uberDoward said:
JeffBergGold said:
zehydra said:
Part of "freedom of speech" also guarantees that no physical harm will come to the speaker.
Since when? This is news to me. I'd really like you to site a reputable source for this one because I'm genuinely curious as to where this is stated in the amendment.
The Constitution of the United States of America said:
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.
Punching someone in the face after they have said something you dislike very much abridges and prohibits that person's free speech.
Killing someone? Why yes, that, too, prohibits one's speech, oddly enough.
You have a source for that? The text you've referenced doesn't allude towards freedom of speech prohibiting people reacting to said speech.
You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
P.S. You won't find any such statement in the amendment. Because freedom of speech does not grant a person invulnerability. I'm sorry to be the one to bring this news to you.
It's kinda like elementary physics. "Every action has an equal or greater reaction." If no one has informed you speech is an action.
ToastiestZombie said:
The Great JT said:
I don't see a peaceful end to this scenario, shy of finding the guy responsible for the flick and expiditing him to the middle east to face judgement.
You do know that that will mean a very painful death for the guy? That community isn't going to simply let him off or give him a prison sentence. They will most likely kill the man, just like they murdered the embassy worker and more today. And someone should never be killed for making a film, no matter how offensive or hateful it is. It would also pretty much be giving into terrorists, saying that if they kill enough of our people they'll get the shit they want.
So are you implying that this idiots life is more valuable than:
The military personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The embassy personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The civilians who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The property damage caused by his movie
The potential political unrest in countries caused by his movie
If you are I can assure you that the guy who made the movies life is not worth that much. I'd much rather save the lives of a few Marines and ambassadors than protect this idiot.
Animyr said:
That said, if any one side is in the wrong here I don't think it's the filmmakers, as onerous as they may be. A nonviolent insult, no matter how cheap (both literally and figuratively), does not warrant a violent response.
I'd label the movie as violent it all depends on how you quantify violence. Violence extends beyond physical manifestations, He created a violent movie and got a violent response. Violence is violence no matter how you slice it. I don't give physical violence more weight than any other violence.