General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAppeals court orders YouTube to take down anti-Islamic film
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
(13,108 posts)We can't offend the religious or they might kill us.
What a f-uped world.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)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
(25,921 posts)Shes made such a showing. Youssefs 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
(269,054 posts)Can't remember her name
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)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
(9,462 posts)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
(10,849 posts)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
(9,462 posts)improving sound quality, changing words, big difference.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)on edit: sounds like fraud involved with the actress
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)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
(10,362 posts)You cannot misrepresent someone like that if they have an independent copyright.