Innocence of Muslims

Long Arm of the Law Reaches Out to Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker

Probation violation brings him into federal custody


last time the feds just wanted to talk

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, better known as Sam Becile, the filmmaker behind Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests throughout the Muslim world, was taken into federal custody, likely for violating a probation that includes a prohibition on internet use. Federal authorities began to review Nakoula's probation days after the protests started, bringing him in to talk and even opened an investigation into the film. While he was convicted of credit-card fraud and identity theft, Nakoula was likely also an FBI informant (the feds tend to have quite a few). While Nakoula may seem an unsavory criminal type, the average American could commit as many as three felonies a day, bringing everyone within convenient reach of the law. Anti-anti-Muslim protester Mona Eltahawy, meanwhile, mistook vandalizing private property for free speech and arrest for the former as censorship of the latter.

An important reminder about free speech, and on Reason TV, Remy imagines a world without YouTube, a conduit for Innocence of Muslims, and target of governments looking to look tough on blasphemy (or "hate speech"):

NEXT: Spain's New Budget Emphasizes Big Cuts

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Homie be fucked. Damn.

  2. This pretty fucking weak on the part of the Feds. Are they going to ship him to fucking Yemen in the morning?

    1. I’m willing to turn a blind eye if they ship Michael Bay with him.

      1. Where are your principles, dude? I’ll only turn a blind eye if they send Bay, Roland Emmerich, Uwe Boll, and Brannon Braga with him.

        1. Throw out Brannon Braga, and put in JJ Abrams. Perfect.

  3. “likely for violating a probation that includes a prohibition on internet use.”

    As a business owner, there is no way to deal with the government regarding the many taxes and regulations which affect my business without using the internet. In fact, several agencies will no longer issue or mail paper notices; they require internet responses.
    Wonder if probation can require a person to stay away from, oh, a printing press.

    1. Or hell, e-file his taxes.

    2. Then he shouldn’t have used the internet to defraud people. Nor should he have agreed to take a reduced sentence and probation upon the condition he not use the internet or defraud people.

      1. Not really.

        Even if what he did was wrong, establishing vastly divergent penalties based on suspects waiving constitutional rights is coercion.

        If the penalty for vagrancy was either death, or $1, based on whether you agreed to never again vote, that would pretty blatantly be unjust coercion.

        And while it’s not a legal principle, I tend to think that governments should try to avoid Kafkaesque absurdity in their practices. And if some government departments require the use of the internet for daily business, for a separate part of the government to try to ban people from using the internet definitely sets up a Kafkaesque absurdity.

        Lastly, this is yet another case where the state doesn’t understand its own technical penalties, since you “use the internet” for quite a few prosaic activities that don’t involve a PC. You “use the internet” when you pay by debit card at the grocery store. You “use the internet” when you drive through an automated toll booth.

        1. Lets not forget half of what we read about judgments in the media is wrong or misquoted. Until someone pulls up the case in PACER I am going to ignore the “not use the internet” thing. The way I understood it was he wasn’t allowed to post anything to public sites or commit more fraud – not that he wasn’t allowed to use the internet to do research, download, etc. Now that there are even more conflicting reports of what he could and couldn’t do – I am sure it is half bullshit.

  4. This would have been much more interesting (and probably depressing) if the Feds didn’t have a valid (probation violation), ready-made reason to arrest him if they wanted to. It would have been interesting to see if they tried to trump one up. But alas, they didn’t even have to bother.

    1. I think the point here is that the feds are wetting themselves over the fact that they have something… anything, really, that they can arrest this guy and perp walk him in front of the cameras to show Egypt that we are “doing something” about this filmmaker.

      I’m not super-sensitive and culturally as openminded as some of my fellow travelers, so I believe that this will be all it takes to get a few hundred thousand protesters to back off– especially considering that hardly any of the protesters had even seen the film short video clip on Youtube. In other words, if you can get 100,000 Muslims to #rage against a video they’ve never seen, I’m guessing you can get 100,000 Muslims to #stopraging over Nakoula’s arrest on obscure charges they won’t begin to understand.

      Mission accomplished.

      1. Unfortunately, the rage never stops.

      2. Mission accomplished.

        Their current mission, one in a long standing campaign to neuter the West accomplished.

      3. “In other words, if you can get 100,000 Muslims to #rage against a video they’ve never seen, I’m guessing you can get 100,000 Muslims to #stopraging over Nakoula’s arrest on obscure charges they won’t begin to understand.”

        *Krusty the Klown groan*

        If they were anywhere near being this rational or even-headed, this wouldn’t be happening in the first place.

  5. *points gun*


  6. Now the question:

    Is the regime legitimate or illegitimate?

    Cowards need not respond.

    1. Dude, the only reason I’m not down to start insurrection is that I’d be crushed into the dirt by the jackbooted thugs, most of the country would be too busy watching TV to care, and the ones who did notice would cheer at the swift destruction of such a dangerous threat.

      It’s over. We lost. They have the guns, the numbers, the money, the culture, the mass media, the educational system, shit they have everything.

      We have a handful of people on a website. In 1776 a third of the country were supportive of independence, a third were loyalist, a third were generally neutral, and came over to the winning side. How many people, right now, would be willing to take up arms against the government to free this guy? I’d say of over 300 million Americans you could get maybe a thousand total willing to lock and load.

      1. The worst part: if this evil scumbag who has somehow ended up the White House actually manages to get re-elected, you’ve seen absolutely nothing yet compared to what’s coming down the pike.

  7. US calls Assange ‘enemy of the state.’…..26m7s.html

    1. un-fucking-believable

    2. This is too much. Between the Coptic filmmaker and the Aussie leaker, this administration is obviously intent on destroying the 1A.

      Fuck this government! Fuck Michigan!

      1. It’s pretty fucking crazy. Communicating with Wikileaks is considered equally equivalent to communicating with al Qaeda.

        I wonder if the designation means they can prosecute civilians for treason by doing so.

      2. By gum, I might not have the power to destroy the government, but I’ll die trying to destroy Michigan!

    3. Shit. I somehow overlooked that one. Does this mean anyone who even visits the Wikileaks site can expect full unwarranted background searches? The article focuses on what this means for military personnel, but I doubt if that is what the designation is for. Simple edicts could, and already have been put in place, with out establishing an official ‘enemy’ status.

  8. Anything other than the complete vaporization of the planet Earth might leave the possibility for the mega-stupidity to spread to other planets. A Death Star is required. Help us Grand Moff Tarkin, you are our only hope.

    1. Tarkin would be too merciful. Death would be quick and near painless. I’m thinking Cthulhu riding behind the four horsemen on a chariot if H. L. Mencken’s words about people getting the government they deserve to get good and hard is to ring true.

      1. Well, I have two children so I didn’t want them to suffer. Still, considering the way the world is going I am not sure that the Four Horsemen wouldn’t be less painful than our potential future.

        1. I worry about my little one too. You can’t even get free of idiots on a libertarian blog; see below where I’m arguing with one guy who blames the movies for the deaths in the Middle East and the other where I’m arguing with a guy who doesn’t think that the furor over there and Obama’s foreign policy considerations have anything to do with the guy’s arrest by the Feds.

  9. You know, progressives, over the last several decades you ridiculed the standards that gave us film footage of Elvis dancing from the torso up, obscenity trials against Henry Miller, the Naked Lunch, and Ulysses. You defended Mapplethorpe and you defended Piss Christ, and you defended Larry Flynt as I do. However, you are no longer in a position to ever do that again. Your guy, the one you put in the White House, the one you are going to vote for again, embraces an eighth century standard of blasphemy.

    You are a fucking joke, Progressive America if you don’t turn your backs on Obama’s medieval ass now after this display of appeasement.

    1. I wouldn’t hold your breath. I don’t think there is anything Obama could possibly do to lose these people at this point. They would rather try to act cool on facebook/twitter than spend any time thinking about what a shitty person they have chosen to worship.

    2. You are a fucking joke, Progressive America if you don’t turn your backs on Obama’s medieval ass now after this display of appeasement.

      Please. These people were NEVER about Liberty, ever. The majority of them would still try and make excuses for Stalin, a’la Duranty, if he was still around.

      1. No kidding, but they need to be reminded that there is no reason for them to be taken seriously. Their ideology is a cattle call. Nothing more.

    3. Jesus Fucking Christ NO

      Are you Sandra Fluke?

      Progressives defended the state’s “right” to forcibly redistribute money to fund an exhibit of Serrano and Mapplethorpe. The Christ-fags and wingnuts weren’t protesting the legality of the content, just the use of their money to showcase it.

      1. The problem with your argument is until Giuliani (which I have to give him some credit) many years later, the right, at least the people raising the matter of Mapplethorpe and Piss Christ to the level of Kultur War, did not talk about defunding those programs either, just cleaning them up so little baby Jesus could enjoy the museums and public displays of art too.

        1. The problem with your argument is you cast the left as defending the art rather than the funding. The religious right wasn’t exactly trumpeting government-funded art before Piss Christ and the bullwhip butt plug.

          1. If they are so concerned about my tax dollars then why did they pick Mapplethorpe and Piss Christ and not some overpriced by millions piece of French Impressionism to complain about? Because the purpose was to raise a Kultur War stink, not to save us money.

            1. This.

              If that money had gone to restore some piece of Renaissance religious art somewhere, they wouldn’t have complained at all.

              1. “The Jesus Monkey was tax funded?!”

    4. He’s a convicted con-man.

      This was another con.

      Boo fucking hoo.

      1. Ooooh, you’re so edgy!


        1. Only here is defending the enforcement of anti-fraud laws “edgy”

        2. He’s right, though. This is a truly shitty case, because it could set a precedent even though it’s harder to fight because the guy did legitimately con the people who worked on the movie, or so it seems. So on the one hand, he almost certainly should be arrested. On the other hand, we don’t want either foreign or domestic enemies of civil liberties to be able to draw any further conclusions from that fact.

      2. Thanks for coming by and proving my point about the sickness inside the progressive’s soul, joe. Now do something to heal yourself.

        1. I wouldn’t talk to him like that, man. This dude seems like one tough customer. Jeeze.

        2. I’m sorry my heart doesn’t bleed when con men get arrested. I’ll never be a real libertarian, I guess.

          1. nobody ever accused you of being a libertarian, joe.

          2. He was only a conman because the Bush recession prevented him from getting a good paying union manufacturing job.

            Have a heart, Joe!

            1. He should have taken the welfare.

              He had to con because he didn’t want to be a parasite!

          3. I just find it odd they got him now.

            Would they have if there was no clip that “enraged” the already enraged?

      3. He was acting as a government agent.

        This was another government op.

        Eat shit and die

        1. Conspiraceeeeeees!

  10. Guy uploads a video to YouTube, parole violation, who knows what the punishment will be.

    Lindsey Lohan hits someone with her car, leaves the scene, a parole violation on top of her many others, you already know what the punishment is going to be. Bitch got away with kidnapping and stealing a vehicle while on a parole violation.

  11. They should release him on his own recognizance, in Cairo.

    1. I’d say fuck you, Brent, but it looks like the Islamist are already doing that to your doughy ass.

      1. So a movie causes death of Americans. Is this an overreaction? NO
        Is the personal responsibility of this on the filmmaker: Yes. His Stupidity is not protected.

        1. His movie did not cause anyone to die. Believers in an insane death cult did that.

        2. So, by your logic, how come Christopher Nolan is still walking the streets as a free man?

        3. So a movie causes death of Americans.

          How does a movie kill anyone?

        4. Pay no attention the guys with RPG’s carrying out a planned, coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Just a coincidence. Only about the video

        5. You still banging on that one? Wow.

          1. Directed at Brent. FYI.

    2. Talk to your bosses, even they’ve been forced to retreat from this particular Big Lie.

  12. “an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests throughout the Muslim world”

    So now, we’re back to this?

    1. We never left it, dude.

      1. It depends on who’s writing the blogs at any given moment.

  13. The idea of Ratchadamnoen Avenue hosting a Grand Prix race was initiated by Prince Birabongse Bhanudej Bhanuban _ better known as Prince Bira _ the country’s first and only Grand Prix winner.

    He planned to close roads in the Sanam Luang and Ratchadamnoen areas in 1939 for a Bangkok Grand Prix but his dream was dashed when World War II broke out.

  14. Oh good, this bullshit again. Because Nakoula definitely didn’t have a clause in his probation that said he agreed not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.” And he definitely didn’t produce “Innocence of Muslims” under a fake name. And that fake name wasn’t widely publicized when this whole clusterfuck started. Nope. Must be the free-speech thing. Just like the Libya riots were definitely a reaction to the video.

    1. This. Maybe the State would be looking for a reason to confine this twerp anyway. But A parolee convicted of using an alias to defraud who uses an alias for just about any reason involving money (like raising cash to make this movie) is almost certainly going to have his parole revoked, even if he was raising money for nuns and orphans.

      If the government delighted to have a clean reason to take him into custody, for reasons that touch on freedom of speech? Almost certainly. Did he do something that would get him canned again regardless of the furor? Oh, hell yes!

      1. BTW, I should have given credit for this analysis to the folks over at Popehat. I wouldn’t have known.


        Are you claiming that this guy was arrested because of probation violation instead of how the video has been untruthfully portrayed in the press? Just a coincidence that they happened to arrest him a couple of days later? They are not attempting to cover up their whole bullshit story that the attacks were a result of this video but were only following normal procedure?!!!!

        If I have misunderstood your positions, my apologies. If not, how can you type with Obama’s cock so far down your throats?

        1. Coincidence? Where the hell would you get that idea? The press’s deathgrip on the stupid (and likely irrelevant to the Libya riot) video got Nakoula’s “Sam Bacile” alias plastered across pretty much every media outlet in the country. And like CSP said, the Obama administration is damned sure *happy* that there’s a reason to put him in jail. But it’s an actual reason. The violation is not trumped up. He actually did have the quoted clause in his agreement, and he actually did produce a movie under a false name, almost certainly violating that agreement in the process. Just because he’s on everybody’s shitlist doesn’t mean he isn’t also an actual criminal. It can be both. The insistence that he MUST be the victim of purely political persecution is about as sane as Obama continuing to blame the Libyan riots solely on his YouTube video.

          1. Parole violation was a state court matter, his arrest was a federal one.

            1. No, he was convicted in federal court.

              1. Why did it escalate from a postal fraud case in a District court where the stipulations of parole are the matter of concern here to an FBI investigation, joe? Got an answer for that?

                1. I just want to be clear here: it’s suspicious that a federal defendant is being investigated by the federal bureau of investigation?

                  1. Investigating a parole violation, not at all. PO can determine a recommendation to the prosecutor.

                2. He was on federal probation.


                  1. Who was it, now, that picked him up the first time to answer questions, joe? Why did the PO go with the local force instead of the FBI to pick him up? Do you know? Obviously, you don’t.

      3. If the government delighted to have a clean reason to take him into custody, for reasons that touch on freedom of speech? Almost certainly. Did he do something that would get him canned again regardless of the furor? Oh, hell yes!


        Last I checked, dude wasn’t Al Capone.

        1. Those two fuck ups patting themselves on the back above, Other Dave and CF whateverthefuck, are full of shit. Aliases are used ALL the time in LA of all places. Are you going to go arrest Charlie Estevez for a parole violation when he signs the check Sheen? Their explanation is ludicrous. It is only fraud if his intent was different from his actions, and that has no bearing on the name he used.

          1. Did Charlie Sheen sign a contract saying he wouldn’t use an assumed name without warning his parole officer first, and then not tell his parole officer about the whole “Sheen” thing? No? Well I guess your analogy is moronic, then.

            1. Well I guess your analogy is moronic, then.

              Well, gee, David, if this is really about a parole violation on a state court matter, why did the Feds arrest him? You’ve got an answer for that, hotshot? No, this has nothing to do with the furor in the Mideast and covering Obama’s ass. I’m sure if his parole officer identified that video online in June, they would have called the FBI in to get his ass. Disingenuous fucking cocksucker, I hope you fucking choke on it.

              1. Possibly because he was on supervised release after being convicted of a federal crime in US district court? I’m not sure where the state came into his case, but the feds were there first.

              2. You are wrong.

                He was convicted of check fraud in federal court.

                1. This is about his parole violation, joe, so don’t be a duplicitous ass.

                  1. You know there is a federal probation department, and that they are the ones that his probation was with, right?


                    1. Who picked up Nakoula the first time his parole officer had questions for him, joe? Was it, the FBI? Nope.

                    2. That’s SOP for somebody with his international stature. He’s under threat of assassination, and the feds have a duty to protect him.

                      You want the LA Sheriff to deliver him into Federal custody?

                    3. Throwing someone in jail is protection from assassination?
                      You’re a hoot.

                    4. He’s getting thrown in jail either way. The Feds just need to make sure he makes it to jail alive, or they’ll be blamed for incompetence or assassinating him themselves.

                    5. You’re confused. County sheriffs DID pick him up the first time.

                    6. And once they verified these facts about him, the Feds arrested him and put him in custody because it’s their jurisdiction.

                      What’s your problem with this?

                    7. Because they opened up a FBI investigation on a matter that should have never left the purview of the district court. Nobody in the FBI had him as a case, and they were aware that he already had a PO. There was no reason for anyone not already assigned to have the slightest bit of interest. The only reason for an investigation is political. It didn’t call for an investigation. Merely a PO determining if parole had been violated and then sending the case up. That is not how this went down. The FBI started an investigation of him the day after the riots to see if charged could be filed.

                    8. The FBI started an investigation of him the day after the riots to see if charged could be filed.

                      See, political from the start.


                      The FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department were interviewing Veluzat on Thursday, and Veluzat told The Hollywood Reporter that both law-enforcement agencies instructed him not to speak with the press or other interested parties about what he knows about The Innocence of Muslims.

                      Sources close to the investigation say they’re hoping Veluzat can, among other information, provide clarity as to the real names of the filmmakers. The Innocence of Muslims filmed Aug. 18, 2011, at Blue Cloud under the name Desert Warrior. The producer was listed in the film permit as Sam Bossil, though it’s an alias (reports also have identified him as Sam Bacile).

        2. His original conviction involved using an alias to commit fraud. His film career involved doing business under an alias. If the video had offended nobody and attracted little notice, he would still be in serious violation of his terms of release and still be headed back to the ironbar hotel. He doesn’t HAVE to be Al Capone. He is repeating a pattern of behavior that had him breaking the law before. He ain’t supposed to do that. Period.

    2. Because Nakoula definitely didn’t have a clause in his probation

      And another fuck you for this. The prison/probation system in this country is about money and power and has very little to do with Justice.

      He deserved to be arrested because some piece of shit probation officer turd says so?

      1. No, because he COMMITTED FRAUD AGAIN.…..s-lawsuit/

        1. Then why do they keep mentioning his meaningless YOUTOOB video?
          If the video was of his cat playing with yarn the headline wouldn’t read “Cat playing with yarn filmmaker arrested”.

          1. Because in making that YouTube video he violated his probation, because he conned the actors and others, and used a false name to do so.


            1. So if he made a movie about his cat chasing yarn, we’d have the same level of coverage?

              You’re an idiot if you believe that.

              1. Good thing nobody does, then.

              2. Of course the only reason we care about this video is that it made a bunch of people mad in the middle east.

                I doubt Nakoula Basseley Nakoula ever thought this was going to be a huge deal, because if he did, he’s a moron. He knows the terms of his probation agreement, and willingly broke them multiple times.

                1. and if he hadn’t made THAT video we wouldn’t be talking about it.
                  so if it’s not about the video, why are we talking about it?

                  1. I think you should stop posting, as well.

                    1. That’s all you got? If his video was of a cat playing with yarn, he wouldn’t have been arrested.

                    2. If he was on probation for drug possession, and he made a youtube video showing himself smoking crack, and it became an international sensation, do you doubt that his probation officer would show up?

            2. Saying he “conned the actors” is absurd.

              Actors have absolutely no control over what a producer or director does with video or audio in post-production.


              If you show up and act and then get paid, you’re square. You have no grounds to assert that you were defrauded, even if later I take the video and audio you shot and recut it to make it into a Nazi Party recruitment video.

        2. We don’t know if he committed fraud; that would be for a court to decide. IANAL, but I think it’s entirely possible that IF he raised money to make the film, AND that’s what he said the money was for, AND he spent it on what he said he would, then fraud might be a big stretch.

          But he did do business under an alias. And under his release agreement, that’s a big no-no.

  15. stated intent is different from his actions.

    It is perfectly legal to raise funding anonymously, and to use a cover name to maintain anonymity..

    1. It is perfectly legal to raise funding anonymously, and to use a cover name to maintain anonymity..

      I think the FEC disagrees…

      1. They’ll find a way to bend it into a fraud case, but the defense will have the better argument.

        I use to do this when I was an independent contractor using third parties (not what you’re thinking given my nick, more like this as an intermediary between my clients and I. There was no reason for them to know me. That cost extra.

      2. It CAN be perfectly legal to raise funds under an alias, but not if you are in a release program that explicitly forbids you to do so without prior permission. Based on what I read on Popehat, while the ‘internet use’ probably wouldn’t normally be an issue (he’d get a warning), the alias is a big deal.

        It’s like; if you are convicted of shooting somebody, when you get out on release you don’t get to own a firearm. This jerk was convicted of using an alias to defraud; he doesn’t get to use an alias anymore…or at least ’til his full sentence has run.

    2. It is perfectly legal for you and I.

      It clearly violated HIS probation agreement.

      1. And that calls for the FBI?

        1. His federal probation agreement.

          1. Does not call for the FBI.

            1. What federal agency would you prefer handled this?

              1. Explained above at Killazontherun| 9.28.12 @ 1:15AM

        1. Ha, I didn’t even check. What a maroon! You really screwed the pooch on that one, heller.

    1. The Squirrels are revolting.

    2. Trying again

      I think that’s my first SF’d link.


  16. Long Arm of the Law Reaches Out to Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker

    Because Barry said he has no future. Thus spake Barry.

  17. Re: The Derider,

    Nor should he have agreed to take a reduced sentence and probation upon the condition he not use the internet or defraud people.

    But you don’t know that he used the internet. You’re just guessing he did because the government (the State to which you light candles and offer flowers) arrested him.

    “Oh, he must’ve done somethin’ bad! He bad, he indeed bad!”

    1. The video he produced is on YouTube.

      His probation agreement specifically prohibits him posting things on the internet through a third party.


      1. Yeah, really. I mean, Popehat (I forget which poster) says that being on the internet probably isn’t why he’s in trouble, but if the video is on YouTube and he put it there then he categorically used the internet.

    2. And the more damning part if this is that he conned the actors and others, and used a false name to do so.…..s-lawsuit/

      1. That IS the damning thing. The probation violation is bullshit that would be handled with a slap on the wrist under any other circumstance. After all, it’s just a video.

        1. Post proof that cases like this are handled with a slap on the wrist. I don’t think the feds ever fuck around or need a special reason to lock you back up.

          If he was on probation for drug possession, and he made a youtube video showing himself smoking crack, and it became an international sensation, do you doubt that his probation officer would show up?

          1. People smoke crack in movies all the time. They aren’t arrested for possession.

            1. Are those videos international headline sensations? Do those videos cause worldwide anti-US protests?


              1. So you agree he was arrested for causing an anti-US sensation.


                1. You’re intentionally missing the point. Everybody knew about this video because of the reaction it made. Some g-man reading the newspaper is going to see that this guy used a false name and run his name in the probation database. Hit. Game over.

                  Feds aren’t geniuses, but they’re not morons, either.

                  1. why do they care who made the video?

                    1. They only care about jailing con men. Their individual identities aren’t important.

                    2. so they check every cat playing with yarn video, to make sure a known felon hasn’t posted it?

        2. How does left have the balls to say that this guy “deserved” it because he made a video that violated his parole conditions?

          They’ve defended Roman Fucking Polanski for the last two years and now they are silent about this?

          How do these people sleep at night?

          Is the sky still blue with all that shame hanging down?

          1. I’ve never defended Roman fucking Polanski.

            You, however are defending a repeat-offending con-man.

            1. I’ve never defended Roman fucking Polanski.

              First of all, we don’t need to swear around here to make a point. Please.

              Secondly, you’ve implicitly defended Roman @#!%@!@ Polanski. It’s in every post you write.

              1. What other powers does your tinfoil helmet give you?

                1. It’s a hat and it has nothing to do with your rape-y posts.

                  Hey guys, are derider’s comments ‘rape-y’?

                  Yea or nae?

            2. Good on you Joe, you haven’t defended a rapist.

              I’m not defending a repeat-offending con-man, I’m disgusted with the hypocrisy from the left (and holier than thous such as Rushdie) who suddenly feel that this particular “artist” doesn’t deserve the same First Amendment defense that they’ve provided for all the other reprobates they’ve defended before.


              So if that’s not you, congrats! Well done.

              1. I’ll defend him. I’d like to see his probation agreement overturned on First Amendment grounds that the internet is too ubiquitous a means of expression to deny even to parolees.

                1. If a person used a vehicle in commission of a crime, would surrendering of his driver’s license be a valid condition of parole? Obviously not. How can you justify a blanket condition of no internet use to be a valid parole condition?

              2. After all, sending a video to YouTube isn’t different from sending print to a blog. If Nakoula wanted to engage in a conversation with us here on this board to defend his case, how is not a violation of his right to free speech to deny that to him?

      2. If the actors cashed their paychecks and they didn’t bounce, they weren’t conned.

        1. Did he tell them that he was dubbing over their lines with a direct provocation to a death cult known for slaughtering those who make movies who offend them in the streets? I think that’s an OSHA violation or something, at a minimum.

  18. This may be bigger news than you realise:
    “likely to herald the permanent retirement of Michael Schumacher, the sport’s most successful driver.”

      1. Exactly!
        And Sergio Perez will take Hamilton’s place an McLaren.

        None of this is news really, but it’s just being confirmed.

  19. This Sam Becile guy seems to have a problem with thinking people aren’t gonna know who he is–and that it’s somehow going to protect him?

    Identity theft? They’ll never catch me! They don’t even know who I am–I’m too smart!

    How will I upload this to YouTube without the police finding out that I’m violating my parole? I know, I’ll use a fake identity!

  20. If making a movie that someone other than you posts to the internet means you violated your probation, wouldn’t giving an interview that the newspaper than posts to their website also violate your probation?

    I don’t see how these probation terms stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

    It’s like having a probation term that you can’t engage in interstate commerce…when the Obama administration argues that standing around not consuming health care means you’re participating in interstate commerce.

  21. Wouldn’t answering the US Census violate your probation, since the results of the Census are later posted online?

    1. It is impossible to comply with the conditions that they put on release, and this is on purpose. It’s so if you piss someone off they can lock you back up.
      Rule of Man, baby! Rule of Man!

      1. I think a clever lawyer (if, say, the ACLU wanted to get involved) could argue that any term that made it impossible to comply with the law would be not invalid, but certainly “unusual” enough to violate the eighth amendment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.