I watched the video (I'm avoiding "film") tonight. Some takeaways:

1. I sorta wish I had my ninety minutes back. (I didn't time it, but thereabouts methinks.) I don't recommend it. The film is basically footage from some interviews along with selected footage from radicals pledging Jihad, including scraping the bottom of the barrell to include anti-Westerner internet rap video as well as a clip of Michael Moore.

2. I essentially learned nothing new. I was hoping to. There was almost no data whatever. The one clip that resembled data was one interviewee's "estimate" that "10-15% of Muslims" support radical Islamic terrorism. I think that's the same scientific rigor that gave us old estimates of the size of the lgbt population. Learning about radical Islam, and mainstream Islam (the much bigger cohort) -- including efforts to deal with the first and work with the second -- is of big import in the modern world. Unfortunately, this video teaches almost nothing.

3. It did seem terribly blatant that the primary purpose -- even a stated purpose -- was to incite fear and a sense of imminent danger in the viewer. Even the music was from a B-grade horror movie. If I were still 13, I would have wanted to pack a rifle and go wage an anti-jihad (I think we used to call those Crusades).

4. Among the most spicy footage were numerous video clips of terrorist leaders pledging Jihad and destruction to kafur/infidels. Sending out this video seems to me like an extreme version to what I did as a youth basketball coach when I'd tell the team what the other team had planned/said/felt/trashtalked. The tactic wouldn't teach any ball, but it would get the team stirred up. This dvd is like a pornographic version of a coach posting on the bulletin board a nasty and taunting newspaper quote from a loudmouth from the opposing team; the purpose is to get the reader/viewer all ginned up.

5. A tenet of the video's basic argument is the link to Nazi Germany. The film's implicit argument is "we need to destroy this evil now, the way Chamberlain should have earlier in Hitler's career." The modern analogue is strained; the terrorist movement is not limited to one country, there is no single leader, and I see no signs of Neville Chamberlain appeasement. The basic counter-argument, and the fundamental challenge, is that WWI-WWII era strategy (take territory, destroy the enemy military, eliminate the leadership) won't as readily solve the modern threat.

6. One choice quote from the video (I re-wound to get it right), the irony of which was apparently lost on the video-maker/distributor: "If you want to get people to fight, you have to make them think there is a threat and that they are in danger." Truer words.

(Forgive the length of this post, but it might save you 86-or-so minutes.)

Jefferson,

Thanks for your long comment. You say "I essentially learned nothing new." But I disagree. You learned the contents of the video.

When people are being told they should not be able to see things like this video, they are naturally curious about what they are missing. I know I am, since I have not seen this video. That is why censorship rarely works, regardless of the topic, or the time period or the location. And shouting down dissenters and protesters also doesn't work. That is why I appreciated Obama's response to hecklers, regardless if they were black or white hecklers, he gave them their few minutes and then moved on "to the important stuff".

I suspect it is appropriate to have the same response to this video. If this video has in it what you say it does, then it will probably have minimal impact to the national discussion, since the content is so marginal.

Larry - I agree with your point - that censorship rarely works. This isn't about censoring a valid voice. Look - it's an election year. We have a candidate who's fought off accusations about being muslim from the Right for over 19 months. And the Oregonian, by choosing to distribute this piece of hate-DVD is only helping validate this argument. This DVD could have just as easily been distributed last year. It's not based on any new info. I'm not saying censor - but you don't have to validate and distribute hate.

I've seen the documentary as well, and while I thought better of it than Jefferson Smith, I have to say he gave it a much fairer shake than the PSU professor who deemed it "hate-mongering." That response strikes me as more of a political response than an academic one.

As Jefferson points out, the film is quite clear on the fact that only a small percentage of Muslims are the problem. It is a radicalized minority, and that minority has killed thousands in this country and thousands more across the world. They're certainly intent on doing so again, and regardless of whether you agree with the Bush administration's response, it remains a very real issue in the world today. I think that's all the movie tries to point out. Jefferson calls this "incite fear and a sense of imminent danger" but I would call this "raise awareness and concern." They are not illegitimate concerns.

I agree that the Nazi comparison is not equal, but the complaint should not rest with the filmmakers -- all they did was show that anti-Israel cartoons from the Arab-Muslim world appropriate Nazi imagery to make their points. It is the jihadists who compare themselves to Nazis, so whether the analogy is strained or not seems kind of immaterial.

I think the fact that we are talking about the movie at all is proof that it is having its intended effect. The intended effect is NOT for morons in Dayton to carry out ham-handed assaults on peaceful members of the community. Whomever they are and whatever their motives, I hope they are caught. The intended effect of the movie seems to be reminding us that the issue remains important. And I think it asks you to draw your own conclusions.

This has NOTHING to do with censorship.

NOTHING.

Censorship is about the GOVERNMENT suppressing speech and the press. HELLO? Is that what's happening with this "Obsession" DVD?

Of course not.

And when Fred Stickel bullshits about this being a free-speech issue, SAME ERROR! SAME MISLEADING NONSENSE! The government is not restricting anyone's speech here.

Kari Chsiholmhas this exactly right. Stickel is makign the choice to MAKE MONEY from this particular bit of obnoxious advertising--that DVD is advertising, folks--but not from other obnoxious bits of advertising. If The Oregonian wants to do this, fine, just don't pretend it's a free-speech issue, because IT IS NOT.

We have a candidate who's fought off accusations about being muslim from the Right

And of course the US Constitution outlaws Islam, right?

Stickel lets the DVD go to the public, yet when it comes to the sports pages, he will not let them publish "braves" and "indians" or "redskins". The Atlanta Braves are just Atlanta to the Oregonian...ect...ect...

What A hypocrite. He would be a lier if he called himself a Christian.

There is no free speech issue here.

1. Hate speech is NOT protected speech under the Constitution. Duh.

2. No Constitutional issue unless there is STATE ACTION.

I just called Stickel's office at 9:10am. The Oregonian's OFFICIAL comment is that "the DVD is factually accurate."

He would be a lier if he called himself a Christian.

Isn't Fred Stickel a Catholic, like David Reinhard?

If so, he belongs to another extremist organization for which you could easily create a similarly incendiary DVD, complete with madrassas (Catholic schools where little kids are indoctrinated with "faith-based" nonsense, and often abused), appalling political efforts (selective denial of basic civil rights to gays and lesbians, "intelligent design" over evidence-based research, the bombing of women's health clinics), etc...

Bill Maher's "Religulous" comes out this week - if this quote from the Sunday New York Times (9/28/08) is any indication, it should be a lot more insightful, and fun!

"Anyone who's religious is an extremist. See, we're just used to religion...So the notion that god had a son, that he's a single parent, and the son went on a suicide mission, and you're drinking his blood on Sunday, that a man lived inside a whale and that the earth is 5,000 years old - all the essentials of religion that are in the Bible or the Koran - we're used to them. But it doesn't mean they're not crazy, doesn't mean they're not ridiculous. And so to be religious at all is to be an extremist, is to be irrational." - Bill Maher

Where's my Catholic DVD? Where's my Mormon DVD? Where's my Scientology DVD? Where's my Wasilla Pentecostal DVD?

What do you expect from a newspaper that would pay for David Reinhard's rubbish?

As for the First Amendment and freedom of speech, just because we have a right to say something means it is right to say anything. In addition to the laws against libel and slander there are ethical, moral and etiquette proscriptions that should deter some speech.

Classic Republican terrorism. No, I'm not going to watch DVD. I'm not even going to buy the Oregonian, ever again.

What we have done by declining to enact financial repercussions on the Reich is allow them space to promote this theory that the nation is equally divided. It is not. As is so clearly pointed out. This was done for money. Well, if it costs him more then it makes, the Oregonian may have second thoughts.

As long as we, the people, continue to support these companies who do not reflect our values, they get more space to spead this filth. It's a free market and we are the market. If it does not make money it will not be perpetuated. It's that simple.

I'm not interested in Fred Stickel's religion.

I am. I'm interested in Sarah Palin's religion, too. These are folks who believe nonsense, and indoctrinate children with nonsense, and who base important decisions on nonsense - and yet who appear to believe that only other people's nonsense is a serious danger...

So you put an incendiary DVD about MUSLIM religious nonsense in my newspaper, and then defend it as "factually accurate" (see justasking post above). But you also think that you gulp the blood of a half-human, supernatural being on Sundays..?!

That's not relevant? I beg to differ...

Religion is certainly a big problem here, but the Catholic Fred Stickel can't be the first to throw stones...

I haven't subscribed to the O for a long time now. Many people told me that I was just bieng 'silly' by not buying the paper because of some issues in the past.

Who's 'silly' now?

Justasking, how do you define "hate speech"? Can it be hate speech when the movie itself is very specific that all Muslims are not the problem, only a minority of radical ones? By your definition, True Lies would be hate speech long before Obsession.

Gregor, making a documentary and paying to have it carried with the newspaper is "terrorism"? How debased is your worldview when you look past the actions of real terrorists and call free speech critical of actual terrorists "terrorism"?

I fear for this state.

To All:

My husband & I recently moved here from Wyoming. We happen to know the exact person who is behind the financing/production/distribution of this film. He's incredibly wealthy. He happens to literally be a neighbor to DICK CHENEY in Jackson Hole, and is a staunch, close friend and ally of Dick's. He frequently holds high dollar parties & fundrasiers in Jackson Hole for the Cheneys and the Republican Party. He does not disclose this in his incessant promotion of this piece of hate mongering propanda. His name is Foster Friess. The public deserves to know who is really behind this. Shame on the Oregonian!! Check it out for yourselves.....

I saw the DVD and agree that it is insidious in that the underlying message is to promote a new crusade against Islam. It is ironically made by radical Israelis- the same ilk that murdered Rabin, expands settlement theft, slant drills under Palestinian village wells and is one of the principal antagonists of Muslims in the first place.

The disclaimers that suggest only 10-15% of Muslims are radical Islamists is belied by the Triumph of Willish mass stagings- the film that gave Germany the sense that every good German was a Nazi. Only here the visceral/subliminal effect on the cheap seats of the Republican party (admitedly hard to quantify) is distinctly fear, hate, fear, hate, fear hate Muslims.

But I also think (and believe that the Obama campaign would agree) that the more publicity and "legs" you give them at this stage the more widely it gets shown.

The fact is that most people who would enjoy this piece are already right-wing and Republican. Revving up the pub on the thing is what they want.

For this reason I missed the demonstration.

I am even thinking of writing a back-handed thank you note for clarifying that this is a presidental election where the choices are clear between a fear/hate fueled campaign and one based on courage, reason and compassion,

I think we need to roll with this one for now.

Believing that the muslim religion is at the root cause of terrorism is a grave error. Like Obama said, when peoples' dreams and ability to live a good life are frustrated "they retreat into their religion and guns" etc. Which religion is immaterial.

One thing to remember about Fred Stickel is that he still thinks it was the correct decision intern Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII. (A lot of valuable Portland property got auctioned off for nothing in 1942, doing wonders for the wealth of some pillars of the local white community, the kinds of folks who like to hobnob with newspaper publishers ... just saying.)

And he was not at all sure we shouldn't do the same with American Muslims.

I thought about it overnight and then today cancelled our subscription to the O. I wrote a pretty long LTE and sent it to every single editor at the paper I could find an email address for.

Then...just for the fun of it, I translated the entire letter into Pirate and posted it on my pirate blog. :-)

How long will it take for David Reinhard to crank out some faux outrage at the liberals who are trying to suppress free speech? I predict we will see it by the weekend.

You're right, Dena, I should not have said that. I don't have a public statement of Fred's to back it up.

All I can say is that that's the message that got to me when I was his employee.

I should, however, point out that Mr. Stickel deserves deep respect for the independence he nurtures in the newsroom. I'm not trying to defend the editorial/opinion pages, but the increase in quality of actual news reporting over the past 25 years is staggering. Sandy Rowe deserves a lot of credit for guiding that growth, but she couldn't have taken the first step without Fred Stickel.

I think that many of you are "burying your heads in the sand". If you've seen the DVD, you will know that moderate Muslims who oppose radical Islam are not the target of the the DVD. In fact, they are the target of radical Islamists who kill them for taking a different approach than terrorism. The DVD urges moderate Muslims to speak up against radical Islam, and some do, though to do so in places less safe than the US is inviting your assassination at the hands of radical Islamists. The DVD may not have new information (if you were aware that there are radical Islamists who hate the US, Britain, Israel, Christians, and Jews, and lets add Hindus and Buddhists to the list while we are at it). The hate is not rational, but something instilled by brainwashing at a youg age. If you were aware of this, then the DVD might be "old news". Otherwise, I think that it is good that it was distributed so that previously ignorant segments of the public might learn about this.

Those who oppose its distribution - I wonder if they would be opposed to the distribution of a DVD about skinheads or neo-Nazis (who are nominally Christian) because it "bashed Christianity". I doubt it. I think all the criticism I see here is unfortunately 1. in favor of censorship, 2. mistakenly putting people's sensitivity to possible offense above facing the facts (and the DVD does contain facts though some might not want to admit it due to personal prejudices), 3. making it seem that they want to take the attention of this country away from facing the threat of terrorism, which I think is a serious mistake.

I too abhor over-reactions by anti-Muslim bigots who use the DVD as an excuse to target innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism and who likely oppose it. I hope they are caught and punished. However, some people's over-reaction isn't an excuse to censor free speech (especially so if the speech contains information that might help this country's struggle against terrorism). I know my post might be unpopular with some, but all I can say is that while they may may be well intentioned in trying to be sensitive to Muslims, they have their priorities wrong. The truth should come first, and sensitivity second.

Dena: my kinda woman. Only succinct, unlike me. You say what I wish I could in the right number of words.

Cosmo, read your sentence here, for meaning and correct the grammar flip in your head: "very specific that all Muslims are not the problem"

You need to restate it as "NOT all MUslims are the problem.........."

This is not being a granny. It really matters to get it right here. You are talking about really important things.

Read these sentences for content and see if you can make sense of the grammatical rule I see broken here with a distressing frequency, and to the detriment to clear communication.

"All Muslims are not the problem", he mused, as he inserted the hate disc into the next paper.

"Not all Muslims are the problem", he mused as he inserted the hate disc into the next paper.

Honestly - it makes a difference to some readers, it is distracting to be confronted with this black hole, this disturbance in logical thought as written!

Narrator Crusader

CosmoReaxer responded:

"Gregor, making a documentary and paying to have it carried with the newspaper is "terrorism"? How debased is your worldview when you look past the actions of real terrorists and call free speech critical of actual terrorists "terrorism"?

I fear for this state."

I'm not opposed to free speech, but free speech comes with responsibilities and consequences. I'm not obligated to agree with people's opinion because they expressed it under the umbrella of free speech. I'm even less inclined to pay for it.

The terrorist aspect of the DVD is a ruse, pure and simple. It's the trick the Reich used to goad the country into invading Iraq. I'm convinced we went into Iraq for Dubya's revenge, oil, and profits.

Dubya is on tape as declaring "profits come before peace". The Iraqi boondoggle is a money maker for the war profiteers. They can't make returns like that any place else. They're even been paid for things not even delivered. It's a big black hole for US Taxpayers.

Now this DVD is a ruse to bring back the 9/11 trauma on people so that they revert to their lizard brains to vote for McCain and his pathetic choice, Palin. The smoke and mirror job the Reich and Faux News has played on people that react to liberals with loathing before they even hear the point is fascinating, in a train wreck watching kind of way. The low information voters are steered to McCain rather then a candidate who actually has the intelligence to manage our place in the world and keep us safe.

Look, we're in a progressive state. We have a newspaper that pretends they are some sort of middle of the road newspaper that gets out of reporting facts and gets to put a bunch of editorials out that are flat out lies. No dice here. I'm keeping the pressure on them for this one.

The point is this. If you have enough money you can put you want in that paper. So if we want to make a documentary about how evangelicals are all terrorists because they do things like bomb abortion clinics (yeah I know just go along with me) we can put it in the paper. It's not right, but the Oregonian legitimizes it by putting it in the paper. It's disgusting and it should be addressed. Write them and express your opinion. Don't take their crap that it's been forwarded to the newsroom or the editor.

Here's the address. [email protected]

Are we going to let the only major paper in Oregon whore themselves out to a right wing racist? Cause that's what they did.

I don't really think the DVD is political in the sense that it is trying to get voters to vote for McCain rather than Obama. I'd actually bet that Obama would support many of the ideas and facts presented in the DVD.

I don't think that the Bush got the US involved in Iraq because of oil. I think he was gambling on being able to push start a pro - US democracy in Iraq, which would certainly have benefited US interests - the main one being a friendly Arab country to help in the war with Al-Qaeda (which would also provide an example of how Arabs could benefit from a democratic regime as opposed to totalitarian regimes or monarchies, which are less stable and possibly more prone to takeover by extremists). Of course a stable, "moderate" Arab democracy would also have lowered the risks of an interrupted oil supply since there would be less chance of it getting tangled in a war with Israel, which of course could be a motive for Arab oil producers to turn off the pumps.

Of course things didn't turn out the way Bush may have imagined they would. Jay Leno joked that the "Bush Doctrine" is better known to most people as "Murphy's Law" (whatever can go wrong usually will). Iraq certainly went wrong for Bush and the US (and the Iraqi people). Regardless of what happened in Iraq, the element of Islamic extremism does exist, and McCain and Obama both are on record as wanting to pursue the battle against it, so I don't know how this DVD would be designed to steer people towards McCain as opposed to Obama (especially since Obama has said that going into Iraq has taken attention away from the fight to stop Al-Qaeda and get Bin Laden). I guess everybody is entitled to their opinions, and mine is that the DVD isn't directed at internal US politics, and if some who are associated with the DVD support McCain, others who support the DVD (or who are convinced by its contents) are likely to still support Obama (like myself).

I'm completely incapable of understanding the thought process of a person who wants to restrict someone else's speech.

I don't get how people (like Kari) say the DVD is filled with "hate-speech", unless it is the speech of the radical Islamists (which is repeated in the DVD). Nowhere does the DVD say anything hateful about moderate Muslims. It does say that a portion of Muslims worldwide are filled with hate towards the USA, Britain, Israel, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and this has been proven by the acts of radical Islamic terrorists. If criticizing the ideas of radical Islamists is "hate - speech", then it is not much of a jump to then say that criticizing the ideas of the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, etc. is also "hate speech". We should all love one another regardless of how mean some of the "anothers" are. Politically correct posters sometimes think that if people are mean, there must be a reason that justifies this meanness. It is possible that the reason is instead that the "mean people" were brainwashed at a young age by people in a position of power (who possess more hatred than reason) who passed their personal hatred to young recruits. These are the people who use "hate-speech", not the Oregonian, or the DVD. If being liberal means being not being able to accept evidence (or slamming it) if it points towards one's "sacred cow", then maybe I'm not a liberal (in spite of being for Obama). I think liberals should be smarter than to seem like a bunch of "knee jerk apologists", in that they immediately want to apologize for a possible slight to some in the Muslim community who claim to have been offended by the DVD, when in fact the DVD is not criticizing Islam at all, but just radical Islamists. I think this is clear in the DVD and if it isn't clear to anybody, my guess is that they were watching / listening to the DVD with closed ears and minds.

I watched the Obsession film and went to their site. The Obsession DVD was made by a group called Clarion. The exact political connections are not clear at this point. It has been reported that the Obsession site used to have an ad for John McCain on it, but that was pulled after talk of election tampering surfaced. I cannot verify this. I do know that there has already been an attack on a mosque in Dayton Ohio. One question to ask: the DVD was mailed to many households in Florida. Where did that mailing list come from? There are many more questions but essentially it boils down to this: we are witnessing a well-funded, inflammatory right wing information campaign that claims to have no ties to the Republican party during a crucial election. This has the stench of Karl Rove's political strategies. It will take some time to responsibly trace the connections. The election is only 35 days away. Here is where I garner hope though: On Monday September 29, I joined dozens of people gathered in front of the Oregonian to protest this hate campaign. The demonstration was pulled together very quickly by the Center for Intercultural Organizing and others.
I estimated the number of participants at 150, the Oregonian said 70. Regardless, the crowd included a broad range of faiths and nationalities. Signs read "Tell it to the Oregonian: we are all one community", "Hate DVD's! Not in our town!", and "Reject selling hate for profit", . The demonstration and other forms of protest against the DVD did not just come from "the Muslim community" as one post described. It arose from a broad cross section of Portlanders who understand the importance of taking action against racist propaganda that is designed to promote fear and war-mongering. Some people there recalled the Japanese Internment camps in World War 2. That history is a graphic illustration of where this kind of thinking can lead. I urge those who believe that "An injury to one is an injury to all" to continue to build a movement that unites rather than divides, that takes a stand when any one of us is targeted. For more information on the Center for Intercultural Organizing go to www.interculturalorganizing.org. Four days ago I knew nothing about their group. Today I signed up to be a member. Thank you Kari, for speaking out against Fred Stickel's decision to take Clarion's money and distribute the Obsession DVD. Thank you for calling it what it is: "Hate-mongering".

I watched the Obsession film and went to their site. The DVD was made by a group called Clarion. The exact political connections are not clear at this point. It has been reported that the Obsession site used to have an ad for John McCain on it, but that was pulled after talk of election tampering surfaced. I cannot verify this. There are links to political groups like the Hoover Institution on their site. I read the reports that in the past few days week there was an attack on a mosque in Dayton, Ohio. One question to ask: the DVD was mailed to many households in Florida. Where did that mailing list come from? There are many more questions but essentially it boils down to this: We are witnessing a well-funded, inflammatory right wing information campaign that claims to have no ties to the Republican party during a crucial election. This has the stench of Karl Rove's political strategies. It will take some time to responsibly trace the connections. The election is only 35 days away. It may take months or years to ferret out the truth. Here is where I garner hope though: On Monday September 29, I joined dozens of people gathered in front of the Oregonian to protest this hate campaign. The demonstration was pulled together very quickly by the Center for Intercultural Organizing and others.
I estimated the number of participants at 150, the Oregonian said 70. Regardless, the crowd included a broad range of faiths and nationalities. Signs read "Tell it to the Oregonian: we are all one community", "Hate DVD's! Not in our town!", and "Reject selling hate for profit" . The demonstration and other forms of protest against the DVD did not just come from "the Muslim community" as one post described. It arose from a broad cross section of Portlanders who understand the importance of taking action against racist propaganda that is designed to promote fear and war-mongering. Some people there recalled the Japanese Internment camps in World War 2. That history is a graphic illustration of where this kind of thinking can lead. I urge those who believe that "An injury to one is an injury to all" continue to build a movement that unites rather than divides, that takes a stand when any one of us is targeted. For more information on the Center for Intercultural Organizing go to www.interculturalorganizing.org. Four days ago I knew nothing about their group. Today I signed up to be a member. Thank you Kari, for speaking out against Fred Stickel's decision to take Clarion's money and distribute the Obsession DVD. Thank you for calling it what it is: "Hate-mongering".

Anne Trudeau NE Portland

Today I have revisted my otherwise absolutist First Amendment view of free speech to revise my initial repsponse of "Obsession" being best left ignored.

Mainly I read Will Seamons inspired letter to the Oregonian this morning which leads me here: that the right has thrown down the gaunlet and gives us a prize opportunity to answer them in such manner and forums as inspire more cereberal approaches to the issue, This is an education moment and I am belatedly glad for the flood of letters denouncing this film.

Still, fanning the pub leaves the problem that the DVD works on a subliminal level to exploit fanatacial impulses in people that the intelligensia can seldom reach.

As Will pointed out, people should consider targeting fanaticism across the board. You can find it in Christian militants l (good oxymoron, that) as well as their exploiters like neo-Great Crusaders Bush & Cheney, Jewish settlement and Israeli ethic cleansing proponants (lots of footage of "Death to Arabs!" chants available from Israeli concerts and demonstrations), Hindu anti-Muslim and Seik riots, terror from both camps in Sri Lanka and the anti-Han attacks from insular Tibetans. Even the cute little Buddhists are in the intolerance game. Not that they hold a candle to the atheists the shrine exploders and church purgers from Bejing.

And then their are those of us who hate hatred and are intolerant of the intolerant.

Didn't someone like Bill Moyers or the group People for the American Way do a piece on fundamentalism's worldwide implications?

Maybe the Oregonian can do pennance by inserting that DVD in the next Sunday edition.

free speecj cuts both ways. we cancelled our subscription and will do even more online reading of the news. goodbye stickle and co. - you have the right to publish what you want, just as the consumer has the right to not buy your piece of #### rag. good luck and I hope you go under...