"Innocence of Muslims"

[RWE]

  In an effort to limit the free speech of American citizens, President Obama asked Google to remove the trailers for the movie  'Innocence Of Muslims'. Google reviewed the clips to determine if they were in violation of it's TOS regarding hate speech.
youtube posting guidelines:
"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
Google turned down the President's request saying the trailers were "well within the guidelines" of their TOS. So, according to Google, these clips do not attack or demean Muslims.
  What has been made available to the public of this film depicts the history of the Prophet Mohammed reasonably within the historic record.

As we know, Google execs and employees are big supporters of Obama. And Google owns youtube. So, nobody can claim that this evaluation of the trailers posted is politically motivated.

[Woody]

  In an effort to limit the free speech of American citizens, President Obama asked Google to remove the trailers for the movie  'Innocence Of Muslims'. Google reviewed the clips to determine if they were in violation of it's TOS regarding hate speech.
youtube posting guidelines:
"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
Google turned down the President's request saying the trailers were "well within the guidelines" oftheir TOS. So, according to Google, these clips do not attack or demean Muslims.
  What has been made available to the public of this film depicts the history of the Prophet Mohammed reasonably within the historic record.

As we know, Google execs and employees are big supporters of Obama. And Google owns youtube. So, nobody can claim that this evaluation of the trailers posted is politically motivated.

I am glad that google did not remove it at the behest of the government.  If google/YouTube decided to pull it without government involved I would support that.  but pulling it because the government "asked" goes against the intent of the first amendment.

[wbcoleman]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

[clistensprechen]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

Wrong.

It's a matter of law that speech which is not protected:

*libel
*slander
*fraud
*incitement to riot
*incitement of mayhem (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

The film fits the fraud, riot and  mayhem descriptions; because it has been claimed to be a history of Mohammed, it's a fraud, and because it's fraudulent history was intended to incite both riot and mayhem.

[Woody]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

Wrong.

It's a matter of law that speech which is not protected
*libel
*slander
*fraud
*incitement to riot
*incitement of mayhem (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

The film fits the fraud, riot and  mayhem descriptions; because it has been claimed to be a history of Mohammed, it's a fraud, and because it's fraudulent history was intended to incite both riot and mayhem.

Have you seen it?  Is it released yet?


And I call BULLSHIT (caps for big bullsh?t) on your counterpoints.  This country funds artist works that do exactly what you just said.  **** Jesus comes to mind.  Christians did not storm the walls.  They did not kill people.  I am sick and tired of people like you bblaming our rights for the barbaric actions of uncivilized people. 

[wbcoleman]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

Wrong.

It's a matter of law that speech which is not protected:

*libel
*slander
*fraud
*incitement to riot
*incitement of mayhem (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

The film fits the fraud, riot and  mayhem descriptions; because it has been claimed to be a history of Mohammed, it's a fraud, and because it's fraudulent history was intended to incite both riot and mayhem.

clara, thank you for so neatly demonstrating my point!

[clistensprechen]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

Wrong.

It's a matter of law that speech which is not protected:

*libel
*slander
*fraud
*incitement to riot
*incitement of mayhem (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

The film fits the fraud, riot and  mayhem descriptions; because it has been claimed to be a history of Mohammed, it's a fraud, and because it's fraudulent history was intended to incite both riot and mayhem.

clara, thank you for so neatly demonstrating my point!

I didn't have to. The Republican Party has stepped forward long before I did to show how legal they think fraud is.

[wbcoleman]

But liberals don't believe in free speech or in the First Amendment, we already know that.

Wrong.

It's a matter of law that speech which is not protected:

*libel
*slander
*fraud
*incitement to riot
*incitement of mayhem (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

The film fits the fraud, riot and  mayhem descriptions; because it has been claimed to be a history of Mohammed, it's a fraud, and because it's fraudulent history was intended to incite both riot and mayhem.

clara, thank you for so neatly demonstrating my point!

I didn't have to. The Republican Party has stepped forward long before I did to show how legal they think fraud is.

Yes, of course, any political claim with which you disagree is fraudulent and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.  Cool.

[clistensprechen]

Any statement that is false but said anyway in order to change the outcome of a decision (voters in this case) is fraud.

[Woody]

Any statement that is false but said anyway in order to change the outcome of a decision (voters in this case) is fraud.

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!!!

[wbcoleman]

Any statement that is false but said anyway in order to change the outcome of a decision (voters in this case) is fraud.

Yes, of course, any political claim with which you disagree is fraudulent.