isn't being misrepresented as they are merely playing a role, no natural person is being unfair
Why should Muslims get special treatment? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a vegetarian. What if I decide I am offended by meat by advertised?
Sounds crazy, but it really is the same thing. People decide what will offend.
Youtube commentator Pat Condell recently made a great video on the subject.
Choosing to be offended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg
Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score:5, Informative)
The title is sarcastic. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the film is anti-muslim.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And for anyone who doesn't remember, this was the film that Obama blamed the Benghazi attacks on. Despite later admitting that, no, oops, that wasn't what caused the attacks at all.
Of course we still don't know exactly what happened with Benghazi since while the Democrats are more than willing to put CIA operations at risk to insult the Bush administration, they sure as hell aren't willing to let anyone know what happened in Benghazi. Maybe in 2022 we'll finally get a Senate report on the truth about Beng
Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score:4, Insightful)
"Oops"?
The attack happened on Sept 11th just before the 2012 election.
You don't really think it was an accident that they blamed some film-maker and threw him in jail to deflect responsibility from themselves, do you?
Muslim uprisings during movie releases (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this movie was blamed for anti-Western riots that took place in several Muslim countries. But in fact, its release happened to coincide w/ the 'Arab Spring' uprisings in the Arab empire.
However, the inane aspect about it is that while Republicans blamed Obama for what happened in Benghazi, fact remains that their position on Libya/Qadaffi was no different from the Democrats. If anything, it was Obama who was showing sense dragging his feet in supporting the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrein and other places. And Republicans - from McCain to Hannity all clamoring for Obama to support the anti-Qadaffi uprising in Libya. Obama would have done well to follow his initial instincts and stay completely out of it.
I'm no fan of Qadaffi, but the Qadaffi who Reagan bombed in 1982 was completely different from the Qadaffi post the Iraq war. In fact, one of the few successes of the Iraq war was that Qadaffi decided to discontinue his chemical/biological weapons programs, and repair relations w/ the West. In other words, the Qadaffi who was lynched in that uprising was no longer a firebreathing hater of the West, or a troublemaker throughout Africa. The rebels, on the other hand, had links to the various Muslim Brotherhood movements in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and were not worth supporting, since their rise to power was gonna mean the emergence of an Islamic regime in Tripoli, similar to ISIS. However, the cretins throughout Western capitals and spanning both Left wing and Right wing parties decided that it was worth supporting them in the name of 'democracy'. Well, we saw how long that lasted, particularly in Egypt.
Truth is, and this comes to the heart of that otherwise badly made movie, that Muslim countries cannot stay democratic, once the power is directly given to the people. Democracy means political, religious and other pluralism - in other words, acceptance and tolerance for political, religious and other views that fly against the mainstream. But Islam is not a pluralistic religion that tolerates other religions, and extending that concept, Islamic sects ain't pluralistic either. That's why you have Shias persecuting Sunnis (in Iran, Syria & Iraq), Sunnis persecuting Shias (in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq, Afghanistan and so on), Sunnis persecuting Ahmadiyas (in Indonesia & Pakistan), on top of your usual Muslims persecuting non-Muslims in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries. Even if the governments in question are democratic, persecution happens, since it's the will of the majority community in each of these countries - that follows a tradition set by Mohammed himself.
As a result, the countries that don't have a major unrest are countries that have anti-Islamic dictatorships @ the top, that keep their Muslim populations hinged. Countries like the ex-Soviet Stans, Algeria, Turkey (before the current Erdogan regime), and Tunisia (before Ben Ali was toppled). Or kingdoms that keep their populations quiet, like Jordan or Oman. Other than that, all the Muslim countries that have gone democratic have also seen Islamic regimes come to power - like Hamas. But the good thing, at least in Syria, is that w/ a full blown civil war going on, you have one group of our enemies - ISIS - fighting the others - Syria, Iran and yes, even Iraq.
The right solution to Benghazi at the time, had anyone in diplomatic circles had a clue, would have been to pull US diplomats & journalists out of all these Arab countries and watch their civil wars from a distance. No handwringing over the rights of people, or anything like that. Just watch them do what they excel at doing - rioting. And keep all Western non-Muslim citizens out of there, warning them that they'd be responsible for their own security if they go despite these warnings and anything bad happens to them - just like Lara Logan.
Re: (Score:2)
Some think using force is the solution to every problem and some believe democracy is the solution to every problem.
The disaster of the Arab spring is what you get when you combine the two ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Some think using force is the solution to every problem and some believe democracy is the solution to every problem.
The disaster of the Arab spring is what you get when you combine the two ideas.
You do realize that most of the older democracies became that way through the use of force, right? The ones that didn't were colonies of democratic nations for the most part already, and since the occupying nation was democratically controlled by people who generally didn't care for tyranny measures like civil disobedience were far more successful.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA may have gotten too involved in Libya and contradicted its "no boots on the ground" policy but overall, Obama stayed out of everything. Now, Obama had an over-extended military to protect, particularly during the 'Arab spring', but his isolationist policies ensured that the USA failed their 'world police' duties. This aided the rise of militants as much as the push for democratic reform.
This is the fabled 'White Man's Burden'. Why is it the responsibility of the West to ensure that people in Muslim lands don't do what they've been doing ever since they became Muslim (which was even before many of the Western countries, such as US, Germany, Britain even existed)? Shias and Sunnis have hated each other since the death of Mohammed - how can Western (this includes Russian) influence be expected to change any of that? Particularly when the West is looked at with both envy (due to being both
Re: (Score:2)
What I posted are the current facts, not trolls.
The fools who got mod points yesterday may want to mod it to oblivion, but that is simply because they dont like what they have heard.
Which is too bad.
The AC said "we dont know anything about Benghazi, and that is a LIE.
The AC is not intersting, nor insightful.
Nor does he apparently know the first thing about Benghazi:
There have been 6 congressional investigations so far, as well at outside review.
6 times the GOP has been forced to issue reports that conclude
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL @ MediaMatters propaganda.
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
From ABC [usatoday.com]: "The "talking points" memo on what the Obama administration should tell the public was the basis for statements made by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack to explain what happened.
Rice insisted the attack emanated from a protest over an anti-Islam video produced in America that turned violent and that terrorism was not involved. The White House has since acknowledged the assau
Re: (Score:2)
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.
Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate... [senate.gov]
The relevant part, from the summary, is here:
In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness stateme
Re: (Score:2)
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.
Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate... [senate.gov] The relevant part, from the summary, is here: In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.
Oh, right, of course: CANNOT be the fault of the White House. It's "somebody else's fault". We can blame this one on Bush, too, right?
So, we can say they told "the truth", because, of course, the truth is fungible. It doesn't matter if it was completely wrong, or inaccurate, or that they kept promoting the false narrative even after the intelligence reports were corrected [blogspot.com], only that we deflect blame before the elections!
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spouting nonsensical BS, it only reveals your stupidity and unwillingness to face facts:
-There have been 6 congressional investigations so far, as well at outside review.
-6 times the GOP has been forced to issue reports that conclude that the White House did not do anything, and the very notion of any sort of benghazi scandal is completely manufactured and perpetuated only by certain politicians and Fox News without any basis in fact.
If the GOP had found anything they would be crowing from the rooftops
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're saying something reasonable here about the warmongers that have been running the country for at least 20 years, and the way they orchestrate a bunch of theatrics to look like opposition when something goes wrong, as if there is anyone in power that's actually opposed to all the killing of brown people and promoting warfare.
Unfortunately, it's really difficult to understand you with Obama's cock so far down your throat.
Re: (Score:2)
And here we have an example of the most classless form of concession: the insult. You could've just said "Ok, I'm wrong; I accept that seven different GOP-led investigations have uncovered nothing untoward"
Haha. Nice try, jackass. Total strawman, because I never made any assertion about anything, other than the WH narrative was false, and known false. Whether that is "untoward" or not is is an exercise left to those who would interpret the facts. The OP's rant was simply a distraction from his unwillingness to acknowledge facts [slashdot.org]. Your misguided attack is nothing but a way to distract yourself from uncomfortable truths about your own worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
6 GOP led investigations in a row believe it.
And they have access to all the classified docs,
as well as the public record.
You think theyre wrong?
Based on what?
Your partisanship isnt a valid reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Propoganda?
It's a matter of public record.
It's not like its hard to research.
You dont agree with their conclusions? Then prove it.
Your USA TOday link doesnt prove or disprove anything.
In fact it matches and corroborates what I just posted.
If you had bothered at all read the links to the reports or evenw hat I posted you would have seen that even the Congress, who doesnt want to, believes the WH based its initial statements on the CIA intelligence provided to them.
That's the point: EVEN THE GOP, WHO WANTED
Re: (Score:2)
The only assertion I am making is that "the White House" did NOT tell the truth. That's backed up by the report and the USA Today link. Finding "nothing" doesn't really mean anything, other than we had Mike Morell to take the fall (and get a cushy high-paying gig, spreading propaganda via CBS, plus an "honorary" position on one of the administration's "advisory" boards).
The assertion that "it was bad intelligence" was false (this is, in fact, a lie). Mike Morell testified that he got reports from the CIA
Re: (Score:2)
posting facts is not a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
These days wikipedia is as truth worthy as "world weekly news."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that calls itself an encyclopedia for the masses should aim as much to maintain a NPV. The problem is, NPV is long since dead especially with groups like "project feminism" injecting their political bias into everything from STEM to gaming.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
. It is not fair to criticize someone for being born gay.
Except, there is NO proof that anyone has ever been "born gay". Look deep into your past skywalker, for there lies the answer where your affliction began
Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score:4, Informative)
"innocence of muslims" really?
what an awkward for this to come up as people are held hostage by extremist muslims
Yes I know, not all muslims are like that, religion of peace, vocal minority, blah blah blah
You can defend a bear all you want, it's still gonna rip your face off
Then you will probably be happy to learn that the video is actually anti-Islamic.
Re: (Score:1)
By your definition, islam is anti-islamic. No event in the movie are contested by muslim. No scenes claimed to misrepresent Islam. Muslim are angry at the movie simply because it show the prophet. Nobody is allowed to play, draw, paint or portrait in any form the prophet of Islam, especially not a infidel pig.
I watched the movie severals time (it more like a trailer really) and I found nothing offensive. It look like a cheap Christian nativity movie. In the movie Mohammed is show to be a warrior and a pedop
Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everything (Score:5, Insightful)
A person who has not commited a crime is innocent.
A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal. It is what that person does with those beliefs that makes all the difference.
Re: Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal.
I don't know, but there may be a few convicted pedophiles who disagree with you as to beliefs not being criminal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt anybody going before a parole board is going to be released if they made such statement public. It is also likely to get you put on a short list for investigators as soon as there is a reported crime of pedophilia.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought and action are to different things. Speaking one's mind is acting on one's thoughts, just as much as otherwise acting out on one's thoughts and urges would be. From there on one enters the big grey area where a legislator could potentially infringe upon one's basic freedoms. Potentially being the operative word here. But the opposite is true as well - by speaking one's mind one could potentially infringe upon the basic freedoms of others as well. One's own freedom ends where those of others begin an
Re: (Score:2)
"A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise"
Unless it's a tax or a drug case.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
cant call you anything cause youre too cowardly to post under your own profile.
which is ultimately the point about most bigots: theyre just cowards.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're THAT much of a coward, they win.
Grow some balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How did it compare to the heinous crime of being accused of having sex with a game reviewer?
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying youre scared of internet tough guys?
most threats are from cowards who will never do anything.
the fact that some people do it while claiming to be muslims doesnt make them special, so why do you run in fear and treat it any differently than any other person making anonymous threats?
And lets get something straight here: calling someone a "muslim lover" is part of what makes you a bigotted scumbag.
I'm no more a muslim lover than I am a christian lover, atheist lover, or race lover, or tra
Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score:5, Interesting)
what an awkward for this to come up as america is involved in more oppression, incarceration and war within its borders and across the globe than any other nation since WW2
America has done bad things, no doubt. But I hardly think it compares to regimes like Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, pretty much any regime in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.
The U.S. generally only plays harsh when countries don't play ball (don't sell it oil, support the USSR/Russia over the U.S., etc.). And it has a nasty history of looking the other way when friendly oppressive regimes serve its economic interests (as in Chile, Saudi Arabia, etc.). But life under direct U.S. rule is far from "oppressive." And even in its economic interests, the U.S. will only look the other way for so long if a friendly dictator becomes openly oppressive.
And all of this hardly makes the U.S. exceptional. Pretty much every developed country does similar scummy things in its own economic and political interests. The U.S. is only exceptional in the reach of its economic and military power. Its methodology and philosophy is pretty unexceptional. In fact, U.S. colonialism is pretty light-handed compared with the historical colonialism of other European countries. The U.S. gives its conquered territories at least some autonomy. Compare that the British and French empires.
And if you want to talk heavy-handed, take a look at Israel sometime. The U.S. is downright sweet and cuddly compared to them. When the U.S. wants to stop your nuclear weapons program, they might send a computer virus and some economic sanctions after you. Israel just goes right to blowing up your nuclear scientists with car bombs.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Can't you do empathy? Peoples of these 'oppressive' regime defend their the same way you do. They believe their situation is not that bad compared the the real bad one. In the case of a comrade of the USSR, he see the fascist american and european as the oppressed ones. This is why there are wars, because everybody think they are right and everyone is evil. You are part of the problem.
As for your comment about Israel; Everybody know it is a terrorist state that should not be allowed to exist. Just like all
Re: (Score:2)
Being killed because you wear glasses, whether or not you are educated, because glasses are considered to be the mark of the educated elite is a degree of oppression that the US does not have and hopefully never will. That is just one thing that the Khmer Rouge did.
Yes, there are problems here, but living in Cambodia was a nightmare of the worst sort. They depopulated every city in the country, sent them all off to the country to work on insufficient nutrition, and basically killed anyone who didn't fit t
Hope it won't happen in USA, again ! (Score:1)
In the Benghazi incident only three Americans died
The 9/11 event, over 3,000 perished
What is happening in Sydney Australia can happen in USA, do you understand that ??
Re:Hope it won't happen in USA, again ! (Score:4, Interesting)
In the Benghazi incident only three Americans died
The 9/11 event, over 3,000 perished
The war in Iraq, 650,000 Iraqis perished.
Oops. You only care about dead Americans. Well, 4,000 Americans died in GWB's war. Tell me again why we invaded?
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that Sadam's military was full of essentially modern day Nazis, we weren't attacked by Nazis on 9/11. We went after the wrong bunch.
Saudi Arabia would have been a better target but the Bushes were too busy holding hands with the King.
Re: (Score:3)
While it's true that Sadam's military was full of essentially modern day Nazis, [...]
Saddam was not a nazi. He held a iron grip over muslim factions that can't help but to kill each other. And that is exactly what they did once Saddam was removed.
Saddam Hussein was not a model leader but he was a 'moderate' if such a thing can exist in the islamic word. He also was the only one able to control all these retarded Muslim and keep them from murdering each other. He also was the only one capable of protecting the iraqis minority of other religious faith.
All the claim that he killed babies or gas villages are lies. Not believe the CIA in the 1990s made you a tinfoil-hat'er, still believing them in 2014 make you a fool.
The truth is a bit more complex. The Sunnis weren't all that upset about getting rid of Saddam. What really ticked them off was when L. Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army (sending a couple hundred thousand Sunnis out into the world with no job, no money and guns) and then fired every Sunni in the Iraqi civil service.
Only then did we start to see lots of internecine violence.
Then we brought in Nuri Al-Maliki who systematically discriminated against the Sunnis in all walks of life. Which just made things
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that Saddam was a pretty close US ally for a long time and received significant US weapons and support for a long time...until we turned on him.
Most of those 650K people were innocents. The rest could have cared less about the USA had we not attacked and invaded them.
Re: (Score:2)
Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist revolutionary, which is to say he advocated a mixture of Arab Nationalism and socialism. National socialism IS Nazism.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
a single wack-job
The hostages aren't even dead yet and our islamist apologists have already played it down.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
a single wack-job
The hostages aren't even dead yet and our islamist apologists have already played it down.
I'd rather be held captive by a whack job than a Muslim. Someone might be able to persuade the whack job that he was acting wrongly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again with your infantile hatred. You've probably met more Muslims than you realise, and none of them wanted to kill you. Get a grip - you sound like a scared child throwing a tantrum.
So you're saying that if a Muslim held me hostage they would probably be nice and not have bad intentions? I think you need to get a grip if you think that hostage takers are likely to be nice. Of course from your previous comments I can see that it may be that your logic skills have been insufficient for you to comprehend the statement. Just to be clear it means:
I would prefer to be taken hostage by someone who (is a hostage taker AND is a wack-job)
to someone who (is a hostage taker AND is a Muslim)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather be held hostage by a whack job with an obvious motivation than one with unknown motivation. At least with a Muslim whack-job, you know that sending in a Muslim cleric to talk him down has some chance of success.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Multiple congressional reports, all but one led by the GOP, and they all say the same thing: There is no scandal. The White House told the truth. Fox is lying.
But hey, the facts are known about Whitewater too, but that hasnt stopped you idiots from continuing to push that fake scandal for over 20 years either.
http://mediamatters.org/resear... [mediamatters.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. P
Re: (Score:2)
So the relevence or accuracy of facts changes based on who said them?
Sorry but no, it doesnt work like that.
And those investigations were led by the GOP.
And they disagreed, officially, and publicly, with everything you just said.
6 times in a row.
You quite simply dont know what youre talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing the Obama administration has done has been original or remarkable.
Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by c
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically mentioned Whitewater and Benghazi.
Therefore it is very much NOT offtopic.
Stupid mods.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI in many muslim majority countries children of muslim parents are automatically deemed to be muslim and abandoning islam to take up another religion or just because you don't belive in religion at allis a serious crime (punishable by death in at least some cases).
While in christian majority countries you are generally free to chose whatever religion you like.
And then theres places like the ISIS territories where they go even further and force people of other faiths to convert to islam on penalty of deat
Re: (Score:3)
That's all relatively recent developments. Until the 1800s, you were whatever religion the lord of your land was, down to the sect of Christianity. If you didn't like it, too bad- shut up or be jailed or killed.
You were a jew? You can't own land, must live in a ghetto, must be locked in at night, must be one of about half a dozen professions, and would regularly be killed in mob attacks by christians. It was literally better for them in Islamic territory where they only had to pay an extra tax.
You want
Re: (Score:2)
These peoples see our freedom of religion as a weakness and exploit it to force their way in.
And as far as I can tell, you seem to agree with them: you think our freedom of religion is a weakness, and should be eliminated.
You're not the solution: you're the problem.