In the alternate reality of GOP "boss" Rush Limbaugh, the man behind the infamous anti-Islamic You Tube video is being persecuted by the Obama administration. While there's no organized "Free Nakoula" movement, it appears that alleged Fox "news" host, Megyn Kelly, is very concerned about his fate and as such, seems to be attempting to generate some sympathy for him. During her interview with the crazed and inchoate professional Islamophobe, David Horowitz, the underlying theme of her presentation was that poor Nakoula was "dragged" from his home "in the middle of the night" by nefarious fascist forces of the LA police. On Friday, she went even further in what she seems to be characterizing as a miscarriage of justice while Fox's Peter Johnson Jr. suggested that it could be connected to the Obama administration. And Fox News says the librul media is biased? Really?
She opened with "new questions against the man allegedly behind the anti-Muslim film..." While showing video of Nakoula being escorted from his home, on his way to a court hearing regarding violation of his probation, she asserted that the case has become "more controversial." (Only on Fox and right wing blogs). She added that "in a very unusual move, a judge ordered this man held without bail, for" (her voice rose into a question) "a probation violation" and noted that his removal from home,"in the middle of the night," was also very unusual because of the number of officers. She drew attention to the court sketch of Nakoula who (her voice rose again) "could be facing years in prison."
After introducing Roger Ailes' personal attorney, litigator for the Catholic NY Archdiocese, Knight of Malta, and Fox pundit Peter Johnson Jr, she spoke of the importance of the First Amendment. Johnson asked if Nakoula is "a political prisoner." She asked if this is "a show trial." Johnson explained that under conditions of his probation, for bank fraud, he's not supposed to be on the internet. After Johnson said that the government isn't "jamming him up" for uploading the video, an agitated Kelly blithered "right, now they're saying it has nothing to do with internet." Johnson cited the court's concern about the man's alias, used for the film, and that if he had uploaded a cake baking video, this wouldn't be a problem. Kelly interjected "held without bail." Johnson cited the man's defense lawyer's concern that his client would be killed in jail by those who have put a bounty on him. Kelly noted that a Pakistani cabinet member already did that.
When Johnson said that the standards for probation violation aren't the same as those for a criminal trial, Kelly, screeched that probation is no big whoop and "you don't get locked away." Johnson responded that jail can be a possibility but it's rare for a non-criminal offense. He asked if this is "a coincidence" or "consistent with the government's theme that the video caused the death of the ambassador." Kelly chimed in "are we trying to send a message to the people who did this to us...that we share their outrage about the film." After stating that Nakoula has nothing to recommend him, he asked "who's going to speak up for him?" (Fox News?) He questioned if the ACLU would get involved if they think - ready for the agitprop - it's a "political prosecution" because of "First Amendment rights." He brayed about how we should protect the First Amendment even for people "we revile." He asked "did we bow to pressure" to say that "this man, this movie caused the ambassador's death. Does that fit in, it apparently does."
Despite Kelly's role as "news" person, she neglected to provide testimony, from US Attorney Robert Dugdale, that Nakoula's "pattern of deception" (Several aliases) makes him a flight risk and poses a danger to others. In commenting about how "unusual" the judge's actions were, she might have mentioned that law professor Lawrence Rosenthal, while admitting that this is unusual, also said that it is more likely with identity issues which suggest that the violator won't show up for subsequent court dates. Kelly didn't report that US Magistrate, Suzanne Segal, said that the court has a "lack of trust" in Nakoula who has eight charges of probation violation. (Kelly didn't mention the number of charges.)
But it could be a conspiracy and if Fox "News" says so, in the immortal words of "Plan 9 From Outer Space," "that proves it."
I see that Mr. Nakoula was allowed to keep his face wrapped in a scarf (mid-summer!) while he was being taken away: that’s not the norm for a perp walk, is it? Strauss-Kahn, for example, was led through a gauntlet of photographers, unshaven and in the same suit he’d been sleeping in for a few days.
No worries, Petey: if it’s a First Amendment issue, I’m quite certain they’ll protect him . . . hell — they protected both Rush Limpballs and Sheer Insanity; I’m guessing you didn’t have a problem with them doing that {and those are two people I DEFINITELY revile} . . .
@Lakeview Greg: “And oxy and Faux want to defend this putz?”
Of course, Greg — just as they leapt to the defense of another putz, George Zimmerman.
And why not? Zimmerman and Nakoula have done two things Faux/Limpballs admire: kill an unarmed black person and engage in xenophobia . . .
.
Free speech has three tennants where it’s voided: Copyright, Defamation and Provocation of violence. The man who provided Nakoula’s funding is a hate group leader named Steve Klein. Klein is on record as saying that he gave Nakoula the money because he knew it was provocation via slander.
So that’s two out of three on the big strikes.
There is also that certain crimes come with a leash on your 1st Amendment rights- can’t get on internet, can’t join a protest, etc. until your parole is completed. Nakoula’s probation denied him the right to use the internet, he created a Youtube account to distribute his movie, and did his own advertising online.
Translation: Even if the film was within his first amendment rights to make, he broke the law with his distribution method.Which brings me to my third point.
The film is cited as the source of the initial rioting, and leaders of both Anti-American and Islamic Extremist sects are documented as exploiting the outrage. That makes his Culpability an international issue -That’s a large part of the debate on his right to free speech. He has the right to say it here, but is that a strong enough shield to protect him from consequences in other countries? Especially since there are instances that could void his argument if it was entirely within the US?
But leave it to Fox News and Rush to both completely blow these factors off -They’re too busy playing “Ignore publicly, Defend privately” to pay attention to the facts.
The reality of the situation is that he won’t be prosecuted for his speech. He’ll be prosecuted for everything else he did, which won’t even touch the amount of misery he caused around the world.
Just gotta wonder what the FoxNoise reaction would be to a “person of color” who violated his probation? Or a “sex offender”?
Let’s just use the latter, as an example. Let’s say that the guy had made probation, but—as a part of that probation—he was told he could only have limited internet access (acceptable use—to pay bills; unacceptable use—joining the HoneyBooBoo fan club), and that his computer would be checked randomly for any violations. Then, let’s just say that, during one of these random computer checks, it turns out that he’s been catching up on HoneyBooBoo episodes and “Toddlers & Tiaras” and he’s downloaded a lot of innocent pictures of young children he’s not related to from various Facebook pages. Can you just imagine the outrage from the folks at FoxNoise that a “pervert” was even released on probation (especially if the state or local officials were Dems), even though he’d been a model prisoner and had served his time (if I’m not mistaken, states can still impose probation as part of a prisoner’s release even if a full sentence is served—it largely depends on the nature of the offense)?
But, apparently, FoxNoise’s probation violation standard differs, depending on the criminal involved. In FoxNoise’s world, a man who’s on probation after serving time for financial crimes should be able to do whatever he wants even if it violates—or potentially violates—the terms of his probation (though I’ll bet if Kelly had been one of his victims, she’d be screeching a different tune).
