Google Ordered to Remove 'Innocence of Muslims' From YouTube

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@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.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@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.

[Little_Nemo]

@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.

[Little_Nemo]

@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.

[BigT]

@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.

[Bricker]

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.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Thanks for the update, Bricker.

[Hector_St_Clare]

The film is back on YouTube in its 14-minute entirety, in case anyone was curious.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That took longer than I thought.