Innocence of Muslims film maker arrested on probation violation charges

USA Today:

The man identified as the producer of an Internet film that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world has been arrested in Los Angeles for violating probation for a 2010 bank fraud conviction. 

Update at 7:17 p.m. ET: The Los Angeles Times summarizesthe terms of Nakoula's probation:

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

There were also restrictions placed on him in enlisting others to get on the Internet for him. Some speculated that Nakoula may have violated those terms after the film trailer was loaded onto YouTube, although it is unclear what exactly prompted the recent arrest. 

Nakoula had been arrested in 2009 after federal agents searched his home in Cerritos on suspicion that he had engaged in a scheme to create fake identities and open credit cards in those names, then draw tens of thousands of dollars from the phony accounts. 

According to the court file, Nakoula operated under a dizzying array of aliases, including Kritbag Difrat. In June 2010, he was convicted on four counts, including bank fraud and identity theft, and was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. He was also ordered to pay $794,700.57 in restitution. 

He was released, according to federal records, in June 2011.

... 

Usually a decision to revoke someone's probation is in the sole discretion of the judge, but the government has the burden of proving that allegations are true and they constitute a violation of his probation.  On the surface it may appear that he technically violated the restrictions, but I see some avenues for his defense.  First the purpose of the terms of the probation were to keep him from engaging in activity similar to his original crimes.  It can be argued that he still retained his constitutional right to free speech and that the government is trying to punish him for exercising that right.

Because a decision to revoke someone's probation is not usually reviewable, is is possible that his defense team could appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.

I find the Obama administrations handling of the matter troubling.  While it may or may not get some of the foreign crazies to back off initially,  they may also see it as precedent to engage in future tantrum in order to get other Americans put in jail for being critical of a religion they do not agree with.