Yemen

Protesters Storm Embassy in Yemen

Protests over an anti-Islamic film, not the drone campaign waged in their country

|

yemen

As noted on Reason 24/7, violent protests over a poorly-produced film mocking Islam have now spread to the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement when protests first started there that they condemned "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The statement was disavowed by Washington and has now been completely scrubbed from the Embassy website. Nevertheless, while condemning the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other staffers the president noted that "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious belief of others."

The Yemeni demonstrators are not protesting the still officially mostly secret drone war in their country, so coverage of what's known about that drone operation in U.S. media can continue without worry it'll be condemned by some U.S. officials for inciting a riot in Yemen. At least for now.

NEXT: Demonstrators Storm U.S. Embassy in Yemen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gotta root for the protestors here.

      1. We’re propping up Yemen’s dictatorship and waging war against one side in the civil war there. We kill any Yemenis we want. We put their names on a list, Obama nods his imperial head, and we kill them.

        If people protest outside our embassy I really think that we have no grounds to complain.

        1. But is there any evidence they are protesting because of those things?

          1. That’s an interesting point. The demonstrations are taking place in Sanaa, and one would assume that successive rounds of killing have either eliminated all of the dictatorship’s opponents in the capital, or driven them into the countryside.

            So it’s possible (or even probable) that these protestors are actually supporters of the dictator. IOW, the people whose side we’re on now hate us, too.

            In that case I have to root for the protestors just because I love irony.

          2. when dealing with Muslims, it is usually accurate to conclude that any protest simple needed an excuse, not a reason.

        2. Ostensibly, the Yemenis we kill are Al Qaeda.

          Still you are correct. They almost have a duty to protest us.

          And yes, “killing Al Qaeda” has become a weary excuse.

          1. Ostensibly, the Yemenis we kill are Al Qaeda.

            Will you be saying the same thing in 5 months when President Romneybot murderdrones a dozen kids in an attack on the guy in the next hut? Will the media?

            Also, did you feel the same way 5 years ago?

        3. I think John said the AUMF from over a decade ago when we went into Halfgoneistan covered those murderdrone strikes and the rest of our involvement in Yemen.

          Why do you hate the soldiers as well as their wives and children, Fluffy?

      2. I think when Fluffy is stabbed to death in his bathtub, he still will be wondering, “Why?”

  2. For the love of fuck, please stop trying to marry that or any film to attacks on US embassies. You’re attempting to be diplomatic with people who are killing your diplomats. And speech is so far removed from murderous rioting that they don’t belong in the same discussion.

    1. I don’t think reporting what they’re protesting about means its justified, it just means that’s what they say they’re protesting about

      1. Although the very existence of this ‘film’ may not even be real:

        reason readin female|9.13.12 @ 12:44AM|#

        This whole thing keeps getting weirder weirder:

        http://www.theatlanticwire.com…..vie/56804/

        The “producer” can’t be found. Nobody named “Sam Bacile” anywhere in Hollywood…and nobody’s seen the whole movie. If it exists at all beyond thrown together random clips.

        1. On the news this morning the mentioned that the guy they think made the “movie” has some sort of criminal record. That’s it, like people with criminal records can’t make movies.

          1. I cannot come up with a good Roman Polanski joke to save my life.

            1. Elia Kazan should have raped girls like Roman Polanski did, instead of naming Communists. Hollywood would have loved him.

          2. Does that mean no more garbage from Russel Crowe? I can support that.

      2. I’m railing at the administration and anyone who tries to compare the two things. reason isn’t doing that. The administration seems to be. Don’t talk about the film (whether it exists or not) when addressing what’s happening. It’s irrelevant.

        1. Oh, sorry. My reading comprehension fail then lol

        2. then maybe we should look at the administration itself and the DNC’s “Osama’s dead” drumbeat. Saying Muslims are pissed about the cheerleading is at least as valid as blaming some movie that no one has seen.

      3. how does anyone know what they’re protesting about? Does not appear that anyone has actually seen this film, whose trailers have the look of a project with a budget of $1.58. “The film” sounds suspiciously like govt-fed narrative for the rest of us to follow.

        1. It does, also why hasn’t anyone actually discussed the veracity of the claims made in the movie? From what I understand the prophet was a bit of a “womanizer.”

          1. Mohammed was definitely an Alpha male.

      4. it just means that’s what they say they’re protesting about

        Some recognition that it is a pretext would be nice.

    2. They attacked embassies today because we didn’t shoot the people who did it on Tuesday. And when we do nothing today, they’ll attack more embassies.

      I know the pacifists would rather deny this, but it’s how the world works.

      1. Not as easy to order defensive shooting as it is to order a drone strike I guess

        1. I would think its easier.

          “Tell the Marines guarding those embassies to use lethal force on anyone who enters the embassy without permission. Oh, and they may also use lethal force on anyone who directs any gunfire, RPGs or other weaponry against the embassy. If some jumped-up camel herder wants to complain, give ’em Hillary’s number.”

          1. Purely defensive actions can’t be rationally condemned by anyone, which means that the UN would immediately condemn the US for them.

          2. It requires taking personal responsibility for the order?

        2. Obama, the first President who grew up playing videogames…

          Seriously, this is scary.

          It seems obvious that these guys are testing the waters. They’re pushing a little here, a little there, to see how far they can go. And we’re showing them that they can do damn near anything, including acts of war like murdering an ambassador and storming embassies. Next, they’ll push a bit more, go a bit farther. When we do nothing, or even try to appease them, they’ll do more.

          Osama Bin Laden said as much, when he was alive.

          Our allowing this to go on erases any gains from killing Bin Laden, and then some.

          1. Yesterday, tarran brought up the point that he thought these were dry runs for a 1979 Tehran-type situation. I wonder if it’s that, or if they’re incidents designed to influence the U.S. against the regimes where they occur, and thereby cause the U.S. to leave the region? Because I’m about at that point. (Not that anyone cares what I think.) We spend how much money propping up Egypt, Yemen, half the MidEast and Horn of Africa and get treated like this?

            How much publicity and concern in Yemen and Egypt (or the U.S., for that matter) is there about the drone program? Unlike Afghanistan/Pakistan, I didn’t think it was happening often enough in Yemen to get the locals that pissed off.

            Regardless, they should be able to protest all they want. It should be their right to do that. If they block the entrances, call the host nation and have them deal with it. But if they trespass, or show up with RPGs, especially after yesterday, they get shot. At least that’s what should be happening.

            Making half-assed apologies and stern statements doesn’t seem to be working.

  3. CNN reporting protests in Tunisia as well…

    1. Showing images of Libyans protesting the protesters. It won’t be long until another group of protesters, protests the protesters protesting the protest.

      1. Showing images of Libyans protesting the protesters.

        And I’m sure these ‘spontaneous’ protests of the protestors have nothing to do with the Navy moving ships off shore of Libya.

        1. Meh. There are probably large numbers of Libyans who are pretty pro-US at this point.

          I can definitely see a pro-US protest taking place spontaneously or organically.

      2. Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?
        Reg: Fuck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea

  4. Isn’t this just another sharp indication that the federal government should close its embassies and depart permanently from these shitholes?

    1. Yes. Seriously, let these motherfuckers fight it out without our involvement.

    2. Cutting off all diplomacy with the Middle East and trying to pretend that these animals don’t exist is no solution at all. A person with cancer might as well hope that ignoring his disease will somehow make it go away. It won’t work.

      1. The cancer patients family doesn’t storm the hospital and murder the doctor when things don’t go their way.

        1. What if that doctor had said even Muhammad couldn’t save their loved one?

          1. Well then he’s just asking for it.

          2. GAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!! INFIDEL DOG!!!!!!

      2. Cutting off all diplomacy with the Middle East and trying to pretend that these animals don’t exist is no solution at all.

        Why not? It works like this:

        “We will completely disengage from you and will not interfere at all in your affairs, unless you take action against us, in which case we will blow up all your shit and kill all your leaders. So don’t fuck with us and we won’t fuck with you. You are now completely on your own. Have a nice day.”

        1. your statement, which I fully support, assumes a US with some spine and a set of principles on which to stand, neither of which actually exists. Frankly, I’m surprised no one is blaming Romney.

          1. I’m surprised no one is blaming Romney.

            See shrieky’s comments; he is at least trying to re-direct to Romney.

        2. “We will completely disengage from you and will not interfere at all in your affairs. However, if you take action against us, the government of the United States will wage war upon you until nothing but cinders remain. Heed this warning, and do not provoke the titan.”

          Then nuke some desert to demonstrate that that shit ain’t a bluff. Then get out.

          1. A little more elegant and forceful than ‘don’t fuck with us.’ Thanks.

            1. After that, any faction retarded enough to mess with the United States will have absolutely no excuse.

    3. I still think we should have worked on the neutron bomb, just in case we needed it.

      1. I’d be shocked if we don’t have a few tucked up nice and comfy somewhere.

        1. I imagine they’re still awaiting “dismantling” at Pantex.

          Hmmm, per the wiki, the U.S. ones have all been dismantled. Surprising. They’re probably helping some submarine or carrier zip through the ocean.

  5. So, is this the result of the hopenchange smart diplomacy we were promised?

    1. Leading to a new normal of non-interventionism? No.

      1. Well, I’m sure the lightworker will get around to it next term….

    2. The Lightworker was busy in Las Vegas (remember, don’t go there!) campaigning. As soon as he raises enough cash, he’ll get back to healing the planet and restoring the love.

      Oh and “The Yemeni demonstrators are not protesting the still officially mostly secret drone war in their country, so coverage of what’s known about that drone operation in U.S. media can continue without worry it’ll be condemned by some U.S. officials for inciting a riot in Yemen.”

      I suppose if they did riot over that, the One could order drone strikes on them.

      1. Obama never said not to go to Vegas (another wingnut myth).

        He did say bailout recipients (see AIG) should repay taxpayers before having lavish meetings there.

          1. Obama tells bankers don’t go to Vegas.

            Nowhere in that article did he say that. In fact, bankers are not mentioned at all.

            He did use Vegas as a metaphor for blowing money.

            1. Nowhere in that article did he say that.

              Speaking about the economy at an event in New Hampshire, Mr Obama told Americans: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts.

              “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.

              Not only are you a liar, you apparently can’t read.

              1. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.

                Shrike is wrong in asserting he didn’t say it, but anyone who criticizes the statement is also wrong, because it’s utterly noncontroversial and one of the few valid things the asshole-in-chief has ever said.

                When you’re trying to save for college – yeah, you shouldn’t go to Vegas.

                If it hurts Vegas when people save for college (instead of just demanding that the taxpayer pay for their college) then fuck Vegas. Vegas can fucking starve.

            2. Even Harry Reid thought so:

              “The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn’t be spending their money,” he said in a statement.

              This is like shooting fish in a barrel with a 12 ga. auto. You really are ridiculous.

            3. Shrieky doesn’t know what a metaphor is, apparently.

              1. Shrieky apperently doesn’t know his own ass from his elbow.

          2. In fact the article repeats what I said – quoting

            Mr Obama last year that companies should not use federal bail out money for trips to the city.

            So you think TARP money should be used on Vegas trips?

            1. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.

              You think that refers to TARP money? Idiot.

              And I don’t think there should even be TARP money doled out in the first place, dummy.

        1. So shouldn’t Obama not go there until he’s payed us back for all the money he’s stolen and wasted?

          1. I can’t believe shrieky is so stupid as to lie about things that are so easily checked.

            1. You lied when you said Obama told “bankers” not to go to Vegas. That was not in the article you cite.

              By 2010 when you quoted him the big banks had repaid TARP.

              1. By 2010 when you quoted him the big banks had repaid TARP.

                LOL!

        2. Polishing turds this early in the morning? Good grief.
          Take a rest from avoiding the issue for a while.

          The issue here is that obama’s foreign policy has resulted in a giant clusterfuck in the mid east that is growing worse by the minute, and that he is completely intransigent about his position. And you defend him by disputing whether or not he said we should or shouldnt go to Vegas? You really are an idiot obamazombie.

          1. Unfortunately “obama’s foreign policy” was the only possible choice in this case.

            The alternative was supporting gerontocratic strongmen and demanding those strongmen exterminate their own people in the name of stability.

            In the long run, we’re frankly better off letting that entire system collapse, pulling every diplomat out of the Middle East, and letting angry mobs burn the empty embassies down and dance on the ashes. The short run isn’t pretty, but the short run of the extermination policy wouldn’t have been pretty, either.

            1. “In the long run, we’re frankly better off letting that entire system collapse, pulling every diplomat out of the Middle East, and letting angry mobs burn the empty embassies down and dance on the ashes.”

              How so? Propping up thuggish dictators to create a semblance of stability is bad, but letting the system collapse and going down a road to who knows where with those savage fucktards can only lead to somewhere awful.

              1. The self-interested case is that it is not in our own self interest to prop up dictators and continue to run the risk of blowback.

                Furthermore, it is imperative that their sovereignty and chosen self-direction be respected, even if they aren’t morally entitled to either.

              2. Are you saying we should have propped up the dictators? Maybe it does go to somewhere awful, so what. It is not our job to tell other countries what they should do, or how to do it. That is what gets us into problems in the first place.

                1. It is not our job to tell other countries what they should do, or how to do it. That is what gets us into problems in the first place.

                  This, a thousand times.

              3. How so? Propping up thuggish dictators to create a semblance of stability is bad, but letting the system collapse and going down a road to who knows where with those savage fucktards can only lead to somewhere awful.

                Propping up thuggish dictators means that the mob can blame us for their problems.

                Every day that passes once we leave makes that less true.

                During the initial catharsis, they’ll still be pissed at us by inertia, and on the principle of the unsettled score. But give it 15 years and we’re clear.

                1. Uh, I don’t think 15 years is enough.

                  Only in small pockets of America do people understand “living by the feud”. People hold grudges for centuries, in other places, including oh-so-cosmopolitan Europe (although the wholesale destruction of cities and slaughter of tens of millions during the 20th Century has tempered their will to act on the grudges, in most places).

          2. THIS is a “giant clusterfuck”? Are you insane?

            What was the Iraq War?

            1. False dichotomy. One being a cluster does not exclude the other.

              1. One is indeed a giant clusterfuck. This one this week is a minor clusterfuck.

                Anything to do with the Middle East is a clusterfuck.

            2. Shorter shrieky:

              “Hey! Look over there, a squirrel!”

            3. What was the Iraq War?

              in hindsight, a mistake, albeit it a mistake agreed to by every prominent Dem in teh House/Senate at the time.

      2. Hello John,

        As you may know, US embassies are under siege across the Middle East. At least three American officials are dead.

        This is our chance. This is when America stands up for its people, its interests and its values. But we won’t be able to accomplish anything if our opponents continue to out raise us.

        Won’t you donate $9.12?

        Let’s change the world together,

        Barack Obama

    3. Its because Bush was president. He left us in such a bad way that we are still feeling the righteous rage despite the awesome healing power of Obama.

      1. I wouldn’t be shocked if some Obama fans really think that.

        1. I wouldn’t be shocked if some Obama fans really think that.

          Well, he did start the WOT. So there is that.

          /sarc

    4. “So, is this the result of the hopenchange smart diplomacy we were promised?”

      Yep, flowers of the arab spring watered by mr. hopenchange himself.

      Here is to hoping he gets ravaged by colon cancer. Maybe that will change something.
      * raising coffee mug*

    5. So, is this the result of the hopenchange smart diplomacy we were promised?

      Not only that, WTF, but it’s also probably part of his new stimulus program. Do you realize how many broken windows there are now that need replacing? Why, any minute now, I expect Pauli Krugnutz to come out and say what a great day this is for the Obama administration and America in general because it means an end to the recession!

  6. The most important thing right now is to get some reporters to Romney so we can focus on his take and not the unfolding clusterfuck.

    1. Yes, must turn the light away from Obama’s ineptitude at all costs.

    2. Romney chimed in and has been panned for his inept lies.

      Where have you been?

      1. What were those lies again?

        1. What were those lies again?

          Gaffe, he meant political gaffe – as in speaking an unpleasant truth.

        2. Romney falsely claimed Obama apologized to the demonstrators.

          It is a persistent wingnut lie that Obama “apologizes”.

          1. Shrieky, the only wingnut here is you. The depths of stupidity you will go to to polish Obama’s balls is staggering.

          2. Romney falsely claimed Obama apologized to the demonstrators.

            Could you quote that please?

          3. no shriek,
            he said the administration apologized, which it did. Give it a rest. Obama was shown up so the MSM has to do its duty and focus instead on the challenger. No one got upset in ’04 when Kerry questioned Bush’s handling of the war, or in ’08 when The Obama did likewise. But now, questioning the Oval is off limits. bullshit.

            1. Yes, apparently whether or not dissent is patriotic depends on if the POTUS has a ‘D’ or ‘R’ after his title.

            2. Romney:

              Simply put, having an embassy which has been breached and has protestors on its grounds, having the violated the sovereignty of the United States, having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech — is not the right course for an administration.

              No one apologized for free speech.

              Look, Romney is being panned for his ham-headed handling of this. Get real.

              1. “President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop Wednesday, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.

                ‘We believe in the First Amendment,’ Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.

                ‘It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,’ he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney.

                The transcript was released several hours after Obama had a Rose garden statement to condemn criticism of Islam.”

                That statement walking back what you said before…you didn’t write that

                1. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” – Obama

                  “‘It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind” – New Obama

              2. “No one apologized for free speech.”

                Why was the statement given by the embassy in Cairo disavowed by Obama if there was nothing wrong with it?

      2. Reading the various editorials that agree with him, and listening to the audio of in-the-tank-for-Obama reporters conspiring to make whatever Romney said look like a gaffe.

        http://www.therightscoop.com/e…..e-covered/

    3. PROTECT THE QUEEN!

  7. Puny humanoids. This will soon be the least of your problems.

    1. Shouldn’t that be “foolish mortals”?

  8. As noted on Reason 24/7,

    What’s “Reason 24/7”?

    1. It’s like the Huffington Post, but with less commentary.

  9. Angry young men brought down the U.S. flag in the courtyard, burned it and replaced it with a black banner bearing Islam’s declaration of faith – “There is no God but Allah.”

    This rioting-inside-the-embassy-with-impunity thing seems to be trending.

    Perhaps it’ll soon be acceptable to do this at, say, Arlington Cemetery.

    1. Perhaps it’ll soon be acceptable to do this at, say, Arlington Cemetery.

      They have SWAT teams to keep U.S. citizens subjects in line.

    2. Last time I was there, I couldn’t even find out where the latest 25th ID dead were buried – because they would not tell anyone where anything recent was – anti-war protestors were going around and hassling people. Didn’t really make the papers – funny that.

    3. In the courtyard of the embassy? Isn’t that an invasion of US territory (true for every country and its embassy)?

      Seriously, why was nobody shot?

      This will only get worse.

  10. Barbarians and shitholes. What are we doing there?

    1. Stirring. Somewhat fecklessly.

    2. Buying oil.

      On account of a generation of idiotic energy policies that have choked off access to domestic sources and new technologies.

  11. violent protests over a poorly-produced film mocking Islam

    See, what we need is big-budget blockbuster film mocking Islam.

    1. Mohammed: The Movie. Who would star?

      1. Hmmm, let’s see, Clint Eastwood’s old, he’s lived a long life.

        1. Gran Torino, writ large?

      2. Sean Penn, and a whole cast of other Hollywood assholes who can be stabbed to death without me caring.

        1. Good point. I nominate Tim Robbins.

          1. The guy that gets people to walk on fire?

  12. Maybe Reason can help by tracking down the filmmaker’s home address and publishing it on the internet, to make it easier for Muslims to find him and kill him.

    The sooner the guy is dead, the sooner these protests will stop!

    1. Given the language of appeasement the president’s using, I suspect Obama may track the filmmaker down and send him to Egypt before the Islamists can find him anyway.

      1. Don’t throw him in the briar patch!

        This movie has been blamed on Egyptian Copts, Terry Jones, and Israeli Jews. Who do we know that would want to stir up ill will against those people both in the the Muslim world and the fascist part of the U.S. that blames speakers for the actions of monsters?

        Oh right, Egyptian Islamists. If it really did have $5 million in backing, I’d be taking a close look at the paper trail for that if I was the government. Might lead to the MB, though it would be more interesting if it lead to CAIR.

        As the story of the retarded kid in Afghanistan (or was it Pakistan?) suggests, Muslim leaders are happy to commit blasphemy if it can be used as a false flag to rile up rioters. They use hate to maintain their power.

        1. Deriving a motive by tracing backwards from whomever benefited most is the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of.

          But deriving the culprits by looking at who benefited makes an assumption that always seems unsound to me–you end up assuming that the actors know what’s in their own best interest…

          I look at Obama, and I think if he does what’s in his own best interest or the nation’s best interest–it’s just a coincidence! …and I don’t know why we should assume that the Islamists know what’s in their own best interest any more than Obama does.

          The explanation that a foolish man spent a lot of money denigrating the prophet out of bitterness against the treatment of himself and his fellow Coptic Christians–only to incompetently incite violence by Islamists against Copts and the Americans who gave him a new home?

          That makes more sense to me than anything else.

    2. Given the clandestine way the film was produced, overdubbed, etc., and the fact that the attack on our embassy in Libya looks like it may have been premeditated and coordinated to happen on 9/11, I think it was important to know who made the film.

      For all we knew, the film might have been produced by radical Islamists themselves as a ploy to justify killing an ambassador and fomenting unrest among their countrymen. You’d be surprised–stuff like that happens! I once saw a government willfully mislead its own people to believe that a third party nation was trying to procure yellowcake from Niger…

      Anyway, I think it was probably important for certain people in the Middle East to know that the film wasn’t a Mossad plot; it was probably important for some Americans to know that the film wasn’t made by the Muslim Brotherhood; etc.; etc.

      1. This comment was a reply to Hazel, by the way…

        Hazel, take a look at ant1sthenes’ comment.

        We had to know where the film came from.

      2. It may be important for someont to understamnd where the film came from, but that doesn’t imply you have to publish the guy’s real name on the internet and blow his pseudonym.

        1. If you make a film, apparently, to provoke Islamists–and if you dub in dialogue the actors say they disapprove of…and if people subsequently get killed…maybe because of your film?

          Then, at some point, you waive your right to anonymity–if you ever had one to begin with…

          Our freedoms are the flip side of our responsibilities. …our freedom to do things is ultimately limited by our ability to be held responsible for what we do. I have a right to carry and use a gun, for instance, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be held responsible for using it irresponsibly.

          Maybe using it irresponsibly doesn’t just mean shooting people without sufficient cause. Maybe using a gun irresponsibly could be handling it in an unsafe manner around children. Surely, my right to bear arms doesn’t include the right not to be called out and criticized by name for irresponsible behavior…

          My right to free speech is the same–it doesn’t include the right to say whatever I want without consequences. If I use my right to free speech in an irresponsible way, other people have a right to criticize me for what I said–even if what I said falls short of fraud, making a bomb threat, or some other crime…

          I think other people’s right to criticize me for what I say probably includes a right to identify me if they can. If you don’t want to be called out by name for making a film that is provocative to Islamist radicals? then there’s an easy way to avoid that.

          1. If you don’t want to be called out by name for making a film that is provocative to Islamist radicals? then there’s an easy way to avoid that.

            Yes. Its called the “heckler’s veto.”

            1. No, I’m not talking about the government stepping in and preventing people from saying what they want.

              I’m talking about how not being responsible for one’s own actions is not what being libertarian is about.

              If you don’t want to be the subject of controversy for making a film that provokes Islamist radicals, then don’t make a film that might provoke Islamist radicals.

              We’re all responsible for what we freely choose to do. Whether the government should hold us responsible is another question entirely, and by no means should people be allowed to escape responsibility for violence perpetrated against you for what you say…

              But if you don’t want people to find out what you said–so they can’t criticize you for it?

              Then the solution to that is to choose not to say it.

              I’ve got a lot of respect for people who provoke Islamists and courageously stand behind their criticism. I’ve got some sympathy for critics here in the U.S. who become the targets of radical Islamist protestors, but the idea that you can provoke a violent reaction from here in the U.S., and no one should print who you are and why you did it?

              I don’t think I’m on board for that.

  13. Well, if the filmmaker hooks up with Padma Lakshmi, I’m going to fast track my offensive-to-Islam project, that’s for damn sure.

    1. The tennis player?

      1. I simply refuse to explain a joke, Ken.

        I will note that Google Images is your friend, oh yes it is.

        1. I know who she is.

          I’m more impressed by his girlfriends.

          http://www.hindustantimes.com/…..51150.aspx

          Being his age and hooking up with Riya Sen? That’s better than hittin’ the lottery.

          Makes me want to move to India.

  14. Dear Reason: Please fix your site and stop eating comments.

    Back on topic:

    Obama’s professorial asshats demanding the imprisonment of the so-called filmmakers:

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/…..-of-islam/

    Prof. Butler: “Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid…” “And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don’t understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.” “And people do to jail for speech. First Amendment doesn’t cover EVERYTHING a PERSON says.” “[T]he murder of the Ambassador and the employees is wrong, wrong. But Bacile will have to face his actions which he had freedom[.]”

  15. These Muslims are clearly over re-acting. The only movie I know worthy of death is Battlestar Galactica, and any Steven Seagal movie. Please kill the bastards responsible for those affronts to art and good taste.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.