Mohammed movie filmmaker: “If I could go back, I would do it again”

posted at 4:41 pm on June 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

He’s defiant, but not as defiant as you might think from that headline. He has no regrets about making the movie and says he’ll finish it once he’s out of the pen, but if you’re expecting any indignation over the White House’s repulsive attempt to make him a scapegoat for Islamist degeneracy, think again. He’s entirely deferential to The One — and maybe you would be too if you were stuck in a federal jail cell reading newspapers with daily reports about government gone rogue.

“It is not [a] religion movie,” he said. “I have a lot of Muslim friends and not all the Muslims believe in the terrorism culture. Some of them believe in this culture. That’s why we need to fight [against] the culture, not the Muslims. My enemy is the terrorism culture; this is my enemy…

“Of course I’m proud of [the movie]. If I could go back, I would do it again,” said Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt who came to the United States in 1984. “Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it.”…

“I would like to thank the United States government from the top to the bottom for protecting me,” he said. “They treat me very, very good since this happened until now.”

When asked about Rice’s promotion last week to National Security Adviser after she became the face of the White House effort to substitute him for Al Qaeda as the cause of the Benghazi attack, Nakoula was again unwilling to be critical of the Obama administration.

“Who am I to criticize the United States’ commander in chief? This is his decision,” he said. “It’s not my responsibility. It’s not my job.”

When asked if he thought the administration had used him and his movie as scapegoats, he said simply “No comment.” That’s how you answer when you’re afraid to answer otherwise. I wonder if he knows that the frontrunner for the next Democratic nomination told more than one relative of Americans killed in Benghazi that they should blame him for the bloodletting. No comment.

As a companion piece to this, read NPR’s account of the town-hall meeting held last week in Tennessee by U.S. Attorney Bill Killian warning the locals that under certain circumstances hate speech against Muslims can and will be prosecuted. Here’s how the Times Free Press quoted him:

“Let me be clear, in this country, hateful speech is allowed,” Killian said. “It is protected by the freedom of speech part of the first amendment.

“But if someone makes threats of violence, that is not protected speech and they will be prosecuted,” he said. “Likewise, if someone commits acts of violence under the guise of religious or other speech, they will be prosecuted for their violent acts.”…

First Amendment Center president and executive director Gene Policinski said before the Manchester meeting on Tuesday that the details of the threat and the specificity of its target are significant in determining how federal law applies to comments made in a public forum.

The threat “has to be likely, imminent and directed at a specific person,” Policinski said.

In an interview with Todd Starnes, Killian cited 18 U.S.C. 241 and 245, both of which criminalize “intimidation” of someone based on their religion or the free exercise of it, as the relevant statutes. What constitutes “intimidation”? That depends. The Supreme Court ruled 10 years ago that Virginia could criminalize an act of cross-burning that’s committed with the intent to intimidate because it’s tantamount to a “true threat” and threats aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Nakoula’s movie, whether “hate speech” or not, isn’t a threat and therefore he wouldn’t be at risk for prosecution in theory, but I’ve warned you repeatedly in the past about the potential for abuse of the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment in the future if the “heckler’s veto” approach to jihadi violence starts to take hold among America’s legal establishment. Nakoula wouldn’t be tried by Killian’s office today — I think — but 20 years from now? Who knows?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Nakoula wouldn’t be tried by Killian’s office today — I think — but 20 years from now? Who knows?

Don’t worry, Allah. We’ll all be enjoying our freedom in North Colorado by then. Right?

cynccook on June 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM

What constitutes “intimidation”?

IRS wanting to know the content of someone’s prayers ?

burrata on June 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM

A man with courage and honor who believes in the Bill of Rights and Free Speech a whole lot more than most Americans do.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM

How come this guy is in the slammer and the entire Obama admin. are running around free?

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM

When asked if he thought the administration had used him and his movie as scapegoats, he said simply “No comment.” That’s how you answer when you’re afraid to answer otherwise.

It’s also how you avoid getting your past in drugs, bank fraud, and identity theft from being brought up.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM

and threats aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

Not even
” the future must not belong to those who slander my profit ” ??

burrata on June 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Muzzie sensibilities is an oxymoron.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The town hall meeting in Tennessee: The audience came to have a discussion on free speech rights, while the organizers came to deliver a lecture on tolerance of American Muslims.

And people are wondering why it turned into a train wreck.

Rule #1 of public speaking: Know your audience and why they are in attendance.

aunursa on June 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Nakoula wouldn’t be tried by Killian’s office today — I think — but 20 years from now? Who knows?

At the rate things are going he might be tried in a federal court or military tribunal and be stoned to death or beheaded for “Insulting the Prophet”. That’s what most Muslims are in favor of.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM

It’s also how you avoid getting your past in drugs, bank fraud, and identity theft from being brought up.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Did the muzy killers of Benghazi know about his past too ?

burrata on June 11, 2013 at 4:53 PM

The whole intent of Islam is to intimidate … and enslave and murder.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Islam is extreme intimidation and hence to practice it should be an extreme crime.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Stoic Patriot, I typed this last night – you never live up to your nom. You are NOT a patriot.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Stoic Patriot, I typed this last night – you never live up to your nom. You are NOT a patriot.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Of course I do. I love my country. Whether or not you agree with the policy prescriptions that I think are best is another matter, but I have little sympathy for an admitted criminal who continued to break the law even with this movie by violating the terms of his parole. That doesn’t absolve the Obama administration of being completely full of crap in blaming the video for Benghazi, but whether it’s this guy, Bradley Manning, or Edward Snowden, I really have little pity for these heroes of the libertarians.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Nakoula is an HISTORIC FIGURE = he’s the FIRST person known to be imprisoned in the US in order to promote a President’s LIE. (Of course, this technique is well-known in backwards third-world dictatorships, but thanks to OBOZO, it’s now a stable of d-cRAT socialist politics here.)

TeaPartyNation on June 11, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Then he should have been in the slammer independent of the fools in DC.

Benghazi will still affect Obama and Hillary. All else is just moving it further out.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Then he should have been in the slammer independent of the fools in DC.

Benghazi will still affect Obama and Hillary. All else is just moving it further out.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Agreed, 100%.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Nakoula is an HISTORIC FIGURE = he’s the FIRST person known to be imprisoned in the US in order to promote a President’s LIE. (Of course, this technique is well-known in backwards third-world dictatorships, but thanks to OBOZO, it’s now a stable of d-cRAT socialist politics here.)

TeaPartyNation on June 11, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I don’t think he’s the first…but he’s the first in the 21st century…and certainly has Youtube notariety beyond his ridiculous video.

workingclass artist on June 11, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Benghazi will still affect Obama and Hillary. All else is just moving it further out.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:09 PM

The ads with sHillary screaming about it not mattering will be fun to watch….and a Democratic candidate by the name of Joe Biden will use it first.

CW on June 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM

A man with courage and honor who believes in the Bill of Rights and Free Speech a whole lot more than most Americans do.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM

And he made an excellent and funny trailer about islam that was true to the foundational documents of that belligerent, aggressive, insane, violent political ideology. Innocence of Muslims is a biting piece of satire that follows muzzie tradition pretty closely and, contrary to what coffin-dancing, repulsive, lying sacks of sh#t Barky and Shrillary claimed had production values at least as good as SNL, which lefties think is nothing but pure genius (measuring relative to the lefties’ pea-brains, of course).

I hope he finishes the movie. It will probably be a laugh riot.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2013 at 6:35 PM

The whole intent of Islam is to intimidate … and enslave and murder.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

And steal. Raiding was always one of mo’s favorite pastimes.Here’s a funny little bit about arab desert culture (which became formalized as islamic culture) by a devout muslim from the 14th century – Ibn Khaldun, Muqadimmah:


25. Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.

The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwell­ings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization. This is the case with them quite generally.

Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.

Furthermore, since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. Now, as we shall mention, labor is the real basis of profit. When labor is not appreciated and is done for nothing, the hope for profit vanishes, and no (productive) work is done. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.

Furthermore, (the Arabs) are not concerned with laws. (They are not concerned) to deter people from misdeeds or to protect some against the others. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further, such as taking care of (people), looking after their interests, or forcing them not to commit misdeeds. They often level fines on property, because they want to get some advantage, some tax, or profit out of it. This is their custom. It does not help to prevent misdeeds or to deter those who undertake to commit (mis­deeds). On the contrary, it increases (misdeeds), because as compared to getting what one wants, the (possible financial) loss (through fines) is insignificant.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I suspect he doesn’t want to sound too critical of Islam at this point in order not to lose liberal Muslim “friends” who are against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that is killing & persecuting Coptic Christians.

Islam is too absurd & fragile to survive without intimidation, which is why there is so much of it.

Chessplayer on June 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Would “No Comment” mean that a lawsuit is coming? Maybe he’s been advised by council to keep his head down and say nothing that might incriminate him.

djaymick on June 12, 2013 at 1:23 PM