NYT: 1st Amendment For Us, Not YOU

[Kathianne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/us/from-the-man-who-insulted-islam-no-retreat.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0


From Man Who Insulted Muhammad, No Regret
<nyt_byline> By SERGE F. KOVALESKI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/serge_f_kovaleski/index.html) and BROOKS BARNES (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/brooks_barnes/index.html) </nyt_byline> Published: November 25, 2012 <nyt_text> <nyt_correction_top> </nyt_correction_top> LOS ANGELES — Fuming for two months in a jail cell here, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/origins-of-provocative-video-are-shrouded.html) has had plenty of time to reconsider the wisdom of making “Innocence of Muslims,” his crude YouTube movie trailer depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.


Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction. Ed. Really? Let's see some proof of that.

Not at all.

</nyt_text>...

[logroller]

Appears factual kathianne. Certainly corroborated elsewhere.

Youssef served most of his 21-month prison sentence for using more than a dozen aliases and opening about 60 bank accounts to conduct a check fraud scheme, prosecutors said.


After he was released from prison, Youssef was barred from using computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.
http://nation.time.com/2012/11/07/calif-man-behind-anti-muslim-film-gets-prison/

additionally, as a condition of parole/probation, he was forbidden from using aliases without approval.

[Kathianne]

Appears factual kathianne. Certainly corroborated elsewhere.
http://nation.time.com/2012/11/07/calif-man-behind-anti-muslim-film-gets-prison/

additionally, as a condition of parole/probation, he was forbidden from using aliases without approval.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-sentenced-to-a-year-in-jail-for-probation-violations/


...Based on the allegations against him, it seems fairly clear that Nakoula, who apparently also goes under the name Youseff along with a number of other aliases, had violated the terms of his probation so I don’t necessarily have a problem with the sentence. However, I find myself agreeing with Jonathan Turley (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/08/controversial-filmmaker-sentenced-to-one-year-in-jail/) about the manner in which this entire story unfolded:

When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — an image that was immediately broadcast around the world. It sent a chilling message to some that the government can generally find some grounds to punish you when you cause a controversy — even if you are not prosecuted for the underlying speech itself. Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.


None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy.
Ken at Popehat, who is a Los Angeles attorney familiar with the criminal proceedings in Federal Court there, makes similar comments: (http://www.popehat.com/2012/11/08/nakoula-basselley-nakoula-sentenced-for-supervised-release-violations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29)

Mr. Nakoula’s revocation proceedings required a probation officer (an employee of the judicial branch) to file a revocation petition and Judge Snyder (also in the judicial branch) to approve it. If the Obama administration — the executive branch — contacted the United States Probation Office and pressured the probation office to file revocation proceedings because Nakoula made the film, I think there should be a Congressional inquiry. I’m aware of the statement by Charles Woods, the father of the Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who was killed by terrorists in Benghazi (http://patterico.com/2012/10/25/father-of-fallen-seal-hillary-told-me-theyd-get-that-filmmaker-good/), who says that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him that the government would punish the filmmaker. Mr. Woods is justifiably furious with the administration and Ms. Clinton’s words to him are not to be taken at face value, so this report is not conclusive evidence to me. But it’s a piece of evidence, and Congress might think it sufficient to start an inquiry. Under existing selective prosecution law it might not beunconstitutional for the administration to suggest that Nakoula’s supervised release be revoked for conduct that would get anyone else revoked. Nakoula’s conduct is absolutely the sort that does, and should, routinely result in revocation of supervised release. But we should know whether or not the administration had a hand in it, and there should be consequences — even if they are only political — if they did.

I tend to agree. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, and not every Probation violation gets the kind of immediate attention that Nakoula’s did here. If there was pressure from the Executive Branch on the Judicial Branch to go after Nakoula because of the international attention that had been drawn to him, then that’s something that we ought to know about.

[logroller]

I think the widespread attention the movie garnered negated the possibility of anything resembling discretion.
I understand the actors in the video are pretty adament that they were victims of his fraud and have suffered greatly as a result-- they have a right to demand justice. What would it say if they let him walk? Just seems like you can't please everybody. But regardless of its political implications, a criminal getting locked up for violating terms of release isn't something I'll lose too much sleep over.

[aboutime]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/us/from-the-man-who-insulted-islam-no-retreat.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0



The NEW YORK TIMES. Better known as the SLIMES, is nothing more than a PROXY for the Obama administration. They perpetuate the OBAMA ADMIN LIES, and twist context to meet their Obama standards.

Anyone need proof. Check out the Circulation of the NYT's today, as compared to before Obama was elected.

Obama and his cronies have the OLD GREY LADY in their back pocket. And America is the worst for it.

[Kathianne]

I think the widespread attention the movie garnered negated the possibility of anything resembling discretion.
I understand the actors in the video are pretty adament that they were victims of his fraud and have suffered greatly as a result-- they have a right to demand justice. What would it say if they let him walk? Just seems like you can't please everybody. But regardless of its political implications, a criminal getting locked up for violating terms of release isn't something I'll lose too much sleep over.

Seems then that civil action would be the recourse, not the Feds.