September 16, 2012

When Free Speech is Outlawed … [Darleen Click]

More images.

h/t William Jacobson

Posted by Darleen @ 4:56pm
284 comments | Trackback

Comments (284)

  1. This one is mine. http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qxhlv/

    Because I care.

  2. My only observation in the matter is, the only people out of line (in the circumstance of the picture) are the ones violating their profession by exploiting private citizens. The MSM.

    Not that I think there needs to be more laws. On the contrary, I have a theory that too many laws tend to relieve people of personal circumspection.

    The game changes when you camp out on some guys lawn posing as a truth telling journalist, and he’s busy talking to everyone you know. Maybe plastering pictures of you running a stop light on all the telephone poles in town.

    Just saying…

  3. Blake

    Bravo!

  4. Has anyone noticed that none of the cops are looking at Nakoula.

    I agree, Lee. I think a lot of the right is ignoring the reality of what the story is here.

  5. Pablo

    As I’ve said on another thread, this guy has no choice in coming when his PO called.

    No choice … either come in “voluntarily” or come in wearing metal bracelets.

    Now why is he getting the PO call now and not six months ago when this film was made?

    Dollars to donuts it was the FBI who made “the suggestion” to the PO.

  6. Of course it was the FBI who made the call , Darleen. The shit just now hit the fan.

    What the fuck? Do you want the government to try to protect us or not?

  7. I would much rather the FBI be investigating domestic douchebags about this shit as have them trying to figure out what happened in Libya.

  8. The democrats said they was sex and drugs and punk rock,
    So why’s Obama handin’ out the hemlock?

  9. If they’re violating him on probation, why did his 90 minute conversation end with him being dropped off elsewhere? It doesn’t seem that that’s what happened. So the film doesn’t appear to be being considered a violation.

    I don’t doubt at all that the FBI wanted a word with him. But without knowing the nature of the conversation, and knowing that it was short and ended well for him, I can’t jump to the conclusion that he’s been wronged by it.

  10. It’s possible that they wanted to talk to him about protection. And making it look like he was in custody could be passed off as a sad attempt to calm down riots spreading across the Middle East.

    Doesn’t look good though.

  11. Pablo

    we don’t know if they’ll file a VOP yet. In CA there are no more automatic VOPs filed merely by a PO with the violator going straight to prison – don’t pass go, don’t collect $200.

    Under prison realignment (AB109) a VOP has to be filed with the court and a hearing held in open court before a judge.

    I’m cynical enough to think this is opics aimed at scape-goating this guy. Look at Susan Rice’s cover-Obama’s-ass performance today.

    This guy is being made an example, just like Gibson Guitar and Frank VanderSloot.

    Chicago Rules have gone Fed.

  12. It’s possible that they wanted to talk to him about protection.

    That too. God knows he’s a target.

  13. He on Fed parole, not CA, isn’t he? If this were a matter of appeasement optics, why was he released so quickly?

  14. Barry’s gotta know that a First Amendment jackboot is not going to be a willing election strategy, doesn’t he? Barry is about nothing more than getting reelected. And they’re not prosecuting him, they’re given him an escape route to safe harbor.

  15. So if they interviewed him and then cut him loose, where is he supposed to go now? He can’t return to his home since everyone who wants to can find his house.

    Does he have a family here? Does he have family in Egypt? Are family members in danger now, as well?

  16. This guy is being made an example, just like Gibson Guitar and Frank VanderSloot.

    They didn’t put him in the spotlight. He seems to have done that all by himself, with an assist from al-Nas TV. Yes, they’re trying to keep the focus on him and off of them, but that’s only because they’re incompetent.

  17. They didn’t put him in the spotlight.

    Really? Who released his info to the media? Who made announcements that the FBI was looking to talk to him?

    Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jim Carney & others are directly holding him responsible for the violence in the ME.

    It’s flippin disgusting

  18. Who put his picture on the front page of every blog in the country?

    Who fucking cares.

  19. I was thinking about the naivety of the Ambassador towards Libya and for some reason I started craving pancakes.

  20. They’re trying to make a scapegoat of him, that’s for sure. It’s not going to work the way they thought it would though. There are hundreds, if not thousands of YouTube videos out there dissing Islam and calling Mohammed names. There have been for years.

    The Obama administration is in full flying ass-covering mode. You can’t drone the shit out of bad guys and in the meantime cause huge collateral damage among the citizenry and not expect unrest and retaliation.

  21. Obama is an Empty suit with a peace prize.

  22. The media tracked him and released his info, no? I recall that some gubmint entity has repeated it, but “Sam Bacile” has been talking and the media figured it out. And then camped on his lawn.

  23. Who fucking cares.

    i do. i want to nail the chi-town clown posse for their scoamf leader.

  24. He can’t punch Cairo. He can’t punch Benghazi. His whole fake ass “peace thorugh not eing Bush” has evaporated and he has lickspittle jerks out trying to pretend that it’s still there and it’s all about a movie.

    Obama can punch this poor son of a bitch. And if nobody does anything about it, maybe he’ll start punching other people. At home. Who do not look like scary mobs.

  25. They’re trying to make a scapegoat of him, that’s for sure.

    Who is that? The Coptic Christian felon who tried to pass himself off as a Jew?

  26. I recall that some gubmint entity has repeated it, but “Sam Bacile” has been talking and the media figured it out. And then camped on his lawn.

    i recall scoamf, the sos, the ricehead all pointing fingers at a “film” that had 468 views 3 days ago and an effin’ “msm” duly taking on the narrative of the scoamf and his clowns.

  27. i do. i want to nail the chi-town clown posse for their scoamf leader.

    Then attack them. Hard. And often.

    They are wide fucking open if you focus.

  28. The Coptic Christian felon who tried to pass himself off as a Jew?

    a little linky love on that assertion

  29. The sad thing is Obama believed his own silly shit. He corgot it was a scam. He has no plan B. He can’t even face up to explaining the failure of plan A. Oh look over there! Romney’s a jerk and that guy made a shitty movie! This is all HIS fault. I’ll fix this! Then the press will stop mentioning the riots and QE3 can pump shit money into the economy until bank runs and a lack of credit bring it down. Then we can all pretend that this is a country that knows what the fuck it is doing. China will put its arm around Taiwan and say baby, you know what happens next. Iran will do whatever the fuck crazy fire ball of evil they have planned. Russia will become the natural gas barons of Europe and we’ll…what?

  30. nr, you might want to remember that al-Nas TV broadcast the stupid thing in Egypt last Saturday. It’s kinda relevant.

  31. Try to stamp out bullying via righteous institutional intimidation maybe?

  32. Then attack them. Hard. And often.

    They are wide fucking open if you focus.

    so stop dwelling on this clowns past and point your ire to the dc clown posse

  33. Who is that? The Coptic Christian felon who tried to pass himself off as a Jew?

    Yeah, him.

  34. Because school bullying is more important and easier fruit to reach than stabilizing a middle east that caught fire again because Carter Too thought he was the pied piper of fucking Hamlin.

  35. There were intelligence reports that an attack was planned.

    Obama missed the briefings.

    The Consulates and the safe house locations were compromised,

    Obama missed the briefings.

    The Marines were unarmed and the local security was also compromised.

    Obama missed the briefings.

    The Arab Spring is a total fucking disaster.

    Obama missed the briefings.

    Who gives a fuck what some douchebag mercenary hollywood shit weasel did?

    OBAMA MISSED THE BRIEFINGS!!!!!!

  36. nr, you might want to remember that al-Nas TV broadcast the stupid thing in Egypt last Saturday.

    why do i care. this just another face of “community organizing”. effin’ pick a target etc. the towelheads can be made pissed at a moments notice ax the justicebros

  37. Yeah state didn’t have to authority or sense to proceed effectively without Obama. Therefore they are also one with the stupid. The puppet will not solve the riddle that eludes the puppeteer.

  38. Who gives a fuck what some douchebag mercenary hollywood shit weasel did?

    No one who can keep two thoughts in their head at the same time.

  39. Most of the debate over the current wave of anti-American demonstrations in the Middle East is, to be frank, pretty silly. It disregards both historical experience and basic political sense. Consider the following points:

    –There have been several such waves before, notably over Salman Rushdie, the 2001 attacks, and the “Danish cartoons.” Leaving some death and destruction in their wake, these waves of demonstrations then fade away, bringing no significant political change. No amount of apology and groveling had any perceivable positive effect. This one will also end soon, but the battle for political power in each country continues, as does the decline in American credibility and influence.

    –The causes of these demonstrations are not some act of Islamophobia, but the agitation of revolutionary Islamist groups that work systematically every day to build anti-Americanism, hatred of the West, and the loathing of Jews and Christians.
    Advertisement

    –As long as free speech exists in the West, there will always be events that provide pretexts for outrage. Radical Islamists will make sure that even the most obscure of events can be used. It has also been shown how things that happen in the West are deliberately distorted. For example, Danish Islamic clerics added cartoons that had nothing to do with those published by a Danish magazine to intensify anger and hatred.

    –The task is not to stamp out “Islamophobia” any more than Soviet Communist or German Nazi propaganda could be dealt with by proving the West didn’t hate workers or did hate Jews. The problem is not some cultural misunderstanding or Western fault, but an ideology seeking to seize state power. That ideology and its many sympathizers and even a lot of its local enemies know that building hysterical hatred against America and the West, Christians, Jews, and Israel benefit them.

    This is nothing new. I’ve seen the documents in which the U.S. government decided not to publicize the Nazi ties of some Middle Eastern leaders including Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. And the CIA decided (in 1950) not to pursue the Palestinian Arab leader Amin al-Husaini for war crimes, though he had been a close collaborator of Hitler. Why? Because it was concluded that such information might make them more, not less, popular.

    link

  40. Why is anyone talking about this crappy movie? This is why.

    The video was first posted online on 1 July without attracting much attention. It was later picked up by various Arab TV stations, with religious Egyptian TV channel al-Nas’s presenter Sheikh Khalad Abdalla broadcasting scenes on 8 September. A clip from his show, dubbed into Arabic, was posted online and within days had been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.

    That’s what we ought to be looking at. And perhaps al-Nas’s studios should be torched and its personalities murdered. For the Prophet, piss be upon him.

  41. Pable, are you thinking what I’m thinking? Perhaps we could do a work of art and call it “Piss Mohammed.”

    Maybe we could apply for a grant from the NEA.

    Darlene, thanks. I tried to be a vicious as possible, because I know the Left absolutely agrees with the first part of my caption.

  42. That ideology and its many sympathizers and even a lot of its local enemies know that building hysterical hatred against America and the West, Christians, Jews, and Israel benefit them.

    Is why you should care about the highest US government authorities going after some douchebag mercenary hollywood shit weasel.

  43. Ultimatum to US: ‘Criminalise blasphemy or lose consulate’

    One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally.

    Heh. Better yet if the Mayo folks killed him.

  44. That’s what we ought to be looking at. And perhaps al-Nas’s studios should be torched and its personalities murdered.

    Allahu Ackbar!

    Paint that on the nose of the first bunker buster.

  45. al-Nas’s presenter Sheikh Khalad Abdalla broadcasting scenes on 8 September.

    how convenient for 9/11. we destroy buildings and kill infidels and we are outrage about the profit. and it is about the money. the discovery of america made the islamofascists poor for 400 years. the usa could close down opec tomorrow if we had less clown posse in dc

  46. B Moe, I understand where you’re coming from, that detaining the guy who made the film is an “oh look, bunnies” sort of moment.

    However, the administration, in trying to distract from their many and varied blunders quite possibly managed to commit an even more egregious blunder, because the picture of a citizen being detained for exercising his First Amendment rights is a powerful weapon in the information war.

    This picture could very well be the great unraveling. The image of a citizen being bundled into a cop car can be used to point back to everything else you mentioned.

  47. I guess we lose the consulate, then.

    Who cares, really? No one who matters.

  48. Time to withdraw our representatives from the Mid-East and quit pretending they are anything except barbarians.

  49. Here is where I am coming from, as simply as I can put it:

    The fucker is a convicted thief. Federal bank fraud. The only reason he ain’t in prison is he copped a plea. We know he is dishonest.

    When the youtube think first exploded, he presented himself under as alias and pretended to be a Jew. We already knew he was dishonest, now we know he is completely dishonest.

    And we know this ridiculously bad “movie” was used to provide cover for an lethal attack on the US.

    At this point, given the circumstances of Americans being killed and our security completely compromised, I really don’t give a fuck if they grill the shit out of this asshole to find out what he knows.

    He has proven himself to be utterly dishonest and without a shred of integrity, and because he is on probation we don’t have to fuck around with any probable cause horse shit.

    I just don’t see what the problem is with asking this douchebag some questions.

  50. I really don’t give a fuck if they grill the shit out of this asshole to find out what he knows.

    I once lied to a cop. I guess, by virtue of some Muslim inflaming comments I’ve made in comments here over theyears, I deserve a good federal perp walk in front of the international media too.

    Dammit!

  51. The consulate threat was from Pakistan. To put it bluntly cut off aid and develop a nuclear retaliation plan in case they try to transfer or deploy their bombs.

  52. I just don’t see what the problem is with asking this douchebag some questions.

    ummm baracky be the dude to be axing ?. but the fellatio media don’t do dat. you be goin’ after low hanging fruitloops.

  53. I’m sure we already have a nuclear retaliation plan. I doubt we’d ever use it.

  54. I guess, by virtue of some Muslim inflaming comments I’ve made in comments here over theyears, I deserve a good federal perp walk in front of the international media too.

    If you, or my, Muslim inflamming comments just so happened to provide cover for a lethal attack on an American Embassy, then yeah, we should be willing to answer questions about our intent.

    The clown show is a whole nother aspect.

  55. we should be willing to answer questions about our intent.

    Why should I be willing to pretend my opinion is responsible for anthers criminal behavior?

  56. If you, or my, Muslim inflamming comments just so happened to provide cover for a lethal attack on an American Embassy, then yeah, we should be willing to answer questions about our intent.

    good allan can you say moe toons? the effin’ moetards are responsible for their actions. the proggtards like baracky point elsewhere.

  57. b moe

    even whores can be raped

    I don’t give a good god damn if he wanted to “inflame” the muzzies … even rumors of flushed Korans is enough for the barbarians to grab some kaffir and start the beheadings.

    He’s a felon, they are barbarians and our own fucking Government has told the barbarians that they will actually consider their “offended” sensibilities!

    That way lies ruin. What Hillary and Susan Rice have been saying is unconscionable and in any sane world they would have been sacked yesterday.

    But we’re not living in sane times anymore.

  58. The fucker is a convicted thief. Federal bank fraud. The only reason he ain’t in prison is he copped a plea.

    Hey, that’s not the only reason! Another is that he became an informant. Also, he has a possession of meth with intent to distribute rap, from what I heard. I’m wondering why he wasn’t deported.

  59. Les Aspin resigned. You could look it up.

  60. But Darleen, what has happened to him at the hands of the government? Nothing. They talked to him for some portion of an hour and a half, and then they escaped him from the media and whoever else is after him.

    On balance, they’ve done him a favor.

  61. Actually, the LA Sheriffs did a big chunk of that FWIW.

  62. our own fucking Government has told the barbarians that they will actually consider their “offended” sensibilities!

    That’s a separate problem and one we’d be better served discussing.

  63. What Hillary and Susan Rice have been saying is unconscionable and in any sane world they would have been sacked yesterday.

    Exactly. So how come you aren’t posting about that?

  64. But Darleen, what has happened to him at the hands of the government? Nothing.

    That we know of yet. The Gov aint taking questions from no one.

    /mafia voice

  65. Also, he has a possession of meth with intent to distribute rap, from what I heard.

    because that trumps the prezie dent oath of office. be some fine priorities there boy the dog

  66. Also, he has a possession of meth with intent to distribute rap,

    hi tony rezko. good allan your being stupid.

  67. None of my Muslim inflaming comments can be used for “cover” unless our government agrees that it is so, and when the government does so, it violates the first amendment.

    The Muslims burst into flame over anything.

  68. add “you’re” above

  69. Shouting fire in a crowded political theatre is exactly right.

    Do you not understand what that means?

  70. Shouting fire in a crowded political theatre is exactly right.

    never heard of the film before 9/11 who is shouting?

  71. Do you understand what it means to kowtow to the believers of a particular religion to the point that they get special treatment? Do you not see the threat to freedom of speech that entails?

  72. That’s a hard one to get B Moe.

    If there is no fire and shouting fire causes a panic resulting in injury, then the false shouter is due some trouble from those injured. If there is a fire, then not shouting fire could result in injuries to people from the fire, so the person failing to give warning is due some trouble.

    But who is shouting fire here? Seems to me if anyone fits that description it would be the Islamists who conspired to stir up trouble by means of whatever tool they had to hand, in this case a shoddily dubbed video. But the tool could have been any number of other works “insulting” to the beloved memory of the Islamists’ Prophet.

  73. ” Do you not understand what that means?”

    Go ahead and break it down.

  74. If the behavior of barbarians controls your behavior, the barbarians have won.

  75. Dhimmi bitches must be prudent and vigilant against anything that might bring down the wrath of the ummah upon them. Even rumor.

  76. - The Left luvs them some Muslim bscause they beat their wives and hang Gheys, and shit, so for their feeble brains it just makes sense.

    …..In other news:

    “Screw the kids, WE WON!”….The Chicago mafia teachers Union tells Emanuel to pound sand, just like fearless leader taught them to.

  77. What do you call captioning a picture “when free speech is outlawed” when nothing of the sort is being done?

  78. “when nothing of the sort is being done?”

    What would Bill Quick do?

  79. What do you call captioning a picture “when free speech is outlawed” when nothing of the sort is being done?

    stating an opinion your assertion being ignored

  80. Monkeyshine.

  81. All right, let me try to make it simple enough that any one can understand.

    Lets say someone sets off a smoke bomb in a theatre.

    Someone else sees it and starts yelling “FIRE!”

    In the ensuing chaos, someone gets stabbed in the back and killed.

    Is it an infringement on their Constitutional rights to question the person who yelled “fire” in an effort to try to solve the murder?

  82. Your condescension is noted.

  83. It is if the “smoke bomb” is itself a movie and the shouting of fire is the movie too, then yes. Abso-fucking-goddamned-obviously-lutely.

    “In the ensuing chaos, someone gets stabbed in the back and killed.”

    Is the chaos really ensuing from the movie? The President of Libya doesn’t seem to think so.

  84. Do lobsters have orgasms?

  85. The hypothetical seems to be constructed to assume the conclusion, is the trouble. There’s simply no connection as a basis on which to proceed.

  86. Someone else sees it and starts yelling “FIRE!”

    proggtard meme. it is “falsely yelling fire” next

  87. B Moe

    Last I looked, this filmmaker was no where in the vicinity of the barbarians who murdered Stevens, et al.

    Your analogy only works if the police escorted Christopher Nolan to be questioned by the FBI for James Holmes actions.

    Why wasn’t Nolan brought in?

  88. The chaos seems to ensue more from the organized crowds who surround and charge consular facilities on the coincidental date of 9-11 more than it does from the movie. The movie is the squirrel to distract the dog’s nose from finding the scent of that is going on the middle east. This is big scale intifada style stuff.

  89. Movie= smoke bomb
    Riots= smoke
    Rocket attacks= murder
    Investigation= investigation

    Sorry Cranky, but sometimes it is really fucking hard to not be condescending when folks are being willfully contrarian.

  90. I agree, B Moe, which is why I stopped where I did.

  91. Movie= smoke bomb

    says lying islam scum

  92. The movie maker produced the movie to cause the riots which coincidently or by conspiracy made the rocket attacks (on 9/11) possible….

    It’s more likely that the rioters used the movie as an excuse to riot and were not generated by the movie nor would the absence of the movie have prevented them from rioting. It is a pretense. A red herring. Thus there IS no smoke bomb made or thrown and thus no reasonable causal relation of the movie maker to the smoke or the murder? Calling the movie a smoke bomb, and the making of the movie a smoke bomb, is more transmutation than analogy. The riots are stirred up political events intended to explode into violence or at least simmer as intimidation. They are not inevitable physical/chemical reactions to be exploited by the movie maker like a smoke bomb.

    The smoke and the smoke bomb are the same party.

  93. Riots= smoke

    you proggtards are effin’ stupid bastards visavis islamo fascists

  94. If the behavior of barbarians controls your behavior, the barbarians have won.

    A trip to any US Airport would show the truth of that statement.

  95. Did the Batman movies cause massive rioting Darleen? Did Holmes escape the police under the cover of the riots?

    Were the Batman movies so Godawfulfucking bad that it is hard to comprehend why they were ever made and who in the name of God would pay for such a thing?

    Never mind. I don’t even fucking care any more. Hamstring the FBI over here while you are ignoring the fact we are sending FBI instead of Marines into Libya.

    The whole Goddam world is crazy.

  96. JUST OUT TO WATCH A MOVIE! DUR DE DUR!
    http://s.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hellsign.jpg

    SMOKEBOMB! OMG! RAGE!
    http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ZZ6A75B464.jpg

    SMOKEBOMB! OMG! HATE!
    http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ZZ64B413AE.jpg

    SMOKE! CLOUDS N’ CLOUDS OF IT!
    http://s.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/beheadsign.jpg

    Why we gotta throw smoke bombs man? Smokebombs should be illegal. And ANYTHING can be a smoke bomb!

  97. The point is we don’t know paleo, and it doesn’t hurt to ask questions. What does hurt is freaking the fuck out over routine shit and acting like its the end of the world, while ignoring exceptional shit that really might be the end of the world.

    Fuck it, I have nowhere to go but either more concescencion or to bed.

    Good night.

  98. B Moe

    yes the world has gone insane. and I don’t give a rat’s ass if this guys film was Oscar worthy or on par with “Plan 9 from Outer Space”

    Our Gov has NO BUSINESS publicly judging its contents. Period.

    as my friend snarked

    is glad that the State Department “condemns efforts to offend believers of all religions,” and “firmly rejects the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” and can’t wait for the Department of Justice to release Bill Maher’s home address.

  99. “Fuck it, I have nowhere to go but either more concescencion or to bed.”

    Pound the table then.

  100. Our Gov has NO BUSINESS publicly judging its contents. Period.

    And you know this happened how? Do you have transcripts of the interogation?

    I am not talking about some of the dumbass shit spewing out of the White House, I am talking about sitting the fuckers down and asking some questions.

    As far as I know, that is all that happened. Nobody has been arrested. Nobody has been detained. No speech has been outlawed.

    They just asked a dude some questions.

  101. You are a funny guy, paleo, you should stick to the humor because frankly you suck at trying to make a coherent point.

  102. I am talking about sitting the fuckers down and asking some questions.

    what like the mussleman brotherhood? proggtard stupid.

  103. “You are a funny guy, paleo, you should stick to the humor because frankly you suck at trying to make a coherent point.”

    Yeah. Your analogy was great.

  104. you should stick to the humor because frankly you suck at trying to make a coherent point.

    bmoe humour: 20,000 mussleman atrocities since 9/11/01 bmoe hum

  105. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/321039/obama-vs-first-amendment-andrew-c-mccarthy

    “Mind you, what is playing out in Egypt — as well as Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia — is a charade. It has nothing to do with the dopey movie. There is as much or more agitation to release the Blind Sheikh — which the Obama administration has also encouraged by its embrace of Islamists, including the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist organization. The latest round of marauding is about power.

    Islamic supremacists see themselves in a civilizational war with us. When we submit on a major point, we grow weaker and they grow stronger. They win a big round in the jihad. President Obama’s anti-constitutional policy — the one he lacked the courage to stand by when, shall we say, the “chickens came home to roost” — has made speech suppression low-hanging fruit. The Islamists are going for it.”

  106. Remember, folks, if we don’t know why you wrote/produced/drew something and something happens, especially something that involves offended muslims, then you need to talk to the FBI about it Because that’s what the FBI does…figure if riots in the middle east with rockets and mortars on 9/11 are caused by bad movies and if the makers of such bad movies are maybe in on the riots or know who is. And that means the 1st amendment protection for offensive speech is gossamer thin and weak because we can’t tie the hands of the FBI when they are trying to find out the cause of staged organized riots on 9/11.

  107. Patriot! Staunch! Freedom of Speech only applies to Hustler magazine and porn. Otherwise we get to see what the police and courts will tolerate as far as definition stretching goes.

  108. i fart in the general direction of “libertarianproggs”

  109. - Not a day goes by anymore that something isn’t being protested, contested, politicized, attacked, mainstream media narrated and twisted, propagandized, filibustered, reframed, defamed, explained, refuted, disputed, sued and misconstrued, and tomorrow will be no different, because, like dogs can lick their balls, they’ve found something they can do thats easier and a lot more fun than work.

  110. The collapse isn’t just an economic one apparently.

  111. because that trumps the prezie dent oath of office. be some fine priorities there boy the dog

    Who said that, other than you?

  112. Is the chaos really ensuing from the movie? The President of Libya doesn’t seem to think so.

    He’s probably right, in Libya. But everywhere else, it has been used as a pretext to rouse mobs. Libya wasn’t a mob problem.

  113. Q:

    Is it an infringement on their Constitutional rights to question the person who yelled “fire” in an effort to try to solve the murder?

    A:

    Abso-fucking-goddamned-obviously-lutely.

    Good morning, Bizzarro World. I wonder which right would that violate, under any circumstances, that whole asking questions thing?

  114. Why wasn’t Nolan brought in?

    Because he obviously had no useful information to explain why his film was targeted by a whackjob.

  115. “Our Gov has NO BUSINESS publicly judging its contents. Period.”

    And you know this happened how? Do you have transcripts of the interogation?

    They have done that, obviously. Carney, Hillary, etc…

  116. is glad that the State Department “condemns efforts to offend believers of all religions,” and “firmly rejects the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” and can’t wait for the Department of Justice to release Bill Maher’s home address.

    State Department? Hmmmmm…

    But their first foray into writing for the live theater is bringing them a much broader appreciation. The show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim. More than 300 people show up daily for a shot at 14 lottery seats to a musical that is sold out through September.

  117. You’ll never guess who posted this…

    In sum, free speech is not intended to protect benign, uncontroversial, or inoffensive ideas. Those ideas do not need protection. It is intended to protect – to foster – exactly those political ideas that are most offensive, most provocative, most designed to inspire others to act in the name of its viewpoints. One could say that every significant political idea, on the right and the left, has that provocative potential. If speech can be constrained on the ground that it can inspire or provoke violence by others, then a wide range of political ideas, arguably the only ones that really matter, are easily subject to state suppression.

    *

  118. ” Good morning, Bizzarro World. I wonder which right would that violate, under any circumstances, that whole asking questions thing? ”

    Ask Jeff. He just had his right to not jump every time his neighbors get pissed off violated. Just a few questions.

  119. Then a few more questions.

  120. The whole “smoke bomb” analogy was bizarro world anyway.

  121. Ask Jeff.

    You can’t tell me which Constitutional right asking a guy some questions violates? But Jeff can?

  122. Yep. Let him explain it to you. You think he won’t?

  123. You have the right to bear arms as long as you answer a few questions and we insinuate that your right to bear arms can be taken away if your neighbor’s wife keeps complaining about you LEGALLY cleaning hand guns on the front porch.

  124. Just a few questions though.

  125. So, you’re saying Jeff’s right to bear arms has been violated? Interesting.

    Jeff, are you not bearing arms these days?

  126. Another day, another assault on our diplomatic stations. Or two. Jakarta. Karachi.

    American standing in the world is totally restored! Even in Indonesia, which, duh. Of course the Wonce turned that around.

  127. You rioters in Egypt didn’t build that riot.

    Some obscure Copt in California did.

  128. Everyone,

    Jeff is in the hospital having tests done on his heart. I’m not quite sure how serious this is, although, Jeff has been in the hospital overnight.

    Darlene, I’ll forward you the pertinent portions of the email Jeff sent.

  129. Yikes!

    Be well, Jeff.

  130. That’s disturbing news. Get well soon, Jeff.

  131. WTF? Let’s not have ticker trouble, k?

  132. Oh no! I hope it’s a false alarm.

    Take care of yourself, Jeff. Get well soon.

  133. Oh, come on, not like it’s Obama’s fault… http://tinyurl.com/9syaf42

    That’s always a wake-up call, Jeff. Been there, done that. Keep us in the loop.

  134. Good morning, Bizzarro World. I wonder which right would that violate, under any circumstances, that whole asking questions thing?

    I think you miss the point.

    Should the people that made the batman movie have been under suspicion of causing the movie massacre, and brought in for questioning? Or perhaps the NRA? Maybe Colt Arms? Or is it the American culture as a whole that needs to be examined.

    Was 9/11 the chickens coming home to roost after all, and we really are to blame?

    Bullshit on all that I say…

  135. Oh, I agree, Lee. The movie is but a prop and I couldn’t care less about it, with the exception of the possibility that it was a false flag. I’d look into that were I tasked with figuring out precisely how this all came to pass. But my point is that, having been informed of an abso-fucking-goddamned-obviously-lutely Constitutional violation, I’d like to know exactly what part of the Constitution has been violated.

  136. - New Rulz:

    “There is only one Dog, and Krugman is his not-for-profit.” – Stimulating!

  137. ” But my point is that, having been informed of an abso-fucking-goddamned-obviously-lutely Constitutional violation,”

    You don’t have a point at all. It’s lame carping on nothing. As usual.

  138. Or are we to take “bizzarro world” as serious analysis?

  139. Or smoke bomb?

  140. Pablo is cool with people being questioned for making a movie. Pablo is cool with people being questioned for cleaning a gun on the front porch. It’s fine. Pablo is cool with Reince Priebus saying ‘not even if they are tied’.

  141. - IMHO, no constitutional rights have been abridged here. The authoritie, under Miranda, have the right to” detain and question anyone for up to 48 hours if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed, or they suspect a person has material witmess/evidence to a crime.”

    - After 48 hours they have to charge you, or release you, although you can be recalled at any time ‘if new suspicions arise’.

    - When the Aurora event occured, everyone that was in the theater at the time of the shooting were automatically considered ‘material witnesses’, and were questioned, which is standard policy

    - Most people are not comfortable with this official position, because it suggests ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ powers, but its what we have, and have had, ever since Miranda was upheld by the courts.

    - The reasonable suspician in this case was the parole question.

    - Whats interesting to me is that for a political group that spends a great deal of its time trying to weakenm, if not ignore, that dusty old document, whenever they get their tits in an uproar they don’t hesitate to use the thinnest of legal reasoning to act in their own favor.

    - As usual, it depends on whose Oxen is getting gored.

  142. I think a lot of people here have never had dealings with the police. Once you have, your perspective can change quite a bit.

  143. Crappy news! Get outta that hospital fast, Jeff. Those places are only happy places in the maternity ward.

  144. You don’t have a point at all. It’s lame carping on nothing. As usual.

    .

    You’ve made a statement of fact that you cannot back up, despite the fact that the proof would be easily found here, if it existed. In fact, when directly asked for the citation, you tried to pass the question off to someone else.

    Color me unimpressed.

  145. I’d like to know exactly what part of the Constitution has been violated.

    Pablo, without condoning the dinosaurs tone, I share his POV.

    In a black and white, frozen in time snapshot there is no violation you can point at, I agree. But to the larger, all encompassing political atmosphere, are you really enjoying a constitutional right if government authorities “question”(scare quotes because of the whole gang of cops, a blindfold, and where the media gets a front row seat. I mean really, that was the best way to handle asking some voluntarily agreed to questions?) you whenever you practice said right? Like Jeff cleaning a gun on his property?

    How about this; it’s an erosion of our inalienable rights, and without attention, will quietly make your rights disappear.

  146. The man is not wearing a blindfold, Lee. He has covered his face with a scarf so it isn’t plastered all over the place by the paparazzi.

  147. Questioning is speech, isn’t it? THE CONSTITUTION!!!1!!1!!

    Logic apparently isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

  148. Lee, do you think he’s got all those cops surrounding him because they think he’s dangerous, or they’re trying to intimidate him? Do you think he has that scarf wrapped around his face so they cops can’t see it?

    The guy is a shiny new Salman Rushdie. There’s a reason why his brief conversation ended with him going someplace other than home. He’s not safe there and he knows it. So do all those cops surrounding him. What do you think is the reason they’re doing that?

  149. The man is not wearing a blindfold, Lee. He has covered his face with a scarf so it isn’t plastered all over the place by the paparazzi.

    Why didn’t they just send a g-man to his house for a private interview? Answer: The perp walk of a scape goat plastered all over the place by the media was required by the worlds elite. Exactly like the gun is made the scape goat of every shooting. There IS an agenda, and it ain’t about defending our constitution OR nation.

  150. They didn’t go pick him up on a warrant. They didn’t go pick him up because they wanted to talk to him. The LA Sheriffs simply provided secure escort. He’s not their guy, he’s not their perp, he’s not their problem. They had no power to “take him in”. They don’t have a case with anything to do with him. What they did is give him a ride and keep the media horde and God knows who else off of him.

    Gee, why might this guy, who hadn’t left his house in days, not just want to jump in his car and drive over to meet the FBI?

    Hmmmmm…..

  151. Salmon Rushdie has reappeared in the news over the weekend to try to ride the Fatwah coattails again.

    I’ve seen at least three articles wherein he recounts his hiding in plain sight, including marrying Padma Lakshmi, while “fearing for his life.”

  152. Why didn’t they just send a g-man to his house for a private interview?

    Could it be because then he’d still be in his house, and he wanted a different outcome? This was NOT A PERP WALK, no matter what it looks like. He’s not cuffed and he’s not in custody. And by his own volition, he’s not in that house anymore.

  153. Do we have all the information about the parties involved and why this course of action was persued and not another? No. Might another way of handling this had a better or a worse outcome? We don’t know.

  154. - There is absolutely nothing unusual about the police departments actions in this case. Its exactly like things that happen many times a day, every day, all over the country. Parolies are running around all over the place at any givrn moment, and there are just so many bounty hunters available to chase them down, They generally come to the authorities attention by screwing up in some way or committing a new crime that is witmessed.

    - I’d guess that whats sticking in peoples craws concerning this person, and his ‘questioning’, is the circumstances surrounding the whole affair. The actions of our officials can, and will, potentially be seen, and used, as an example of attempts to ‘appease’ the Islamist crazies.

    - While that may be the case, its unfortunate that our press is willing to make anything worse, but its not unconstitutional, or even unusual, its just one of the prices you pay in a stable society to maintain order.

    - Nothing is perfect.

  155. This was NOT A PERP WALK, no matter what it looks like.

    Ask yourself…why was that particular image made available to the world? Anyone else being so bold to post blasphemy on UTube best see what’s in store…

    They shoulda asked me how to safely extract the guy from his house with his dignity intact. I got three ways just off the top of my head. None of them involve a scarf over his face.

  156. This was NOT A PERP WALK, no matter what it looks like. He’s not cuffed and he’s not in custody. And by his own volition, he’s not in that house anymore.

    The frustrating thing about this event is the fact that both sides are right. I tend to agree with Pablo: the Sheriff’s office effectively got him out of that house and delivered him to an undisclosed location. They served him well, and I think they deserve some respect for getting him safely out of there and away from the cameras.

    At the same time, I have to criticize the fact that the Administration has gone out of its way to excoriate this guy, trying to pin their foreign policy fuckups on some loser in California in a desperate attempt to cover their asses. Whoever orchestrated the transfer went out of their way to make sure it had all the hallmarks of a perp walk, so that low-information voters here and abroad would gain the impression of an Administration that was ‘on top of things,’ and was addressing the so-called ‘root cause’ of the riots, arson, and murders. For as much as I respect the cops for getting this guy out of there safely, I wish they weren’t willing participants in the big charade.

    Finally, I have to say that I’m really uncomfortable with images of state agents removing a man from his home because of his unpopular political statements. I understand that this is an inaccurate description of the event, though I won’t call it unfair because it’s the impression the authorities were trying to project. It bothers me that people are learning to become accustomed to such happenings, and even defending them as necessary.

    If we had competent authorities in California or Washington, this man’s removal would have been handled in a way that preserved his dignity, and which made it apparent that he was not being punished for his speech. But those optics would not suit the needs of Jugears, so instead we get something that looks like a perp walk and smells like censorship and authoritarianism.

    As far as the guy’s criminal history and personal qualities? Don’t give a shit. None of that is germane to my arguments.

  157. Heh. Guess I’m not the only one thinking of ‘dignity’ this hour.

  158. Anybody else have Daniel Patrick Moynihan pop into mind — unbidden — multiple times this weekend? Shit, I even had an invasion of Adlai Stephenson for a second there.

  159. - What I find interesting is the press knew exactly who/what/where.

    - But ambassidore Rice will assure you ‘this was npt a ‘premeditated act’ on the Administrations part.

    - If the guy can ever find some proof of how his ‘outing’ and locations, and the exact moment and place of his ‘questioning’ became known to the press, he’s got a hell of a case for reckless endangerment.

  160. Yeah, if he’d become notorious for posting an adulatory video about Obama, he would have received exactly the same treatment.

    Nothing that’s content based or that would chill certain types of expression here. Move along.

  161. At the same time, I have to criticize the fact that the Administration has gone out of its way to excoriate this guy, trying to pin their foreign policy fuckups on some loser in California in a desperate attempt to cover their asses.

    Absolutely! They’re pathetic, craven and incompetent. They deserve every ounce of contempt and disgust we can muster. But that’s separate from this.

    These cops, who are being called brownshirts and stormtroopers all over the rightosphere just aren’t. And we should say so. Because it’s the truth. They did the guy a solid favor. They protected and served him.

  162. I think you hit all the points square Squid.

    Pablo, those deputies were following orders, and are largely irrelevant to the situation.

  163. Like a backdrop in a play they were. Purposefully positioned to add context.

  164. But were they? We seem to be working from the assumption that this pic was staged, a conclusion for which we have no supporting evidence. But let’s keep the assumption and drill down.

    What is the value of this as propaganda? Would it soothe the mobs of Allahbots? I doubt it. And if it would, they’d never see it. Would it deter Americans from saying that Mohammaed was a psychopathic pedophile? I doubt that too. (He was.)

    This is more valuable against them. This is pissing Americans off because of what it looks like, despite that not really being what it is. Were this Bush, you know they’d be screaming about this being a First Amendment violation (and they’d be just as wrong.)

    I think on balance there’s very little upside for them with these optics, and a whole lotta downside, especially with an election right around the corner. You’ll notice that no one, and I mean no one, in the Administration is talking about this.

  165. They protected and served him.

    They also protected and served their political masters. And I wonder if they will show any hesitancy the next time they’re asked to round up a politically inconvenient speaker. I shouldn’t need to worry about that, but it suddenly seems way too convenient that everyone goes out of their way to insist that what we’re seeing isn’t really what we’re seeing. You’d think the cops would go out of their way not to be perceived as jack-booted thugs, even if such images are ‘requested’ by the State Dept.

  166. “You’d think the cops would go out of their way not to be perceived as jack-booted thugs, even if such images are ‘requested’ by the State Dept.”

    Which wouldn’t be that difficult, were it something they had a mind to do. Simply pre-announce to the effect that they’ve concern for his safety and are proceeding to produce that and only that. But no.

  167. Sorry, Pablo — we’re crossing the streams again.

    Perhaps you’re right, and the whole thing wasn’t staged. The place, the hour, the numbers, the uniforms, the posture, the escort downtown — maybe all of these things merely make it look like a perp walk, because showing up at some dude’s house in the middle of the night and dragging him downtown is just Standard Procedure for the L.A. Sheriff’s Dept.

    I maintain that we need to be careful about excusing these actions, just as much as we should be careful about overblowing things. Because I fear that next time there won’t be so many valid reasons to excuse it, but our neighbors will be inured to it and it will be too late.

  168. They didn’t “round him up”, Squid. They had no cause to. He went voluntarily, so this was surely an arranged ride. And it was surely arranged that he’d be going somewhere other than home when his conversation was over. Oh, and the cops had been hanging around his house for a while anyway, at his request. Escorting his lawyers in and out and such.

  169. The hour would appear to be when there was the least media there. IIRC, there were only a few of them there at the time, whereas during the day there was a mob.

  170. I’m mostly in agreement with Pablo, here, even though some of our friends on the Left insisted ad nauseam that Bush deliberately enhanced his groin region with absolutely no evidence.

  171. Were this Bush, you know they’d be screaming about this being a First Amendment violation (and they’d be just as wrong.)

    We’ll have to disagree. The violation didn’t occur when the picture was taken, it happened when the POTUS and the SecState, very publicly condemned and apologized for this exercise of the first amendment. It’s all theater.

    They (and we) need to protect the right to speak, regardless what third parties do with it.

    Is burning a Koran like yelling fire in a crowded theater? Should it be?

  172. We’ll have to disagree. The violation didn’t occur when the picture was taken, it happened when the POTUS and the SecState, very publicly condemned and apologized for this exercise of the first amendment.

    We don’t disagree about that. Except that I’d point to their request to YouTube as their most egregious attack on the 1st.

    I’m referring specifically to this guy going in for a chat.

  173. They didn’t “round him up”, Squid. They had no cause to.

    I noted above that we’re in perfect agreement here. Where we seem to part ways is where I observe that while they were not acting as jack-booted thugs in this particular case, they sure seemed to go out of their way to appear that way. I’m skeptical that this was accidental, though I admit it’s an unsupported assertion on my part.

    My fear remains that the authorities, seeing how well this ‘voluntary escort’ stunt worked, decide to add this arrow to their quiver. There’s no end to the reasons why they might want to ask someone a few questions downtown, and similarly, no end to plausible reasons why they’d want to do so. How many of us, or our neighbors, would resist such an invitation? After all, everybody commits three felonies a day…

  174. Squid, only the CHP motorcycle cops wear boots.

    The fellow in question doesn’t appear to be being frog-marched in handcuffs. He appears to be being help to a squad car (because his face is covered) while surrounded by a phalanx of sherrif’s deputies shielding him from photogs.

    The photograph is unfortunate, but is proof positive that he is no longer in the home where he may be in danger. That he was later released (hell, maybe they drove him to Denny’s and dropped him off right after they left) and no one is talking about the release is significant.

    There is no there there and the optics are not working for the Administration. An Administration who now looks to be over-reacting and siccing LEOs on citizens at the drop of a hat.

  175. Okay, then. My bad.

    Y’all let me know how I should feel when the Tea Partiers start being helped to squad cars while surrounded by a phalanx of Sheriff’s deputies, m’kay?

  176. When that happens, I guess we can all talk about that, as well.

  177. Squid, I suspect that the show of force was intended to show that nobody was going to get at the guy. It’s what I would have done.

  178. Tea Partiers don’t have that Salman Rushdie quality to them.

  179. Do you suppose Nakoula would have preferred less cops around him, or being surrounded by a bunch of them. Given that there’s a whole bunch of people out there calling for his death…

  180. Anyway, now we know what any blasphemer can expect.

    Well, not all, just a select few approved examples will do.

  181. I guess I’ll sit on the steps and wait for the Sherrif to show up for my husband, then.

    The heathen.

  182. Anyway, now we know what any blasphemer can expect.

    Psychotic Muslim death threats and murder attempts? Yup. This isn’t new.

  183. I’ve just been skimming, so if I’m repeating a point already made, my apologies. But it seems to me that when the United States government is blaming the death of United States government employees on a United States citizen who’s only guilty of exercising his first amendment rights in a way that offends the right thinking amongst us*, and then that citizen is taken into custody, voluntarily or not, legitimately or not, that, in this day and age, is a cause for concern.

    And the only people the government has to blame for that is the government people themselves.

    *As opposed to the right thinking offending the small minded bitter clingers because they can.

  184. It’s what I would have done.

    Were you in a position to order such a thing, would you have done anything to make it clear that your men were there for the homeowner’s protection, and not taking him into custody? Would you at least have the decency to bring a cool luchador mask so the man could walk to the car with dignity? And maybe a cape to go with it?

  185. Coulda just backed a van up to the door and no one would of seen anything.

    If that’s what they wanted I mean.

  186. Were you in a position to order such a thing, would you have done anything to make it clear that your men were there for the homeowner’s protection, and not taking him into custody?

    Rank and file don’t talk to the press. The press did contact the Sheriff’s station though, and they told them they did not arrest him, just gave him a ride, and that he was not in custody. So it’s out there, and yes, I would have put it out there. Then I would have asked these vultures if maybe they didn’t have something better to do.

  187. In Obama’s America, the knock of opportunity comes in the dead of night.

  188. If I’ve learned anything from reading Jeff these many years, it’s that intentionalism is something that’s important to him… and the use of signifiers to properly signal intent is high on that list.

    What signal of intent is put out by the creation of this opportunity for the media to take this particular type of picture and plaster it all over the world?

    There is the reality of the circumstance, as Pablo has pointed out at length. But that reality is not the only thing going on here, as others have been trying to point out.

    There is signifying going on here, of a type that I find particularly disgusting. It would have been rather trivial to accommodate the realities of the circumstance involving this “film-maker” WITHOUT also producing this type of signalling… if that was the intent.

    I contend that there is a reason that a picture of this type exists, and hence is plastered everywhere. I contend it’s because someone wants it that way, intentionally. That means something, above and beyond the nature of what was ostensibly to be accomplished.

    So as much as I respect you otherwise, Pablo, I have to respectfully submit that I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.

  189. …and FWIW, here’s mine:

    http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qybyk/

    “Government is the only

    thing we all belong to”
    – Democratic Nat’l Convention 2012

  190. I contend that there is a reason that a picture of this type exists, and hence is plastered everywhere. I contend it’s because someone wants it that way, intentionally. That means something, above and beyond the nature of what was ostensibly to be accomplished.

    What do you suppose that is, and whose sign is this? Who authored this?

  191. State.

  192. Now how is this fire and a smokebomb in a theatre again?

  193. I think this picture is being used for two different purposes.

    It looks to the ME that we are intolerant of intolerance. After all, dude looks at a quick glance to be under arrest.

    It looks to citizens that the guy is having his 1st Amendment rights violated.

    Smokebomb. Theatre.

  194. Taken in the context of the other acts of capitulation and submission that this administration has seemed to engage in throughout this whole affair… I’m asserting the opinion that this “escort” structured as it was is likely a sign authored by representatives of this administration, in order to produce an artifact like the picture we see here: what looks at first glance like a perp walk, when the ravening hordes half a world away are demanding a perp walk.

    This picture is not egret tracks or sheep clouds. Is it possible that it’s just some kind of weird and utterly eerie coincidence that in the process of “doing the right thing” they just so happen to produce something that they think might be useful for propaganda purposes?

    Remember, we don’t have to assume that someone is GOOD at manufacturing something for propaganda purposes, nor do we need to assume that if something produced that way comes back and bites someone in the ass later that they didn’t have the INTENT of producing something for propagandistic benefit.

    Hell, we don’t even have to agree with them as to whether we think it would have been an effective propaganda tool in the first place. None of that is necessary to apply intentionalism to signifiers.

    This looks like a signalling of intent to me. Intent to produce a picture that someone thought would be useful (taken along with official actions like declaring that the attacks were spontaneous when Libya is telling us they weren’t).

    It looks to me to signal dhimmitude. The mob demands, and the powers that occupy serve to answer. It makes my stomach churn.

    LBascom had it right… it’s not like it would have taken a team of rocket scientists to interview this fellow and arrange for him to be safely removed from harm’s way (all good intentions, and there are valid reasons to meet those goals) WITHOUT in the process creating a picture which looks like he’s being perp walked.

    It’s not like I’m manufacturing some baffling interpretation here and forcing it on to the situation. I’m not reading imaginary blasphemy into a Burger King lid. There is a context in which this is taking place, and within this context, I don’t find it plausible at all that it’s all some moment of sheer happenstance that the way this went down led to that photograph being produced, when having that photograph might be useful in the eyes of some.

    Is it backfiring? Sure! That doesn’t mean it wasn’t intentional. Otherwise, every failed propaganda stunt could have its intent retroactively undone by the authors via an “inverse Pee Wee Herman” maneuver: instead of “I meant to do that” covering an obvious error, we can have any monumental screw-up become “I obviously didn’t mean to do that”.

    Is it outrageous that these cops are being made to look like jackbooted thugs when in reality they aren’t? Absolutely! But that should lead you to focus on the much more important question (in my mind):

    Who arranged for these good cops to be put in the position of being misrepresented in this way? Cui bono?

    Find the person who arranged for this to look like a perp walk (instead of taking any of the obvious precautions that would have met law enforcement and the person-of-interest’s security needs WITHOUT making it look like a perp walk) and I contend that you’ll have the author.

  195. I agree. Good luck with that, though.

  196. So, you suppose that this was orchestrated at the highest levels? See, my thinking is that the Sheriffs got a call that said “Can you guys go get this guy out of there?” and this is what it naturally looks like when they did it.

    Is it possible that it’s just some kind of weird and utterly eerie coincidence that in the process of “doing the right thing” they just so happen to produce something that they think might be useful for propaganda purposes?

    How is it useful? Or how useful is it? I’ll reference and incorporate my 1:11 comment.

    Remember, we don’t have to assume that someone is GOOD at manufacturing something for propaganda purposes, nor do we need to assume that if something produced that way comes back and bites someone in the ass later that they didn’t have the INTENT of producing something for propagandistic benefit.

    True. But I’d like to have some evidence that anyone had an intent to produce propaganda which I haven’t seen.

    LBascom had it right… it’s not like it would have taken a team of rocket scientists to interview this fellow and arrange for him to be safely removed from harm’s way (all good intentions, and there are valid reasons to meet those goals) WITHOUT in the process creating a picture which looks like he’s being perp walked.

    This assumes that they should have been worried about it looking like a perp walk. I doubt that was a primary concern for those cops. Their job was to get him out of the house and into the car unmolested. What you see is exactly how you do that. And if the picture weren’t so tight, it wouldn’t look like a perp walk, as you’d see he’s not cuffed.

    There is a context in which this is taking place, and within this context, I don’t find it plausible at all that it’s all some moment of sheer happenstance that the way this went down led to that photograph being produced, when having that photograph might be useful in the eyes of some.

    Given what I just noted, this all comes down to zoom and/or cropping. I fail to see the hand of Zod at work in this photo. I just see a still that’s being spun 180 degrees from the context in which it was taken.

  197. And if the intent were to stage a perp walk, wouldn’t they be flogging it as such? Well, no. Because that would get Obama fired in 7 weeks.

  198. I just see a still that’s being spun 180 degrees from the context in which it was taken.

    a regime harping that all that bad me news is this guy’s movie trailer fault. snort.

    OBAMA’S LIBYA STORY UNRAVELS!… New Info Reveals Terror Attack Was Planned (Video)

  199. State called Justice, Justice passed it to FBI, FBI called county and said ” what’s with this guy? ” Sheriff’s don’t want to piss off the world or Justice. State sees to it that the picture gets passed around hoping it will balm riots and send message that president will work with sharia agenda on a few issues like blasphemy. Meanwhile rioters say “Free the blind Sheik.” and the Benghazi raiders peruse captured documents about contacts in Libya and make a plan to deal with them through cooption, intimidation, blackmail, discrediting them via calumny, or if possible destroying them.

  200. Here’s video. He’s got his hands in his pockets.

    Not a perp walk.

  201. a regime harping that all that bad me news is this guy’s movie trailer fault. snort.

    Except this isn’t the regime. It’s the LA Sheriffs. And what the regime did once they had him was let him escape.

    Tell me we don’t need to debate that the O admin is a bunch of nasty feckless incompetent snakes. Let’s just stipulate.

  202. It’s the LA Sheriffs. And what the regime did once they had him was let him escape.

    the la mayor is antonio villaraigosa dnc convention chair?

  203. ZOMG! The jackbooted thugs went back and took his whole family to the gulag! In the middle of the night! Or something.

    At 3:49 a.m., the three vehicles drove off, taking the Nakoulas to the Cerritos Station, where they reunited with Mr. Nakoula. The family left from there in their own vehicle.

  204. Fun Fact: The Mayor of LA does not command the LA County Sheriffs Department.

  205. Better video.

    Not a perp walk.

  206. From that last link:

    The spokesman further emphasized that Nakoula was “never handcuffed, he was never arrested, never detained, never in custody — it was all voluntary,” adding that he chose to cover his face, “that’s what he wanted and he had every right to do it.”

  207. Damn it, Pablo!

    What are we supposed to do with all of these conclusions that were jumped to now, Mister?

    What a buzzkill.

  208. Lee Baca’s still in charge? He must be old as tombs.

  209. This is getting kind of Panglossian.

  210. I love Candide. That Voltaire was a funny guy.

  211. @ my 8:36 is funny in a chi-town sort of way. divorce records incompetence what’s the diff

  212. What are we supposed to do with all of these conclusions that were jumped to now, Mister?

    Who cares? I’M OUTRAGED!!!

    So, I’m kinda too busy to think about the truth and stuff. I might have to storm an embassy or something.

    I SAW A PICTURE AND I’M VERY ANGRY!!!

  213. Yeah!! Plus jackbooted thugs!!!!!!!

  214. There is no storm when I shut my eyes and the call of these winds make sweet music to speed our journey. And doesn’t the boat float better upside down?

  215. AKIN INDEFENSIBLE!

  216. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

  217. Movies are smokebombs and youtube is a crowded theatre. Riots are smoke. Weird
    “Questions” about this are proper if we pretend there is a causal security connection. All is well.

  218. The quick brown fox(raaaaacist) has indeed jumped over a very lazy dog.

  219. Let’s just ignore the demonstrable facts, shall we? Better to be exactly what we despise than to pay attention and consider reality. After all, we hate that fucker, don’t we?

  220. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION!!!11!!!1!!!

  221. Because I said so, Goddammit.

    Boy, am I pissed off.

  222. What demonstrable facts? What reality is it you think you are considering? How is ignoring what you saw and its implication and context and making a horrible explanation of why it is not so a form of paying attention?

  223. No foul. Because I said so. Boy am I reasonable and living in bizarro world. And ignoring the analogy that the constitutional violation was founded in in the first place.

  224. Safe harbor from media thugs = constitutional violation?

  225. I’m not ignoring what I saw, I’m analyzing the living shit out of it, and I’m dropping gobs of evidence to support my conclusions. I’m looking for answers and finding them. You’re projecting and you’re utterly incapable of defending your conclusion. You’re playing the clown.

    Tell me again to have Jeff make your argument for you. Go ahead. Just do it. I think I’m done with you.

  226. Better to be exactly what we despise than to pay attention and consider reality.

    like an la sheriff fighting for his posh seat.

  227. Safe harbor from media thugs = constitutional violation?

    Jackboots! Brownshirts!

  228. what’s amazing is that baca is in a bad political jam and he goes full baracky

  229. Ah, I can’t help myself.

    And ignoring the analogy that the constitutional violation was founded in in the first place.

    WHAT Constitutional violation? Name it. Cite it. If it exists, it’s right here. Cite it. Or shut up.

  230. “Tell me again to have Jeff make your argument for you. Go ahead. Just do it. I think I’m done with you.”

    Good. Your sad and smug pollyanna isn’t worth responding to for the most part. Your gobs of evidence aren’t really any sort of evidence. Your bizarro world crack was stupid to begin with. You failed to support the poor analogy I was responding to. You didn’t have any answer to the ask Jeff argument. You don’t seem to think that the 1st amendment is violated without an official arrest and don’t consider issues of intimidation, or retaliation or causing trouble for optics. So yeah. Unlike the Akin mess I’m with Rush, Malkin, Reynolds on this one.

  231. ” WHAT Constitutional violation? Name it. Cite it. If it exists, it’s right here. Cite it. Or shut up.”

    The right to make movies without being harassed, served up by a president as a cause of riots in another country, and have your probation officer call you in for something other than probation.

    Also FUCK your stupid “shut up” bullshit.

    And if you find the balls, then explain how the analogy I was responding to applies to this actual situation or how this and cops saying you can have your gun taken away if neighbors complain about you cleaning your gins on the front porch legally is constitutional.

  232. I also don’t think that 9/11 was an inside job. I’ll take that to my grave, I guess.

  233. Cite it. Or shut up.

    don’t go proggtard on us

  234. The right to make movies without being harassed, served up by a president as a cause of riots in another country, and have your probation officer call you in for something other than probation.

    BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

    You are truly an idiot and I’m going to do my level best to ignore you going forward.

  235. “I also don’t think that 9/11 was an inside job. I’ll take that to my grave, I guess.”

    Do you think that has anything to do with anything?

  236. “You are truly an idiot and I’m going to do my level best to ignore you going forward.”

    Uh huh. Whatever dumb ass.

  237. When the black helicopters and tactical teams come for Ann Barnhardt for something besides not paying her income taxes, then I’ll be worried.

  238. No this is cool. We shouldn’t worry about more of this. All good. QED.

  239. don’t go proggtard on us

    Proggtards like to read stuff into the Constitution that doesn’t exist in it. Even on Constitution Day. Even here, which is disturbing.

    Facts matter. Truth matters.

  240. When the black helicopters and tactical teams come for Ann Barnhardt for something besides not paying her income taxes, then I’ll be worried.

    Me too. Unless they remove her from a media mob, then return her family to her and let her go. Then, I’ll be all “Yay, black helicopters!”

  241. No. This isn’t good. And as I’ve already said, the government only has itself to blame for people assuming the worst about its actions here.

    Now maybe if an FBI sniper or two were serving life sentences for murder, or if the ATF had been dissolved twenty years ago or thereabouts, or if a couple of Obama’s cabinet secretaries had tendered their resignations, people would be more willing to accept that this is typical partisan incompetence rather than malice.

  242. Facts matter. Truth matters.

    fact is a corrupt baracky regime called la sheriff baca to lean on the coptic so that the regime’s narrative about his movie is in the mbm. you go less than adequate intelligence

  243. fact is a corrupt baracky regime called la sheriff baca to lean on the coptic

    “At 3:49 a.m., the three vehicles drove off, taking the Nakoulas to the Cerritos Station, where they reunited with Mr. Nakoula. The family left from there in their own vehicle.

    Boy, they sure showed him.

  244. Justice Department official won’t rule out blasphemy laws

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=83749

  245. fact is a corrupt baracky regime called la sheriff baca to lean on the coptic so that the regime’s narrative about his movie is in the mbm.

    BTW, do you really think they needed that photo to blame his stupid movie? Or to get the lamestream media to parrot that blame?

    Please.

  246. Has the FBI been publicly announced to be committed to tracking down any of the people who’ve threatened Nakoula’s life yet — ya know, just for friendly questioning, mind? That could begin to encroach on some sort of speech or other, at least. And maybe even send a better signal how the Federal government views its relation to the preservation of rights. Well, maybe.

  247. Justice Department Official is a fucking idiot.

    Don’t you be a fucking idiot by believing otherwise about Justice Department Official.

    That said, would liberal elites like some kind of blasphemy exception to constitutionally protected free speech. Absolutely. Because they haven’t had as much luck as they’d like in shaming the hoi poloi into shutting up.

    But that’s what the Supreme Court is for.

  248. Boy, they sure showed him.

    well we could have a discussion of demonrat politics in ca but you “can’t handle the truth”

  249. Roberts rewriting of Obamacare as a tax, McCain-Feingold being allowed to stand in 2002 because if Bush didn’t care why should the courts…

  250. BTW, do you really think they needed that photo to blame his stupid movie?

    the trailer 0 the photo 1 ofa!

  251. NINE YEARS to strike some of it. Two elections. I don’t think the courts have our backs.

  252. Yellow lines in the middle of the road will stop most informed drivers sometimes but they won’t stop a truck. Or a moped. Or even a particularly stupid pedestrian. Or a turtle for that matter.

  253. I didn’t say they did.

    On the other hand, they’d have to abandon their own precedents on prior restraint.

    And that’s what really offends them!

  254. sdferr of course not.

    Wouldn’t be prudent to go after the 4th estate. They might turn.

  255. I’m not suggesting anything about the fourth estate, but about the douche bags like those quoted at Daily Caller, should they prove to be in jurisdictional arms length.

  256. The FBI is too busy obstructing the free flow of information to an underinformed electorate to have time to look into death threats against a bothersome little nobody.

    Priorities.

  257. Actually, for purposes of communicating a fealty to America rights, it could be that the mere announcement would be sufficient, even if nothing turned up. After all, Holder managed to send a team to Sanford to look into George Zimmerman’s racist past, which team evidently came up with nothing because, more or less, there wasn’t anything. Still, the message was clearly received as intended.

  258. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    So:

    if congress (now extended to state and local governments including mayoral offices and courtrooms) made no law…

    and yet the executive acts on its own with the intention or a credible appearance of intention to silence or show official disapproval

    with implied legal consequences (even being summoned!) for unpopular speech

    when a motive exists to do so to hopefully appease rioters said or though to be angry at the unpopular but legal speech,

    then we can truthfully and factually assume that there is no worrying constitutional issue (beyond the executive acting without a law, which cannot legally be made or should not be followed and should be vacated by the courts if made)

    and no constitutional right pertaining to freedom of the press was infringed or threatened?

    No one faced an attempt by an official to silence their speech?

    (California )

    § 5301. Official oppression.
    A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
    or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits
    a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
    is illegal, he:
    (1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
    seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
    other infringement of personal or property rights; or
    (2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
    enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

  259. We can do this to Michael Moore if someone starts a fire in a Quickie Mart parking lot and it’s fine and soft enough that no silencing attempt that violates speech is in effect? Or is Michael Moore too lawyered up to get away with it?

    Because Smoke-bomb and and smoke and theatre? – movie and international rioting and “voluntary” questioning?

  260. I guess that means there’s an awful lot of useless law on the books about libel and slander and incitement then. Maybe fraud too.

  261. Also I think none of §5301 applies to Mr. Whozzit(?) since he went voluntarily. Which I’m pretty sure he was obliged to do, being on probation. And I’m pretty sure he could start making youtube vids today, if he really wanted to.

  262. Libel and slander are defamation and usually a civil matter. Does the prophet have the right in the US to file charges as a victim or have standing to bring a tort? Can the ummah demonstrate that they serve as the agency of the prophet and are authorized to speak for him? Can they prove he exists?

    Incitement would be applicable if his movie was intended to advocate and inspire a riot. The riot is AGAINST the existence of the movie (according to the official line and not against the US in general)

    What fraud? Was the ummah defrauded?

  263. “And I’m pretty sure he could start making youtube vids today, if he really wanted to.”

    He was pretty sure he could too before he voluntarily had to go see his PO after federal investigators looking into his probation status AFTER the riots and Geraldo pointed him out.

  264. I’m glad we agree that free speech isn’t

    FREE SPEECH!!!11111!1!!11

    since that was all that I was getting at.

    And since I think it’s equally possible at this point that this guy is an agent provacateur instead of a patsy, I think it would be irresponsible of the government not to ask him to speak to them.

    That doesn’t mean I think that they handled the situation ideally.

  265. That’s all for me tonight.

  266. “I’m glad we agree that free speech isn’t
    FREE SPEECH!!!11111!1!!11
    since that was all that I was getting at.”

    I’m talking about the movie since that’s the speech in question. And I’m not especially interested in non free speech categories being juggled and modified until they seem to almost cast a shadow on a movie the guy made the way that a penalty became a tax when a supreme court justice squinted at it.

    ” And since I think it’s equally possible at this point that this guy is an agent provacateur instead of a patsy, I think it would be irresponsible of the government not to ask him to speak to them.”

    In the form of the county? About being a shit stirrer with a presumed controller who has some sort of hold over or alliance with him? And I thought the theater analogy said he was cover for riots not an actual force that caused them ? Can we control how movies, footage and other speech are used by others? Or how people in any given culture might react to them?

    And they can’t just phone the guy and ASK him or send him a polite e-mail asking if someone might drop by with an audio recorder and an affidavit and he’s welcome to have an attorney present ? Oh, this interview can be declined, and it is not about him or his movie so much as it is looking for possible ties to a riot overseas that mentioned his movie ?

    What is the grounds for holding him in suspicion such that interviews are required? Is his movie legal speech? Was his probation status under any sort of review before the riots made him “of interest” ?

    Why has he been more or less scapegoated by press and whitehouse, both of which have been shown to collude on occasion if not with regularity? Why is the investigation being hushed up like a domestic crime scene ? Why is there a ridiculous party line about 9/11 being a coincidence, the riots not showing signs of premeditation or coordination (except in Libya) ?

    We have an ugly context that makes this look very bad. What reason do we have to assume that this isn’t a trial run of EXACTLY what it looks like and why should we not be should be screaming about it and spreading the word that it is unacceptable and will be met with protest and legal challenge and made an issue in the upcoming elections if not redressed? Why do we have to ignore the signs and pretend that people who don’t like the looks of this are stupid crazy and hysterical and we should wait for every dot to be connected in triplicate before reacting lest be accused of losing sanguinity and decorum ?

    The “explanations” for this mess look to me like another case of a sleepy eyed Frumian half drunk on his own sweet magnificence sslurring “Psssh! Calm down! He HAS to rule as a moderate!” and then pointing to his temple because that shows he has the brains…four years ago. At a cocktail party.

    I say if you shout it down and turn out to be entirely wrong then there’s nought to be ashamed of. The democrats have based most of their canned rhetoric on our supposed stupidity and temerity anyway. They do not stoop to reward timidity towards or compliance with their aims. They treat us as opposition no matter what we do or say. Even now I’m wishing for dirty air and water and a return of slavery if you ask the Donkey about me.

    If you don’t even try to shout this down and it turns out to be what it looks like then you’ve slept through the ladders being laid against the walls because you were having a happy dream that seemed so real at the time. We’ll never catch them if we ignore them when they they walk softly and say “Whoops, no one here but us chickens” every time they do cause a ruckus.

    Let the thoroughbred whippet sleep and grumble about the yapping mutts. I choose to bark at the bump in the night what with all the people getting robbed around here lately.

  267. More cultural context:

    Althouse also councils caution over the trial-balloon issue of laws designed to prevent offending people often under the rubric of anti-bullying and anti-discrimination or anti-hate speech codes these days. She notes that as recently as 1952 literal blasphemy laws were employed against movies thought to be sacriligious at state level:

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-egyptian-with-shut-up-america-sign.html

    “We’re not that far from criminalizing blasphemy in the United States, though it seems obvious to educated Americans today that these laws are unconstitutional. Here’s a quick summary of the history of blasphemy law in the U.S.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States_of_America

    And here’s the 1952 case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson where the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that banned showing “sacrilegious” movies. New York’s highest court had interpreted the statute to mean “that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0495_ZO.html

    The U.S. Supreme Court said:

    —[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.—

    My point is: it took a Supreme Court case as recently as 1952, to establish that principle in our country, with its rich free-speech tradition. Lawyers even saw fit at that time to argue that movies shouldn’t get free-speech protection at all because “their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit.”

    This isn’t new or from the near-east. We did this. For Jesus. This is a danger of BACKSLIDING . FORWARD is really backwards sometimes. What’s not that old is kinda new again?

  268. The stuff below ” thought to be sacriligious at state level:” and above “This isn’t new or from the near-east. We did this. For Jesus. This is a danger of BACKSLIDING . FORWARD is really backwards sometimes. What’s not that old is kinda new again?” is Althouse.

    I missed a pair of quotes when pasting.

  269. Also I think none of §5301 applies to Mr. Whozzit(?) since he went voluntarily.

    Nor does “official disapproval”, whatever that is, equate to a restriction of speech. Even the POTUS has the first amendment right to say dumb shit. Of course, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

    Without force/compulsion under color of law, there is no First Amendment violation.

  270. Nor does “official disapproval”, whatever that is, equate to a restriction of speech.

    Hasn’t SCOTUS said something about a “chilling effect,” or was that just BSM rhetoric?

  271. I bet it’s real easy to make someone “go voluntarily”.

  272. Yeah, McGehee. It refers to a legal action of some sort, not mere criticism.

  273. Especially when they’re obliged to.

  274. Probation is a bitch, huh? Best not to commit felonies if you don’t want to be treated so viciously. I can’t believe they grilled him for 28 hours 90 minutes before locking him up in solitary facilitating his and his family’s escape from their under siege house to the safety of hiding. Those ruthless bastards!

  275. I thought he was a parolee? But, I guess not since he copped a plea and ratted out his former business partners.

    In general, being a convicted felon puts a cramp on ones lifestyle. Routine traffic stops may turn into something else especially when one of the convictions was for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

    At a quick glance, the boy makes a lot of bad decisions.

Leave a Reply