5 ms·

When do we take the people who do this and put them in jail? When their actions have led to souring of international relations? They have. When their actions le

by swombat 14y ago

When do we take the people who do this and put them in jail? When their actions have led to souring of international relations? They have. When their actions lead to material damage? They have. When their actions lead to the deaths of human beings? They have. Some guy thought it was within his right to manipulate this movie into existence and then do his best to make sure it was noticed and caused real damage. That this guy runs free while someone like Bradley Manning sits in isolation jail without a trial is outrageous.

mcherm 14y ago
The reason is because we allow freedom of speech. Even speech that upsets a few unreasonable people somewhere in the world enough that those unreasonable people decide to commit murder. The fact that we are engaged in torturing an accused (and probably guilty) but not convicted traitor* is unrelated. Having one flaw does not mean we must have others. * - Terming it "traitor" describes our reaction, but the actual crime must be something else because the US constitution specifically requires witnesses for a prosecution as a traitor.
- AngryParsley 14y ago
  I agree with most of your comment, but calling Manning a traitor is an example of the worst argument in the world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/
  - jeltz 14y ago
    I have to disagree there. Calling Manning a traitor makes perfect sense. If you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war (which many do but I do not personally agree) then he is the very definition of a traitor. EDIT: He is charged with "aiding the enemy" which most people would count as treason. So if you believe the charges then calling him a traitor is correct.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      "Treason" has a specific U.S. Constitutional meaning. "Aiding the enemy" is probably the nearest equivalent under U.S. military legal procedure. Either definition would fit the layman meaning of 'traitor'. Your first paragraph is kind of worrisome though. You say that Manning meets the definition of a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war". But from the military legal standpoint there is no such thing as "no harm, no foul", so really he would be a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information [to an American enemy] during a war", and this is true whether or not one would go through even a neutral (or Allied!) third-party first. Other military servicemembers have acted as actual whistleblowers, even for things far more embarrassing to the U.S. than leaked diplomatic cables (e.g. Pfc. Justin Watt, who revealed a heinous crime of rape, multiple murders, and arson committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, or the unnamed(?) whistleblower who revealed the Abu Ghraib abuses). The reason they ended up OK is because they were whistleblowers, and not just exfiltrating as much confidential material as they could (without even examining it all) before their security access was removed due to a previous Article 15 conviction from punching another soldier in the face. I mention this only because I see all the time (even here on HN now) about how people think Pfc. Manning is a "whistleblower" who is being oppressed, but there's far more to that story.
      - sigzero 14y ago
        Well said.
      - jeltz 14y ago
        Thanks for a good explanation, that was mostly poor wording on my part. I did not mean in any way to imply "no foul, no harm". I agree with you on all this. My personal view of Manning is that it is correct to charge him but that the treatment of him by the US authorities has been horrible. As for if he is a traitor or not: since I do not think there is an ongoing war involving the US in the middle east I cannot really count it as treason. Still criminal of course.
    - rishonik 14y ago
      > American security during a war Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Manning is only a traitor if one enjoys fellating the Military-Industrial Complex.
- pknerd 14y ago
  This _freedom of speech_ Mantra by West is funny for me. In West if you want to censor something then make it a LAW. Hence, one can't express freedom of expression for Holocaust Denial since it's a Law. Ironic!
  - carbocation 14y ago
    In the United States, you can deny it all you want. It will make you a certified dick, but you can do it.
Tichy 14y ago
In jail for what crime exactly? The way he made the movie seems questionable, though. If he defrauded the actors (and possibly other participants), perhaps the law has something so say about that?
- jeltz 14y ago
  Sounds like there might be a case for the actors to sue him for defamation since he misled them about the movie causing their reputations to be harmed. This will just result in damages and perhaps a fine though, not any jail time.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Maybe. It would depend on what their contracts stated I would imagine.
AngryParsley 14y ago
When do we take the people who do this and put them in jail? Uhh... never. In the western world and America especially, modulo certain exceptions[1] it is within your right to make stupid, offensive, degrading movies. This is true even if people in other countries riot in the streets and call for your death. 1. Such as directly inciting violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater.
scotty79 14y ago
> When their actions lead to material damage? What do you mean by "lead"? If I anger you and you break some stuff then should I be punished for your vandalism?
powertower 14y ago
I think we'd get a much better situation going in the world if people learn how to properly respond to being offended... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok That film was silly at worst, and people who are using it as an excuse to do harm and violence, are just that, excusing their savagery, intolerance, hatred, blood-lust away so they don't appear to be sub-human. The real story here is that western values and culture is incompatible with Islam.

by swombat 14y ago

mcherm 14y ago

The reason is because we allow freedom of speech. Even speech that upsets a few unreasonable people somewhere in the world enough that those unreasonable people decide to commit murder. The fact that we are engaged in torturing an accused (and probably guilty) but not convicted traitor* is unrelated. Having one flaw does not mean we must have others. * - Terming it "traitor" describes our reaction, but the actual crime must be something else because the US constitution specifically requires witnesses for a prosecution as a traitor.

AngryParsley 14y ago
I agree with most of your comment, but calling Manning a traitor is an example of the worst argument in the world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/
- jeltz 14y ago
  I have to disagree there. Calling Manning a traitor makes perfect sense. If you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war (which many do but I do not personally agree) then he is the very definition of a traitor. EDIT: He is charged with "aiding the enemy" which most people would count as treason. So if you believe the charges then calling him a traitor is correct.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    "Treason" has a specific U.S. Constitutional meaning. "Aiding the enemy" is probably the nearest equivalent under U.S. military legal procedure. Either definition would fit the layman meaning of 'traitor'. Your first paragraph is kind of worrisome though. You say that Manning meets the definition of a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war". But from the military legal standpoint there is no such thing as "no harm, no foul", so really he would be a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information [to an American enemy] during a war", and this is true whether or not one would go through even a neutral (or Allied!) third-party first. Other military servicemembers have acted as actual whistleblowers, even for things far more embarrassing to the U.S. than leaked diplomatic cables (e.g. Pfc. Justin Watt, who revealed a heinous crime of rape, multiple murders, and arson committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, or the unnamed(?) whistleblower who revealed the Abu Ghraib abuses). The reason they ended up OK is because they were whistleblowers, and not just exfiltrating as much confidential material as they could (without even examining it all) before their security access was removed due to a previous Article 15 conviction from punching another soldier in the face. I mention this only because I see all the time (even here on HN now) about how people think Pfc. Manning is a "whistleblower" who is being oppressed, but there's far more to that story.
    - sigzero 14y ago
      Well said.
    - jeltz 14y ago
      Thanks for a good explanation, that was mostly poor wording on my part. I did not mean in any way to imply "no foul, no harm". I agree with you on all this. My personal view of Manning is that it is correct to charge him but that the treatment of him by the US authorities has been horrible. As for if he is a traitor or not: since I do not think there is an ongoing war involving the US in the middle east I cannot really count it as treason. Still criminal of course.
  - rishonik 14y ago
    > American security during a war Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Manning is only a traitor if one enjoys fellating the Military-Industrial Complex.
pknerd 14y ago
This _freedom of speech_ Mantra by West is funny for me. In West if you want to censor something then make it a LAW. Hence, one can't express freedom of expression for Holocaust Denial since it's a Law. Ironic!
- carbocation 14y ago
  In the United States, you can deny it all you want. It will make you a certified dick, but you can do it.

Tichy 14y ago

In jail for what crime exactly? The way he made the movie seems questionable, though. If he defrauded the actors (and possibly other participants), perhaps the law has something so say about that?

jeltz 14y ago
Sounds like there might be a case for the actors to sue him for defamation since he misled them about the movie causing their reputations to be harmed. This will just result in damages and perhaps a fine though, not any jail time.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Maybe. It would depend on what their contracts stated I would imagine.

AngryParsley 14y ago

When do we take the people who do this and put them in jail? Uhh... never. In the western world and America especially, modulo certain exceptions[1] it is within your right to make stupid, offensive, degrading movies. This is true even if people in other countries riot in the streets and call for your death. 1. Such as directly inciting violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater.

scotty79 14y ago

> When their actions lead to material damage? What do you mean by "lead"? If I anger you and you break some stuff then should I be punished for your vandalism?

powertower 14y ago

I think we'd get a much better situation going in the world if people learn how to properly respond to being offended... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok That film was silly at worst, and people who are using it as an excuse to do harm and violence, are just that, excusing their savagery, intolerance, hatred, blood-lust away so they don't appear to be sub-human. The real story here is that western values and culture is incompatible with Islam.