White House Asks YouTube To Review “Innocence of Muslims” Film

The Obama Administration has formally asked YouTube “to review” the anti-Muslim film “Innocence of Muslims.” In a perfectly incoherent position, White House press secretary Jay Carney stressed that the White House was not asking for it to be removed . . . only “reviewed.” I have been discussing this controversy on NPR and CNN. The latest White House move appears to be an effort to get YouTube to remove the video without taking responsibility for expressly asking for the removal. For civil libertarians, the announcement leaves an uneasy — and all-too-familiar — feeling with this Administration. The White House has repeated compromised on civil liberties in favor of political advantage in areas like torture, immunity, and surveillance policies.

Carney announced that “The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use.” Despite asking for such a review, Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.”

We have seen this type of double talk before — in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon violence. The Administration has joined Muslim allies in trying to develop what has been called an “international blasphemy” standard. (For prior columns, click here and here). The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion. The Administration has drawn a dangerous line with Muslim countries in first supporting the concept of an international blasphemy standard. As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world. After first supporting an international blasphemy standard, the Administration sought to get Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. This case also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Past cases show that even the suggestion of blasphemy is enough to trigger violent riots in some Muslim nations. Because any joke or image of the Prophet can trigger violence, the standard is immediately satisfied in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, which can then claim some legal legitimacy under the standard created with the United States.

YouTube should resist such efforts to withdraw the video in my view. Today in an exchange with Howard Kurtz on CNN is disagreed with his view that the video should be at least withdrawn from the sites on other countries. This suggests that free speech is an American value. Civil libertarians believe it is a basis human right. YouTube does not produce cars or widgets. It supplies a unique forum for a global dialogue. While it clearly has the right to remove material from its site, such an act (even with the obvious encouragement of the White House) would be an act of private censorship. If this video is removed, then why not any video that is deemed insulting to a given religious or religious figure. These deaths were not caused be any film. They were caused by religious extremism. It is not a question of whether the film is “worth” these lives. It isn’t. Free speech is.

The request from the White House reflects the same dishonest approach of some of our closest allies who refused to punish the Danish cartoonists while then quietly cracking down on anti-religious speech. The correct and only answer is that he filmmaker has a right to express his views of Muhammad and Islam. Muslims have a right to respond in kind. However, we cannot allow murderous mobs to turn this into a debate over free speech. These mobs are in countries that have long killed and arrested those who speak out against their beliefs. We cannot yield to such demands.

Source: Politico

78 thoughts on “White House Asks YouTube To Review “Innocence of Muslims” Film

  1. “These deaths were not caused be any film. They were caused by religious extremism.”

    No, the people who were murdered were killed by the people who killed them and by the killers’ own free will, not by “religious extremism.”

  2. If You Tube has the right to remove any video they want then they can do it. My guess is they frown on videos with excessive violence or those that might incite violence. Who cares if the Obama administration has asked them to “review” it? Would you have been ok with You Tube removing it themselves for their own reasons professor?

  3. What we need folks, and soneone on this blog can perform the task, is produce and publish on utube, some films that will counter the anti-muslim film. I suggest a sequence of trampling of the cross and perhaps a Rabbi giving Jesus a bj. Or vice versa. No pun intended. That way the Muslim world can laugh at us and not throw bombs. Then perhaps we can get The Willard to wear a turbin, Obama a yarmulka, Boner a condum and have them in the UN giving high fives to the Yemen delegation. And while everyone is busy blasting each other for mean utubes perhaps the Navy could kill all those pirates of the coast of Somalia and Yemen. There is nothing worse than a turbin head with a machine gun on a swift boat off the coast of Somalia. Gotta think positve here. Swift boats in every election cycle.

  4. Google/YouTube has rge right to take down videos it deems offensive….This is not a first amendment issue it’s the right of You Tube to not accept any and every submission…

  5. I should have thought that this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 would be one that the White House would like to be subject to Enhanced Review.
    I suppose the problem might be that the request would involve admitting that the incident actually happened – and by extension that such incidents are common – which probably makes people “hate us for our freedoms”

  6. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/19/39-ways-limit-free-speech/

    Seventeen and a half years for translating a document? Granted, it’s an extremist text. Among the “39 ways” it advocates include “Truthfully Ask Allah for Martyrdom,” “Go for Jihad Yourself,” “Giving Shelter to the Mujahedin,” and “Have Enmity Towards the Disbelievers.” (Other “ways to serve,” however, include, “Learn to Swim and Ride Horses,” “Get Physically Fit,” “Stand in Opposition to the Disbelievers,” and “Expose the Hypocrites and Traitors.”) But surely we have not come to the point where we lock people up for nearly two decades for translating a widely available document? After all, news organizations and scholars routinely translate and publicize jihadist texts; think, for example, of the many reports about messages from Osama bin Laden.
    In 2009, Tarek Mehanna, who has no prior criminal record, was arrested and placed in maximum security confinement on “terrorism” charges. The case against him rested on allegations that as a 21-year old he had traveled with friends to Yemen in 2004 in an unsuccessful search for a jihadist training camp in order to fight in Iraq, and that he had translated several jihadist tracts and videos into English for distribution on the Internet, allegedly to spur readers on to jihad. After a two-month trial, he was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. The jury did not specify whether it found him guilty for his aborted trip to Yemen—which resulted in no known contacts with jihadists—or for his translations, so under established law, the conviction cannot stand unless it’s permissible to penalize him for his speech. Mehanna is appealing.

    Under traditional (read “pre-9/11”) First Amendment doctrine, Mehanna could not have been convicted even if he had written “39 Ways” himself, unless the government could shoulder the heavy burden of demonstrating that the document was “intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action,” a standard virtually impossible to meet for written texts. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established that standard in ruling that the First Amendment protected a Ku Klux Klansman who made a speech to a Klan gathering advocating “revengeance” against “niggers” and “Jews.” It did so only after years of experience with federal and state governments using laws prohibiting advocacy of crime as a tool to target political dissidents (anarchists, anti-war protesters, and Communists, to name a few).
    But in Mehanna’s case, the government never tried to satisfy that standard. It didn’t show that any violent act was caused by the document or its translation, much less that Mehanna intended to incite imminent criminal conduct and was likely, through the translation, to do so. In fact, it accused Mehanna of no violent act of any kind. Instead, the prosecutor successfully argued that Mehanna’s translation was intended to aid al-Qaeda, by inspiring readers to pursue jihad themselves, and therefore constituted “material support” to a “terrorist organization.”
    The prosecutor relied on a 2010 Supreme Court decision in a case I argued, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In Humanitarian Law Project, a divided Court upheld the “material support” statute as applied to advocacy of peace and human rights, when done in coordination with and to aid a designated “terrorist organization.” (The plaintiffs in the case sought to encourage the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey to resolve their disputes with the Turkish government through lawful means, by training them in bringing human rights complaints before the United Nations and helping them in peace overtures to the Turkish government.) The Court ruled that the government could criminalize such advocacy of peaceful nonviolent activity without transgressing the First Amendment, because, it reasoned, any aid to a foreign terrorist organization might ultimately support illegal ends.
    The Humanitarian Law Project decision is troubling enough, as I have previously explained. But Mehanna’s case goes still further. The government provided no evidence that Mehanna ever met or communicated with anyone from al-Qaeda. Nor did it demonstrate that the translation was sent to al-Qaeda. (It was posted by an online publisher, Al-Tibyan Publications, that has not been designated as a part of or a front for al-Qaeda.) It did not even claim that the “39 Ways” was written by al-Qaeda. The prosecution offered plenty of evidence that in Internet chat rooms Mehanna expressed admiration for the group’s ideology, and for Osama bin Laden in particular. But can one provide “material support” to a group with which one has never communicated?

    The Supreme Court in Humanitarian Law Project emphasized, as had the United States government in defending the “material support” statute, that the law does not make it a crime to engage in “independent advocacy” in support of a designated organization’s cause. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts strongly implied that this limitation was constitutionally mandated:
    The Court also finds it significant that Congress has been conscious of its own responsibility to consider how its actions may implicate constitutional concerns. Most importantly, Congress has avoided any restriction on independent advocacy, or indeed any activities not directed to, coordinated with, or controlled by foreign terrorist groups.

    “Under the material-support statute,” the Court insisted, people “may say anything they wish on any topic.” But apparently not on “jihad.” The prosecutor in Mehanna’s case argued that the translation was motivated by Mehanna’s ideological support of jihadism, and of al-Qaeda in particular. But without coordination, and without delivery of the final product to al-Qaeda or any of its known affiliates, it looks like nothing more than “independent advocacy,” activity that the government said would not, and the Supreme

  7. I am not a fan of censorship, whether it is done by Youtube themselves or on the behest of the government or any organization. Would YouTube consider this kind of video akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? I don’t think they need the President to suggest that they review the video. My guess is that they have already done so.

    Obviously when movies like the D’Souza movie are allowed to lie about Obama and the Democrats on the big screen, why shouldn’t we allow anti-Islam radicals to stir up trouble internationally with hateful videos? The timing is interesting.

  8. Raff,

    Believe this or not but things are already censored on YouTube…..
    If I recall the Germans have censored nazi propaganda…… The Chinese….the Russians…. The Muslims……

  9. Youtube takes stuff down all the time. (The JFK secret society speech comes to mind. People had to keep putting it up in new places, and I think they finally gave up and left them!) I have looked for stuff lots of times and found it has been removed. Normally it is stuff that is criticizing government or corporations (or both).

    I find this quote astounding:

    ” ‘Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.” ”

    Since WHEN has this administration been for freedom of expression in this country?

  10. ” ‘Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.” ”
    Julian Assange
    Timothy Manning

    and anyway, this movie was a prop….somebody wants the US to clear another Country for developement….

  11. First video evidence of Mali amputations
    By Agence France-Presse
    Friday, September 14, 2012 14:55 EDT

    BAMAKO — The first video evidence of amputations carried out by Islamic extremists occupying northern Mali was on Friday obtained by AFP.

    [Under Sharia Law for theft- right hand, left foot]

    Srsly, the West should placate this extremism? We should modify – at the President’s thinly veiled request no less – our rights (such as are left) further to mollify and legitimize a religious/political world view that resorts to spontaneous as well as planned and formalized violence and murder to impose a delusional ideology on entire nations? I don’t think so.

  12. This is not even close to the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre.” When in the hell are the alleged smart people in this world going to realize that there is a dedicated group of people who hate us and want to detstroy western civilization. If you wanted to know what Hitler was going to do all that was required was to read Mein Kamp. If you want to know what these crazy people are going to do just listen to their words, they want a pure Muslim world just like Hitler wanted a pure Aryan world. Why the hell aren’t there any riots by Muslims in this country? The answer..they’re not crazy.

  13. Not good! I understand that the administration is trying to make a swift attempt at ensuring “justice is served” as they’ve promised, but this may not be the best option. Regardless of how we feel or whether or not we agree with a particular view, we can’t let even a small ounce of censorship disguised as an investigation, slide. Not good.

  14. Why do people insist on leaving out the most important part of Holmes’ reasoning: you cannot FALSELY shout fire in the theater. Read the actual case law if you’re going to quote it. (Schenck v. US.) And the fact that a bunch of people have decided to murder numerous folks and storm embassies in response to someone making fun of their religion tells me that there is a fire. We get to yell all we want.

    TL;DR: Know the law before you cite it.

  15. “legitimize a religious/political world view that resorts to spontaneous as well as planned and formalized violence and murder to impose a delusional ideology on entire nations? I don’t think so.”

    We’re talking stuff like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan here right?

    “a religious/political world view that ..” GOP? – as an extreme form of DEMs.

    Western civilisation (bringing-you-the-best-of-delusional)
    Abduction to secret CIA prisons for torture. Renditions for torture. But-we-were-only-following-orders-so-it’s-OK. GITMO
    Indefinite imprisonment without trial (by the military – even of US citizens – but-relax-Obama-says-he-won’t-do-it-but-he can’t-speak-for-the-next-guy-or-anyone-who-follows)
    Seventeen and a half years for translating a document.
    Drone strikes that take out funerals on the basis that there might be somebody nasty attending and-sorry-about-the-kids-that’s-just-colatteral.
    Groping autistic kids in airports. Dragging autistic kids out of schools in handcuffs.
    Bonkers stark staring mad police actions complete with cover-ups. The kind of stuff that graces this blog and others.

    Yes. There is a fire. But it’s not over there.

  16. What if I am in a crowded theatre and there is a time bomb in the aisle and I look down and it is ticking down to ten seconds before lift off. Do I quietly say, leave now in good order or do I yell FIRE! ? There is a fire in the theatre of the world and it is called Islam. But, you all knew that already and are not owning up to it. Now there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, good Communists and bad Communists. Just keep em outta my theatre. All of em.
    But, getting back to the notion of uTube and some anti Christian films, and anti Jewish films– can someone get on it? I dont have a camera.

  17. This guy’s trying to blame it on a utube video, when most of the rioters don’t know what utube is .Just so happened to be September 11talk about having your head up your a SS

  18. “when most of the rioters don’t know what utube is .”

    I don’t know about that. Some of those rioters were able to lay down deadly accurate mortar fire. They probably learned how to do that from YouTube videos, and just happened to find some mortars lying around.

  19. So, because the Obama admin asked Google to remove the video in order to maybe help quell a violent and fast moving situation, that is wrong? I am a civil libertarian too, but my goodness, sometimes reason dictates that not every request is some step toward chipping away at our rights. Google had a right to say no, which they did. There was no harm in it. There will be no retaliation against Google.

    If anyone is allowing it to turn into a discussion of free speech, it is you, Mr. Turley (and I write this as a fan of your work). Of course, there is the reality that removing the video will not quell the violence since the horses have already left the barn, but I don’t follow your claim that it is so dishonest. For someone who has much experience following government actors, I would hope that yo can distinguish better between what is a rather benign request–regarding free speech rights–and attempts by government to quash free speech or make threats thereof, such as your earlier post about the FBI visiting that kid at home after he posted a video. Few more than you should understand that context matters.

  20. ‘Innocence Of Muslims’ Shot On Hollywood Set, Film Permit Connected To Christian Charity
    By Cavan Sieczkowski
    The Huffington Post

    Details are being sought regarding the anti-Muslim film “The Innocence of Muslims,” which has enraged radical Islamists and provoked protests across the Middle East. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in movie-related attacks in Libya on Tuesday and protests continued through the week.

    The movie was filmed on a Hollywood set, and its permit has been linked to a Christian charity.

    “The Innocence of Muslims” was partially filmed on a set built for the CBS TV show “JAG” by Paramount’s TV unit, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Portions of the low-budget film were shot in Santa Clarita, Calif., on an area of the Blue Cloud Film Ranch called “Baghdad Square.” This set has been used by TV and movie productions — including “Iron Man,” “Arrested Development” and “CSI” — to recreate Middle Eastern war zones.

    THR reports that Paramount said there is no way to verify whether the studio built the set. However,

    The permit for “The Innocence of Muslims,” which was filmed in Los Angeles County in August 2011 under the title “Desert Warriors,” has been pulled from public view by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over safety concerns, TheWrap reported.

    Media for Christ, a Duarte, Calif.-based Christian nonprofit group, applied for the film permit, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. The charity’s misson statement is to “glow Jesus’ light” to the world.

  21. ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Film Permit Pulled as Deputies Visit Home Tied to Filmmaker
    September 13, 2012

    Los Angeles county sheriff’s deputies visited the reported home of the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim trailer “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Muslim film blamed for expanding violent protests in the Middle East.

    County officials Thursday also pulled the permit for the film from public view, raising more questions about its mysterious origins.

    Deputies were called to the Cerritos home that news media has identified as the home of the purported filmmaker Wednesday night. It has become surrounded by media hungry for any details about the film.

    Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore confirmed to TheWrap that deputies arrived in response to a call regarding a neighborhood disturbance, though he would not say who placed the call, or who deputies spoke with when they arrived.

    ABC News on Thursday night identified Los Angeles-area resident Nakoula Basseley Nakoula as the sole writer, director and financier of the movie. Brian Ross, reporting on “ABC World News With Diane Sawyer,” said that Nakoula was a twice convicted felon and had served time for manufacturing methamphetamines and for bank fraud. Nakoula wrote the script while in jail for bank fraud and started filming it shortly after getting out of jail in June 2011.

    Ross also reported that Nakoula’s wife’s Coptic Christian relatives in Egypt sent him $60,000 to finance the production, and that the family is now frightened for its safety in California and the Middle East.

  22. Off Topic:

    Judge Blocks Indefinite Detention Provision
    By Nicole Flatow on Sep 14, 2012

    A New York federal district judge on Wednesday blocked a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that could be read to authorize the federal government to indefinitely detain people who were “substantially” or “indefinitely” “supporting” the Taliban, Al Qaeda or its allies. The plaintiffs in this case included journalists and writers who feared that their reporting about Al Qaeda or the Taliban might subject them to detention under this law.

    The government argued that the provision merely restated its existing detention authority, and did not impose any new burdens on the First Amendment. But District Judge Katherine B. Forrest rejected that assertion outright, pointing out the “logical flaw” in “stating an intention not to expand authority when Congress has set forth what is, in fact, new and broad authority,” the scope of which the government was not willing to define:

    The Government did not–and does not–generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.

    A key question throughout these proceedings has been, however, precisely what the statute means–what and whose activities it is meant to cover. That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual’s core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention–potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity–and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2). Understanding the scope of § 1021(b)(2) requires defining key terms. At the March hearing, the Government was unable to provide definitions for those terms.

  23. SlingTrebuchet , yea, yea, I realized that there could be a really interesting Venn diagram made out of my comment if someone wanted to extrapolate it and chart it, I was re-visiting the thread to do a little elaboration but…. you got here first.:-)

    There is a distinction I believe between the general religious extremism causing actions against our embassy in and Libya, which is shaping up as a planned political act. My concern is less the political than the religious in the framework of the Professor’s posting and I was speaking to that. I’m for burning Korans and Terry Jone’s bible and whatever playbook the Pope is using these days in the same bucket, not toning it down. Our religious nuts kill people and hurt people too. We just don’t talk about it in those terms widely. I have no respect for any radical’s gods or prophets- its an illness.

    I also think that there is a much greater underlying instability and dissatisfaction going in the Middle East and our presence is a convenient and in many regards a deserved target. It is difficult to separate the religious nexus many of the angry people and movements settle around from the purely political points of conflict. There is more than one agenda at work and more than one player funneling support to the actors on the ground. Like the Civil Rights movement being embraced and led in many regards by a broad coalition of church groups and among many denominations, the crowds that are protesting at our embassies in Egypt and Yemen, while doing so under a religious banner have other, purely political/economic reasons to be in the street.

    It is entirely possible that there is a region-wide, long simmering conflict that is being played out as a continuation of the Arab spring that first broke on the world stage last year. There is an attempt to shift power in many places, African countries, Indonesia, the Middle East/Arabian peninsula, (isn’t there a low level state of agitation/conflict going on regarding India also?) that is based on Muslim activism but I’m not sure that these are religious conflicts in the purest sense. Who is leading them, funding them and who gets the power if there are successes? Is a success a clean win (government overthrow) or just continued instability to weaken the current power structures in the country/region?

    I’m conservative in many regards and I’m beginning to see this as a ‘moment’ in history. Maybe the smart thing to do is just get out of the way and trade with whoever is left standing. Taking that attitude with critical resources is painful and expensive but what is the alternative if the tide of history is turning against the luxury of the status quo? Is resistance futile or what is the cost of resistance and attempted control by external forces? Maybe a culturally based break is a good and honest thing, We’re not really there to bring our idealized democracy to oppressed citizens and waving that flag just insults people.

  24. Remember the good ol days when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan? Our government opposed them and paid the Muslim Brotherhood to go fight the Soviets. Things have gone down hill. One of hour clones, Al Zawahri was one of the killers of Anwar Sadat. Then he went full boogie al Qaeda and was part of the Twin Towers attacks. Now we have troops in Afghanistan trying to kill the guys that we went there to throw out the Soviets. Better to have the Soviets there. At least they sent women to med school and enforced equal rights. It is clear that turbinhead governance is the worst thing in the world. The amount of foreign aid that we GIVE to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt is criminal. Pull out now like Nixon’s father should have back at the time of conception. We got kids in West Virginia who need some school money. The Willard says that he will muster up 100,000 more troops. On whose dime? This guy is the Bain of Capitalism. Get your sights on the big picture here folks, and you too Turley, this quibbling over Obama being careful is a bit shallow and Willardish.

  25. Now the Big Ears, Ryan, is on Tv ranting about Obamacare. Where did The Willard find this creep? A heart beat away if the RepubliCons win. Jeso, a Mormon gypsie and a big earred Mick.

  26. Elaine M. At 8:43: Good for District Judge Katherine B. Forrest!

    Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff.

    The names I’m reading regarding the actual production of the film are not American, but Egyptian. Terry Jones was trying to popularize the film but the funding came from various sources, possibly some Egyptian money, possibly some from the Media for Christ people but they seem to just be a production studio, no real presence but they did have about 635K in donations.

    Who benefits? Who wants shite disturbed? Who are the Copts allied with? Who are they useful to? Following the money will be interesting. I’m paranoid you know, if the funding trail were pursued and played out would a thread lead to a C Street name or another big ultra-conservative political/religious group here in the US? If fueling unrest in the Middle East impacts our election is this an engineered ‘October surprise’ type of thing?

    Too paranoid? Can one be too paranoid?:-) Yes. It’s a volitile region, a volatile constituency and we have been meddling on their property in a number of venues for a long time. Free-floating anger erupting into chaotic violence is always to me, more scary than a planned attack.

    I can’t find an actual website for Media for Christ, only a city search type of listing:



  27. Dredd, sweet link.

    NASA: “They seem to be crunchy on the outside, and softer in the middle,” Squyres said. “They are different in concentration. They are different in structure. They are different in composition. They are different in distribution. So, we have a wonderful geological puzzle in front of us.”

    Flee! Flee little Opportunity! I saw a movie that featured odd rocks like that on the moon- suffice it it say they weren’t rocks and it didn’t end well for the good guys.

  28. This isn’t about some film, it’s too big, to dispersed and now other targets of opportunity are being attacked. Check out the interactive map- this is a wildfire with a lot of arsonists:


    Embassies under attack over anti-Islam video

    “Protesters have attacked Western embassies in Tunisia, Yemen and Sudan, as a wave of demonstrations against an anti-Islam film swelled and swept across much of the Muslim world after Friday prayers.

    The US embassy was the common target while the UK and German embassies in Sudan were stormed by angry mobs.

    In Tunis, the Tunisian capital, two people were killed in clashes with the police as crowds scaled the US embassy walls and set fire to trees within the compound. An American school was also set on fire by an angry mob.

    In Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, protesters stormed the UK and German embassies and raised Islamist flags. Protesters smashed windows, cameras and furniture in the German complex and then started a fire, witnesses said.

    Throngs of crowds also targeted the US embassy in the capital. They breached the outside wall of the compound, forcing guards to fire warning shots. Three people were killed in clashes.

    Al Jazeera’s Harriet Martin, reporting from Khartoum, said: “The Sudanese authorities are taking things very seriously as they have deployed many, many riot police in the direction of the US embassy.

    Three protesters were killed in clashes with the police in Khartoum while two other were killed in similar demonstrations in Lebanon” …. In Nigeria, where radical Islamist sect Boko Haram has killed hundreds this year in an insurgency, troops opened fire in the air outside a mosque to disperse protesters in the city of Jos.” ….

  29. The Willard ought to keep quiet on foreign afairs issues. Otherwise the people will start talking about his grand dad’s foreign affairs down in Mexico when he made eight wives all proud. A new poll now has The Willard behind Obama on economic issues. Yikes, maybe he should talk about terrorists. Whose your granma Mitt? Saw that on a bumper sticker.

  30. Media For Christ owner was one of the speakers at the ground-zero “mosque” protest put together by anti-Islamist Pam Geller:

    From the Daily Beast:

    “The office of the California secretary of State confirmed to The Daily Beast that Media for Christ is an active corporation established in June 2005 and that the owner is listed as Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, who often goes by Joseph Nassralla or Nasrallah. Abdelmasih also is listed as owner of The Way TV, a TV network established in 2005 that includes a talk show hosted by Steve Klein, who has said he was one of the consultants on Innocence of Muslims.”

    Abdelmasih is no stranger to controversy. After delivering a passionate speech at the 10,000-strong protest against a proposed ground zero mosque on Sept. 11, 2010, he was escorted off the premises by police. According to media reports, Abdelmasih and a friend were speaking Arabic to one another, which inflamed members of the rally.

    “He was a Coptic Christian who spoke against the brutal oppression, subjugation, and persecution of Coptic Christians under the Sharia in Egypt,” Pamela Geller, one of the rally’s organizers and co-founder of the group Stop Islamization of America, told The Daily Beast.” …


    Pam Geller:


  31. by indirectly asking youtube to remove this is to reward the killers and reinforce their violence so there will be more events like this where our ambassadors will be killed to limit freedom here.

  32. Commonsense, commentor above, makes a lot of sense. I say flood the internet with Islamic satire and perhaps they will get used to it. Send them lots of sex shows and anything deriding their being controlled by clerics. I would pull the ambassadors out of Libya and Egypt. If those pukes wont put some troops in front of the embassy to protect us then we need to leave and kick them out of America toute suite. The timing of these terrorist attacks were to commemorate 9/11 and had nothing to do with Utube. Iran is behind this. ” Bomb, bomb, bomb, … bomb bomb Iran.” –Saturday Night Live Song 30 years ago. To the tune of the Beach Boys song called Barbara Ann. Play the old Saturday Night Live comedies from that era on the internet.

  33. To the people saying that YouTube has a right to remove it: Yes, they do.

    However, the problem here is that the government is making a polite suggestion that they do. That is not the job of the government. They should be protecting our freedoms, not attempting to step on them.

  34. The “innocence of muslims” and the “role of government” are two issues which need some clarity. An innocent person is one charged with an offense or crime who is not guilty of that crime. Innocence connotes an unawareness of the facts of life. A child has innocence and so does a person who does not have a full set of mental faculties. A person so deluded by religion could be considered one of innocences but such a person has not just lost their way but forfeited their Way and is in need of enforced guidance. A person who believes a creed that others not of their persuasion are not worthy of respect or on the extreme, deserve to be killed, is not an innocent. Unless of course that person is under the age of five or is mentally deficient. It is wrong therefore to confer innocence upon a grown adult who is adled by relgiion and not adled by mental illness. If you want to say that religion is a mental illness I might agree, In any event, it needs to be eradicated if it exceeds the bounds of human respect decency and law.

    Areas of the globe which purport to be “nations” may in fact not be enttitled to that status. A land mass with hordes of terrorists is not a nation state but a state of terrorism. A place like Yemen or Somalia which allows its so called citizens to go out on the sea and kill and maim people and act as pirates goes way beyond the pale when they allow the pirates to bring home to shore a ship and hold the crew hostage and the ship hostage for ransom. America and the so called civilized countries, including all of Europe, are not holding up the bargain they purport to have made in upholding law, civilization and international law, when they allow this to go on for years.

    Now geographical areas which are denominated as Egypt and Libya have fallen into the terrorist state status. If Egypt cannot protect a foreign embassy in its capital city from a mob then Egypt has forfetited its right to be called a nation state. Same with Libya. The NATO allies and the US should immediately treat them as lame ducks. Pull out embassy staff. Stop allowing so called citizens from those defunct areas to enter our country or to travel on airlines. Police their coasts and wipe out pirates on the sea. Invade only if they go too far beyond the pale. That last term has geographical significance. The Pale. Iran uses its “Students” to take hostages, uses its stooges in Gaza to send missles into the Paletinate and Israel.

    Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, are all not worthy of being called nation states and have forfeited the right to be treated as such. Pirates on land, pirates on sea, havens for pirates. Religion? A mere subterfuge. In this day and age a turbin is a pirate hat. Get real people. Wake up to the flowers. They are poison ivy.

  35. Jihad Watch has Pam Geller banging off about Obama


    “You cannot ask me to sacrifice my freedom so as not to offend savages”
    Pamela Geller on Fox and Friends this morning explains how Barack Obama is sanctioning the motive behind the murderous Muslim riots by trying to silence the Muhammad filmmakers.

    Then I noticed the Comments Policy:
    NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoyingstand a chance of being deleted.

  36. http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-had-credible-information-of-attack-on-us-consulate-in-benghazi-no-action-was-taken/


    Washington had credible information of attack on US Consulate in Benghazi. No action was taken
    Al-Qaeda and Possibly Infiltrators in Libyan Forces at Center of US Consulate Attack

    The assault on the US consulate building in Libya Tuesday night was a planned attack by al-Qaeda militants that may have involved infiltrators within Libya’s new security forces.

    According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before the attack that American diplomatic buildings may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert or to otherwise respond accordingly.

    While the attack was initially thought to be solely in response to an insulting anti-Muslim film produced in the US, it included heavy weapons and rocket-propelled grenades and turned out to be a two-pronged attack too well coordinated to be a spontaneous protest.

  37. “According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before the attack that American diplomatic buildings may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert or to otherwise respond accordingly.”

    It’s really sweet that Obama (in term.3 of Bush), continues the tradition that allowed 9/11 to happen.

    And…. just in case anyone is wondering… the Saudis did not engineer the movie release. K?
    Yes of course I made that up.

  38. Even if there were no credible threats, having an ambassador so poorly protected is incredibly negligent and stupid.

  39. Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.”
    Sounds familiar.

  40. The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion.
    Do you still want to buy books?

  41. betty, I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that all of this has been orchestrated and they are trying to start WWIII in order to take everyone’s mind from the economies. Don’t know if it’s true or not, but it DOES look like it’s taken a lot of heat from the economy. More innocent people to bee maimed and die, and more money to be made for people already richer than Croesus.

  42. “develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion.”

    To hell with that.
    How about an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who ‘insult’:
    Justin Bieber
    Football Team X

    There is not much difference in principle between bad-mouthing that sort of thing and bad-mouthing a religion.

    How about an international effort to educate people that “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” ?

  43. There might just possibly-perhaps-maybe-but-it-seems-so-trivial reasons other than YouTube videos for people to attack US outposts.

    To me it seems absolutely inescapable that attacks out of the blue (literally) by drones or high/fast aircraft must result in attacks on US embassies / facilities / homeland. There is nothing else to strike back at.
    It just causes the buildup of a huge primal resentment that will eventually find a release.

  44. SlingTrebuchet 1, September 16, 2012 at 8:37 am

    “develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion.”

    To hell with that.
    How about an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who ‘insult’:
    Justin Bieber
    Football Team X

    There is not much difference in principle between bad-mouthing that sort of thing and bad-mouthing a religion.

    How about an international effort to educate people that “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” ?
    Are you Ann Coulter?

  45. I saw law professor on TV yesterday, think his name was Weldon, who was sayng he believes, with other legal scholars, that there should be hate speech laws here. I think the professor finds something nefarious in almost everything Obama does. ‘review’ did not mean take down the film.
    You tube is private, like others said it is their right to remove content. I also think that the person(s) who made this film did know that there was a good chance it would lead to violence, possibly causing a charge of reckless disregard for human life, in the deaths of Mr. Stephens and the others. As for the rest of the violence and upheaval, sadly too many seem to be looking for any excuse in that part of the world to riot, maim, and murder.

  46. “‘review’ did not mean take down the film”
    Of couse not. It just meant review.

    This is like PayPal and the banks reviewing the processing of donations to Wikileaks, despite Wikileaks not breaking any laws that anyone could actually put a finger on.

    When it comes from the White House, a ‘review’ is ‘enhanced review’.

    “sadly too many seem to be looking for any excuse in that part of the world to riot, maim, and murder.”
    Yes. The best course would be to invade that part of the world and bomb them into civilisation – especially if they have oil.
    Just plain leaving them alone has proved to be a failed policy.

  47. Just plain leaving them alone has proved to be a failed policy.
    Go over there and do it yourself.

  48. SlingTrebuchet 1, September 18, 2012 at 9:45 am

    It’s a mock-up, but true
    Reality sucks. Stop selling us oil, and we’ll stop kicking your as*.

  49. Its such as you learn my thoughts! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I think that you just can do with a few p.c. to power the message home a little bit, however other than that, that is fantastic blog. A fantastic read. I’ll definitely be back.

  50. Meanwhile in reality-land, it seems there was no protest in Benghazi – just a pre-planned attack.
    Who would have thiunk?


    “It is always more enjoyable to scorn the acts of the Other Side than it is to acknowledge the bad acts of one’s own. That’s the self-loving mindset that enables the New York Times to write an entire editorial today purporting to analyze Muslim rage without once mentioning the numerous acts of American violence aimed at them (much of which the Times editorial page supports). Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.”

  51. There is something rather confusing to me here. My ‘understanding’ was that Google bought out youtube and owns them. Since Google works hand in glove with the government, if the government wanted it removed, why not have the government guy inform the Google guy, who has youtube remove it?

    If the government really wanted it gone, wouldn’t that have been the preferred procedure? Instead there’s a big deal made out of ‘reviewing’ the video to decide if it should be taken down.

  52. its not surprising to see muslims going crazy after a hateful trailer…..the truth is that they were just looking for a reason to kill!!!
    Has christianity ever attacked someone because they said something? from the daily jesus jokes, the countless poundings by southpark, family guy, simpsons, and other shows….never heard someone lose a finger in a door slamming accident… No, we are in the 21st century you guys and the only people who hqvent evolved are the ones who butcher people…..where’s the peace islam, where is it? You keep saying that you are all about peace, but you are always always always the first ones to land the blow….
    Now when that’person’ wrote those things about jesus and a rabbi, that was because he was pretty sure he wasnt going to get threatned and killed…..because christianity is peaceful….but when a person tries to express his anguish….the whole world goes into overdrive….
    Tue truth is the only ones who cared about the film were the muslims, everybody was laughing their butt off…. Even governments and hate to say it churches are denouncing it because they are afraid of death!!! Hahaha ‘PEACE’ HAHHAHAHA
    if you are so diplomatic and reasonable, why dont you do this every time they attack christianity?
    You would be here every day:)
    No, the reason you are on this page saying its wrong and its a bad film is because you are afraid… And deep down your empty cores there is a little nudge that says
    ‘who the hell do these guys think they are?’
    but its time to see the religion for what it really is, its time we open our eyes and realize what is going on….

  53. SlingTrebuchet 1, September 20, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.”
    Why did Iraq blow up the oil fields in Kuwait? Who had to fix that? Do you want to talk about jingoistic prejudices?

  54. Okay so YouTube can remove episodes of reality shows but not something that has been so hurtful to a whole religion & faith?? Good to see they’ve got their priorities in order!

  55. but when it gets down to protecting their name, muslims and i mean the entire population would slaughter…..
    @ leejcarrol
    Dont you get it? Its what they preach, its what they grew up listening….’death to infidels’, ‘slaughter’ you cant possibly tell me that its not on everyone’s mind?
    If islam was about peace, they would keep quiet about what ever the free world had to say
    and besides the reaction was felt all over the world, you saw violence and flag burning all over…..where is the peaceful muslim, because all i see are a mass population of terrorists counting the days when they will break into every home, slaughter women and children, and butcher innocent lives, because they didnt denounce their faith!
    And if you seriously believe that al qaeda and other religious groups are the only ones violent, open your eyes bucko, because every muslim man, womqn, and child would do the same thing for salvation

  56. @me
    why would they bring it down?
    If they do that they should also bring down the entire channels dedicated on insulting christianity….you just want them to bring it down because they will murder countless more….
    It was hurtful?well, its free speech and people have the right to speak their mind….you dont hear mass protests, killings of ambassadors, because of a jesus joke do you?
    No, why because christianity is all about peace….
    A lot of people have a lot to say about this religion, but they are too afraid to say anything… OPEN UR EYES OPEN UR EYES WHY DO WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THAT?????

  57. isn’t anybody going to say anything, love this frolicky dude!!!
    fear has got the best sides of you, you can say what you feel dude, just dont right your real email address, and use a computer that’s not yours, that way they wont kill you or anyone you know!!!!
    i love innocence of Muslims!!!! loved it!!!! Its about time, somebody got insuleted for a turn…. just have an awkward laugh and shake it off, mustafa!!! wait wait, i got it,\…. go kill someone your own size..hahahah lol lol

  58. Well frolicky, where is the peaceful Muslim, in the US, England, in many, many other countries other then the middle east, and not every single person in the middle east who is Muslim is protesting, in Tripoli, they had a pro US rally. Don;t paint a whole group with one stroke because you may be i n the group people decide to hate as a whole next.

  59. … Oh you wanted the entire population to go out protesting????
    One stroke, i am not pulling the feeds out of my butt, its out there, its not news that muslims are violent…their every day actions prove it, if they are a peaceful bunch they would actually sit back qnd take it, not enter into a nouse and kill ambassadors, burn flags and knock cops unconscious….still have no idea why you are defending them…. And i’ll give them another stroke when they show another side to their life:)

  60. YouTube has already edited MY videos, which were the SAME videos as posted by a news agency.

    The only difference is that I posted PROOF of what was really going on, and listed it in the description section of the video. I also posted in the comments section on the corruption of the police, Ohio State investigators, & the FBI.

    They violated their own rules to edit my video….(yeah, I read them…)

Comments are closed.