The filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Mohammad video that sparked the recent protests and deaths around the world, has been arrested by federal authorities for allegedly violating the condition for his probation on a 2010 conviction for bank fraud — violations that could land him in jail for three years. Given the calls for his arrest and even execution by Muslim allies, the arrest raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife.
From my experience as a criminal defense attorney, the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. In addition, the federal authorities insisted on his being jailed as a flight risk, though it is unclear why that is the case and why he could not be given an electronic bracelet.
Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal found that Nakoula exhibited a “lengthy pattern of deception” and posed “some danger to the community.” I can see the basis for the first conclusion but not the evidence of a danger to the community. My concern is that the response to his film — which is a protected act of free speech — was weighed in the balance of such a decision. Nakoula is accused of eight charges of probation violation including making false statements to authorities about the film. He reportedly admitted that he wrote the film but authorities insist that he did not fully explain his role.
The U.S. Attorney suggested that he might charge Nakoula with making false statements about the film — charges that would seem an obvious act of retaliation by the Administration.
The distrust shown by many free speech advocates, including myself, is that the Administration has a checkered history of claiming to support free speech while supporting the creation of an international blasphemy standard. The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy. Probation rules are written in a way that make it relatively easy to find violations. The immediate scrutiny left many with the impression that the Obama Administration wanted to show Arab allies that the filmmaker was under arrest while professing a commitment to free speech.
Source: LA Times
who needs illiterate supporters of Mohammad when we have lawyers like this in Pakistan: http://tribune.com.pk/story/443903/lawyers-rally-against-anti-islam-film-proceed-towards-us-embassy-in-islamabad/#comment-944430
“The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy.”
Really? It’s been a two-and-a-half weeks since this thing blew up. It’s been one of the biggest stories in the news during that time. The alleged parole violations are in the news reports themselves. Kinda difficult to imagine this not coming to their attention. How much slower were they supposed to go when presented with evidence of multiple parole violations?
Ken at Popehat, former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, free speech advocate and definitely no Obama supporter, thinks this guy’s actions are absolutely deserving of probation revocation proceedings, although to be fair he questions whether there’s been improper Administration interference in the proceedings:
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/15/a-few-stray-saturday-thoughts-about-the-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/
I’d like to see Prof. Turley address the specifics discussed above rather than just make a general statement that “the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.” To many people focused just on the internet use and not on the use of aliases and hiding money and fraud on actors, much more potentially serious violations of his probation conditions. Until Turley is specific and addresses these potential violations, I find Popehat much more credible.
Sorry, Waldo. While I agree that, under other circumstances, what the guy did was worthy of punishment (even imprisonment), for the government to do so here, under these circumstances, is wrong precisely because it at least appears to be part of a coordinated effort to suppress free speech. Indeed, the first thing this Administration did about the film was to “ask” Google if it could find a way to delete it. This alone should be outrageous and unthinkable. The government should not be applying pressure to anyone to ban that which it cannot ban under the First Amendment. Thank god that Google stood up to the White House!
Dredd
1, September 28, 2012 at 9:13 am
We have a new category of law, “flee speech” … express some types of “free speech” and you will be tempted to flee the “Salem Witch Trials” such speech is likely to trigger.
———————–
yes!
not to mention the political and economic bias involved in selectivity in who gets protected and who gets excoriated….
laws are like marriages…it’s really not the paper that holds them up….
He violated his probation. Would the proffessor or others here find it wrong if any other person was being arrested for violating consitions of probation? Flight risk? Probably. Danger to community? Maybe, Does anyone know of what frauds he might have committed in the interim? Sometimes even a cigar is sometimes a cigar.
There is always a pretext.
I think Gene had it right that the flight risk was an important reason why he was jailed. It may also save his life.
This entire thing is theater. I believe that because Obama killed BinLadin, SOMEONE had to make sure there was a big public terrorist fiasco right before the election so the “win” could be canceled out. Not only is this “film-maker” not the author of the theater, he’s an “extra.”
It’s a shame they will throw lives away like this. Disgusting. Both sides do it without the slightest conscience. I am so sick of all this public theater; what if we had REAL public theater, like Shakespeare in the Park, instead?
A banana is always a banana. However, a cigar …
Internet Freud, Bingo! Now, is it true a banana is not always a banana?
There’s a lot more to this story. This man worked as a govt. informer. Along with the info that David relates, the differential treatment of probation offenses, the clear record of abuse of the law by the administration, this does not pass the smell test.
My wife is aa retired Federal Probation Officer. Her specialty was writing presentence investigations, however she also did supervision. She concurs w/ Mr. Turley’s analysis, particularly the electronic monitoring being the obvious course of action.
To David Your remarks ONLY apply to the consulate in Libya, not the rest of the Arab world. Consulates are not major US installations at all, and in many cases don’t even have a Foreign Service officer or even an American assigned to it. So to treat it as the same as an embassy is wrong. In fact, I have visited US consulates abroad in a couple of countries such as Poland in 1984 where I found the whole staff could not even speak ENGLISH! The one person they finally rounded up who could supposedly speak English could not understand my questions, so I got no help at all.
As for revoking this guy’s parole, just how many parole violations is a crook allowed? So far they found EIGHT. I think that when you are on parole you are supposed to be honest, and trying to make a new start correcting your behavior. This guy was not caught just drinking in a bar when he was not supposed to be. Let’s get real, he knew he was on probation, engaged in activities he knew were against his parole, committed fraud, among other items, which was the reason he went to prison in the first place,, and thinks he should be immune from being sent back? This is spitting in the face of the Feds and daring them to do something. He apparantly thought his anti-Muslim buddies and Israel would keep him out of prison, plus he could claim free speech violations. There is a principle in our justice system that you have to come into court with clean hands. This guy is so dirty he needs a shower before he can claim anything. Let’s save our outrage for those who deserve it and transgressions that are a lot worse. I also advocate that he go back to prison in a previous post when this came up. I am glad to see the Feds have decided to do their job finally.
To Arthur Randolph Erb:
My remarks, in fact, apply to all of the embassies and consulates. Why? Because the Administration immediately brought up the film in response to the Libyan attack, and those other attacks spread from the Libyan flashpoint. At the time the Administration brought up the film, it apparently had been viewed but 10 times in the whole of the Middle East, and months earlier. You’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Administration’s bait and switch.
Can’t the CIA and the State Dept do anything right?
First they pay the guy for the movie, then he doesn’t get away. Why? Because he is the Lee Harvey Oswald in this blasphemy con game.
My special take (no extra price, cheap just for you)
It was all arranged. Al Qaida is still doing our bidding. The war on terrorism needed to have some more fuel, lagging at the time. Could not really get the Syria thing to take off.
So sacrificing a few dips and CIA dips were a cheap price when you consider what we paid in Iraq and now in PakAf.
I guess the government 9/11 celebration team ran out of ideas and asked the CIA if they had any. The job was solved with maximum cost and people but minimum risk to the bureaucrats, in true CIA tradition.
Do we have muslims in prison? I thought we tortured them in GBAY only.
Some issues have nothing to do with the First Amendment. O.o
Some radical Muslim can kill him in lockup now.
Of course, he is a flight risk. They don’t even know his real name. Apparently, he deceived his probation officers repeatedly.
What makes this all the more egregious to me is that it now appears that the film itself was not the cause of the violence. We now know that the attacks were coordinated terrorist attacks in retaliation for drone strikes on Al Qaeda leaders on the anniversary of 9/11 and as to which the US Government was repeatedly warned. We now know that the government was aware that the violence did not emanate from spontaneous demonstration spurred by a film within 24 hours after it occurred, and before the UN Ambassador went on television and said our ambassador was murdered in a spontaneous demonstration in response to a film. The President’s press secretary was also aware that the film was not the motive or provocation when he told the press that the film was the motive and provocation — not the administration’s drone killings. In other words, the invocation of the film appears to have been a clever–and successful–smokescreen intended to deflect attention away from the real question: Why were our consulates and our embassies left grossly unprotected on the anniversary of 9/11 and despite not only clear and specific prior warnings, but the ongoing reports of the now-dead ambassador that he feared for his safety?
We have a new category of law, “flee speech” … express some types of “free speech” and you will be tempted to flee the “Salem Witch Trials” such speech is likely to trigger.
What can a person do? We can’t go to our local newspaper because it’s not a free press (it’s privately owned) and writing to my congress people is hopeless.
Reblogged this on Glory to man in the highest.
From what I read, the primary rationale for picking him up instead of leaving him ROR until the hearing was imminent flight risk which, all things considered with this particular defendant, is reasonable. He’s not only facing jail time (and you can guarantee the more radical Muslims in the prison population are salivating at that prospect), but he’s literally got a price on his head in addition to a lot people who would simply be willing to kick his ass on principle and/or amusement.