Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail

Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the filmmaker connected to the controversial film “The Innocence of Muslims,” has been sentenced to a year in prison for violations of his probation for his 2010 bank fraud conviction. The arrest of Youssef raised immediate objections that, while the Obama Administration insisted that it would not punish such acts of free speech, it set out to arrest him on any possible grounds to satisfy the “Arab Street.”

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder sentenced Youssef on four of the eight alleged violations that he admitted to, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver’s license (which can be based on any information deemed inaccurate or false). What is most problematic is the violation of denying his full role in the film. The Obama Administration wanted a two-year sentence for Youssef. He also was found to have used a different name without the approval of his probation officer. At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. However, documents show that Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002 but continued to occasionally identify himself as Nakoula.

When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — an image that was immediately broadcast around the world. It sent a chilling message to some that the government can generally find some grounds to punish you when you cause a controversy — even if you are not prosecuted for the underlying speech itself. Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.

None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy.

Source: Google

95 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail”

  1. LottaKatz,

    Are you a girl, I never knew, and find it immaterial,but old fashioned gender oriented thinking has to be fed,
    And what is a vagina-boy? And who also?
    If it was meant for me then I would hope for why you think it applies to me.

    Thank for the comment to GeneH, NickS and I. It was needed. As for my conflictw with GeneH, I have said the same as you to him several times. He loses respect when he rages. But it is also a fact now that I see the defects in his bases for arguing and
    techiques used, and thus now delight in showing him that
    I can rebut him on my grounds. And can rebut his insults (insanity for ex) and can give it back with the loose change in reply.

    Does the “let’s you and fight” apply other than my tendency to break into ongoing fights? Yhis a loog established habit and controlling is tough. Have got to learn to eimply observe that they are fighting and go on until the fight is over and then possibly conribute with my views. Replace bad habits with good ones, as they say.

    What’s a carom shot, never played it?

    And this left me confused:

    “You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.”

    So, if you can help me understand better what you said about me it would be appreciated.

    Short sentences are fine.

  2. Gene: “So in essence, it’s not the stick, it’s the size and the shape of the stick that bothers you?”
    And I have always found that finesse can overcome such concerns.


  3. LK,

    I didn’t take that like the reformed drinker thing at all. I sometimes bite harder than I mean to. Argumentation, like any martial art, comes with the hazard that occasionally the uke gets hit. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop though. I think the above again illustrates that when I do, I mitigate and remediate when I think it appropriate. :mrgreen:

  4. Oh Pete/Gene, OMG, You did not do that. Man, there is a porno movie to be built around those characters, LOL. Out of that loop as I am, there probably already is one.

    Blouise, I have attempted to become a more congenial poster after that, or at least tone down the viciousness of my replies. Between realizing Tootie was actually mentally ill while in the middle of typing an unkind posting to her (I refrained until she just made me nuts with a depraved comment of hers) and “vagina-boy” (which felt was appropriate and good at the time) I just said ‘I’ve gotta’ be less reactionary, I can do better than that.’ I suspect that I’m much less of an entertaining poster because I don’t respond to things with as much passion or fiery rhetoric. Maybe I’m not trying to change my style, maybe it’s a symptom of something or those dammed microbes- maybe I just need to start taking vitamins! 🙂

    (Disclaimer: No offense meant to Dredd, I like Dredd and wish I could comment on his site. I have every respect for our microbial overlords and some theories of my own about them. Srsly.)

    LOL, I didn’t want to become this guy which is very easy to do if it’s just you, a stupid posting you just have to respond to and your keyboard in the middle of the night:

    I’m not being like a reformed drinker with Gene though, complaining to him about something I am trying to refrain from- as I recall we went down this path once before. But that may have been someone else.

  5. LK,

    So in essence, it’s not the stick, it’s the size and the shape of the stick that bothers you? Duly noted. I shall endeavor to add more equity to my ethic of reciprocity. In truth, pummeling nick did leave me with the feeling I had kicked the puppy when my intent was to shove him with my foot given his wounded responses earlier. That is what evoked my consequential friendly suggestion/constructive criticism (which he again handled poorly but that is beside the point). I will not, however, abandon the ethic of reciprocity. Treating others as they treat me is fundamentally fair. You’d do better asking me to change my eye color. That’s only genetic. 😀



    Did my ball busting go too far with you earlier? I apologize. However, I do suggest you keep this exchange in mind going forward.

    If you offer no evidence or counter logic, just straw men, insults and bluster (or ball busting to use your term) in response to a challenge to your statements, you will get the same in return. Also, it is never a good good idea to try to put words in others mouths, but especially lawyers.

    If you offer evidence and/or logic that a challenge is wrong, you’ll get reasoned argument in response. No one is going to call you a douche bag if you say, “Yeah, but this evidence here shows why what I said was right and this is why . . .”

    That is the nature of reciprocity. You get what you give. That is the essence of what I was telling you. You give people a lot of crap, but you really have a problem taking it. Don’t start none, won’t be none. Reciprocity is a substantive component of equity. You claim to be for justice, then you should have no problem understanding the importance of equity.

    I will, however, never apologize for your outrage over a slight to your sister than never happened except in your mind. It is based in argument by non-sequitur. You’ll just have to live with that.

    Concurrently I neither expect nor desire an apology for your previous and documented generally boorish behavior to me and others when your statements are challenged on factual and logical grounds. I’ll settle for you making an effort to remedy that bad behavior though as you say you are a work in progress. I’m not asking you to like me, but this is the only way you will ever reach a state of detente. Challenging what you say on a factual or logical basis is not an attack on you. You’ll get a lot further with others once you quit responding as if it was. Do you understand this position as stated? If not, just ask for a clarification. No straw men, insults or bluster required.

    If you think this advice unreasonable, I suggest you ask your buddy Bron about the futility of attacking the person instead of the argument around here. He used to do a lot of that too. Until he realized the futility of it and the value of addressing challenges to arguments based on evidence and logic.

    A situation that does not work out is only a failure if you don’t learn from it.

    Learning is the hardest thing humans ever do next to losing loved ones.

    I think you can do it.

    If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have bothered with my previous advice or with this advice.

    Progress or not. The choice is yours.

  6. Gene, I’m not in touch with anyone on this blawg outside of this blawgspace, I don’t participate in social media. Thanks though for the invitation, I would enjoy the scrabble games with you guys.

    No apology to me is necessary. I like you (and many others here) as much as one can like or know or respect virtual persons. We have had, over the years, many lovely and weird conversations. I enjoy my time spent here and our conversations, always have.

    “You are one of the better people readers here and I really thought you knew me better than that.”

    Here’s the nut of it: anger may have been the wrong word, A restructured sentence using the word “overbearing” may have been appropriate. In either case some of your debates become painful to watch due to the form I noted. If it were a schoolyard or a job-site I would be compelled (as I have been in 3space) to say, “knock it off- don’t be a bully” instead of just scrolling past and/or shaking my head. The form of the argument, or it’s tone if that is more descriptive, becomes abusive. I simply expect better of you. Also, as a guest blogger, part of the public face of this blawg, literally a representative of the Professors public face, well, you get the drift….. Right, I know I have no right to expect anything from you or from anyone on this blawg. I realize that expectations are presumptuous, as in “failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate”.

    But still, I visit this blawg daily and you guys are getting on my last nerve 🙂

  7. “Is that a utility belt or are you just glad to see me?” – The Arch-enemy Maximum Gluteus Taint

    S3/E4 of “A$$man” starring Sir Laurence Olivier as A$$man and Sal Mineo as his sidekick VB, Warner Bros. Television, 1968.

  8. vagina boy, sounds like a$$man’s sidekick.

    nananananananana a$$man

    to the slot cave, vagina boy

  9. “vagina-boy” (lotta)

    One of my all time favorites which morphed into v-boy, v-word-boy, and VB … we can be an amazingly lazy bunch.


    Gene knows how to handle constructive criticism though, to tell you the truth, I think the anger tactic is completely feigned for effect.

  10. LK,

    Apparently you mistake harsh words for anger. Am I harsh? Yep. Not always, but fairly often. Do I like winding up opponents? Sure do. Because angry people make mistakes. Personally, I find that entertaining. Some people may not, but I sure do. See: cats, feeding habits. Can I be insulting? You bet. Have you noticed that I save it for those who are insulting themselves? I realize it is an unconventional application of the Golden Rule, but still it is reciprocity. I also do know the difference between insult and ad hominem. Do I adopt the appearance of anger? Why yes I do from time to time. But the appearance of something and the reality are quite different. I’m very good at pushing others buttons. It is part of the skill of argumentation. Admittedly, I am not for the faint of heart, but I am honest about it. Would you rather deal with someone who is honest about not liking you or someone who puts on a smile and pretty words until they stab you in the back? The person who says “yes” when they mean “no”? Which is the greater disservice: the possibly ugly truth or the gloriously beautiful lie? I’ll go with honesty every time. Just as you have with your post above. Which was direct, clear, relatively unemotional and yet expressive of your concerns. I appreciate that.

    But really, if you think I’m actually angry, then you really don’t know me as well as you might think you do. I realize the Internet has certain limitations on reading others (lack of body language, tone of voice, etc.), but I am a bit disappointed you (of all people) have misread me thus. You are one of the better people readers here and I really thought you knew me better than that. Next time you think I’m speaking in actual anger, please ask if I am. I have always answered you honestly. I’ll do so then as well. You’ll be surprised though. I’ve only actually gotten angry in online discussion with others three times. Ever. In twenty plus years. The appearance of anger, however, does have utility in argumentation. If my using the appearance of anger has misled you, I do apologize. It was not intentional. When I speak in actual anger, you’ll note that I usually preface it with something like “Now this really makes me angry.”

    However, if you expect me to suffer fools gladly, you are simply going to be disappointed. Like the scorpion, it is simply not within my nature. My disagreement with nick is not based on the fact that I don’t like him. I don’t, but that’s immaterial even though I am honest about it. It’s based on the fact that he argues poorly and from emotion with a shockingly casual disregard for logic and facts and he acts poorly when his statements are challenged. If you think you can disprove any of the valid criticisms I’ve made of his past statements, please feel free to do so. He certainly hasn’t. And as I said, logic and evidence are king.

    Other parties? Are another story. As I said, I generally ignore him unless he says something egregiously factually false. Others (many actually) adopt the same tactic. The reasons for this should be quite clear by now.

    If any of this troubles you, I apologize for any inconvenience. I am pretty sure you are in contact with people here out of camera who do know how to get in touch with me directly. If you wish to discuss this (or anything else) privately, my door is always open to you and they have my permission to give you my email address.

    Free speech is a messy business.

    Again, all apologies for any discomfort this has caused you.

    Ditto leejcaroll.

  11. Jeez, RHETORICAL QUESTION: What is wrong with you guys? Srsly.

    My take on form- not agreement or disagreement, just form and just for the hell of it:

    Nick, you have made a number of pointed and generally insulting statements on this blag that were so unpleasant that I just put them out of my mind so don’t ask for cites- got none and ain’t searching. For some time I didn’t even read your postings because of them. You seem to be more reasonable, more thoughtful and less insulting lately.

    Gene, you are way too quick with personally insulting name calling, way, it doesn’t look good on you and is entirely unnecessary. This from the gal that coined “vagina-boy” as a pet name for one of the posters here. Yea, we know our own. You weaken your arguments with obvious anger. It stops being effective, when real anger and outrage is appropriate it is not unusual enough to be effective.

    ID707, You are quick to use the same tactics as Gene but usually as a carom shot, see the above posts of yours. You are becoming a ‘lets you and him fight’ kind of poster. It adds nothing. It’s passive-aggressive. You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.

    You guys just suck the oxygen out of a thread, srsly, measure ’em and post the length/diameter. It’s easier and won’t impair any threads. That may well not be what’s going on but it’s starting to feel like the same class of dispute. My scroll-finger is becoming cramped on too many threads once you guys start. Gimme’ a break. Scheech.

  12. GeneH is so sweet.

    He offers NickS the chance to go to the bottom of the pack and work his way up, in GeneH’s image and estimation.

    The man is out of touch with his own absurdity. Is he serious? Or possibly insane.
    He thinks that he is serious, but most schizophrenics do also.

  13. NickS.

    Best regards. Don’t you just love people who wish you well with the back of the left hand while trying to stab you with the right one.

    Forgot that you are far more experienced and competent in the real world than I. My reasoning was simple, that if I am sagging then that’s when encouragement helps. No obligations entailed.

  14. GeneH,

    I won’t bother repeating my portrait of you and your ways here. Repeating is so ho-hum.
    But your proofs are just as hollow as your head. And sound as bad as nny false tuned drum.

    Your diagnostic assertion that I am clinically insane fall of the lack of proof, a serious demerit in your logical world. Your assertions that your take on whatever is better than mine, based on your logic and argumentation, is also defective. Reality is far more complex than the silly logic discovered and perfected over the years. A road map is also, but it says nothing more about the true nature of the surrounings than your logic does. Ergo sum, does not say very much, to quickly grab an example.

    You have your value in pointing out approaching storms, about as much as a barometer—-but you never offer advice as to what way to run, except generalities, like keep low.

    Is such matters, I find MikeS, TonyC and SonofThunder more valuable. And it is my privilege to praise them.

    Your insistence on your disregard of me is ridiculous.
    Who cares? Not I a fig. And I never even mention you except in positive terms as why beat up on an emotional cripple who needs to be álpha hound.
    We others are happy to be humans.

  15. 1) Straw man. I never claimed to speak for all here. I speak for myself although several have expressed out of camera thoughts compatible with mine on this issue – some even stronger.

    2) Your inability to harness logic and formal argumentation are your problems, id707. And at the core of why I mostly choose to ignore you which is different from a truce. Unless you say something egregiously factually incorrect, I just ignore you because your illogic is usually self-evident.

    3) I’m not glowing. I take no particular satisfaction in nick’s inability to operate rationally. I offered nick advice that was meant as offered: friendly. I even gave examples to go along with my logic. Despite what you think, nick is not my enemy. He may be in opposition, but he is not my enemy. You aren’t my enemy for that matter. I can count my true enemies on less than one hand – more if I count those in the political realm who are my enemies by nature of their very existence and bad actions toward society but that is a different issue.

    Although not my enemies, I do think you’re both emotionally unstable (and in your case, id, not to mince words – outright nuts). In that light, I weigh what you say accordingly. That does not make me an enemy unless you categorized someone who sees you both as you are based on the evidence of your behaviors instead of your proclamations of what you are as an enemy. nick’s issues could be mitigated if he only took responsibility for his actions as illustrated by the evidence of his own words. But he’s clearly more interested in painting himself as victim instead of learning why his arguments fail and why his methods garner such mixed results (trending to negative).

    That being said, if either of you take issue with having your statements challenged and dissected using logic, reason and evidence?

    That’s your problem.

    Challenging the statements of others is critical to the marketplace of ideas that free speech creates. That I often challenge what you both say on logical and factual grounds and you are both unable to respond any way but emotionally is your failing, not mine. But the challenges will continue. ” If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. ” The truth, however, is a matter for logic and evidence. “But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance. I do my duty: other things trouble me not; for they are either things without life, or things without reason, or things that have rambled and know not the way.” And there is no greater civic duty than not letting manifest untruths stand unchallenged. You think I’m wrong? Convince me I am. Others have changed my mind here in the past. If you are unable to defeat my arguments, that failure falls to you. That I am, as Bron says, “maddeningly good at argumentation” should not present a trip stone, but a goal. A challenge. I don’t fear your challenges. And in that statement I mean you as in all of you – anyone. I welcome them. All it takes for you to change my mind is for you to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right. You will never do this based upon “what you feel”. Evidence and logic are king.

    If you don’t like having your statements challenged? If you just want people to agree with you because you said it? Then a free speech forum is maybe not the forum you are looking for. I don’t say this to “run you off”. I say it because it’s a fact. There will always be someone like me there utilizing the various razors of logic to weed through poor logic, lacks of evidence and arguments from emotion (which is inherently irrational).

    Carry on.

  16. SWM, This is a classic misunderstanding for which I have just taken total responsibility. I understaand profoundly 80-90% of all communication is nonverbal. That’s why I hated having to interview people over the phone. However, even the phone was better than a venue like this. I can’t even hear the voice, only read the words.

    ID, Thanks for you very thoughtful and heartfelt words. You, like myself, have a good heart. And, I think you know you don’t need to worry about my wounds. I’ve been shot @ twice. This is a walk in the f@ckn’ park.

Comments are closed.