And yea Why the hell did Obama proceed with.....seems like a bad move on his part.
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
And yea Why the hell did Obama proceed with.....seems like a bad move on his part.
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
Um... are you serious, or being sarcastic? Cause, while I don't agree with many of his policies, the guy has done plenty of good....
And yea Why the hell did Obama proceed with.....seems like a bad move on his part.
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
Um... are you serious, or being sarcastic? Cause, while I don't agree with many of his policies, the guy has done plenty of good....
I don't want to be the one who said "I told you so", but if you don't believe me, just hang in there, my friend. I'm afraid a lot of Obama supporters are going to be very surprised - assuming he wins. I'm not in love with Romney, but he's very definitely the lesser of two evils......
And yea Why the hell did Obama proceed with.....seems like a bad move on his part.
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
Um... are you serious, or being sarcastic? Cause, while I don't agree with many of his policies, the guy has done plenty of good....
I don't want to be the one who said "I told you so", but if you don't believe me, just hang in there, my friend. I'm afraid a lot of Obama supporters are going to be very surprised - assuming he wins. I'm not in love with Romney, but he's very definitely the lesser of two evils......
Meh, they both have their strengths and weaknesses as I discussed in another thread. Obama is doing fine with the *** sandwich he was dealt, the same way Bush did fine with his **** taco, and Clinton did good with his poop patty, and Bush Sr. made headway with his crap crackers. Every president is 'THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER OUT TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY' until at least 30 years later when nostalgia glasses set in. The country isn't being destroyed, the president doesn't magically change everything about the country by being elected, and they are all, at the end of the day, trying to make things better. And things are better. Yes, the economy is in the toilet, but it isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Things recover.
I am just tired of people trotting out the whole the other guy will make things worse and will make your life suck. Don't tell me what The Other Guy is going to do, tell me what YOU are going to do and let me decide. And Jlmarta, this isn't really directed at you, sorry for hijacking your thread, it is more a bunch of pent up frustration for the direction of sound byte politics and cheap shots instead of, you know... actual policy discussion, and the issues. mumble, mumble, get off my lawn, mumble, hippies, mumble, where's my scotch
And yea Why the hell did Obama proceed with.....seems like a bad move on his part.
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
Um... are you serious, or being sarcastic? Cause, while I don't agree with many of his policies, the guy has done plenty of good....
I don't want to be the one who said "I told you so", but if you don't believe me, just hang in there, my friend. I'm afraid a lot of Obama supporters are going to be very surprised - assuming he wins. I'm not in love with Romney, but he's very definitely the lesser of two evils......
Meh, they both have their strengths and weaknesses as I discussed in another thread. Obama is doing fine with the *** sandwich he was dealt, the same way Bush did fine with his **** taco, and Clinton did good with his poop patty, and Bush Sr. made headway with his crap crackers. Every president is 'THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER OUT TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY' until at least 30 years later when nostalgia glasses set in. The country isn't being destroyed, the president doesn't magically change everything about the country by being elected, and they are all, at the end of the day, trying to make things better. And things are better. Yes, the economy is in the toilet, but it isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Things recover.
I am just tired of people trotting out the whole the other guy will make things worse and will make your life suck. Don't tell me what The Other Guy is going to do, tell me what YOU are going to do and let me decide. And Jlmarta, this isn't really directed at you, sorry for hijacking your thread, it is more a bunch of pent up frustration for the direction of sound byte politics and cheap shots instead of, you know... actual policy discussion, and the issues. mumble, mumble, get off my lawn, mumble, hippies, mumble, where's my scotch
It isn't MY thread, my friend. I just felt I had to butt in with my $.02. I'll butt back out now.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
You don't see Jews rioting, and they get A LOT of hate.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
I agree with you to an extent, my point was just purely on the irresponsiblity of the movie. While it is their right to produce such films, it had to be known that it would cause controversy. Much like a white man going into a predominatly african american neighborhood yelling racial slurs. It would be his right to do so, but he also knows that it is going to be met with adverse reactions. You can't suppress the speech that people want to say or express, but I can frown upon the fact that they are irresponsible for doing so.
I agree with you to an extent, my point was just purely on the irresponsiblity of the movie. While it is their right to produce such films, it had to be known that it would cause controversy. Much like a white man going into a predominatly african american neighborhood yelling racial slurs. It would be his right to do so, but he also knows that it is going to be met with adverse reactions. You can't suppress the speech that people want to say or express, but I can frown upon the fact that they are irresponsible for doing so.
Right, it is basically the same as how the embassies responded before the riots broke out and during. "We think it is real sh!tty how this guy expressed his opinions, and disagree with his approach... but that doesn't mean he can't say them"
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb (knowingly lies) in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes you are correct, but terrorist will strike with or without a reason they didnt need this video as a reason to attack they already have enough reasons, I am still surprised that we didnt have a stronger military presence at that Embassy, But James has explained why that is.
jthanatos:
Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence..
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes you are correct, but terrorist will strike with or without a reason they didnt need this video as a reason to attack they already have enough reasons, I am still surprised that we didnt have a stronger military presence at that Embassy, But James has explained why that is.
jthanatos:
Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence..
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
I agree. These guys knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, and the reaction they were expecting to provoke. They should be prosecuted for inciting to riot.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes you are correct, but terrorist will strike with or without a reason they didnt need this video as a reason to attack they already have enough reasons, I am still surprised that we didnt have a stronger military presence at that Embassy, But James has explained why that is.
jthanatos:
Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence..
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
I agree. These guys knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, and the reaction they were expecting to provoke. They should be prosecuted for inciting to riot.
No he should have to stand guard at the next shitcanistan liason office we create and let me make a youtube video,, JJ can help....... I looked it up inciting a riot is only a misdameanor. Who knew
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes you are correct, but terrorist will strike with or without a reason they didnt need this video as a reason to attack they already have enough reasons, I am still surprised that we didnt have a stronger military presence at that Embassy, But James has explained why that is.
jthanatos:
Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence..
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
I agree. These guys knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, and the reaction they were expecting to provoke. They should be prosecuted for inciting to riot.
That is a hell of a slippery slope to put us on. So, all those that disagree with something an American says has to do to get it censored is attack an embassy? Let's reframe the question. Let's say, instead of being a radical Islamist, UBL was a radical Bears fan. And he called people to riot and destroy America if the Ditka was ever mocked. I then say Ditka is a jack@ss, and people rioted. Did I incite the riot?
Another thing to keep in mind, even for the gravest of insults, the Koran never calls for the killing of random unafiliated innocents.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes you are correct, but terrorist will strike with or without a reason they didnt need this video as a reason to attack they already have enough reasons, I am still surprised that we didnt have a stronger military presence at that Embassy, But James has explained why that is.
jthanatos:
Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence..
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
I agree. These guys knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, and the reaction they were expecting to provoke. They should be prosecuted for inciting to riot.
No he should have to stand guard at the next shitcanistan liason office we create and let me make a youtube video,, JJ can help....... I looked it up inciting a riot is only a misdameanor. Who knew
Well, four counts of murder could be easily added to the charges, then.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes, they DO always find an excuse.
Interestingly enough, a couple of months ago, the US killed the #2 Al Queida leader; located in Pakistan. He was known as "The Libyian" because he was from Libya. Local Al Queida in Libya (a very small group, and politically isolated) have been looking for an excuse to hit back at the "Great Satan" and this video provided the spark they needed. It should also be noted that most Libyans, when asked, have found the film to be offensive and terribly insulting, to the point of provoking anger, yet nearly all of them will also express gratitude to the US for our efforts in overthrowing Kadaffi. It just shows what a small group of committed fanatics can do when they get "motivated".
The makers of the film did nobody any favors. They incited others to violence, causing the deaths of innocents, and they damaged the good reputation of the USA. This film is not an expression of Christian thought, but it will damage the reputation of the Christian religion in the eyes of Muslims all over the world.
We are expecting some major fallout from this starting tomorrow, the taliban is using it as an excuse (as always) to incite the people. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't stop some of it from being irresponsible.
Nobody should be allowed to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE! The people who made this film made it specifically to incite violence. I believe it crosses the boundary of protected speech.
Disagree on the "Fire" point. Yelling fire is stating a fact with a required response, IE if someone yells fire, you are going to get your @ss out. Fire is not open to debate. You cannot discuss fire. There either is or is not fire. Making a movie or political statement that may offend people, but it can be debated, you can discuss it. The film makers, no matter whether their speech was truthful or libelous did not incite riots. Those leaders that took these videos and stirred up their followers to violence are the instigators. They are the ones that should be held most accountable.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
So are you saying that if a person yells bomb in a crowded auditorium and a panic ensues and people are killed in the stampede, that said person is covered by freedom of speech?
No, just like "fire", "bomb" is a fact. You can't debate bomb, you can't argue for or against bomb. There either is, or is not bomb.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying, hmmm interesting, so when one tries to instigate disruption by defaming anothers beliefs and or ideologies, that is fair game. But when one tries to instigate disruption based on invoking ones own internal fear of perishing by a known cause i.e. fire or bomb or whatever that is not ok.. It sure is a thin line isnt it?? I really do feel that the dude that sparked this off should be held accountable.. I know rules pertaining dissention and sedition are often used only within the military and we have to abide by a different set of standards, .. This is an interesting debate nonetheless I just wish we were discussing it under better circumstances.. Yes in todays civilized world people do not react as many of the muslims do and for the life of me sometimes I dont understand why we tolerate this, when an enemy doesnt wear a uniform and hides behind their children it sure makes it a tough fight. That is why I will always say that Terrorist know no Valor.
The other thing to consider too is layers and causality. SomeoneSome group took the leap from viewing a video and expressing outrage in comments and discussion, to "lets get together with our RPGs and head to the US Embassy". Another point is unlike "bomb" or "fire" or "Hulk Hogan running wild", this video didn't indicate impending bodily harm. Impending harm demands immediate reation, which is why reason can be lost and people get trampled. Instead, someonesome group looked at this video, mulled it over, and decided the proper response was to attack and kill people who's only crime is sharing a supposed nationality with those involved in the video. Sam Bacile is a Jerk@ss, but he didn't call for violence. Others used his video as a reason to incite others.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
Yes, they DO always find an excuse.
Interestingly enough, a couple of months ago, the US killed the #2 Al Queida leader; located in Pakistan. He was known as "The Libyian" because he was from Libya. Local Al Queida in Libya (a very small group, and politically isolated) have been looking for an excuse to hit back at the "Great Satan" and this video provided the spark they needed. It should also be noted that most Libyans, when asked, have found the film to be offensive and terribly insulting, to the point of provoking anger, yet nearly all of them will also express gratitude to the US for our efforts in overthrowing Kadaffi. It just shows what a small group of committed fanatics can do when they get "motivated".
The makers of the film did nobody any favors. They incited others to violence, causing the deaths of innocents, and they damaged the good reputation of the USA. This film is not an expression of Christian thought, but it will damage the reputation of the Christian religion in the eyes of Muslims all over the world.
Once again, I don't argue the film makers are anything but jerk@sses, but where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide that this particular speech is not worth the danger of radicals twisting it to their own violent ends. Saying this guy is a murder and equivocating his movie with those that actually picked up weapons and attacked others just doesn't jive with me.
Again, I do agree with you. But, from my limited experience on this earth, history is a damned fine teacher of what works and doesn't. Like Pastor Jones burning Qurans that led to riots and deaths. Ok, you do it once and make your point, see the consequences, others should know, going into their similar actions, that something like this is going to happen and let common sense prevail.
I didnt read through all posts in this thread but is everyone aware that this movie (yes I looked at the trailers on youtube) was posted on you tube in July ? This wasnt just a 'hey lets riot because of this new movie' thing.
oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?
Again, I do agree with you. But, from my limited experience on this earth, history is a damned fine teacher of what works and doesn't. Like Pastor Jones burning Qurans that led to riots and deaths. Ok, you do it once and make your point, see the consequences, others should know, going into their similar actions, that something like this is going to happen and let common sense prevail.
Again, I do agree with you. But, from my limited experience on this earth, history is a damned fine teacher of what works and doesn't. Like Pastor Jones burning Qurans that led to riots and deaths. Ok, you do it once and make your point, see the consequences, others should know, going into their similar actions, that something like this is going to happen and let common sense prevail.
Amen brother.
But that is the real question. Do we stop people from being able to speak their minds just because radicals will use it as an excuse for violence? Where do we decide speech is worth the possibility of violence? Who gets to draw that line? Once you start censoring to prevent petty tyrants from using violence and terrorism, you are giving THEM the power. You can condemn the speech without silencing the speaker.
I am not saying he should be held accountable for his movie/actions, even with the loss of fine people, I am saying he should be held accountable for being an idiot knowing full-well the consequences his actions would bring. Say what you want to say, do what what you want, but also be able to answer for the results.
I am not saying he should be held accountable for his movie/actions, even with the loss of fine people, I am saying he should be held accountable for being an idiot knowing full-well the consequences his actions would bring. Say what you want to say, do what what you want, but also be able to answer for the results.
To go back to my football example, I found a group of radical **** that will kill a puppy everytime someone says something bad about the Vikings. I prove it by killing one puppy. Should everyone be banned from badmouthing the Vikings because of my yahoos? If Jack says the vikings suck, did Jack kill the puppy?
I am not saying he should be held accountable for his movie/actions, even with the loss of fine people, I am saying he should be held accountable for being an idiot knowing full-well the consequences his actions would bring. Say what you want to say, do what what you want, but also be able to answer for the results.
To go back to my football example, I found a group of radical **** that will kill a puppy everytime someone says something bad about the Vikings. I prove it by killing one puppy. Should everyone be banned from badmouthing the Vikings because of my yahoos? If Jack says the vikings suck, did Jack kill the puppy?
I didnt read through all posts in this thread but is everyone aware that this movie (yes I looked at the trailers on youtube) was posted on you tube in July ? This wasnt just a 'hey lets riot because of this new movie' thing.
oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?
I am not saying he should be held accountable for his movie/actions, even with the loss of fine people, I am saying he should be held accountable for being an idiot knowing full-well the consequences his actions would bring. Say what you want to say, do what what you want, but also be able to answer for the results.
To go back to my football example, I found a group of radical **** that will kill a puppy everytime someone says something bad about the Vikings. I prove it by killing one puppy. Should everyone be banned from badmouthing the Vikings because of my yahoos? If Jack says the vikings suck, did Jack kill the puppy?
oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?
PM me if you want the link
I thought it was the alias he gave cause his real name is "Nakoula Bassely Nakoula". Bassely is a Coptic name.
Comments
Just what the hell HASN'T been a bad move on his part?? The man is intent on bringing this country to its knees FROM WITHIN. What part of that don't some of you understand???
I don't want to be the one who said "I told you so", but if you don't believe me, just hang in there, my friend. I'm afraid a lot of Obama supporters are going to be very surprised - assuming he wins. I'm not in love with Romney, but he's very definitely the lesser of two evils......
I am just tired of people trotting out the whole the other guy will make things worse and will make your life suck. Don't tell me what The Other Guy is going to do, tell me what YOU are going to do and let me decide. And Jlmarta, this isn't really directed at you, sorry for hijacking your thread, it is more a bunch of pent up frustration for the direction of sound byte politics and cheap shots instead of, you know... actual policy discussion, and the issues. mumble, mumble, get off my lawn, mumble, hippies, mumble, where's my scotch
It isn't MY thread, my friend. I just felt I had to butt in with my $.02. I'll butt back out now.
I guess my point is, we can't start determining what is and is not protected speech on the basis of whether some may use it as an excuse for violence. This leaves the power to govern speech to those @ssholes who want to start trouble. In civilized society, we debate ideas and if statements are found libelous, there are civil and legal recourses. We can't stop arguing ideas just because it might offend someone.
While violence is sometimes justified in the world, those that wish to use it as a tool of power will find any supposed slight as reason enough to instigate others to cause harm. If it wasn't this video, it would be something else. As Marine said, they always find an excuse.
This is what I am having a hard time with,, as I believe he absolutely knew (as did the Preacher who burned the Quran) that his actions would lead to bloodshed. And when ones actions undermines the security of the United States and places those who are already in harms way in even greater danger, I dont believe he should be protected by the 1st ammendment, Under azzhole clause 162.a
and Although he didnt sream fire the "Intent" of his actions were the same as somone who does.
I looked it up inciting a riot is only a misdameanor. Who knew
Another thing to keep in mind, even for the gravest of insults, the Koran never calls for the killing of random unafiliated innocents.
Interestingly enough, a couple of months ago, the US killed the #2 Al Queida leader; located in Pakistan. He was known as "The Libyian" because he was from Libya. Local Al Queida in Libya (a very small group, and politically isolated) have been looking for an excuse to hit back at the "Great Satan" and this video provided the spark they needed. It should also be noted that most Libyans, when asked, have found the film to be offensive and terribly insulting, to the point of provoking anger, yet nearly all of them will also express gratitude to the US for our efforts in overthrowing Kadaffi. It just shows what a small group of committed fanatics can do when they get "motivated".
The makers of the film did nobody any favors. They incited others to violence, causing the deaths of innocents, and they damaged the good reputation of the USA. This film is not an expression of Christian thought, but it will damage the reputation of the Christian religion in the eyes of Muslims all over the world.
oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?
PM me if you want the link
oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?
PM me if you want the link