Saw [Only admins are allowed to see this link] by the Washington Post the other day. It raises some interesting questions.
Most assuredly, this is a tremendous overreaction. Demanding the death of religious intolerants is laughable hypocrisy. At least it would be, were rationality, logic, and communication what drove these types of dialogue. Sadly, it is not. Religion has the fascinating property of being able to suck the reason and logic out of any discussion it enters. Antagonism between Christians, Muslims, and Jewish peoples has not ever displayed patterns of rationality or acceptance and likely never will.
In America critique and satire, even hate, are protected by freedom of speech so long as they do not incite violence. The problem here is that the film has incited violence. Over a dozen people have already died in protests and the incidents at American embassies have done near-irreparable damage to American foreign policy. Freedom of speech is freedom from fear of those your opinion might offend and enrage. But what freedoms should be given to those who knowingly use the system to create chaos and "prove their point" by so offending the sensibilities of another group that they are driven to violence? I would never imply that someone would willingly put their life in serious danger, but it is hard to not imagine that this is exactly the kind of response people like Nakoula Basseley Nakoula want when they stage these publicity stunts.
More deliciously, and directly related to my area of interest, is how this compares and contrasts to America's policy of "targeted killing" suspected members and supporters of extremist Islamic groups. If Pakistan were to send a drone over California to blow up Mr. Nakoula's house while he slept one night or while he met with other members of "Media for Christ" (the professed anti-Islamic Egyptian-Christian charity the helped film and produce the movie), how would the world respond to that? Definitely food for thought.
In the end Mr. Nakoula may not need to worry about his safety for long. [Only admins are allowed to see this link] soon enough for violating the terms of his parole for check fraud. He had begun using aliases again (one of which he used to make the film) and also uploaded "Innocence of Muslims" to the internet without permission from his parole officer (another violation of his particular parole).
I am very curious what you all think about this particular case, and about the larger picture as well. Should freedom of speech have clear limits when addressing international issues? What should be the response of the American government to such occurrences? How does a nation respond to a bounty being placed on one of its citizens?
Home 
