Clear and present danger?

[bigbadberry3]

What exactly qualifies as clear and present danger and the 1st amendment? Does any of this recent uproar over media fall into this category as we see world events evolve?

Mods, feel free to lock if this violates any of the forum guidelines.

[themadscientist]

Could you give some examples of the uproar you speak of?

[bigbadberry3]

I was referencing the recent youtube clip and savage ads being placed in NYC and possibly train terminals.

[themadscientist]

Pretend I have know idea what you are hinting to.

[bigbadberry3]

The movie I'm alluding to was the movie preview to an anti Islam video and then the subway/bus stop ads calling the Jihad savages.

I was wondering if this was still covered under free speech if it is known to incite violence or public danger?

EDIT: At one point, Obama did ask for removal (or censorship) of the video from youtube as it happened to coincide with the attack on the US Embassy.

[themadscientist]

freedom of speech is just that, free. You can say whatever you want. You are not free from the results of the things you say, however. I would say the maker of that stupid video bears responsibility for what happened and he should be sued by survivors and family members of the people killed.

Obama want the power to lock up people indefinitely without due process, his judgment is already suspect. Romney agrees with him too, nice.

[carloslebaron]

freedom of speech is just that, free. You can say whatever you want. You are not free from the results of the things you say, however. I would say the maker of that stupid video bears responsibility for what happened and he should be sued by survivors and family members of the people killed.

Obama want the power to lock up people indefinitely without due process, his judgment is already suspect. Romney agrees with him too, nice.

I don't know much about law, but my opinion is that it must be proved that the filmmaker had the intention to cause chaos or to incite criminal actions with his film.

As far as I can perceive, the video -trailer- appears to have the intention of mockery, like Saturday Night Live or any comedy show on TV.

Of course people will be offended by jokes, and their reaction will be different depending of the gravity of the mockery and the personality of the offended, like ignoring the joke, demanding an apology, suing the joker, coming out to streets to show discontent, and last but never least... revenge with unlimited methods to perform it.

What happened after the film was released is not 100% fault of the filmmaker, because hatred against the US by Muslim countries is a fact since decades ago, since the US army has been invading those countries to install puppets as governors and change their culture. The film is just the corollary of decades of attacks to their political rule and to their culture by the US, the UK and its allies.

To me, the filmmaker is free to express his feelings, ideas, etc as long as his intentions are not criminal. I saw the trailer and wasn't much funny, it has irony, amateur actors, poor script, and surely is not PG...after that, I don't see any reason why to have the filmmaker in detention...even when his work has caused so much trouble...such is the reaction of people, and the ONLY ones responsible for the criminal actions and burning of flags and more are the ones who performed the crimes.

About the actress who is suing the film maker because she had no idea of the intentions of the film, well...she must read and understand contracts, because if the contract says that her participation can be used for several purposes at the will of the filmmaker, and with her signature she agreed with it, then she is responsible for the consequences that happen to her after the film is released. Before she writes her signature, she should add that she doesn't want her acting to be part of pornography -even when she is not performing sex but the film is about porno- neither to be an offense against someone, etc.

See, to sign a contract where no specific intention is mentioned for the film is like to sign a blank check, and if a contract was made with signatures from both sides, she has nothing to claim. If the contract was oral and no witness were present, then will be her word against his word...and so forth. Lets see what the contract says to check how valid is her complaint.

Again, my opinion is that the reaction of Muslims is understood but I see no justification to murder people who wasn't related to the film and to murder anyone in general, and that the filmmaker is not 100% guilty of such reactions, his work is just the trigger of an explosive that was waiting to explode long ago.

[WDRacing]

Muslims riot and freak out at any unflattering portrayal of Mohammed. I'm fed up with their intolerance, screwem.

Chanting death to America because of something as stupid as a youtube clip or a black and white comic shows exactly what type of people we're dealing with. The world has no place for this type of people and would be better off without them.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Muslims riot and freak out at any portrayal of Mohammed. I'm fed up with the intolerance of Muslim extremists, screwem.

FTFY

[WDRacing]

They aren't all extremists that are rioting and chanting death to America. An extremist will launch violent attacks, I'm fed up with ALL of them. If you're intolerant of something in the media, you can gfy imho.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

I guess our definitions of what an extremist is differs then.

[WDRacing]

To me, if you're protesting against an entire country or it's people because of ANYTHING that appears in some media format you have no place in today's world.

These people believe in the physical oppression of anything that doesn't fit inside of their tiny, close minded, little boxes of reality. I don't narrow it down too extremists because even the leaders of these countries are expressing their desire for a change in international law. Or rather the addition of a law that prohibits any form of expression that portrays the profit Mohammed in any unflattering fashion.

I did nothing to these people, yet they feel the need to wish for my death. Well they can all GFT's.

[themadscientist]

These people believe in the physical oppression of anything that doesn't fit inside of their tiny, close minded, little boxes of reality.

Yeah I hate that too.

http://www.examiner.com/article/kansas- ... ecute-gays

"They (the gays) should be put to death. That's what happened in Israel. That's why homosexuality wouldn't have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. — 'Oh, so you're saying we should go out and start killing them, no?' — I'm saying the government should. They won't but they should. [You say], 'oh, I can't believe you you're horrible. You're a backwards neanderthal of a person.' Is that what you're calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal backwards.. in his morality. Is it his word or not? If it's his word, he commanded it. It's his idea, not mine. And I'm not ashamed of it."

[carloslebaron]

These people believe in the physical oppression of anything that doesn't fit inside of their tiny, close minded, little boxes of reality.

Yeah I hate that too.

http://www.examiner.com/article/kansas- ... ecute-gays

"They (the gays) should be put to death. That's what happened in Israel. That's why homosexuality wouldn't have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. — 'Oh, so you're saying we should go out and start killing them, no?' — I'm saying the government should. They won't but they should. [You say], 'oh, I can't believe you you're horrible. You're a backwards neanderthal of a person.' Is that what you're calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal backwards.. in his morality. Is it his word or not? If it's his word, he commanded it. It's his idea, not mine. And I'm not ashamed of it."

That Pastor is at least requiring what was done in biblical times, the homosexuals weren't killed by fanatic people in the streets but were in detention, sent to a judge and later sent to death, such was a judicial process.

I think the Pastor is right in part, that the government can't promote homosexualim by giving laws protecting them but must do something to stop such a sexual behavior, because is clear that homosexalism is a behavior against nature, and shouldn't be tolerated.

[themadscientist]

Carlos. If I see one more post like that you're gone. You can talk about anything else, but the whole homophobic crap is off-limits. Don't say another thing on this subject. Your silence is all that is required.

[WDRacing]

I don't like homosexuals either, unless they're lesbians, because I'm a hypocrite, which is my right. However, saying something like homosexuals deserve death and the Gov should be in control of administering ANY sort of punishment is something even I wouldn't say. The fact that I wouldn't even go there says something about how extreme that statement is.

Mike is right, don't say things like that dude

[Bubba1]

I don't like homosexuals either, unless they're hot lesbians,

FTFY. I figured you might not enjoy picturing, say, Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr going at it...

[WDRacing]

I don't like homosexuals either, unless they're hot lesbians,

FTFY. I figured you might not enjoy picturing, say, Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr going at it...

[themadscientist]

And one more post like THAT Bubba, I'll ban you too. Ruin my fantasies, ewww.
I picture them in torn flannel wrestling for dominance trying to get their fists in each other. *shiver*

[bigbadberry3]

Why did I even open this thread ....

[themadscientist]

So we could explore the bounds of the 1st amendment...no?