U.N. chief says anti-Islam filmmaker abused freedom of expression

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,197
27,688
898
Seattle
#1
Do we have a "Islam movie fallout thread?"

U.N. chief says anti-Islam filmmaker abused freedom of expression

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a "disgraceful and shameful act."

The film, posted on the Internet under several titles including "Innocence of Muslims," mocked the Prophet Mohammad and portrayed him as a womanizer and a fool.

It sparked days of deadly anti-American violence in many Muslim countries, including an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador died.

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference.

"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."

"My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act," he said.

A California man convicted of bank fraud was taken in for questioning on Saturday by U.S. authorities investigating possible probation violations stemming from the making of the video. He has denied involvement in the film and has now gone into hiding.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by David Brunnstrom)
http://news.yahoo.com/un-chief-says-anti-islam-filmmaker-abused-freedom-205207133.html?_esi=1
 

jimmyslostchin

Malarkey is slang for bullshit isn't it?
Jun 8, 2005
2,331
50
313
NJ
#2
THe U.N. took the most neutered stance possible. Surprising.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,127
3,031
258
Sunnydale
#3
Leading Muslim Scholar Calls for United Nations to Criminalize Speech

“We ask everyone to ponder the ramifications of provoking the feelings of over one billion people by a small party of people who desires not to seek peace nor fraternity between members of humanity,” bin Bayyah wrote in a public declaration in response to the anti-Islam video that has provoked massive demonstrations and several deaths across the Muslim world.

“This poses a threat to world peace with no tangible benefit realized. Is it not necessary in today’s world for the United Nations to issue a resolution criminalizing the impingement of religious symbols? We request all religious and political authorities, as well as people of reason to join us in putting a stop to this futility that benefits no one.”
Its free speech that poses a threat to world peace, not crazy people and their religion. Same old story, 9/11 is because of liberty so give up your 4th rights to be safe. Do these muslims know they are nothing but tools for the globalists?
 

Psychopath

I want to fuck your girlfriend.
Dec 28, 2008
19,172
3,689
393
Constant sate of misery
#4
"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."
Yes it should be protected, asshole.
"My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act," he said.
Hey fuckstick, it isn't a fucking privilege.
 

Psychopath

I want to fuck your girlfriend.
Dec 28, 2008
19,172
3,689
393
Constant sate of misery
#5

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,247
12,977
438
Atlanta, GA
#6
My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege
Which one is it, dick? It can't be both. They're mutually exclusive.
 

ShooterMcGavin

Go back to your shanties.
May 25, 2005
18,029
1,380
643
#7
Fucking cocksucker. How do you have an upper-management job at the U.N. and not believe in basic human rights? It's my right to call you a dirty chink, how does that grab ya shitbird?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#8
Fucking cocksucker. How do you have an upper-management job at the U.N. and not believe in basic human rights? It's my right to call you a dirty chink, how does that grab ya shitbird?
Here is the list of the member nations of the U.N. Human Rights Council. No one should be surprised that a member of the U.N. doesn't believe in Human Rights.

Angola 2013
Austria 2014
Bangladesh 2012
Belgium 2012
Benin 2014
Botswana 2014
Burkina Faso 2014
Cameroon 2012
Chile 2014
China 2012
Congo 2014
Costa Rica 2014
Cuba 2012
Czech Republic 2014
Djibouti 2012
Ecuador 2013
Guatemala 2013
Hungary 2012
India 2014
Indonesia 2014
Italy 2014
Jordan 2012
Kuwait 2014
Kyrgyzstan 2012
Libya * 2013
Malaysia 2013
Maldives 2013
Mauritania 2013
Mauritius 2012
Mexico 2012
Nigeria 2012
Norway 2012
Peru 2014
Philippines 2014
Poland 2013
Qatar 2013
Republic of Moldova 2013
Romania 2014
Russian Federation 2012
Saudi Arabia 2012
Senegal 2012
Spain 2013
Switzerland 2013
Thailand 2013
Uganda 2013
United States of America 2012
Uruguay
 

ShooterMcGavin

Go back to your shanties.
May 25, 2005
18,029
1,380
643
#9
Here is the list of the member nations of the U.N. Human Rights Council. No one should be surprised that a member of the U.N. doesn't believe in Human Rights.
dmfd
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#13
The US Embassy in Cairo made the same exact statement on the first day of the riots:
U.S. Government Response to Violence in Libya & Egypt Indicates Troubling Views on Free Speech
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,980
9,826
848
#14
these assholes seem to forget and actually want to take away our second amendment to try and enforce there bullshit ideas of "rights"
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,651
37,816
628
In a porn tree
#15
Seriously, who gives a shit? It's the UN... fuck that pack of toothless do-nothings.
 
Jan 9, 2006
4,561
11
228
Delmar, NY
#16
The US Embassy in Cairo made the same exact statement on the first day of the riots:
U.S. Government Response to Violence in Libya & Egypt Indicates Troubling Views on Free Speech
We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
I don't see anything troubling about that. They're just saying they don't support what was said. They're not saying they don't support the right to say it. It's the classic "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#17
I don't see anything troubling about that. They're just saying they don't support what was said. They're not saying they don't support the right to say it.
They are saying that the film is an abuse of the right to free expression.

Those are the same exact words you used in the title of the thread, remember?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,651
37,816
628
In a porn tree
#18
I don't see anything troubling about that. They're just saying they don't support what was said. They're not saying they don't support the right to say it. It's the classic "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
He's clearly going beyond that...

"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."
What he's saying is...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it... unless what you say offends tender religious sensibilities. In that case, I won't defend your right... I'll destroy it. "
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#20
They are saying that the film is an abuse of the right to free expression.

Those are the same exact words you used in the title of the thread, remember?
Oups, for some reason I thought LastDeadMouse's post (the one I'm replying to) was written by BIV.

That's a weird mistake to make. His fat guy avatar is black.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,197
27,688
898
Seattle
#21
And then this:

California judge rules anti-Islam film can stay on YouTube

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An anti-Islam film trailer that has spawned violent protests across the Muslim world can remain on YouTube despite a request from a California actress to have it taken down, a judge ruled on Thursday.

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia had sought to have the film removed in a suit filed on Wednesday against YouTube parent company Google Inc and a California man linked to the film. She argued that she was duped into taking part and had since received death threats.

"The request for a temporary restraining order is denied. The plaintiff has not shown a likelihood to prevail on the merits," Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Luis Lavin said. A date for a future hearing in the case was not immediately set.

Garcia's is the first known civil lawsuit connected to the making of the video that depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a womanizer and a fool. The film helped generate a torrent of violence across the Muslim world last week during the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and in the following days.

The violence included an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East by furious Muslims.

In her lawsuit, Garcia accused a producer of the movie, whom she identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula using the alias Sam Bacile, of duping her into appearing in a "hateful" film that she had been led to believe was a simple desert adventure movie.

"There was no mention of 'Mohammad' during filming or on set. There were no references made to religion nor was there any sexual content of which Ms. Garcia was aware," read the lawsuit, which accused Nakoula of fraud and slander.

For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Caricatures deemed insulting in the past have provoked protests and drawn condemnation from officials, preachers, ordinary Muslims and many Christians.

Last week, Google rejected a request by the White House to reconsider its decision to keep the clips on YouTube, but the company has blocked the trailer in certain Muslim countries such as Egypt and Libya. The White House had asked Google to evaluate whether the video violated YouTube's terms of service.

PRIVACY ISSUES

On Thursday, Garcia sat in court wearing a red blouse and black skirt. At one point she raised her hand to speak when the judge pointed out the actress has appeared in the media since the film, despite making a claim to invasion of privacy. Garcia was not allowed to address the court.

Her attorney, Cris Armenta, sought to persuade the judge that Garcia, who is from Bakersfield, California, suffered harm similar to a person whose privacy is violated in the unauthorized release of a sex tape.

"This has to do with somebody who did not consent to a certain product, and yet it was put out there," Armenta said.

An attorney for Google said the rights of an actor do not protect that person from how a film is perceived.

"If we viewed it that way we'd say that Arnold Schwarzenegger as a cyborg in 'Terminator' was a factual statement about Arnold Schwarzenegger," lawyer Timothy Alger said, adding that YouTube is only a host for the film clips that it had no hand in producing or posting to the site.

U.S. officials have said authorities are not investigating the film project itself and that even if it was inflammatory or led to violence, simply producing it cannot be considered a crime in the United States due to the nation's strong free speech laws.

But Nakoula, a Coptic Christian California man who pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2010, was interviewed by federal probation officers on Saturday probing whether he violated the terms of his release while making the film.

Nakoula, who was released from prison in 2011, is prohibited from accessing the Web or assuming aliases without the approval of his probation officer, court records show. Violations could result in him being sent back to prison.

Nakoula, 55, did not return to his house in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos following his interview, and his whereabouts are unknown. Last week, he denied involvement in the film in a phone call to his Coptic bishop in Los Angeles.

Garcia, asked if a longer version of the film exists, told reporters outside court before the hearing that she did not believe the movie was ever finished.

"There is no entire movie, there's only that clip," she said.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Claudia Parsons)
Some commons sense leaking through.