From the CBS website: "Sam Bacile, an American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction." No mention of his religion, just that he is an American.

Then you will totally support people's rights to deny the Holocaust and circulate The Protocols of the Elders of Zion then? There is no such thing as absolute free speech. And anyone excusing this film that was made deliberately by Israelis living in the United States to inflame people, which has caused the deaths of at least 4 Americans. Then you are guilty of double standards. Your hatred blinds you, and for that I am very sad

of the Muslim population did actually nothing.

The answer is simple... indeed vote him out and you won't need to worry about him again........ OR WILL YOU?

The cast and writers of Life of Brian are British, i.e. mostly Anglican. The Anglican Church has not been part of the Catholic Church for almost 500 years.

So, if I take offense at the vile cartoons about Jews and the State of Israel that are a daily constant in the press of Arab and Moslem countries -- can they all be prosecuted for hate crimes and the like?

I guess the Catholic Church has gotten soft about its values. Or something. Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that people are willing to start riots and call for murder, and then *murder*, people identified with a hateful movie's *country*, is much worse than the movie itself could ever be. At most, Baclie and co. incited violence against *Muslims*. They did not incite, and did not cause, the attacks and resulting deaths of people form these fanatical riots. *those* people did their own incitement as well. And in their case, it resulted in assault and death. Or perhaps you would say that Baclie should have surmised that Muslims are violent by nature. Except... that's precisely what he's claiming, and it's a pity there were plenty of armed fanatics handy to prove his hate speech right. The violence and deaths by these fanatics is by far *worse* than the movie.

First, there's a grand total of one man claiming to be Israeli here - the producer. So you have no "Israelis". At most, you have one former Israeli. Second, you claim the movie was deliberately made to inflame people. I'd agree with that, if not for your conclusion - if it was made to inflame anything, it was made to inflame in a far different manner, against Muslims. Third, the *movie* caused no deaths. Other people who used the movie as justification incited to violence and organized armed mobs, and *they* were directly responsible for the deaths. They caused them, by their own hands and by their own words. That you discount direct responsibility in this case implies that you expect nothing better from the people who did this. That this was, somehow, a natural reaction. In short, you reduce those human mobs to animals, and their murders as inevitable reactions rather than choices. And that's a different kettle of racism altogether.

Yes Sarah, you could if they were democracies. You still don't get it do you? We are a democracy, we try to hold the moral high ground, therefore we play by different rules. You however, conveniently miss that point

The riot came exactly on US memorial day Sep 11. Perhaps the movie is just an alibi and there is another reason for it? a coincidence "Sep 11" ?

If they are published in the Uniteed States and are contrary to that nation's laws yes. In the United Kingdom the makers of this film would be charged with incitement to racial hatred

Who says there will be a 2nd Obama term? Let's pray hard against such a happening!

If any of those countries has properties or bank accounts in the United States, I can sue in the federal courts. Moreover, these newspapers all have websites. Perhaps you might want to spend some time reading up on diversity of jurisdiction before offering up stupid comments.

The internet pretty much makes everyone liable, everywhere, doesn't it?