# Google Ordered to Remove 'Innocence of Muslims' From YouTube **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420 "2014-02-27T15:33:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/41 "2014-03-14T17:42:47Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well doesn’t this leave a precedent that if any flighty-headed flibbertygibbet of an actor (an industry well known for its flighty-headed flibbertygibbets) doesn’t like the way he or she appears in a film, they now have a way to censor it? Frankly, it seems like an opening for blackmailing filmmmakers. (“I get 10 percent net or I go\* Garcia\* on you, Mr. Spielberg!”) Sounds like a very bad precedent is being set here. This is just a preliminary injunction. It doesn’t set any precedent at all. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/42 "2014-03-14T17:59:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well doesn’t this leave a precedent that if any flighty-headed flibbertygibbet of an actor (an industry well known for its flighty-headed flibbertygibbets) doesn’t like the way he or she appears in a film, they now have a way to censor it? Frankly, it seems like an opening for blackmailing filmmmakers. (“I get 10 percent net or I go\* Garcia\* on you, Mr. Spielberg!”) Sounds like a very bad precedent is being set here. Given that such an actor would never get work again, it doesn’t seem like too bad a precedent to me. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/43 "2014-03-14T19:07:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think the responses are missing the spirit of the OP. From my understanding, the question is not whether this is or is not copyright infringement, but rather a backdoor censorship method. > > For example, say that there is a video on YouTube promoting bringing back segregation and calling blacks a bunch of vile names. The government wants it down but they cannot due to freedom of speech. But, they find one of the actors who had a 8 second bit part and induce him to complain that he wasn’t aware of the overall nature of the video and attempt to remove it by way of a copyright suit. > > IOW, the real goal isn’t copyright enforcement, but backdoor censorship. Is/should this method be acceptable? If that’s the issue, it’ll come down to a question of whether or not Garcia (or an actor in a similar situation) is acting as a state agent. Censorship by private individuals or organizations is generally legal. It’s only government censorship that is widely restricted. And it can be considered government action if the government is causing a private individual or organization to act. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/44 "2014-03-14T19:11:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well doesn’t this leave a precedent that if any flighty-headed flibbertygibbet of an actor (an industry well known for its flighty-headed flibbertygibbets) doesn’t like the way he or she appears in a film, they now have a way to censor it? Frankly, it seems like an opening for blackmailing filmmmakers. (“I get 10 percent net or I go\* Garcia\* on you, Mr. Spielberg!”) Sounds like a very bad precedent is being set here. If it was a general principle, you’d be right. But the decision quoted by BigT recognizes that it is not a general principle. Only in extraordinary circumstances can a performer claim that the film company so misused his performance that he has the right to withdraw it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/45 "2014-03-16T23:03:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If it was a general principle, you’d be right. But the decision quoted by BigT recognizes that it is not a general principle. Only in extraordinary circumstances can a performer claim that the film company so misused his performance that he has the right to withdraw it. Right. The argument as I understand it is that, because there was no proper written contract, they have to try and figure out what it was reasonable for the woman’s implied consent to cover. The argument is that there was no way she intended to consent to be used in a propaganda film, being overdubbed to say blasphemous things that would lead to people threatening her life. I do not see how this could be applied to any general censorship. The main result, if she were to win, would be that anyone doing this sort of thing will have a written contract, just like pretty much any legitimate production does. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/46 "2015-05-19T16:50:58Z")
Update: the injunction is dissolved. Judge Reinhardt has some harsh words for the original decision: > [@](#): > > This is a case in which our court not only tolerated the > infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights but was > the architect of that infringement. First we issued an order > that prohibited the public from seeing a highly controversial > film that pertained to an ongoing global news story of > immense public interest. Then we ordered that the public > could see it only if edited to exclude a particular scene, > thereby conditioning freedom of expression on a judicially > sanctioned change in the message expressed. We did this > primarily because persons or groups offended by the film’s > message made a threat—in the form of a fatwa—against > everyone connected with the film. By suppressing protected > speech in response to such a threat, we imposed a prior > restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment and > undermined the free exchange of ideas that is central to our > democracy and that separates us from those who condone > violence in response to offensive speech. > Although I agree with the en banc opinion that is being > issued in the normal course well over a year after the > unconstitutional order, I dissent from this court’s earlier > refusal to go en banc immediately on an emergency basis. > Only by doing so could we have prevented the irreparable > damage to free speech rights in the lengthy intervening period > until we could take the case en banc under our regular > procedure. The unconscionable result is that our court > allowed an infringement of First Amendment rights to remain > in effect for fifteen months before we finally issued our > opinion dissolving the unconstitutional injunction issued by > a divided three-judge panel. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/47 "2015-05-19T19:45:24Z")
Thanks for the update, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/48 "2016-01-04T22:37:28Z")
The film is back on YouTube in its 14-minute entirety, in case anyone was curious. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420/49 "2016-01-05T15:30:49Z")
That took longer than I thought. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-ordered-to-remove-innocence-of-muslims-from-youtube/682420.md?page=2)