Special to The Public Record

Free Speech Or Inciting To Riot?

Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya who was killed during an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Photo/State Department

When I finish one of my analyses I usually look forward to a week to ten day hiatus and sometimes even wonder if I will have to hunt around for the next topic.  It rarely works out that way.  Usually,  within three of four days, something happens which strikes me as worthy of attention.  Often other commentators  have moved more quickly than I to report on the event.    However, there are always more questions to be asked and different perspectives to be offered.

So it is with the death of four American diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Libya on Wednesday 12 September 2012.  There are two mutually reinforcing parts to this tragedy: one takes place here in the USA, and the other in Libya, Egypt and several other places in the Middle East.  Let’s take them in sequence.

Part I – The Stateside Story 

In the summer of 2011 a convicted felon (bank fraud) by the name Nakoula Bassely Nakoula (aka Sam Bacile) decided to make a movie about the religion of Islam.  Nakoula is an Islamophobe of Egyptian Coptic Christian background who lives in California.  The movie was to be one of those propaganda pieces like the film “Obsession” back in 2005, but cruder and with more “shock value.”   Nakoula went about contacting other Islamophobes to raise the money and otherwise promote the project.  Among those he recruited were Morris Sadek, a fellow Copt, also resident in the U.S., whose long-term goal was to undermine the new Islamic government in Cairo, and a Christian fundamentalist extremist by the name of  Steve Klein who also seems to have an obsessive hatred of Muslims.  Hovering around the margins of the project was the extremist “pastor” Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida.  He is an expert at incitement to riot, having publicly burnt a Quran in 2011 sparking riots in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 30 people.

Eventually Nakoula put together an all-volunteer cast and crew by setting up what can only be described as a confidence game.  He told the actors and stage technecians that the movie was about a “desert warrior” living in the remote past:  ”a benign biblical epic” about past life in Middle East.  The initial working title was “Desert Warrior.”  Later the film was reedited and new dialogue dubbed over the original script thereby transforming it into an anti-Muslim diatribe with a new, supposedly ironic, title “Innocence of Muslims.”  Among other things the film depicts Mohammad as a fraud and a lecher. Subsequently, CNN received a statement from those who worked on the project indicating that, “the entire cast and crew are extremely upset…we are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose.”

Of particular import is the strong suspicion that the real purpose of the film was to incite a violent reaction in the Muslim world.  According to Steve Klein, interviewed after the eruption of protests in the Muslim world,  “we went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”  Klein told Nakoula, “you are going to be the next Theo van Gogh,”  the Dutch film maker who was murdered in 2004 after making a film that defamed Islam.    Subsequently,  Nakoula’s accomplice, Morris Sadek, would contact an Egyptian newspaper reporter, Gamel Girgis, and tell him he had an exclusive story about a American made anti-Muslim video.  Sadek’s obvious intention was to make the video known to the Egyptian public.

Part II – The Story in the Middle East 

In July 2012, soon after “Desert Warrior” was morphed into “Innocence of Muslims,” it was posted on YouTube.  It is still there (except in Egypt) and to date has garnered hundreds of thousands of hits.  Just this month (September 2012) a trailer of the film, this time dubbed in Arabic, was posted and that seems to be what led to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and further anti-American disturbances in at least eight other Muslim countries.

Someone at the U.S. embassy in Cairo immediately sensed the danger the film created. In an effort to defuse some of the inevitable anger it would cause he or she posted a statement on the local Egyptian internet that said in part, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims–as we condemn the efforts to offend believers of all religions….We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”  This effort obviously did not work.

The reactions of Muslim governments to the outbreaks of public anger have been swift.   The Libyan government, which is beholden to the U.S. for its support in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, issued an apology for the Benghazi attack and began an immediate investigation.  This was easy enough to do since the militant group that stormed the consulate and killed Ambassador Stevens was readily identified and most of the violence was captured on film.

In Egypt, the newly elected president, Mohammed Morsi, himself a member of the Society of Muslim Brothers, was nuanced in his reaction.  He noted that Egyptians had guaranteed rights to “expressing opinion, freedom to protest and announcing positions…but without assaulting private or public property, diplomatic missions or embassies.”  In a telephone conversation with President Obama, Morsi “pledged to protect foreigners in Egypt.”  On the other hand, he told Obama that there was a need for “deterrent legal measures against those who want to damage relations between peoples, and particularly between the people of Egypt and the people of America.”  It is a need that Americans should take seriously. 

Part III – Conclusion

This incident has exposed the deep vein of anger against the United States that runs through the Muslim world.  This anger is nothing new and we continue to ignore it at our peril.

After 9/11 U.S. politicians refused to consider the context from which those attacks came.  They asserted that violence against the United States was absolutely wrong and so there was no need to examine what had caused it.  Well, that might be good politics stateside, but it guaranteed that the policies and behavior that led up to the 9/11 attacks, such as imposing sanctions that ruin the lives of countless innocents, the arming and supporting of dictators, and the carte blanche support of Israeli policies against the Palestinian people, would carry on into the future.  In other words, between 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 nothing substantial about U.S. behavior has changed.

That means that the Muslim world continues to be a tinder box that someone resident in the West, someone like Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, can throw a match into and spark something akin to another 9/11.

At this point many will protest that Nakoula’s perverse film is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the abridgment of speech and press.  But this may not be the case.  Free speech does not excuse purposeful efforts to incite to riot.  An enterprising prosecutor would not have a difficult time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire enterprise that created “Innocence of Muslims” was a premeditated effort to produce exactly the type of violence that we have seen.  If this is the case, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, Steve Klein and Morris Sadek are potentially guilty of a range of crimes from promoting hate speech to accessory to murder.

The governments of the Muslim world, and indeed all governments, have the legal and moral obligation to protect foreign diplomats, embassies and consulates.  And, the United States government has the responsibility to do all that is reasonable and practicable to protect its citizens.  That includes the prevention of another 9/11 style attack or any variant on that theme.  Moving to prosecute those here in the United States who would purposely incite such attacks seems an obvious step–and, in the long run, a step that is more useful than filling the skies with drones in search of alleged enemies.

Yet, as obvious and warranted as such a prosecution is, will it be pursued? Do not look to Mitt Romney for such preventative action. His sole concern is taking political advantage of the crisis by claiming that the State Department statement cited above proved that the Obama administration had more sympathy for the Muslims than for his own dead diplomats.

This is, of course, cynical nonsense.  Yet, one cannot look to Barack Obama for much preventative action either.  He is afraid of the political shadow to his right and will not move against even dangerous provocateurs, especially at election time.  So the most likely scenario is that,  just as in 2001, our leaders will do nothing to address our own behavioral and policy shortcomings.  Thus, the dangerous likelihood of more provocations igniting the deep anti-American anger in the Muslim lands will go on and on.

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania. His academic work is focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He also teaches courses in the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

Article Tools:  Print   Email

9 Responses for “Free Speech Or Inciting To Riot?”

  1. michael says:

    By suggesting prosecution the author recommends a dangerous slippery slope, and demonstrates a disappointing failure to understand and honor the 1st Amendment.

  2. Bert says:

    A couple of things.

    What is your take on the Sam Bacile faux persona being cast to journalists as being Israeli (or Israeli-american, depending on the news outlet) and the repeated claim that the trailer was funded by “hundreds of jewish donors”, now that it’s come to light that the folks behind the film were actually christian extremists?



    What about reports that the embassy attacks were pre-planned for the 9/11 anniversary well in advance of the arabic language trailer being released? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201291512714470776.html



    It certainly makes me wonder why folks are working very hard to paint this as “muslim rage” when in reality its a couple small groups of very dangerous folks trying to stir things up, on both sides of the pond, during a period of already elevated social unrest. The trailer may certainly be acting to fan existing discontent and resentment, its also merely one facet of the whole story which includes food prices – http://www.psmag.com/politics/why-the-middle-east-is-rioting-46792/?utm_source=Newsletter229&utm_medium=email&utm_content=0918&utm_campaign=newsletters , continued drone warfare (and the resultant civilian casualties), and a long history of disruptive US involvement in middle eastern politics.

    I love your examination of the events and look forward to your thoughts on these additional nuances.

  3. Marc Grober says:

    Sorry Professor but you are very confused. First off, you re suggesting that it is possible for someone in this country to be criminally liable for someone in another country to commit a crime because the remote criminal takes offense. Even the Western jurisprudential concept of fighting words can;gt be stretched 6000 miles. Second, you suggest that there is something distinctly Muslim about the right to commit unlawful acts in such circumstances, though in fact the quran, and therefore arguably hadith and sharia wold hold that such riot itself is a violation of Muslim law, whether or not the secular law of the remote venue so provided. Third, your analysis means that any set of foreign nationals can determine the extent of free speech in this country by rioting over this that or the other thing. No thank you. In sum, you have taken the concept of being a sensitive co-equal state from a great idea to a ridiculous one. All nations must seek to secure the rights of all persons within their borders, and if some nations can’t manage that, then they need to suffer the consequences, as opposed to securing international aid to feed persons who can’t control themselves.

  4. Henry Zea says:

    Marc, Michael,
    I see your points, but the REALITY is that if anyone in the US makes an anti-Muslim piece of propaganda, it will hurt some people’s feelings beyond repair.
    Is this worth risking your life and that of others?
    If you want to risk YOUR OWN life, then go jump off a bridge.
    Freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield to trigger people, who you know will be triggered, by words.
    Totally irresponsible in my mind, for that they should be prosecuted.


  5. Francois Arouet says:

    “An enterprising prosecutor would not have a difficult time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire enterprise that created “Innocence of Muslims” was a premeditated effort to produce exactly the type of violence that we have seen.”

    With that conclusion the author tells us all he knows about the law: ZIP! What vapid rubbish!

    Do not get your law from science history teachers! This should embarrass an L1.

  6. Francois Arouet says:

    As Martin Amnis noted when he spoke at the Jewish Community Center in San Francisco tonight Muslims in the media insult other religions on a daily basis. Death to all infidels? So they want the respect they do not give. I think Sam Harris got it right: instead of showing spine the equivocating Obama showed a cowardly “quivering lip.”

  7. Tom Benghauser says:

    Professor Davidson: I must question your scholarship.

    A simple Google search would have revealed that according to Federal statutory law (Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 102 › § 2102 (b)) one cannot be found guilty of incitement to riot on the basis of communications that have not actually advocated riotous acts and/or argued that such acts are proper and a “right” under the circumstances.

    (b) As used in this chapter, the term “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.


    Shame on you.

    Tom Benghauser

  8. Tom Benghauser says:

    Professor Davidson

    My earlier observations notwithstanding, I do believe that the authorities should immediately take Nakoula Bassely Nakoula and his pals into “protective custody” until this entire matter blows over in twenty or so years.

    Tom Benghauser

  9. Javed Mirza says:

    Prof. Davidson,
    I absolutely admire your impartial understanding of the series of events and fully agree with you.

    Marc, Micheal and Francois,
    Muslims believe in all the prophets of Almight Allah. Essa (Jesus), Mosa (Moses) and all the other 1.24 million prophets are sacred for Muslims and anything against them is blasphemy for Muslims.
    Muslims never insult any religion. There has been not a single attack on any non-muslim worship place in any Muslim country after that hateful movie.
    Yest, it is true that |US providing aid to Pakistan and some other Muslim countries but that is for a purpose, Pakistan is fighting US war and suffering the most compared to which the aid US is providing is peanut.
    Blasphemy is a sin to which there is just one punishment -death- and this is the rule of Almighty Allah. Prosecution by US law, protective custody or whatever, Allah Almighty shall do the justice.

Leave a Reply

Article Tools:  Print   Email
Copyright © 2008 The Public Record. All rights reserved. Branding services provided by www.AndrewToschi.com Quantcast