That is, intolerable.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a.k.a. “Sam Bacile,” was interviewed by Federal parole officials at the police station in Cerritos, California, where Nakoula lives. Supposedly they investigating whether Nakoula has violated the terms of his five-year probation for various financial crimes, which could cause a judge to send him back to prison.
- What has he done to justify such an investigation? Why, he made a film insulting to Islam, which is being cited by the White House as the provocation for the protests and attacks at American embassies in Islamic nations! Yes, he also may in fact be in violation of his parole, which included prohibitions on using computers and aliases. If anyone really believes this is the reason the Feds are swooping down on him now, in the wake of the Obama Administration explicitly using his film as its scapegoat for the embassy protests and attacks, I need to talk with them about this Nigerian prince I know.
- Is making a film insulting to Islam a violation of his parole by any stretch of the imagination? No. It is a protected act for any American citizen, and no matter what crimes he may have been convicted of in the past, completely irrelevant to them.
- So why is he being questioned now? Three reasons: 1) To indicate to Islamic nations that the U.S. government is “doing something” to the miscreant who dared to make an offensive film (trailer, actually) 2) To intimidate him and other citizens who intend to exercise their right of free speech that Big Brother is watching, and if you displease him, or cause embarrassment to his misguided foreign policy, you will be sorry and 3) To prove a genuine violation of his parole , so he can be jailed in close proximity to his supposedly protected exercise of free speech, which the foreign critics demanding punishment for the maker of the film will take as official sanction for insulting Islam, which, in truth, it will be.*
- And what is this conduct by the Federal government called?
Abuse of power, chilling First Amendment rights, harassing a citizen for exercising these rights, intimidation, cowardice, violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rejecting the core values of the United States to appease hostile foreign powers and radical Islam.
I will wait to see if the supporters of President Obama who loudly condemned President Bush and the Patriot Act for monitoring communications of citizens who may have been actually plotting violence against their countrymen, will raise appropriate and similarly vociferous objections when their champion, in direct violation of his pledges to the American people, places the heavy hand of government investigation on a citizen for merely expressing a point of view, offensive, provocative and reckless as that expression might be.
* There is a fourth reason, of course, which in different circumstances would be a good one: the fact that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula may have in fact violated the terms of his parole. Since, however, arresting him at this time, regardless of whether a legitimate case for his parole violation can be made, will be regarded internationally and domestically as a rejection of free speech, an Administration that regards standing up for core American values would defer the parole matter, if mot ignore it entirely.
________________________________
Facts: AP
Graphic: Monty Perlin’s World
Ethics Alarms 
I will wait to see if the supporters of President Obama who loudly condemned President Bush and the Patriot Act . . . will raise appropriate and similarly vociferous objections when their champion, in direct violation of his pledges to the American people, places the heavy hand of government investigation on a citizen . . .
Call me a cynic, but I’m not holding my breath.
Nor I, but you know, it’s a disgrace if they don’t.
Wasn’t he banned from the use of computers, internet, and using a false name part of his sentence? From what I read he wasn’t handcuffed and went to the station voluntarily. The press was outside his home not federal probation officers. He was interviewed for half an hour and let go. I didn’t see whether they were investigating him actually making the film or that he may have used the computer, the internet, and use false identities to make the film. What am I missing here?
I don’t know that he has “used computers” if he didn’t physically make or post the film. I can’t find the false name prohibition, but it sounds overly vague and restrictive to me—over the internet, perhaps? On formal papers? He has to publish his real name if it means he’s going to be assassinated?
But it doesn’t matter. If a whistleblower in a corporation misbehaves, you can’t risk firing him fir cause, because it looks like retaliation. And Obama can’t move against this guy based on the film no matter how good a case they can build. Not only isn’t it likely to look like an attack on his free speech, that’s exactly what it is. If teh Feds want to, they can prove parole violations every time. The bottom line is that the feds swooped down on this guy because he made a film that Muslims didn’t like, and they want a scapegoat. Read Althouse here and here. She’s exactly right.
Just noting that you have admitted that multiple of the premises you use here are wrong: https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/09/16/the-detainment-of-nakoula-basseley-nakoula-is-a-first-amendment-betrayal-parole-violation-or-not/, though you still try to save your argument there.
You’ll have to elaborate for this comment to make any sense to me.
You have repudiated the following statements: “Not only isn’t it likely to look like an attack on his free speech, that’s exactly what it is.” and “The bottom line is that the feds swooped down on this guy because he made a film that Muslims didn’t like, and they want a scapegoat.”
You still have your appearance of impropriety argument, but your actual impropriety argument got tossed.
I’ve seen the video. This man should be arrested for improper and shamefully incompetent use of a green screen.