Judge orders 'Innocence of Muslims' filmmaker to jail

[sailingaway]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker behind the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” that has sparked days of rioting across the Muslim world, was ordered detained Thursday by a federal judge for allegedly violating terms of his probation.

The judge cited a "lengthy pattern of deception," including making false statements to probation officials. "The court has a lack of trust in the defendant at this time," Judge Suzanne H. Segal said, adding that he posed "some danger to the community."

Nakoula was arrested earlier in the day. Federal prosecutors argued in a court hearing Thursday afternoon that he posed a flight risk and should remain in custody.

His attorney argued that Nakoula be released on bond, saying his client would be in danger at the downtown L.A. federal prison because it had a large Muslim population. He also denied his client violated his probation.

Nakoula was convicted on bank fraud charges in 2010 and was warned against misbehaving on the Internet.

TIMELINE: 'Innocence of Muslims' unrest

He was ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," according to the terms of his probation.

There were also restrictions placed on him in enlisting others to get on the Internet for him. Some speculated that Nakoula may have violated those terms after the film trailer was loaded onto YouTube, although it is unclear what exactly prompted the recent arrest.

Nakoula had been arrested in 2009 after federal agents searched his home in Cerritos on suspicion that he had engaged in a scheme to create fake identities and open credit cards in those names, then draw tens of thousands of dollars from the phony accounts.

I can understand SOME uses, but it is really troubling they were restricting the internet across the board as a probation condition.

I don't think much of this guy, or his movie, but my concern is if he was really arrested for free speech.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...slims-filmmaker-ordered-to-jail-by-judge.html

 

[Zippyjuan]

Seems he was ordered to stay away from the scene of his crime- internet banking fraud. The video showing up on the internet is not proof that he used the internet himself though. Others were involved with the film as well and many have been the ones using the internet and posting the video.

 

[sailingaway]

Seems he was ordered to stay away from the scene of his crime- internet banking fraud. The video showing up on the internet is not proof that he used the internet himself though. Others were involved with the film as well and many have been the ones using the internet and posting the video.

So again, there is no 'probable cause' described why he should be picked up, as I see it.

 

[pcosmar]

So again, there is no 'probable cause' described why he should be picked up, as I see it.

Protective custody.
And the appearance that they are "doing something".

 

[sailingaway]

Protective custody.
And the appearance that they are "doing something".

Because, what is due process and what is the Constitution, next to looking as if you were 'doing something'?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I can understand SOME uses, but it is really troubling they were restricting the internet across the board as a probation condition.

I don't think much of this guy, or his movie, but my concern is if he was really arrested for free speech.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...slims-filmmaker-ordered-to-jail-by-judge.html

The First Amendment has been overruled, not by the Supreme Court or ratification of the States, but by the ACLU, the First Amendment Center, the Rutherford Institute, and various other private groups inviting censorship: http://better-dead-than-fed.tumblr.com/

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, it's much easier to let this guy take the fall for a stupid video than to have our government re-examine its entire foreign policy, you see.

 

[Rudeman]

I've seen a few people compare this video to yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. Not really sure how to respond to that.

 

[pcosmar]

Because, what is due process and what is the Constitution, next to looking as if you were 'doing something'?

Well,,yeah.

I didn't say I agree with it.. but have you looked around lately?
it is the present day reality..

And the Constitution,, that was Ron Paul's thing,, and he was rejected.

 

[sailingaway]

I've seen a few people compare this video to yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. Not really sure how to respond to that.

so you aren't allowed to express thoughts if someone won't like them? What protection has free speech then? The whole POINT is to protect controversial speech. Time and manner is different. Some restriction there I can see, at funerals, Fire in a theatre etc. But provoking CRIME is the fault of the criminal, not the one who expressed a thought. Outright instigation 'do this' type of stuff might make you a coconspirator equally complicit in the crime, but that is about it, as I see it.

 

[Rudeman]

so you aren't allowed to express thoughts if someone won't like them? What protection has free speech then? The whole POINT is to protect controversial speech. Time and manner is different. Some restriction there I can see, at funerals, Fire in a theatre etc. But provoking CRIME is the fault of the criminal, not the one who expressed a thought. Outright instigation 'do this' type of stuff might make you a coconspirator equally complicit in the crime, but that is about it, as I see it.

I think the argument is that the intention of the video was to incite anger in the same way that yelling "FIRE" would. Is proximity the key factor? Does intention matter?

 

[sailingaway]

I think the argument is that the intention of the video was to incite anger in the same way that yelling "FIRE" would. Is proximity the key factor? Does intention matter?

Intention would only matter in a time/manner circumstance. I'm fine with Westboro Baptist church (or whomever it is) being banned from army funerals, but not being banned from creating videos morons can look up on their own if they want to.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I've seen a few people compare this video to yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. Not really sure how to respond to that.

The Supreme Court's pertinent ruling was:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 - Supreme Court 1919

That ruling was clearly about "shouting", the word "fire", and "theaters". There's no contention that Nakoula (the recently arrested filmmaker) "shouted" anything, uttered the word "fire" anywhere, or entered any "theatre".

I think the argument is that the intention of the video was to incite anger in the same way that yelling "FIRE" would. Is proximity the key factor? Does intention matter?

The key factors are whether he "shouted" anything, whether he uttered the word "fire", and whether he did anything in a "theater". Intention and anger are irrelevant under the Court's ruling. They might be relevant under other rulings, but not the fire-in-a-theater one.

 

[sailingaway]

The Supreme Court's pertinent ruling was:


Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 - Supreme Court 1919

That ruling was clearly about "shouting", the word "fire", and "theaters". There's no contention that Nakoula (the recently arrested filmmaker) "shouted" anything, uttered the word "fire" anywhere, or entered any "theatre".



The key factors are whether he "shouted" anything, whether he uttered the word "fire", and whether he did anything in a "theater". Intention and anger are irrelevant under the Court's ruling. They might be relevant under other rulings, but not the fire-in-a-theater one.

That is a prior restraint issue. They can't stop you from yelling but they can hold you liable were it false and you knew it.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I think we are on the same page. I'm having trouble making sense of the argument for censorship here.

 

[sailingaway]

I think we are on the same page. I'm having trouble making sense of the argument for censorship here.

ditto

much less arrest with no law broken, that they point to.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

... it is really troubling they were restricting the internet across the board as a probation condition. ... my concern is if he was really arrested for free speech.

One of my probation conditions was that if a person "blogged" anything on the internet, I was prohibited from contacting him in any way shape or form.

 

[sailingaway]

One of my probation conditions was that if a person blogged anything on the internet, I was prohibited from contacting him in any way shape or form.

That's just wrong. It is like those restrictions on gun ownership if you use medical marijuana. They are using unrelated issues to restrict Constitutional rights.

 

[youngbuck]

I've seen a few people compare this video to yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. Not really sure how to respond to that.

Tell them that they're f**kin idiots.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

That's just wrong. It is like those restrictions on gun ownership if you use medical marijuana. They are using unrelated issues to restrict Constitutional rights.

Yes, despite the law prohibiting them from doing that (18 USC 3583(d)(1), which statute protects defendants from
supervised-release conditions lacking a certain “reasonable relation”, and 18 USC 3583(d)(2), which statute protects defendants from
supervised-release conditions lacking a certain “reasonable necessity”).

Another was that I was prohibited from doing "pornographic searches". (My case had nothing to do with pornography or any kind of sex offense.) I never did figure out what a "pornographic search" is, and the higher courts have held that the term "pornography" is meaningless in this context. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16aghF7g_FGS9jvaGb1hfsa4xTHhfbTxF9hyPEdSo-4A/edit)

Another condition was that I was prohibited from watching rated-R movies.