Talk politics.

Sorry, I really don't buy this bullshit. Prophet Mohammed is all over the internet, should we identify the makers of that media and ship them off? I'm sick of appeasing extremists. 99.999999% of the Muslim world had the decently not to freak out over this trivial bullshit. It was just an excuse to express their sentiments anyway, since the movie came out months ago.

Either we have freedom of expression or we don't. No, our laws don't apply to other countries, who don't want freedom of expression and most importantly don't want us to have it, either. I'm not letting my rights be dictated by radical people from across the world.

The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy is cute, but not used anymore for a reason. The modern legal test is whether the speech will cause imminent unlawful conduct (say, telling a mob that the target of their anger is RIGHT OVER THERE!). The guy who made the film is a douchebag, yes, but I don't think that we as a society should, or that I as an individual could, agree with shipping him off to face brutal mob justice.

Not sure, as the film doesn't really fall into 'parody' then there may be legitimate libel issues against the film's original crew. They can likely prove financial damage.

I'm also okay with shipping the maker(s) of this film off to a Middle Eastern country

Is this America, or not? What happened to "if we don't protect offensive speech, no speech is safe?"

You know what also offends Muslims?

Pornography.

So, just so we're clear, "first they came for the no-talent ass-clowns who made shitty and offensive anti-Muslim "movies," but I said nothing because I am a connoisseur whose harddrive is full of images of barely legal cooze because it empowers women by allowing them to claim their sexuality,... etc, etc."

> What I'm saying is BOTH sides on this issue are wrong, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Also, to pretend that making an idiotic and insulting movie is as bad as killing people is foolish.

I recognize that Nakoula is doing ill rather than good. I recognize that both he, and many Islamic leaders which he would vehemently claim to oppose, are (as Sagan said about opposing millitaries) "locked in some ghastly mutual embrace, each needs the other ". They mutually exploit each others' behavior to inspire and radicalize their base. They use each other, in the lowest sense.

So I have no respect for Nakoula and his silly movie. But I can't pretend that talking about something is as bad as killing people. I do not accept that because such riots have indeed become predictable, that the participants are somehow devoid of choice in the matter, and thus absolved from responsibility. I chafe at the idea that what I can or can't talk about has anything to do with someone else's propensity to be offended by it, or the lengths they will go to if offended by it. I'm worried that any moral equation that contains Nakoula's movie and the murder of diplomats as its terms, and does not stress the gulf of moral distance between talking, and killing, risks an inferred equivalency where speech acts are 'as bad' as killing, and thus as legitimate a target of compulsion.

You seem to be mind-reading the producers' intent.