Why?
Irony!
I believe that the government probably feels that the video constitutes incendiary language against a religious group, which would have it fall outside of the realm of free speech. Or something to that effect.
Yeah, I’m going with not a violation. Bad policy, IMO, but there was no enforcement mechanism and Google was free to say know. And even if it were a violation, what would be the remedy? Nothing was lost, no speech was suppressed. Could Google even sue for damages? I’ll leave that one for the lawyers.
Here is what a violation of the 1st Amendment would look like. The FBI, or some branch of government, gets a court order mandated that Google remove the video or face criminal charges. Google removes the video, takes the case to court, and wins. Now, whatever statute was used against Google is declared unconstitutional going forward-- or at least that part of the statute that the SCOTUS rules against, probably with one of its famous Three Part Tests. 
Is it a violation of the Fourth Amendment if a police officer asks you if he can search your car, if he does not have a search warrant, and you say no anyways?
A request sans any other evidence of intimidation or retaliation is simply not a constitutional rights violation by the government official making the requests. Government officials make requests of media outlets all the time, and more often than not they are complied with to some degree.
For example some of you may be unaware of it, but on issues relating to national security or certain issues involving criminal activity it is very often the case the press has some information on it before they break the story. Sometimes the government will even prep the press on what’s going on, but they make the request that the media respect a certain blackout period before going public with it out of security concerns or things of that nature.
While not 100% compliant, the press mostly does keep quiet as agreed. They do it because it keeps them in the good graces of the various government staffers who deal with the press and mean they will keep getting information leaked to them a little early so they have time to prepare a story or some remarks. Like I’d bet before it was formally announced we killed Osama bin Laden, the White House gave a small bit of information to White House press corps with the understanding they’d keep a lid on it for a few hours. That gave the press time to prepare their story, and if they had screwed over the White House press secretary then you can bet next time around they wouldn’t have been given any advance information and would be scrambling a lot harder than usual to get their story ready in time to be relevant.
Of course not, it’s basically demonstrably not because police ask all the time if they are allowed to search your car or house without a warrant. A warrant is what lets them do it even if you say no, but if you’re dumb enough to say yes when they do not have a warrant that’s a legal search. But they’re always allowed to ask you, and if they ask and you say no then no rights have been violated, all they did was ask you if it was okay if they did something.
Can you cite the SCOTUS decision that supports that?
Fighting words doctrine applies to expression that is meant to incite violence. Given that religious satire, criticism, and even just plain insults to religion are part of our national tradition, it’s hard to argue that they constitute fighting words.
So by the opions I have read here it is OK to stand in a theater and yell FIRE and if the theater operator has no problem with it, its acceptable behavior. Glad to have that cleared up THANK YA"LL
It’s actually not illegal to yell “fire” in a movie theatre and I’m not aware of any court ruling that it was.
I don’t see the problem here. The government finds out that a video hosted by a private company has led to rioting and the deaths of four American citizens. Government is concerned for the potential of more violence and takes the precaution of asking company to voluntarily remove the video. Company refuses. First amendment stays intact.
This wouldn’t be the first time government has asked that information be withheld. The military often asks journalists to not report certain sensitive information that could risk military operations and the safety of personnel. Does the government in this case violate the first amendment?
Intimidation is irrelevant to questions of rights violations. What matters is when they follow through on any implied threat. Intentional intimidation is a bluff, nothing more, and unintentional intimidation is entirely outside the control of the government.
Cops intimidate suspects into confessing all the time, yet are, generally, not constantly guilty of violating the 5th amendment.
I confess, I felt a little uncomfortable when I read that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the pastor to withdraw his support for the movie.
I don’t see that as being a proper part of his job. His job is to protect the country from enemy military attack, and to project force into enemy territory. Not to tell me to keep my opinions to myself, thanks.
On the other hand, it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Nowhere even close. The pastor can tell him, “Thanks, but I’ll just keep on doing what I feel is right.” No harm, no foul, at least as far as the constitution is concerned.
So, as someone else has said, I’d put it in the category of a highway patrol officer asking, “May I search your car?” So long as I can say, “Nope,” then that much, at least, is right with the world.
That one was a bit of a head-scratcher for me, too. But I remembered that at the time of his Qur’an-burning stunt Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates also called upon him directly for restraint.
I figure that within my “Do Something Theatre” scenario, with a Religious UltraRight figure like Jones a request coming from the military, arguing about the safety of the troops in the front, would be looked at with less hostility by that wing even while rejecting it, than one coming from the political officials who they already dismiss as godless liberal commies.
The public nature of the request also seems to lessen any first amendment complications. It’s when the government is sending around a man in sunglasses to have a quiet chat with you about your choices that I think you have a problem.
It probably still is.
Tch tch.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Court:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
That decision enunciated the “Clear and present danger” doctrine
which has since been narrowed. However, I don’t think it has been
narrowed to the extent you suggest. Let us hope not, anyway.
You’re missing the key word in that sentence.
“Would,” making the statement subjunctive?
(btw, I just read Yann Martel’s “Life of Pi.” Quite loved it!)
I was going with “falsely,” but that’s a good point too.