Freedom of speech, American style
Google Inc on Friday lost its bid to keep an anti-Islamic film on its YouTube video sharing website while it appealed a federal appeals court order that the company said would have "devastating effects" if allowed to stand.
Earlier this week, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reject Google's assertion that the removal of the film "Innocence of Muslims," which sparked protests across the Muslim world, amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the US Constitution.
In a court filing on Thursday, Google argued that the video should remain accessible to the public while it asks that a larger, 11-judge 9th Circuit panel review the issue. Google called this week's opinion "unprecedented" and "sweeping."
However, the 9th Circuit on Friday rejected Google's request in a brief order. Google representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.
The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"
Garcia's attorney, Cris Armenta, opposed Google's request to repost the video while the appeal proceeds. The actress received death threats as a result of her appearance in the film.
...
In its court filing on Thursday, Google said the 9th Circuit order would produce "devastating effects" if allowed to stand.Next thing you know, it will be illegal to insult Muslims in the US. Ridiculous....
"Minor players in everything from Hollywood films to home videos can wrest control of those works from their creators," Google wrote, "and service providers like YouTube will lack the ability to determine who has a valid copyright claim."
The 9th Circuit on Friday said its order does not preclude posting a version of "Innocence of Muslims" that does not include Garcia's performance.
Shortly after Google learned of the 9th Circuit's takedown order, it hired Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general, to advocate for further 9th Circuit review, according to the court docket.
The case is Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.
Labels: freedom of speech, Muslims, United States
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:41 PM
1 Comments:
Carl:
This is the first post where I have not either learned something or agreed with you.
For the most part, this is not a First Amendment case...
1- The video has been up for almost 18 months, so it cannot be said to be prior restraint
2- This is a copy right case as the actress is claiming that her performance was redubed (the words she spoke had nothing to do with the words in the work), and that the contract she signed was represents fraud on the part of the movie maker.
3- This is commercial speech (a trailer to raise funds for the production of a movie), not political speech. It does not matter that the stupid US administration has made this 10 minute video into.
Google makes some good points
1- There is no way that YouTube.com can evaluate the videos and the contracts of the participants for fraud and copyright violations
2- They should not stand any damages for their actions
This is a weird case that never would have happened if the US administration had not made so much of this video and never would have been a big deal if evil jihadis had not put a fatwa out on this woman's head.
Post a Comment
<< Home