Sharia law in effect in America.

Glen Reynolds writes:

"THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, POLITICALLY TROUBLESOME INDEPENDENT FILMMAKERS WOULD BE HARASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES — AND THEY WERE RIGHT!"

Alleged ‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies.
This running gag isn’t as funny as it used to be. Imagine the uproar if we had a Republican in the White House — but it’s the absence of uproar over these tactics that is really revealing. It’s going to be really hard for the press and pundits who should be raising a stink about this, but aren’t, to play their “have you no decency?” games during a Republican Administation. They’ll try, of course, but they should be treated with the contempt they deserve. And that should start now, actually.

From the LA Times:

Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a towel over his face. He kept his hands in the pocket of a winter coat.

Sheriff's officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told NBC4 that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff's substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

[Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

Earlier Friday, sheriff’s deputies had to escort attorneys through a scrum of news cameras into Nakoula’s home. This time, authorities only had to avoid a lone photographer for The Times and a few other lingering reporters.

Nakoula has told the Associated Press he was a logistics manager on the "Innocence of Muslims" movie, not the director. He told a Coptic bishop Thursday that he had no role in it, the clergyman told The Times.

Nakoula is believed to use the alias Sam Bacile, which was the name a caller who took credit for the film gave to the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.

So, it's now permissible for the courts to deny rights of freedom of speech where it has nothing to do with protecting the public from a crime?

I can understand this if Nakoula was using the internet to scam people, but insofar as the video involved only religious or historical or political speech, then it should be protected by the Constitution, even if Nakoula asked for money.

The principle is not so far off from that which got Judge Howard Broadman in trouble for making norplant a condition of probation for convicted child-abusing parent. The point being that Constitutional rights cannot be abridged any further than necessary to protect the public.

Moreover, this looks like Hell. The Muslim world demanded that America prosecute this individual because of the film. The Muslim world killed Americans and attacked our embassies in order to pressure America to prosecute this individual because of the film. Now - Lo and Behold - we can say to the Muslim world that America is prosecuting this individual because of the film.

That gives the appearance that the Muslim world can force America to take actions against its principles by violence.

That's outrageous and dangerous.