草蜢 发表于 2012-9-13 17:16 static/image/common/back.gif
This case is not an incitement to riot,such claim would be thrown out of court straight away.
so your "incitement to riot" is within US only? otherwise I can't see how things in Libya and other parts of Arab world are not considered riot, that was incited directly because of this.
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 06:41 static/image/common/back.gif
note the exception: aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to...
Put it simply, the video is question was made in poor taste but the maker of the video can't be prosecuted simply because another group of people reacted to it violently half way around the world. Maybe Muslims in US could sue the film maker for defamation, but that's a different matter entirely.
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 07:19 static/image/common/back.gif
so your "incitement to riot" is within US only? otherwise I can't see how things in Libya and othe ...
Here is legal definition under US law:
Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”
草蜢 发表于 2012-9-13 17:23 static/image/common/back.gif
Put it simply, the video is question was made in poor taste but the maker of the video can't be pr ...
Doesn't "incitement to riot" mean part A incites party B to riot? Now it your "incitement to riot" applies to US domestic only, I rest my case. According to current law, I agree, there is no case. What I was suggesting it maybe someone someday will re-interpret this "aside ..." differently. After all, US has global interests. It is possible that inciting widespread riot against US interest outside US can be included in the interpretation of the law. Just a though.
草蜢 发表于 2012-9-13 17:33 static/image/common/back.gif
Here is legal definition under US law:
Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involvin ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19591039
Police must be just paying a social visit. Or the house owner can charge police of harassment?
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 07:19 static/image/common/back.gif
so your "incitement to riot" is within US only? otherwise I can't see how things in Libya and othe ...
In fact, after watching the clip, I think it would be hard to even win a case of defamation against the film maker because he could easily claim that he was making a parody which is protected under 1st Constitutional Amendment.
In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not allow Falwell to win damages for emotional distress because the statement was so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true; an allegation believed by nobody, it was ruled, brought no liability upon the author. The court thus overturned a lower court's upholding of an award where the jury had decided against the claim of libel but had awarded damages for emotional distress.
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 06:41 static/image/common/back.gif
note the exception: aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to...
这个incitement to riot成立的条件是imminent lawless action。关键词是imminent。共产党宣言号召推翻资本主义不算，3K党在集会上鼓吹对黑人使用暴力不算，越战游行抗议，呼吁学生重新占领校园不算，这部电影也不算。
我上面提到了现在最高法院的立场是言论自由是绝对的，同其它考虑(比如公共安全，个人声誉)相冲突时，只要有可能，就不能以牺牲言论自由为代价。某项言论成为第一宪法修正案的例外，允许政府立法限制，必须有非常强，非常有说服力的理由。过去几十年，最高法院创造出的新的例外只有child pornography。对于以前允许的限制也大大收紧。比如incitement, 以前的标准是clear and present danger， 现在是imminent lawless action要严格的多。fighting words在近几十年的判决中也很少出现。
本帖最后由 草蜢 于 2012-9-14 08:06 编辑
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 07:35 static/image/common/back.gif
Doesn't "incitement to riot" mean part A incites party B to riot? Now it your "incitement to riot" ...
American people would not stand for that. US is not China.
晨枫 发表于 2012-9-14 07:38 static/image/common/back.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19591039
Police must be just paying a social visit. Or...
It doesn't mean the government is not out to get him. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
"
court documents related to a criminal prosecution in 2010 show him using aliases including Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily and Erwin Salameh.
He pleaded no contest to federal bank fraud charges in California. US prosecutors said he set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identifies and Social Security numbers.
......
In addition to restitution and 21 months in federal prison, Mr Nakoula was ordered not to use computers or the internet for five years without approval from his probation officer"
雪个 发表于 2012-9-13 11:29 static/image/common/back.gif
以战争和生命为代价的言论自由，可取吗？但如果有限制，委实也不是什么让人愉快的景象，因为由谁来做这个判 ...
这样的事情，在现实生活中很多，不需要定义概念，就事论事的一个一个解决更好些。这次的关键是，西方政府的无作为，让阿拉伯世界将此归因于西方政府而不是某些个人行为。
举一个中国的例子，在山东，有一个县，某位牛B的屠夫，将自己的猪肉铺命名为“清真猪肉铺”，然后还在回民抗议下不改，当地政府一开始不作为，后来事件发展成为周围几个县回民的联合流行，最后酿成伤亡事故。这就是属于典型的政府不作为而造成的事件。
判断这种仇恨语言，是以是否用敏感词句敏感人物有意识地针对某一族群，这个很难用标准界定，但确实象上面说的，“淫秽音像”没有标准，但是个人都能区分出来。就事论事地及时处理就是最好的，而出现火烧大使馆事件，不还是因为西方政府一而再再而三的，在此种事件上没有作为。如果当初烧古兰经时，就严厉制止，不就可以很大程度上避免此次事件的发生了。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2012-9-14 11:03 编辑
刚才看到一个案例，St. Paul, Minnesota法律禁止在公共或私人财产上烧十字架或展示纳粹党徽，1992年R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 最高法院9:0判决这一法律违反第一宪法修正案。
河蚌 发表于 2012-9-14 08:45 static/image/common/back.gif
这样的事情，在现实生活中很多，不需要定义概念，就事论事的一个一个解决更好些。这次的关键是，西方政府 ...
当地回民如果不满的话，应该天天在店门口组织游行抗议，一般情况下这会严重影响店的生意，店主会自动改的。严重的，可以象美国民权运动时那样，civil disobedience，在店里静坐抗议。而不应该使用暴力解决问题。当然中国政府对游行集会比较敏感，可能不能施行。
Dracula 发表于 2012-9-14 09:31 static/image/common/back.gif
当地回民如果不满的话，应该天天在店门口组织游行抗议，一般情况下这会严重影响店的生意，店主会自动改的 ...
各地的法律都是基于本地一脉相承的风俗文化, 规则以及潜规则. 行动和应对也是要因地制宜的...... 米国的言论自由第一修正案运行了这么久, 深入人心才会有社会上下统一的关于言论自由的行为模式(比如去静坐抗议); 中国是另外一套运行方式和社会习俗, 所以完全照美国的常用方式应对就不大行得通.
常规情况回民肯定是去政府投诉过的, 政府听到投诉就该去做工作劝他改了,政府耐心做做工作他一般也就改了.... 从米国角度看当然地方政府管的太宽, 但这属于中国的规则潜规则下的各方的正确应对...如果真是一群回族群众去安静抗议而不吵闹骂阵, 汉族群众安之若素的路过而不围观不对骂, 老板安之若素的营业而不招呼自己的同乡同村亲友来"摆平", 警察安之若素的无视一大堆人聚集, 那其实就不是中国山东的县城了...
本帖最后由 晨枫 于 2012-9-13 20:38 编辑
草蜢 发表于 2012-9-13 17:42 static/image/common/back.gif
In fact, after watching the clip, I think it would be hard to even win a case of defamation agains ...
Well, that has nothing to do with me. And I expect to see more violence against US because of similar triggers. You ask for it and you will get it. Plain and simple.
草蜢 发表于 2012-9-13 17:45 static/image/common/back.gif
American people would not stand for that. US is not China.
This has nothing to do with China.
MacArthur 发表于 2012-9-13 15:13 static/image/common/back.gif
调查组还没去利比亚呢，克大妈就已经放话了：“这事儿跟利比亚人民和利比亚政府没关系。。。 ”
而且言必 ...
她没法说那是和利比亚人有关系的，否则穆巴拉克会把她拉进去一起死的
老兵帅客 发表于 2012-9-14 10:55 static/image/common/back.gif
她没法说那是和利比亚人有关系的，否则穆巴拉克会把她拉进去一起死的
是的,她这是给自己留后路。
本来米国对中东那些腐败的世俗政府是有控制力的。但是“阿拉伯之春”爆发后，在宗教对世俗的斗争中，米国是站在宗教这一边的，结果宗教赢了，也说是她所谓的解放。但是新政府由于统治能力差、忠诚度低以及安全机构不力，阿拉伯地区实际上变得更加动荡不安。虽然后来又把政治斗争的主线引导到“逊尼”对“什叶”上，但是“文明的冲突”并没有任何缓解。现在这把火又被点燃了。
若干年后，如果米国彻底失去对中东的控制，开始反思为什么的时候，那么现在的主政者是可能被拎出来的，所以现在必需把罪恶归到“一小撮”身上，给自己解套和留后路。
其实美国在北非原本是希望维持现状的，刚开始时候美国不大情愿的态度就能看出来，结果傻客气上窜下跳，逼着美国表态，美国一贯意识形态输出给自己下的套也就只能自己钻了。这还不如三十年前，美国可以厚着脸皮支持对自己有利的所谓好独裁。
所以最需要反省的是美国的意识形态输出的政策。
河蚌 发表于 2012-9-14 08:45 static/image/common/back.gif
这样的事情，在现实生活中很多，不需要定义概念，就事论事的一个一个解决更好些。这次的关键是，西方政府 ...
我不认为西方政府应该有所作为。在美国，搞这事儿的人虽然恶心，但他有这恶心权利。同样其他人（比如穆斯林）也有恶心他和他的信仰的权利。但谁搞打砸抢，谁就得坐牢。这就是美国国内的游戏规则。
但在中东显然有人认为他们完全有理由因此报复杀人放火。这其实就是价值观的不同，所谓的“文明的冲突”。
我不认为美国人因为其价值观于他人（比如中东穆斯林)冲突，就需要改其价值观。我想绝大多数美国人会同意我的观点。
橡树村 发表于 2012-9-14 11:56 static/image/common/back.gif
其实美国在北非原本是希望维持现状的，刚开始时候美国不大情愿的态度就能看出来，结果傻客气上窜下跳，逼着 ...
人的本性就是不见棺材不落泪。其实如果美国真的奉行中国式的实用外交，对中国来说，未必是好事。