Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.


Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2013
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette





Screaming Fire in a Crowded & Violent World

by: Simple J. Malarkey

Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 20:19:50 PM EDT


(An alternative view.  Simple Makes a very strong case, but we have the right to political speech in this country.  Instead of telling the terrorists who this guy is, our country should be upholding our ideals. Which even include the right to be a dick. - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

Even with the First Amendment, people cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater.    Now we have a convicted drug dealer who has screamed fire in a crowded (and dangerous) world.

There is a big difference in these two situations, the latter is clearly a political act, while the former is simply a way to cause panic and, no doubt violence.  Clearly political forms of speech--no matter how irresponsible--must be protected.

But actions (and words) have consequences.  Anyone who has seen the 13 minute video in question, is aware of the reaction of extremists--who have a 7th century mentality--would have.  We are all aware of the deadly violence Muslim Extremist causes when they thought the Koran was destroyed or rioted over the Cartoon of Muhammad or assassinated Theo Van Gogh because of his movie.  Those who produced this video understood what would happen when word of it reached the Muslim world.

The result was the political equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Simple J. Malarkey :: Screaming Fire in a Crowded & Violent World
Four people are dead, thousands are rioting and attacking Americans and our troops are in danger of even more attacks.  Ironically, it also appears that the key person around this video has family in Egypt and he fears (rightfully) for his life and the lives of family members.  Even worse, this person is a Christian and no doubt this will cause even more violence against this minority group in Egypt.  His protected "free speech"--fanned by equally crazy people like the so-called preacher Terry Jones--is having catastrophic results.

Yet, conservatives in this country--from talk radio to Mitt Romney--defend this deadly form of free speech, claiming we have to defend our values.  You may not agree with it, but burning the American Flag is considered a form of free speech.  If someone walks into an American Legion Post meeting and burns an American Flag, do you condemn the 30 Vietnam Vets-who lost friends in combat and had their bodies drape in the flag-who kick the snots out of the idiot burning the flag?  Will you defend the idiot for exercising their free speech?  (And please, don't scream that I'm comparing Veterans with Terrorists--just using this outrageous comparison to make a point.)

No one is going to defend this idiot, so why defend the idiot that made an inflammatory video, knowing it would start violence--4 dead and counting?

With rights come responsibilities.  Just because I have the right to do something--like march around an NAACP meeting with a confederate flag--doesn't mean I should.  We can defend the right to do this, but we can still condemn the actual act because it is only meant to be inflammatory and could potentially incite violence.  

The so-called "apology" by the US Embassy in Egypt that the rightwing is rabid about was an attempt to de-escalate  a deadly situation.  And the rightwing--acting more in political campaign mode than acting responsible--condemns this behavior!  What the right leaves unsaid is their unspoken alternative to de-escalating this violent situation--to answer mass rioting with nation-state violence and risking even more quagmires we can not afford to be in.

In summary, even morons have a right to abuse the First Amendment to incite political violence.  But the rest of us have to act like we live in 2012 and not the 7th Century.  What needs to be defended today is enlightened behaviors and not the stoking the flames of violence.    

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I want terribly to agree with you Simple..... (0.00 / 0)
I just watched the first 4 minutes of the Innocence of Muslims video.  If the whole movie is as bad as the beginning of the trailer then who the heck is watching it?  It was intolerably bad movie making.  I thought at first I was watching a lost episode of The 'A' Team.  Then it turned to green screens.  Gag!

Otherwise my thoughts - if we ask people not to make movies like this, which seem to be made specifically to insult Islam, then shouldn't we ask others to not make movies that insult Chrisitianity, or Judaism?  Yet that seems to be the new national pasttime in the USA.

I agree with you that the movie is wretched.  I despise anything done on this scale to specifically insult others.  But lines are not easily drawn.  And what about political advertisements?  The GOP recently had a candidate advertise that her opponent used drugs (or something to that effect).  I see ads about the Presidential candidates that are outright lies!  Those ads are meant to incite action.  Some are mean to incite anger.  Just an example: Elizabeth Warren's ad that says women are again/still fighting for rights they earned 50 years ago.  That simply isn't true - they are fighting for expended rights to abortion coverage in health insurance.  It is dishonest and inciting anger and action.  

And yes, it happens from the right as well....  How do we know where to draw lines?  If political speech is protected, then why not religious speech?  Why not any kind of speech.  Isn't it all supposed to be protected?

As for the people waging violence in the middle east - I wonder what percent of them actually saw the video and what percent is just out feigning offense so they can show how much they hate the USA?    I hate to say it is like handing a gorilla a hammer and being surprised when it clubs someone to death.  Do we outlaw hammers?  Do we try and keep gorillas from getting their hands on hammers?  Do we stop using hammers for fear the gorilla may grab one? A hammer is a necessary tool in our world - as is free speech.  In their world it is a weapon used to kill each other and oppress each other.  

It's a hard question to answer.  I agree with you that we 'ought' to do the right thing and avoid insulting people, but when it happens what does the constitution protect?

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  


I appreciate your answer...but you may have missed my point... (0.00 / 0)
...I'm not suggesting we ban crappy movies that incite violence (what if were a work of art?)  What I object to are people defending this act.  Sure they have the right in our country to make this video.  But it should be condemned.  It should not be defended.  I've listened/read many (conservative) commentators accusing those who are trying to defuse the situation as apologists or sympathizers of the rioters.  Nobody is "supporting" rioters and nobody is sympathizing with crowds killing innocents.  What the US Embassy was trying to do was defuse this situation.  And for that, conservatives are condemning the President for not defending "our values".  Sure we 'ought' to protect political speech, no matter how inflammatory.  But we should not be attacking those trying to quite the outrage and trying to prevent violence.  That is my point.  To get to it, I had to wind my way thru a first amendment discussion.

As to your point/question about how many people in the Middle East has seen this video.  I would agree that it is very little.  But rumors have always generated more emotional reactions than fact.  To continue with your analogy--when a gorilla has a hammer: don't taunt it and get it madder.  Try and calm them so they don't hurt anyone else.  


[ Parent ]
If I missed your point I apologize... (0.00 / 0)
I too condemn anyone who makes a movie insulting Islam - especially one with such poor production values.  I further confemn those who attack and kill innocents because of it.  


We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
when some loon shoots up an abortion clinic....do you condemn the abortion providers and seekers for engaging in their "rights" that they know makes loons want to kill them?

No.

What the free world needs to do us have a "post a picture of Muhammad" day on Facebook and every other media site.  Get this nonsense over with so blame America crowd of dishonorable losers can move on to the next "I hate righties" issue spoon-fed to them.
Hint:  the world will always be at odds with an ideology that begins its day with "you have offended me, so I will kill you!!"....that is, until freedoms are abridged to appease lunatics.  No diplomacy will eliminate that ideology.  No attempt to appease them will work.  Go over there and find out, as I have.

Until then, our first amendment is there to protect the most unpopular speech imaginable.....and those rights don't end at what some lunatic 10,000 miles away will find offensive.  

BTW, I would expect the veterans in your pathetic analogy to be charged with whatever their crimes would be....tried...and punished accordingly.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard


So to summarize your point... (5.00 / 1)
...we need to invade them and kill them.  Is that an accurate summary of your position?  If not, please clarify.  

[ Parent ]
No...liar. (0.00 / 0)
What kind of pathetic dishonorable liar are you?  Rhetorical question, Festus.

Just go ahead and make up whatever you want with your ignorant "I hate righties" bumper sticker feelings.  I'll expect you to run around blaming abortion clinics the next time some loon attacks one. Afterall, they know their actions make loons want to attack them, yet they do it anyway.  Why else would they have all that security?  Don't violate the anti-free-speech zone though.

You don't know the first friggin' thing about the mentality of salafis....you've never experienced one.  You've never had relations with modern "moderate" salafis.....guys who would check out a Sox game with you but would STILL kill you if you offend them.  You've been spoon-fed what little you know and it's pathetic.

Since you asked so nicely after being an ahole.  What we do is celebrate free speech in the United States.....even ugly free speech.  I didn't serve to protect the free speech that everybody loves, it's offensive free-speech that the right is meant to protect.  When you and your socialist scum rally on the Common, I celebrate that you can just like when the Klan marches somewhere in Boston.  I can celebrate your bullshit speech while disagreeing with it.  Then, IF we keep an embassy in a country and their People are offended to the point of committing an act of war by invading our embassy....we kill every last one that breaches the walls.  That's what the Marines are there for. If their government does not wish to protect our embassiy after that, we pull our embassy out, end all aid, and let them pound sand.  If they send their acts of war to our shore, we end them.  Period.  End of threat.  Move on to the next one.

It's ALL up to them and whether or not THEY choose to live in the modern world.

What we do currently with Egypt is give an ultimatum to the government to end the riots TOMORROW....or we pull all financial aid.  Period.

Salafis understand force....they prey on weakness.  You'd know that if you had actually known one.  What we have presented to them is pathetic weakness and they will prey on it....change that...they ARE preying on it.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard


[ Parent ]
In many ways... (0.00 / 0)
...your suggestion about Egypt has been my position about Pakistan for years (that is the real center of our problems).  But it ain't that simple.  There are so many complex and layered factors regarding both Pakistan and Egypt that make such a bold move short-sighted and down right impossible.  

[ Parent ]
Things are (0.00 / 0)
only made complicated by bureaucrats that think they can "manage" something they do not understand.  The same types that think "talk" works.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

[ Parent ]
And what is it that people object to... (0.00 / 0)
...in this statement issues BEFORE the embassy in Egypt was attacked?

The Statement:

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.


What seems to be lost in all of this is.... (0.00 / 0)
....blaming the fourth world animals who attacked our embassy, brutally raped and murdered our ambassador, dragging his body through the streets.

I apologize if I fail to give a rats ass that someone "offended" the "great" prophet Muhammed.

Did you see Christians burn and pillage because of "piss Christ"??????  Of course not.

Focusing on some stupid movie that no one had EVER SEEN before these planned, coordinated attacks happened is lunacy at its finest.

If Obama had spent a little more time in intelligence briefings, and a little less time with Beyonce and Jay-z's noses up his ass, maybe he would have learned that British and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies had issued warnings to the US on SEPTEMBER 4TH that there was something coming.  Maybe Hillary Clinton could have stopped her "World Appeasment Tour" for 5 minutes to read the briefings and issue warnings to embassys around the world and Ambassador Setvens would have had the information he needed to stay alive.

I will not spend one second wailing and gnashing my teeth over offending these death cultists.  When will you wake up and realize that your very presence offends them?  You are an infidel and are marked for extermination.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


What about the teddy bear? (5.00 / 1)
The problem is that there is no behavior that cannot be used to justify violence. There are so many examples, but the most outrageous is this one, where 10,000 rioters demanded the death of a teacher who allowed children to name a teddy bear "Muhammad". She was arrested and sentenced. There are many more examples like this.

This is why Mitt Romney is correct. If any speech can result in violence, then it is the mob, not the speech, that is responsible. Trying to define what is yelling "fire" is pointless and playing into their hands.



Meanwhile (0.00 / 0)
The administration condemned the film and the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

Meanwhile, there's no condemnation of The Book of Mormon broadway play, or when Bill Maher tears into the Catholic Church.  The reason for the lack of condemnation is of course, that neither the Mormons nor Catholic are figurative powder-kegs waiting for the figurative spark that is critical of the powder-kegs' prophet.

So, who to condemn, the guy with the match? the powder-kegs? Or, the Administration responsible for protecting Americans from the powder-key and spark mixture?

Seems to me that the powder-kegs are to blame.  Condemn them is the easy call.  Condemning the movie maker is a pretty easy call too. Why not, it's costless to criticize a lame and inciteful movie maker.

The condemnation word games are bull-shit anyway.  Who really cares if Romney, Hillary, Obama...condemns this or that? The Administration, knowing that there was a powder-keg and the possibility of a spark, didn't ramp up protection for US property in the region but rather chose to chastize the spark.  There's the rightful criticism.

And btw, "we came, we saw, he died" isn't inciteful?

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas


The demostrations were planned before the movie clip was posted. (5.00 / 2)
.

Key Difference (0.00 / 0)
Shouting Fire in a crowded theater (tm) is entirely different because the speech itself includes a direct incentive for people to engage in dangerous activity; the protection of their own life from the supposed fire.

Hurting feelings, no matter how violent the people might be who's feelings are hurt, doesn't matter.  We do not owe it to ourselves or anyone else to play it safe because some are violent.  If we did, then we'd have no way to engage in controversial speech, since there's likely to be any number of people offended, some of whom might be violent.

This movie is just as worthy as Piss Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Life of Brian.


Or Big Love (0.00 / 0)
Or any number of works that mock Mormonism.

[ Parent ]
The Life of Brian...? (0.00 / 0)
That says a lot about you.

[ Parent ]
The Life of Brian is a great film (0.00 / 0)
but it mocks religion. I didn't see Christians in the US burn down the UK embassy when it came out.

[ Parent ]
I hope people can see the difference between Life of Brian... (0.00 / 0)
...and the video in question.  I won't expect a "7th Century" mind to appreciate the difference (actually, it would be an 8th Century mind).  But I hope anyone immersed in modernity would appreciate the difference.  Brain certainly mocks the origins of Christianity (and isn't all to kind to the Jewish religion either) but contemporary  minded people would concede the film is meant to provoke discussion/laughter/ect.  Same is true with the other two above examples.  

If you saw the 13 minute video, you would agree it has no artistic value and was only made for one purpose...to make a certain class of people (8th Century thinkers) mad enough to kill.  Say what you want about Monty Python, they never intended to cause riots (maybe some folks did riot, but it was not Python's intent).  


[ Parent ]
don't care whats in the 13 min film (0.00 / 0)
You have the first amendment right to make and distribute it in the United States. This is not necessarily true in the European States that our president would like us to become.

Don't think Life of Brian wasn't controversial, but where are the westerners  burning the UK flag - I don't see them.

Or where is our president defending the film makers right to make the film  - I don't hear him.

A little history on the Life of Brian
http://www.landmarktheatres.co...

"The opening salvo in what became a heated and often surreal religious war of words arrived on August 19 from Rabbi Abraham Hecht, president of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who claimed to speak for half a million Jews. Speaking in Variety, he declared, "Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before."

Hecht went on to make public his view that Brian "was produced in hell".

After Hecht's denunciation, outraged religious leaders queued up to vent their spleen to any hack with a microphone, in stark contrast to other more liberal churchmen who defended the film's right to be shown.

The voice of Protestant protest belonged to Robert EA Lee of the Lutheran Council, whose tirade against Brian - "crude and rude mockery, colossal bad taste, profane parody. A disgraceful assault on religious sensitivity" - was broadcast across 1,000 radio stations."


[ Parent ]
You don't care about the difference... (0.00 / 0)
between a 13 minute video with one intent--to incite hate and violence--with a movie, while controversial and mocking, had the clear intent of social commentary.  If you don't care to understand the difference, I don't care about what you have to say.  

[ Parent ]
So only free speech you like is protected - that's not free speech (0.00 / 0)
The Muslim masses also rioted over Rushdie's novel  The Satanic Verses - or the cartoons depicting Mohammed by a dutch author.

A policy for apologizing for our values is a policy of appeasement.


[ Parent ]
Radical (0.00 / 0)
salafis make no such distinction.  All mockery or denigration is met with summary capital punishment.

I make no distinction in celebrating such a freedom to make something mocking or denigrating ANYTHING.  I shrug my shoulders, say "Whatever"...and go about my life loving our freedoms.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard


[ Parent ]
Where is our President on this issue ? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Rob... (0.00 / 0)
First, thanks for the front page.  Secondly, I am not suggesting that this idiot did not have a first amendment right to do what he did.  

But it is not an issue of "upholding our ideals" as you write and mirror Mitt Romney's comments.  I hope you would agree that this represents a conflict in the various ideals we hold...freedom of speech vs freedom to worship without fear of violence vs resolving differences within the context of democratic tolerance.  

I will continue to defend this idiots right to post this video, but I will exercise my first amendment to condemn him.  We all are exercising our rights on this subject.  My words are critical of actions that incite violence, your words--intended or not--only fan the flames...maybe not to incite violence, but to encourage other idiots to use their first amendment rights in a warped and evil manner.  

Yes, we have rights.  But with those rights comes the responsibility not to abuse these rights.  This idiot abused this right (as is his right).  But when others openly defend this bad behavior as "our values" you not only ignore conflicting values that make us great, but you encourage other idiots to abuse this right and cause more violence.  


I must disagree (0.00 / 0)

You totally overlooked the roots of this problem and added to the distraction that prevents solving this problem...

http://www.redmassgroup.com/sh...


Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.








Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox