Appeals court orders YouTube to take down anti-Islamic film

[The Straight Story]

Google must remove a controversial anti-Islamic film from YouTube, after a US Appeals court on Wednesday ordered it to do so.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that taking down the film did not constitute a prior restraint on speech -- Google's argument for initially refusing to remove it.

The video, "Innocence of Muslims," has incited international outrage and sparked protests around the world. Its surfacing online also coincided with attacks in Bengazi, Libya, in 2012, during which a US ambassador was killed.

The suit was originally brought on by Cindy Lee Garcia, who starred in the film. Garcia asserted that she had been hired to act in a different film, and that the footage was used in a movie that was unrecognizable as the one she originally signed on to do. In a particularly controversial scene, another voice had been partially dubbed over her footage, asking, "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"

Legally, Garcia claimed she was able to independently copyright her performance in the film. She also said she'd received death threats, and had suffered "irreparable harm."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10812_3-57619584/appeals-court-orders-youtube-to-take-down-anti-islamic-film/

[SamKnause]

1. We have to accommodate the crazies.

We can't offend the religious or they might kill us.

What a f-uped world.

[chrisa]

10. That's actually not why it was taken down.

It was ordered taken down because the film's producers purposely mislead actors and actresses to star in the movie, and then cut their performances into their own propaganda piece without telling them.

The final film was so far away from what the actors were contracted to do that it was libelous to the actors and actresses that starred in it. That would be like, for example, taking George Clooney dialog from "Ocean's Eleven," and recutting it into, "George Clooney Explains why he Loves the KKK."

Because of this, she was able up copyright her original performance, and then file a copyright complaint.

[Dr. Strange]

13. But it is used as a justification.

Despite her understandable focus on the threats against her life, Garcia has brought a copyright action. Therefore, she needs to show that the harm she alleges is causally related to the infringement of her copyright.

She’s made such a showing. Youssef’s unauthorized inclusion of her performance in “Innocence of Muslims” undisputedly led to the threats against Garcia.

If no such threats had been made, would the judges have made the same decision? If not, then they've just made bad law.

[malaise]

2. Where's Frank Grafney and that other batshit crazy lady

Can't remember her name

[Politicalboi]

3. WTF?

If these assholes can't take it, fuck them. Their "god" must be real weak not to able to withstand a crummy video. Religion should have NO rights that supersedes free speech.

[okaawhatever]

5. Did you even read the story? Where's the free speech of the actress hired under false pretenses

to act in the film? She's received death threats and who knows what else for a performance she didn't agree to. Is it okay for someone to hire you to do a film and then without your knowledge or consent edit the film and dub the voices to make it something else? Something that would cause you personal and professional harm?

[EX500rider]

9. "and then without your knowledge or consent edit the film and dub the voices"

You mean like every movie does now?

Or do you think every actor/actress crams into the cutting booth to approve the cuts and dubs?
Hell, Slim Picken's thought he was doing a serious drama in Dr Strangelove.

But I do think she got a raw deal and a pretty dirty trick played on her.

[okaawhatever]

11. I mean they changed the words spoken by her co-star to change the meaning of what she said. Not

improving sound quality, changing words, big difference.

[leftyohiolib]

4. isnt that a 1st amendment violation?

on edit: sounds like fraud involved with the actress

[geek tragedy]

6. first amendment doesn't cover fraud. oops nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. In this specific case they were right, but it shouldn't be a precedent.

In this specific case, it was probably right to take the film down: not because it was offensive to Muslims, but because one of the actresses had been dubbed without her consent.

But in general, films offensive to Muslims should be protected free speech

I believe in the right to offend Muslims, but I also believe in the right *not* to offend Muslims by having words dubbed over you, if you don't choose to.

[LittleBlue]

8. Yeah this is a copyright issue

You cannot misrepresent someone like that if they have an independent copyright.

[struggle4progress]

12. It's Cindy Lee Garcia's lawsuit, alleging she suffers harm from this use of her image