It's less a question of double standards and more a question of circumstances. Violence would not be tolerated domestically. A criminal uprising of the kind that occurred in the Middle East would be quashed at home. However, you cannot normally exercise quite such control, or as quickly, outside your borders. So your "double standard" remark is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are different. But anyone with a conscience would not knowingly engage in unnecessary and malicious conduct that would almost certainly result in the loss of innocent life. The people who intentionally do so are evil bastards whose actions should not be defended in any way.
I see your point. Here is an interesting scenario. We have laws regarding inciting violence domestically, though I'm not entirely familiar with them. If violence had occurred after comments were made by one group against another here, could other laws be used against the offended group? In other words, if the congressman calling the GOP Nazis had elicited a violent reaction, would he have incited a riot, or would the offended individuals be accused of the same. Where does free speech end and inciting violence begin? Not being flip, just curious.
I agree, but what troubles me is that the same groups of believers so easily offended and so quick to take life because of the offense are sometimes the same people who have no tolerance for anyone outside their beliefs, and will not hesitate to kill them for no other reason. We can be killed for our beliefs alone, but we should be silent, too? These fanatics will react to far less than what the filmmaker in question produced.
Are the GOP inclined to react in that way? In contrast, there is a very well worn and established if/then relationship as it relates to the subject of this thread. If the GOPers start reacting violently, they would he held to account. I would think that once the relationship of action/reaction is clearly established, the intentionally malicious inciters would be answerable for their conduct as well. There would be no winners here. At least for the moment, the GOPers are not as mindlessly violent as the thugs in the Middle East, bunker building and guns & canned beans stocking notwithstanding. Let's be thankful for that, shall we?
It just occurred to me that Brass is a very dense material. What a fitting alias for the OP to have chosen. His third, BTW.
They are not (nor are the majority of Christians), which is my point. That makes them targets of the constant malicious verbal assaults from the left. Some have speculated that it would be great for the left if right wingers were incited to violence by the name calling and false accusations. It would then confirm that which the right is often accused of. If that was the case (and I'm not saying it is), it would be an attempt to incite violence for no other reason than political gain.
So let's say a guy makes a movie about Christians. Does it in exactly the same way this goodball did. Let's say Christians around the world riot, kill people and destroy property. Question. Would we know the guys identity? Would pictues of his home, his car, his license plate be published by the MSM? Would he be brought in for questioning by the administration g-men? No, no and no. He would be a ghost, under protective custody with an army of ACLU lawyers defending his right to free expression. And we sure as hell wouldn't be hearing a thing about his stupid video being the root cause for all the violence. All we would be hearing is about the crazy and violent actions of the Christians, and every f'n person with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that. Now let's get ready for some football.
Best comment I've read so far about the film and the reaction to it: "The behavior of Muslims this last week says far more about their religion than any film ever could." Sums it up real nice like.