Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Looks like the real creator of this movie may be a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. A guy who was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for bank fraud. And who probably violated his parole by using the internet to publicize his movie. And I am sure they are going to throw the book at the guy, because we need a scapegoat.

But there is irony to mobs of Egyptians attacking the U.S. embassy because of a movie created by a fellow Egyptian who was previously sentenced to prison by the very U.S. government the Egyptians are attacking.

* * *

An unnamed U.S. law enforcement official told AP that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is behind the film.

I predict that he’s going to go to back to prison, not directly for his free speech, but because he is now public enemy number one, and the guy is a known crook on parole, and I am sure that once we put all the law enforcement assets of the FBI behind a massive investigation, they will find some validly legal reason to put in back in prison.

Although this should make people nervous. Citizens, even citizens on parole, should be able to engage in free speech without fear of reprisal from the U.S. government.

Comments

[Black Death]

No need to lock him up. Just send him back to Egypt, where he'll be executed for criticizing Islam. Problem solved!

[AJ DePriest]

Citizens SHOULD be able to engage in free speech without fear of reprisal from the U.S. government. However, this imbecile CHOSE to violate his parole by promoting his product on the internet:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105762440/USA-v-Nakoula-Basseley-Nakoula-Judgment-and-Commitment

[Abelard Lindsey]

I guess the terms of his parole included restrictions on internet usage because he used the internet to steal bank account information and social security numbers from others. He definitely violated the terms of his parole and will likely be the guest of the government for several more years.

[L33tminion]

The guy claims to have raised millions of dollars for the film, but the trailer was apparently made on a shoestring budget. Aside from violating his parole, I wouldn't be surprised if the movie was part of some new con. Most amusing possibility is a "Producers" type scheme: Raise a bunch of money to make an anti-Muslim movie, use the reaction to the trailer as an excuse to delay production due to "safety concerns", and then abscond with the money before anyone sees through your false identity.

(Not an original idea, see the comments here: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/465590.html)

[HS: A farfetched hypothesis. Given that he LIED about his name, LIED about being Israeli, was convicted for some scheme involving fake bank accounts and fake checks, he most likely he also LIED about the $5 million.]

[djbill]

it has nothing t do with free speech,it´s a clear anti-islam film,we should judge him or at least send him back to egypt

[Eugenick]

Is it possible that the movie is a false-flag type of operation? The Islamists certainly could use some more outraged Muslims to secure their hold on Egypt or Libya. Khomeini also used the Iran-Iraq war as cover for implementing the islamization of Iran; could the Muslim Brotherhood itself be behind this movie?

From what I've seen, the movie is indistinguishable from gutter propaganda of the lowest sort. It was clearly made with something other than careful historical arguments about Mohammad in mind.

[D]

There are some limitation of free speech as established by court rulings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
I would imagine his case would fall under incitement, false statement of fact, or offensive speech. I'm betting incitement since he knew fully well what the expected outcome of the "film" were.
99% of the citizens of the US (Is this guy even a US Citizen? They are saying Egyptian born but not clarifying his current status.) would not be as stupid as this guy so most people should not worry.

[Kaz]

@Eugenick

I have no idea why this prompted muslims around the world to go about their seasonal rampage, but this was it. There are hundreds if not thousand of videos on youtube condemning, making fun of, etc... Islam. For some reason this one caused them to go about and destroy millions of dollars of their countrymen's property. Must suck to not be an idiot and live in these countries. Everytime something like this happens a bunch of men parade the streets and set cars on fire, of course it's not their cars.

[helene edwards]

Interesting - not a single commenter questions whether this activity should reasonably be considered a parole violation. The pursuit of a living is considered one of the foundational Lockean natural rights, and Liberals, at least, tell us that the Declaration of Independence, with its guarantee of the "pursuit of happiness," has the same status as the Constitution. This would seem to deprive judges of the power to place the Web off-limits to even a convicted fraudster for non-fraudulent commercial activity.

[Half Canadian]

D,

I look forward to your condemntation of same-sex marriage, as it provokes hostile reactions out of some Christians and Jews (not to mention Muslims).

[not too late]

"A guy who was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for bank fraud. And who probably violated his parole by using the internet to publicize his movie."

I thought there was no parole in the federal prison system.

[Discard]

D: Are you an American? Offensive speech IS free speech. What point is there to freedom of inoffensive speech?

[Dexelpred]

D:

You'd imagine wrong - this doesn't fall into a 1st Amendment exception. It's not fighting words (Chapinsky) so let's leave that out. The other relevant exception is if the speaker, with the specific intent (that's a term of art) to incite violence, creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. The danger has to be both imminent, and of a large magnitude.

This wouldn't qualify, because: (1) there was no specific intent to incite violence (he didn't say - "hey, go kill people" with the intent that they go kill people; (2) the lawless action was too speculative to be "clear"; and (3) the lawless action wasn't "imminent" - there was a temporal disconnect.

[JP]

"not a single commenter questions whether this activity should reasonably be considered a parole violation"

I was about to do so. I still don't understand why it supposedly was. I didn't even know people were, or could be, denied the internet while on parole.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

Related,

There were Marines at the embassy but they couldn't defend the ambassador because they weren't allowed to have bullets in their weapons.

These illiterate, third world proles were thus free to fall upon the ambassador's latte drinking SWPL rump while the Marines could only look on in wonder and awe at this spectacle.

[Conquistador]

I assume parole has the same restrictions as probation. Your outings are limited and alcohol consumption is denied. I'd bet the internet prohibition is because cops realize you can have fun online. Porn, blogs, video games, and the like, can make any house arrest type ordeal bearable if not mildly enjoyable.

[JP]

@TUJ,

If I were those Marines, I'd be like the Space Marines in Aliens when they were told "no shooting near the reactor" -- appear to agree, but then when the horde attacks, "Let's rooooooock!"...

[D]

Half Canadian & Discard - I'm gay. I use the free speech argument to justify why FRC, NOM, etc. are able to do what they do even though it is not right and harmful to our gay population. As well as my right to say they suck for picking and choosing 10 passages to justify their actions instead of the 200+ that address poverty. Nobody should give a rats ass what I do in my bedroom as much as I do not want to know what they are doing in their bedroom. And it is that one fact that keeps us from being granted our civil rights and protections for our family. Eventually, this will have to be settled through the court systems.
Dexelpred - Thank you for the explanation. My thoughts were, through interviews on the phone, he stated he knew what this would do in the Islamic world. It qualifies under large magnitude given the actions over the past 2 days, but, as you pointed out, he did not say 'go do this' in the video.

[Conquistador]

"If I were those Marines, I'd be like the Space Marines in Aliens when they were told "no shooting near the reactor" -- appear to agree, but then when the horde attacks, "Let's rooooooock!".."

You know what's really weird? I never watched that movie until literally last night. I kid you not I wouldn't get this reference otherwise. Was this fate and preordained? I'll let you decide.

[ic]

Well, behead this guy and peace restored. This guy really want to use American blood to fight his war.

[Maradox]

not too late: "I thought there was no parole in the federal prison system."

AFAIK there isn't unless it was reinstated very recently and this guy is one of the first out.

[Camlost]

Nakoula B Nakoula - kinda like Jerome K Jerome !!

[John]

"There were Marines at the embassy but they couldn't defend the ambassador because they weren't allowed to have bullets in their weapons."

This is what a sane leader should have done:

Egyptian government: "Your Marines at the embassy don't have any bullets do they?"

Sane Leader: "Of course they have bullets. They're Marines."

Egyptian government: "Then they can't be in the embassy. You are forbidden to defend yourselves."

Sane Leader: "Then we're closing the embassy. Don't expect any more foreign aid checks."

[jeanne]

Good grief, free speech would be a joke if it could be constrained because "you knew how it would affect these nutcases."

[Bill]

"Citizens, even citizens on parole, should be able to engage in free speech without fear of reprisal from the U.S. government."

Does that include voting rights for felons?

[Ripley]

I say we take off and nuke the entire Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Conquistador]

LOL

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"If I were those Marines, I'd be like the Space Marines in Aliens when they were told "no shooting near the reactor" -- appear to agree, but then when the horde attacks, "Let's rooooooock!"..."

And a few seconds later you'd discover Burke had replaced all you bullets with blanks.

[JHP]

"Does that include voting rights for felons?"

Yes, it includes voting rights for blacks.

[Eric]

D: "My thoughts were, through interviews on the phone, he stated he knew what this would do in the Islamic world."

Martin Luther King and fellow civil rights leaders understood their campaign would provoke radicals who supported Jim Crow (eg, KKK). The civil rights leaders also were aware of the radicals in their midst who would use the opportunity of peaceful protest to commit violent acts, thus compelling harsh police response.

Segue: MLK's protests ignited discussion about the plight of blacks in the South. Where is the discussion about the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt?

[tina]

Hmmmm. So, what's next? Half Sigma says something, Steve Sailer says something that some filty-assed believer in Mohammed gets ahold of, causes Barry embarrassment, and Barry sends the FBI to "investigate" him? See if any parking tickets are outstanding?

It's now the GOP needs to ask all the "artists," where they are. Hey, Hollywood? Hey, NY?
Hey, producers of "The Book of Mormon" and all those who have seen the show?"

Wonder if a Mormon visited some violence upon those who have participated in that show if Barry would say, "It's the show! It hurt the feelings of those who are believers in that great religion."

What a piece of shit we have for a President. The entire of the United States voting public ought to have to undergo psychiatric analyses.

[destructure]

I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to think these attacks are a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. They weren't. They were organized. They had nothing to do with the video. And they had everything to do with radical Islam. There's a reason they happened on 9/11.

More specifically, the Arab Spring was all about radical Islamists overthrowing the secular leaders keeping them in check. Now that the radicals are in charge the muslims are free to act like real muslims.

That's why Obama needs Nakoula as a scapegoat and his media cheerleaders are thrilled to give him one. Otherwise, they'd have to admit that Islamic radicalism is the problem. And that Obama is the one who let the genii out of the bottle. That wouldn't help his reelection.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

The FBI is interrogating Nakoula. Their getting ready to charge him for criticizing Islam.

"Citizens, even citizens on parole, should be able to engage in free speech without fear of reprisal from the U.S. government."

Liberal arts professors are calling for outlawing criticism of Islam.

We need to defund every single college department that is not STEM or business related.

[Eric]

Half-serious question: Can Nakoula be charged for 'bullying' Muslims?

[The Undiscovered Jew]

OT,

The movement to reduce or eliminate gened requirements is going mainstream. Eliminating gened requirement would result in mass layoffs of liberal arts professors (who are now calling for ending free speech that offends Muslims) because funding for the liberal is largely paid per credit hour, i.e., by how many liberal arts classes students are taking.

Therefore, slashing or eliminating the number of gened classes undergrads take would cut the liberal arts off from one of their primary sources of funding.

Again, every single college department that is not STEM or business needs to be shut down completely:

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20120905140111957

The basic currency of higher education — the credit hour — represents the root of many problems plaguing America's higher education system: the practice of measuring time rather than learning, according to a report co-released today by the New America Foundation’s Education Policy Program and Education Sector.

The report, Cracking the Credit Hour, traces the history of the credit hour, which was created by Andrew Carnegie at the turn of the 19th century. A credit hour typically represents one hour of faculty-student contact time per week over a 15-week semester. Most bachelor’s degrees require 120 credit hours.

Author Amy Laitinen, deputy director for Higher Education at the New America Foundation’s Education Policy Program, outlines many of the problems that an over-reliance on this time-unit has caused for today’s students. These include:
• Credit hours are not universally transferable. Colleges routinely reject credits earned at other colleges, a particular problem for the 59 percent of students who attend more than one institution.
• Credit hours are difficult to assign to online courses, which often allow students to proceed through courses at their own pace. The percentage of students taking at least one online course has increased from less than 10 percent to 32 percent between 2002 and 2010. For-profit universities, which often use online classes, are also seeing dramatic increases in their student enrollment.
• Credit hours do not readily translate into assessments of students’ prior learning. Yet students who earn credit through programs that assess and award credit for things they already know are more likely to stay in and complete college than those who don’t.
As the report notes, the credit hour “was never intended to be a measure of, or proxy for student learning.” Over time, however, the credit hour has taken on enormous importance in everything from setting faculty workloads to determining state and federal funding and an institution’s eligibility for federal student aid.

It is the federal student aid program’s reliance on credit hours that has stifled many kinds of innovation, the report argues. Even though the federal government has tried to indicate a willingness to move away from the credit hour, “many in the industry still believe that their safest bet, if they want to keep access to federal financial aid, is to do what they have always done: use time to determine credits.”

Cracking the Credit Hour recommends a number of different policy solutions. All, it argues, are available today. The federal government could:
• Innovate within the existing frame of the credit hour. Although the recent redefinition of the credit hour was designed for other purposes, “it also created opportunities for institutions to use non-time-based measures of learning to qualify for federal financial aid,” Laitinen writes. Specifically, the competency-based model already in use by Western Governors University should “be the norm,” rather than the exception, according to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
• Innovate through experimentation. The current Higher Education Act offers the Department the opportunity to create what Laitinen calls a “small, controlled, voluntary virtual laboratory of ‘experimental sites’ on which it tests particular learning-based financial aid policies to see if they work, how they work, for whom they work, and under what conditions they work.” She suggests these innovations could include financial aid for credits earned using valid Prior Learning Assessments or outcome-based financial aid.
• Innovate by moving away from a system that is free from the credit hour’s history. Direct assessment of student learning is already permitted under the Higher Education Act.
“If the U.S. is to reclaim its position as the most-educated nation in the world, federal policy needs to shift from paying for and valuing time to paying for and valuing learning,” the report concludes. “In an era when college degrees are simultaneously becoming more important and more expensive, students and taxpayers can no longer afford to pay for time and little or no evidence of learning.”

Read Cracking the Credit Hour.
Also read our Frequently Asked Questions about Credit Hours and Competencies in Higher Education.
Education Sector is an independent think tank that challenges conventional thinking in education policy. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to achieving measurable impact in education, both through improving existing reform initiatives and by developing new, innovative solutions to our nation’s most pressing education problems.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

Megan McArdle is joining the campaign against academia:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/09/megan-mcardle-on-the-coming-burst-of-the-college-bubble.html

Effectively, we’ve treated the average wage premium as if it were a guarantee—and then we’ve encouraged college students to borrow against it. The result will be no surprise to anyone who has made the mistake of setting his or her teenager loose in a shopping mall with a credit card and no spending limit. Eighteen-year-olds demand amenities—high-speed Internet, well-upholstered classrooms, world-class fitness facilities—and in order to stay competitive, college administrators happily provide them. Then they raise the tuition for which the 18-year-olds are obediently borrowing the money.

“We have an academic arms race going on,” says Vedder. “Salaries have done pretty well. Look at the president of Yale. Compare his salary now with his salary in 2000.” In 2000, Richard Levin earned $561,709. By 2009, it was $1.63 million. “A typical university today has as many administrators as faculty.”

Vedder also notes the decrease in teaching loads by tenured faculty, and the vast increase in nonacademic amenities like plush dorms and intercollegiate athletics. “Every campus has its climbing wall,” he notes drily. “You cannot have a campus without a climbing wall.”

Just as homeowners took out equity loans to buy themselves spa bathrooms and chef’s kitchens and told themselves that they were really building value with every borrowed dollar, today’s college students can buy themselves a four-year vacation in an increasingly well-upholstered resort, and everyone congratulates them for investing in themselves.

[anon]

half,

you are right here is the film maker bring dragged away for an interrogation i mean "interview"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-nakoula-basseley-innocence-muslims.html

[anon]

heres a link to the crappy movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8

i would riot too after watching this

[jay]

@D - you didn't use a free speech argument, you hijacked this discussion to a completely extraneous subject: gay rights, because - you are gay.

Gay men have only one thing on the brain: their homosexuality. They are total narcissists, incapable of anything except thinking about what benefits them.

Your libertarian argument - get out of my bedroom -- is an epic fail. You certainly can't fuck a 10 year old, at least, not yet. But who knows, in the nightmare dystopia you are helping to create, one day you might.

In any case, you can't ask for your "rights" under a libertarian argument one day, and then demand that the country change its marriage laws because (says you) 'same sex marriage' is for the common good. One argument is libertarian, the other, communitarian. But the thing about homosexuals is that they change their argument on a dime, because being faux-females, they don't understand logic.

*****

I agree with all the commenters here who think Romney spoke out of turn. His remarks were unnecessary and a distraction.

[D]

jay - I did not hijack this thread. I was responding to a previous post in which some suggested I was next going to suggest eliminating same-sex marriage based on my post of the accepted limits of free speech based on court rulings. You might want to read through the whole thread before posting replies that make you look stupid.

[jay]

@D, of course I read the previous comment, which allegedly elicited your hysterical response. If you were merely responding, all you had to say was that you rejected the premise, that you support same-sex marriage.

You didn't have to whine at length about it. A simple statement of principle would have been enough. "And it is that one fact that keeps us from being granted our civil rights and protections for our family. Eventually, this will have to be settled through the court systems." is an outburst, not an argument.

Sorry, two guys who hire a woman's womb and vagina, or two women who buy a syringe of sperm, don't make parents. "Your families" are fakes.

And again, you can't appeal to garbage libertarianism on the one hand and the common good on the other. Make up your mind.