Free Speech Video - Research Paper Example

? FREE SPEECH VIDEO ASSIGNMENT The-infamous film that allegedly insults and ridicules the Prophet Muhammad-Anti-Muslim video presumed to have been produced by and Egyptian-born Coptic Christian known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, sparked violent protests targeted at Western embassies across the Muslim and Arab world. The video has largely been blamed to have sparked violent protests in Libya that led to the death of Christopher Stevens, American high commission to Libya. Additionally, this anti- muslim video mocking the prophet Muhammad has put its author and director, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile in the same limelight as Terry Jones and ignited a debate on the First Amendment Right to speech, especially around protection of speech. the the promotion of the film and the film, under the First Amendment, are protected speech, and so is the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile. This paper examines the video and explains whether the filmmaker had a First Amendment right to make the film; it offers a vivid legal explanation as to why the filmmaker First Amendment right cannot be violated. Additionally, the paper looks at how the mainstream American media covered the story, how the United States government treated the issues, the filmmaker’s interpretation and explains how, assuming that I made the film, I would have handled the alleged uproar. The paper also answers the question of whether the U.S government should arrest and criminally prosecute the maker of the anti-muslim film, “The Innocence of Muslims”. FREE SPEECH VIDEO ASSIGNMENT After the distribution of the “The Innocence of Muslims”, the anti-muslim video via YouTube, protests ensued in the Middle East, in Cairo, outside the American Consulate, in Libya, which led to the killing of four Americans, among them, the American Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. As a result, Arab, or major muslim dominated nations have asked the U.S government to arrest and criminally prosecute the filmmaker of the “The Innocence of Muslims”. Most notably, the Egyptian government has strongly condemned the anti-muslim video and gone even further to obtain arrest warrants for seven individuals, among them Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile for them to be tried in absentia (The Associated Press, 2012b). Additionally, a debate with regards to whether the filmmaker, who joined the ranks of Delph and Jones, had the First Amendment right to make the film. The First Amendment of the U.S constitution establishes protection of individual rights belief, conduct and speech, in other words, rights to freedom of expression and religion. According to Nowak & Rotunda (2004), freedom of expression constitutes the freedom of assembly, freedom of press, to petition and freedom of speech. Therefore, by default, the U.S constitution is set to by all means protect the freedom of speech, even violent and hat filled speech (Cohen, 2012). The filmmaker or producer and the film distributor have the First Amendment right, since the promotion of the film and the film are protected speech and neither the promotion of the film nor the film create something like the infamous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” (Chertoff, 2012). In determining whether the filmmaker and the film distributor had First Amendment right, it is important to consider whether the film, considered as speech, was intended to incite violence or was an incitement to riots – the film or speech should have not only led to violence, but the filmmaker must have intended the film to incite riots/violence. The “The Innocence of Muslims”, or the anti-muslim video did produced violence, but it is clear that it was not the filmmaker’s intention for the film to produce violence; the film did not also produce violence immediately. For this reason, the filmmaker has First Amendment rights since the film/speech is protected by the First Amendment. There is no way that the film produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile qualify as an incitement to violence (Chertoff, 2012). I strongly disagree with the filmmaker’s interpretation and condemn in the same breath as did most leaders and governments. The filmmaker in depicting the prophet Muhammad, a figure revered by many around the world, as a moronic adulterer who apparently approves sexual abuse of children (Howerton, 2012), crossed the line. This made this film reprehensible and disgusting; it denigrates a great, revered prophet and religion (Naharnet Newsdesk, 2012). In reaction to the uproar and unrest that rocked the Muslim as a result of the release and distribution of the anti-Islam video, “The Innocence of Muslims”, the filmmaker, an Israeli, went into hiding and went ahead to reiterate and make known the intentions of the film. According to (The Associated Press, 2012a), Sam Bacile, the director and writer of the film said that Islam, was, in his opinion, was a cancer the needed to be uprooted and as such, the film, as a provocative political tool, meant to condemn the Islam religion. This in my opinion was reckless and careless. In my opinion, I would have apologized to the Islam nation, asked the distributors to stop distributing the film and ensure that those broadcasting the video such as YouTube to stop broadcasting it. The U.S should not assist in the arrest and prosecution of the filmmaker since, as have been earlier explained in this paper, the filmmaker had/has the First Amendment rights. According to Hudson (2012), the United States government should not agree to any extradition requests by the Egyptians, on the ground that, the filmmaker is protected under the First Amendment rights. The American Constitution, apparently, protects speech, even those that might be seen by Americans and other governments as hate speech. This, however, would be seen by many, especially Egyptians, as an implied approval of the film and might further inflame violence and protests (Hudson, 2012). Despite the unpopular nature of this decision, Cohen (2012) and Haynes (2012) argue that the U.S government must endeavor to defend the indefensible provision of the First Amendment by upholding the freedom of speech, because America is a nation committed to freedom of expression and religion. Additionally, the responses and comments by both the U.S President, Barrack Obama, and the Secretary of State, Clinton that, despite the fact that the filmmaker knew that the film may produce riots, he was not directly responsible for the radical groups that reigned havoc halfway around the world. The mainstream media is somewhat biased in its coverage of the “Innocence of Muslims”, anti-muslim video. Most American based media houses cover the story but only give the angle explaining why the filmmaker is not to blame for the riots the erupted as a result of the video and why it is challenging to the provisions of the First Amendment. The mainstream media fails to cover extensively the riots, violence, and the content of the video and the angle of the video that offend Muslims. For instance, Hudson (2012) in one paragraph discusses the nature of the arrest warrant issued by the Egyptian prosecutor but dedicates two paragraph to discuss the complexities of the First Amendment with regards to extradition of the filmmaker and the distributor. Likewise, Cohen (2012) and Haynes (2012) completely ignores the content the film and question but rather dwells on the issues of First Amendment with regards to the filmmaker, especially, how his freedom of speech should not be violated. Chertoff (2012) is also more concerned with discussing how the anti-Muhammad film is totally protected by the First Amendment rather that helping readers understand the content of the video and how it provokes Muslims. The mainstream media also fails to condemn the film and the film maker, but rather, concentrates on emphasizing the importance of protecting and upholding the First Amendment; for example, the article by Hamilton (2012). Even in those articles such as those by Morgenstern (2012) and Naharnet Newsdesk (2012) that try to condemn the filmmaker and the film, there still is some sort of bias depicted, especially with regards to the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution and how America does not stop people from expressing themselves regardless of how disgusting their speech may be. U.S government is biased and slanted in its treatment of this issue, they condemn the video as disgusting denigrate of the Muslim religion (Morgenstern, 2012) but on the other hand claim that the video was not responsible for the protests and violence and that the filmmaker is protected by the First Amendment. For instance, Clinton condemns the video but claims that the filmmaker did not violate any laws since America has a tradition of not stop people from expressing themselves regardless of how disgusting their speech may be (Naharnet Newsdesk, 2012). The bias is also evident in the sense that, the government tolerates Americans who says anything about Muslims but restricts Muslims of their freedom of speech if they express extremist ideas, even without provoking violence; they are often prosecuted for supporting terrorism materially (Serwer, 2012). References Chertoff, E. (2012, September 13). That Anti-Muhammad Film: It’s Totally Protected by the 1st Amendment. The Atlantic. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/that-anti-muhammad-film-its-totally-protected-by-the-1st-amendment/262324/ Cohen, A. (2012, September). Should Anti-Islam Filmmakers Be Thrown in Jail? Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/17/should-anti-muslim-filmmakers-be-thrown-in-jail/#ixzz2ORuhXTIV Hamilton, M. A. (2012). Why the United States Must Either Get Behind the Anti-Islam Videographer’s First Amendment Right to Insult Religion (and Politics and Politicians and Every Other Power, Large or Small), Or Lose What Matters Most. Verdict. Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://verdict.justia.com/2012/09/20/either-get-behind-or-lose-what-matters Haynes, C. C. (2012). Anti-Islam film: defending the indefensible. First Amendment Center. Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/defending-the-indefensible Howerton, J. (2012, September 12). Read the Bizarre Casting Call for the Now Infamous Anti-Muhammad Film & How the Entire Cast Was “Grossly Misled.” The Blaze. Hudson, J. (2012, September 18). Egypt Issues Arrest Warrants for Terry Jones and Anti-Islam Filmmaker. The Atlantic Wire. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/egypt-issues-arrest-warrants-terry-jones-and-anti-islam-filmmaker/56972/ Morgenstern, M. (2012, September 13). Clinton Blasts Anti-Islam Vid Blamed for Mideast Unrest: “Disgusting and Reprehensible.” The Blaze. Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/13/clinton-blasts-anti-islam-vid-blamed-for-mideast-unrest-disgusting-and-reprehensible/ Naharnet Newsdesk. (2012, September). Clinton Slams Anti-Islam Video as “Disgusting.” Naharnet. Retrieved from http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/53458-clinton-slams-anti-islam-video-as-disgusting Nowak, J. E., & Rotunda, R. (2004). Constitutional Law (7th ed.). New York: West Group. Serwer, A. (2012). Anti-Islam Filmmaker Becomes a Martyr to the Right. Mother Jones. The Associated Press. (2012a). Israeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests. Haaretz. Retrieved March 24, 2013, from www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-anti-islam-movie-sparks-deadly-libya-egypt-protests-1.464459 The Associated Press. (2012b, September 18). Egypt seeks arrest of anti-Islam filmmaker. CBSNews. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57515017/egypt-seeks-arrest-of-anti-islam-filmmaker/ Read More