Protests over film
17/9/12 09:57![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kinvore.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn light of the recent firestorm of protests over the anti-Muslim film by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has prompted me to draw a few conclusions.
1. I'm okay with arming our embassies with flame throwers. Technically it's US soil and we have both a right and a duty to protect them. I don't think being offended by a film gives someone the right to violate international laws and treaties and attacking a government that had nothing to do with the offensive film to begin with. If people are willing to walk into a flamethrower in order to voice their displeasure then I'm all for it. Come at me, brah.
2. I'm also okay with shipping the maker(s) of this film off to a Middle Eastern country and letting the protestors deal with them. To me this is beyond a First Amendment issue: just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. I see this as akin to shouting "fire" in a movie theater. They knew this film would provoke violence and they did it anyway, so I don't see why we should allow others to pay for their douchebaggery.
What I'm saying is BOTH sides on this issue are wrong, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. This film shouldn't have been made, and yet we shouldn't give a pass to people to kill others just because they're offended. So I'm not taking a side on this one. A pox on both their houses.
1. I'm okay with arming our embassies with flame throwers. Technically it's US soil and we have both a right and a duty to protect them. I don't think being offended by a film gives someone the right to violate international laws and treaties and attacking a government that had nothing to do with the offensive film to begin with. If people are willing to walk into a flamethrower in order to voice their displeasure then I'm all for it. Come at me, brah.
2. I'm also okay with shipping the maker(s) of this film off to a Middle Eastern country and letting the protestors deal with them. To me this is beyond a First Amendment issue: just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. I see this as akin to shouting "fire" in a movie theater. They knew this film would provoke violence and they did it anyway, so I don't see why we should allow others to pay for their douchebaggery.
What I'm saying is BOTH sides on this issue are wrong, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. This film shouldn't have been made, and yet we shouldn't give a pass to people to kill others just because they're offended. So I'm not taking a side on this one. A pox on both their houses.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/12 23:40 (UTC)If it's true the guy's actually a Coptic Christian, he's FROM a Middle Eastern country and is probably very familiar with the sorts of people the protesters are...
...which is probably the reason he would fund or arrange to be funded and produce such an antagonistic movie in the first place.
For some people, it's all about idealism and, for others, it's personal and family experience with the subject matter.
So, not to explicitly defend the guy, but the violence and douchebaggery of the Muslims toward minority religious populations in the Middle East is probably the root cause for the production of this film intended to provoke more violence and douchebaggery, just in a more public and shared venue.
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/12 12:07 (UTC)I'm not saying tyranny of the majority is good, and don't misunderstand this as meaning that, but reality in the region is something different than how it's usually put as being. And even Israel these days has religious fanatics who don't understand the concept of democracy and wield influence all out of proportion to their numbers.