• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Appeals court orders Google to remove Muhammad video that Obama blamed for Benghazi jihad murders

Feb 26, 2014 1:31 pm By Robert Spencer

innocence-of-muslimsCindy Lee Garcia is perfectly within her rights to object to appearing in a movie that apparently was quite different from the one she was led to believe was being filmed. Nonetheless, with Obama wanting the video down in order to appease Muslims, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wanting it down as part of its campaign to make the West enforce Sharia blasphemy laws, this is not a positive development: it plays into the hands of the enemies of the freedom of speech, who are many and are growing more powerful all the time.

“Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube,” by Jonathan Stempel and Dan Levine for Reuters, February 26 (thanks to Twostellas):

(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film “Innocence of Muslims,” amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.

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?”

Representatives for Google could not immediately be reached for comment.

Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said she is delighted with the decision.

“Ordering YouTube and Google to take down the film was the right thing to do,” Armenta said in an email. “The propaganda film differs so radically from anything that Ms. Garcia could have imagined when the director told her that she was being cast in the innocent adventure film.”

The controversial film, billed as a film trailer, depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a fool and a sexual deviant. It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.

That outbreak coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.

Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries.

Garcia had claimed that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube.

But in Wednesday’s decision, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim and having already faced “serious threats against her life,” faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. “It’s disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights,” he wrote.

The case Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: free speech, Useful idiots


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Galvin Fox says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Fuck the ‘appeals court’ they has no authority to override the basic human right to freedom of expression. Let’s throw a massive global street party on 8th June to celebrate the death of the paedophile ‘prophet’ muhammad… it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are as long as you do it. Eat bacon sandwiches, drink alcohol, wear revealing clothing, play loud music, & have a real UNISLAMIC PARTY

    • Tradewinds says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 8:35 pm

      And everyone bring their doggies! Mo hated dogs, esp black dogs.

  2. Tom Rkid Wilson says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Why is Obama blaming a video

    • veggiedog says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Why not, this is what he does, remember, this is not the first time

    • revg says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Because Bush was nowhere in sight.

  3. Deano says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    That is a tough one. If she had truly been duped into her performance and was also being threatened, I sure have sympathy for her. The Religion of Peace certainly is causing some interesting changes to our freedom, that is for sure.

  4. gravenimage says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    Appeals court orders Google to remove Muhammad video that Obama blamed for Benghazi jihad murders
    ………………………………………………

    Appalling. There is *nothing* illegal in this fairly straightforward retelling of the Sira. This ruling is political.

    This is also—intended or not—an enforcement of Shari’ah “Blasphemy” laws. Is this *really* something a road the US courts want to start down?

    More:

    Cindy Lee Garcia is perfectly within her rights to object to appearing in a movie that apparently was quite different from the one she was led to believe was being filmed.
    ………………………………………………

    This is, I freely admit, not my area of expertise. But unless Ms. Garcia has proof that she was deliberately misled, isn’t she just in the same position as every actor who hoped they were in what would prove to be a good film, and wound up in an embarrassing grade-Z effort? The only difference here is the Mohammedan death threats…

    Besides, with the possible exception of the actors in the first segment of the film—which was about the contemporary oppression of the Copts in Egypt—it must have been obvious to all the actors that they were in a film about the life of the Muslim Prophet Muhammed.

    If cast members hadn’t been paying much attention for the past twenty years, they may not have expected the homicidal reaction from the Muslim world—but this does not indicate that they were “misled” by the film maker.

    I feel badly for everyone threatened over this film trailer—but caving to Muslim threats is *not* the way to handle it.

    More:

    Nonetheless, with Obama wanting the video down in order to appease Muslims, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wanting it down as part of its campaign to make the West enforce Sharia blasphemy laws, this is not a positive development: it plays into the hands of the enemies of the freedom of speech, who are many and are growing more powerful all the time.
    ………………………………………………

    Appeasement…

    And what does appeasement result in? Increased aggression in those cravenly deferred to…in other words, more demands for censorship from emboldened Muslims.

    More:

    For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.
    ………………………………………………

    And *why* should we cater to this? This just emboldens these pious thugs. I’m sure they’re crowing over this verdict—and that they recognize this ruling for what it is.

  5. Salah says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Here’s the video (English/French/Arabic versions)

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslims.html

    Please download it and share it while it’s still on.

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      This video about a long dead Muhammad pales in comparison to the horrendous pile of insult that Muslims still heap upon Islam by following Muhammad’s example.
      crossmuslims website has many such examples

      To anyone who wishes to understand Muhammad better
      If you have a very strong stomach Google videos
      “islamic violence against women”

      Google has not yet been forced to remove them.
      Witness the true depravity of Islam

  6. mortimer says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    ‘Yes’ to the question in the movie. Mohammed was a child molester, but covered the rape of a child up with a forced ‘marriage’. Muslims imitate the holy pedophile Mohammed.
    ◾If present trends continue, 142 million girls will be married before their 18th birthday over the next decade. That’s an average of 14.2 million girls each year.
    ◾One third of the world’s girls are married before the age of 18 and 1 in 9 are married before the age of 15.
    ◾Girls living in poor households are almost twice as likely to marry before 18 than girls in higher income households.
    ◾More than half of the girls in Bangladesh, Mali, Mozambique and Niger are married before age 18. In these same countries, more than 75 percent of people live on less than $2 a day.
    ◾Girls younger than 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s. Pregnancy is the leading cause of death worldwide for girls ages 15 to 19.
    ◾Child brides face a higher risk of contracting HIV because they often marry an older man with more sexual experience. Girls ages 15 – 19 are 2 to 6 times more likely to contract HIV than boys of the same age in sub-Saharan Africa.
    ◾Girls who marry before 18 are more likely to experience domestic violence than their peers who marry later. A study conducted by ICRW in two states in India found that girls who were married before 18 were twice as likely to report being beaten, slapped or threatened by their husbands than girls who married later.
    ◾Child brides often show symptoms of sexual abuse and post-traumatic stress such as feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and severe depression.

  7. revg says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Amendments, er…..rights, are over-rated.

  8. Brian C. Hoff says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    This ruleing will be upheld as the person who make this film was than ex-felon who was forrbit in his palrol from posting anything on the internet without approval from the palrol offiver.

    • revg says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm

      What does it matter who posted it, it is the content that needs judged, oh wait, free speech and all. It doesn’t break any content laws for porn or anything.

  9. No Fear says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    “she faced serious threats against her life”

    That sums it all up.

    • onisac says

      Feb 27, 2014 at 7:48 am

      ““she faced serious threats against her life” That sums it all up.”

      Seriously..? So todays justice punishes the victim, not the aggressor?

      If that is the case? Then Islam has already been effective in their jihad.

      • revg says

        Feb 27, 2014 at 7:56 am

        Same islam, different day.

  10. veggiedog says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    I never watched this but just goggled it and saw it in a loop. It says it is 74 minutes but there is only about 10 minutes and then it plays over and over again, but bottom line, this is really silly, stupid…. Parody or just ridiculous this is a religion, or should I say life style that has no humor in them. Sorry if something offends you, but to cut off someone’s head as a result, this is a bit extreme, oh right, you are extremists. So is this the famous video that “caused” the murder in Lebanon?

    • revg says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 6:13 pm

      And here I always thought that they were referring to media footage of the inauguration.

  11. Grizzly Joe says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    correct result on the law insofar as she did not authorize her work product (acting) for use in THIS film… surely film can be reedited and posted again. this was really a lousy “movie”, worse I’ve ever seen BUT if it agitates jihadi dogs, its a good thing.

    • revg says

      Feb 26, 2014 at 6:14 pm

      Depends on what it says on the contract she signed….what she thinks she signed is irrelevant.

  12. CaoMoo says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    Basicly now that actors have the copyright to the performance they made they can legally blackmail a studio and extract from it whatever they want as they can hold the films release up in court. This decision is going to go bad for Hollywood Studios. The 9th Circuit never learns it gets it’s butt handed to it by the supreme court more than any other circuit

    • Brian C. Hoff says

      Feb 27, 2014 at 3:39 am

      It she own than copyright in than other film she was in and they edit the film to put it in his film without the her approval they broke the copyright law, it isnot than free speech issue at all.

      • Defcon 4 says

        Feb 27, 2014 at 9:43 pm

        Yes and if muhahahahahamad flew to the Temple Mount on a donkey I’ll eat a ping pong ball.

  13. Andrea McGann Little says

    Feb 26, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    Big blow to free speech.

  14. Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad says

    Feb 27, 2014 at 9:26 am

    This will get overturned since it came out of the 9th Circuit. They get almost all their decisions overturned. The plaintiff should have understood that when you get into acting you will get fucked over and if she was surprised it happened then she is a moron.

  15. loach says

    Feb 27, 2014 at 10:15 am

    If the net losses the freedom of free speech , there will be no where to learn about the truth about Islam . Becouse the media will aways side with muslin extrism . America is the last country in the world that has freedom of conscious and expression . A lot of countries in Europe have blasphemy laws now becouse of Muslims

  16. Defcon 4 says

    Feb 27, 2014 at 10:34 am

    If her scene in the film were cut, something tells me the corrupt bastards in the 9th Circuit wouldn’t care, because this decision had nothing to do w/protecting Garcia, but rather stifling the truth about pisslam.

  17. Brian C. Hoff says

    Feb 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    This is all about copyright law not free speech law. It willnot be overturn by the hight court as it only effect this video not other video’s.

  18. David says

    Feb 28, 2014 at 6:11 am

    she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?” Classic. When’s the sequel coming out, the world is dying for the sequel?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • curious george on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.