US court orders Google to remove Innocence of Muslims film from YouTube

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/02/us-court-orders-google-remove-innocence-muslims-youtube/ US court orders Google to remove Innocence of Muslims film from YouTube The Innocence of Muslims is truly the free speech story that keeps on giving. The crude, cheaply made anti-Islam film sparked international outrage when it first appeared on YouTube in September 2012, with even President Obama forced to weigh into the debate after the US Embassy in Cairo issued a tweet “condemning” the video. While ostensibly supporting free speech, the White House did suggest that Google should examine whether the video contravened its own terms of service.

Google eventually blocked the video of its own accord in Libya and Egypt. Meanwhile, in its move to censor the film, Pakistan simply blocked the whole of YouTube.

Now, a US court has ruled that Google should remove the video from YouTube. Not because of blasphemy, but because of copyright. The case against Google and the makers of the film was brought by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appears in the film for all of five seconds. Garcia claims that her single line, suggesting that Muhammad was a “child molester” was dubbed, and that she was duped into appearing in the anti-Muslim film, having been told it was a trailer for an adventure movie.

Crucially, she also says that she has a claim to the copyright of the film. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that she may have a claim, and on 19 February ordered Google to remove the film from its YouTube service.

The court further ordered that the ruling be kept secret until 26 February, when the 37-page opinion on the case was issued “to prevent a rush to copy and proliferate the film before Google can comply with the order.”

Google has said it will appeal the order, saying that not only could the copyright claim of a bit-part actor create havoc for filmmakers of the future, but that service providers could now also be swamped with takedown requests from people who regret appearing in works in the public domain.

Interestingly, it also suggests that the simple removal of the video could constitute a tampering with the historical record. That chimes with an argument Index has made before – we seem far more comfortable with the removal of web content than we do with, say, the pulping of books, even though the intent is the same.

As things stand, Google has complied with the order, and the Innocence of Muslims can no longer be found on YouTube.

In yet another twist, Pakistani web freedom campaigner and Index on Censorship award nominee Shahzad Ahmed has used the removal of the video to pressure his government to lift the YouTube ban.

“We think that now the government of Pakistan has been left with no excuse to continue blocking access to YouTube,” he is reported as saying. “But the ban on YouTube has got more to do with the government’s desires and efforts to impose censorship, content filtering and moral policing and we are fighting against them in court through a constitutional petition.”

This article was posted on February 27, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org Court ordered censorship made on trumped up charges because the Federal government bows to Islam's demands. You will more and more of this special protection given to Islam until it relegates all others to a servitude status. That is how they did it in Britain, they don't ever yield a damn inch so all others have to in order to avoid violence while they get to do the violence and be praised for it. Stand up now against what is being done to beat us down or face slavery in the near future. A U.S. court just trumped up bullshat to appease the Muslim demand to censor a film that correctly portrayed THIER PROPHET for the savage , murdering , child molesting scum he was. -Tyr

[jafar00]

Good to see good sense prevailing even if it is because of a copyright claim rather than just burying the trashy film born of deceit and sickness for what it is.

[jimnyc]

Good to see good sense prevailing even if it is because of a copyright claim rather than just burying the trashy film born of deceit and sickness for what it is.

Taking away rights is not good sense, even if you detest what those rights produced. Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to our Constitution and women and men have literally died to preserve that right. As a society as a whole, I do believe we strive to be better, and more careful with this freedom, but with this freedom will ALWAYS come people who do things that insult others. I would rather take some insults for freedom, than be gone of insults and lose our constitutionally protected freedoms.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Taking away rights is not good sense, even if you detest what those rights produced. Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to our Constitution and women and men have literally died to preserve that right. As a society as a whole, I do believe we strive to be better, and more careful with this freedom, but with this freedom will ALWAYS come people who do things that insult others. I would rather take some insults for freedom, than be gone of insults and lose our constitutionally protected freedoms. For freedom of speech and freedom of religion to exist, to thrive, we must endure that which we find distasteful. Currently our government chooses to attack and attempt to limit only one religion primarily and that is Christianity. This is done because mostly Conservatives are Christian and because the Islamists demand it be done. Our government currently bows at two Alters = that of the Globalists and the Islamists. All others are simply listed as enemies of the State to be ostracized and punished. I have no doubt that I am on several such lists to be meted out punishment to. To which my standard reply is --ff-them!! I yield to no man alive and certainly not to such graven cowards as they are ... --Tyr

[aboutime]

Good to see good sense prevailing even if it is because of a copyright claim rather than just burying the trashy film born of deceit and sickness for what it is.


jafar. As an American who honors, follows and respects our Constitution, and every amendment it represents. I am so thankful YOU are not an American..living here in America, where we provide the FREEDOM OF SPEECH you seem to detest when said speech...is against you, or your opinions.

We proudly use, and exercise our FREEDOM OF SPEECH..despite what anyone else, anywhere else in the World says.

So yes. It is good to see GOOD SENSE prevail...with FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[Abbey Marie]

Is it just me, or does Cindy Lee Garcia sound scared?

[jafar00]

Taking away rights is not good sense, even if you detest what those rights produced. Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to our Constitution and women and men have literally died to preserve that right. As a society as a whole, I do believe we strive to be better, and more careful with this freedom, but with this freedom will ALWAYS come people who do things that insult others. I would rather take some insults for freedom, than be gone of insults and lose our constitutionally protected freedoms.

I believe freedom can be abused. Freedom that ends up with this kind of thing being produced is not exactly conducive to a civilised society. I have no problem with talking about other cultures, but when you are straight out offensive to the level of provoking a negative reaction, you should be silenced for the greater good.

Freedom of speech should only be afforded to those who don't abuse it. If you disagree, why not give people murder and rape as they please? Isn't that also freedom?

[fj1200]

Freedom of speech should only be afforded to those who don't abuse it. If you disagree, why not give people murder and rape as they please? Isn't that also freedom?

Please tell me that you already know the answer to that.

[aboutime]

I believe freedom can be abused. Freedom that ends up with this kind of thing being produced is not exactly conducive to a civilised society. I have no problem with talking about other cultures, but when you are straight out offensive to the level of provoking a negative reaction, you should be silenced for the greater good.

Freedom of speech should only be afforded to those who don't abuse it. If you disagree, why not give people murder and rape as they please? Isn't that also freedom?


jafar. YOU CANNOT ABUSE SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE. You can make all of the choices you like...down there in OZ. But all of us...with the exception of a number of SPOILED LIBERALS here in America...prefer using our FREEDOMS to their fullest without ANYONE telling us we have LIMITS.

[jafar00]

Please tell me that you already know the answer to that.

I do but the point is that freedom must have limits.


jafar. YOU CANNOT ABUSE SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE. You can make all of the choices you like...down there in OZ. But all of us...with the exception of a number of SPOILED LIBERALS here in America...prefer using our FREEDOMS to their fullest without ANYONE telling us we have LIMITS.

Here in Oz, we have limits. You can say what you like but if you try to use it to discriminate or to stoke hatred you better be prepared to spend time in jail for it.

[logroller]

IMHO Absent express consent, a movie producer doesn't have the right alter one's performance to the extent of this case. Imagine if someone paid you to tape you brushing your teeth for a toothpaste commercial and then altered the video to show you performing fellatio.

[Gaffer]

I do but the point is that freedom must have limits.



Here in Oz, we have limits. You can say what you like but if you try to use it to discriminate or to stoke hatred you better be prepared to spend time in jail for it.

As soon as you put limits on freedom you have no freedom. I can be as hateful, discriminate and foul mouthed as I want to be. That's freedom. You, on the other hand, can not. That's a lack of freedom.

[jafar00]

As soon as you put limits on freedom you have no freedom. I can be as hateful, discriminate and foul mouthed as I want to be. That's freedom. You, on the other hand, can not. That's a lack of freedom.

I feel pretty free here as long as I don't feel the need to go off to Bondi and taunt the Jews. Why would you even want the "freedom" to do such a thing?

[jimnyc]

I believe freedom can be abused. Freedom that ends up with this kind of thing being produced is not exactly conducive to a civilised society. I have no problem with talking about other cultures, but when you are straight out offensive to the level of provoking a negative reaction, you should be silenced for the greater good.

Freedom of speech should only be afforded to those who don't abuse it. If you disagree, why not give people murder and rape as they please? Isn't that also freedom?


I do but the point is that freedom must have limits.



Here in Oz, we have limits. You can say what you like but if you try to use it to discriminate or to stoke hatred you better be prepared to spend time in jail for it.

Silenced for the greater good? Limits to freedom? It'll be awesome when the day comes that our leaders tell us we can't do that, we can't do this, can't say this and can't say that - because it's for the greater good. No offense, but that's a world I don't want to live in. How long before regular political dissent is silenced, which I might add happens in so many Islamic countries? Again, no thanks.

[jimnyc]

IMHO Absent express consent, a movie producer doesn't have the right alter one's performance to the extent of this case. Imagine if someone paid you to tape you brushing your teeth for a toothpaste commercial and then altered the video to show you performing fellatio.

I don't think anyone is arguing the specific legality behind her claim, which a few seconds can then be clipped and have it right back up on Youtube. Minus those few seconds, folks like Jafar STILL want it removed and still think it's beyond what freedom should allow. So while you point out what rights people DON'T have - when does the rights of those making the movie come into play? Take out this woman - should this movie be removed simply because people are insulted by it? If so, there are hundreds of thousands of Islamic based clips on Youtube which now need to be removed as well.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Silenced for the greater good? Limits to freedom? It'll be awesome when the day comes that our leaders tell us we can't do that, we can't do this, can't say this and can't say that - because it's for the greater good. No offense, but that's a world I don't want to live in. How long before regular political dissent is silenced, which I might add happens in so many Islamic countries? Again, no thanks. I can now see why Jafar
likes Hamas and Obama . Both named believe strongly in that...

Silenced for the greater good ---Tyr

[fj1200]

I do but the point is that freedom must have limits.

The limits are infringing on the liberties of another. The freedom from being offended does not count.

[logroller]

I don't think anyone is arguing the specific legality behind her claim, which a few seconds can then be clipped and have it right back up on Youtube. Minus those few seconds, folks like Jafar STILL want it removed and still think it's beyond what freedom should allow. So while you point out what rights people DON'T have - when does the rights of those making the movie come into play? Take out this woman - should this movie be removed simply because people are insulted by it? If so, there are hundreds of thousands of Islamic based clips on Youtube which now need to be removed as well.

It's my understanding that she wasn't the only participant that felt defrauded; I believe some 80 cast and crew felt similarly duped; she's just the only one that's sought legal remedy.

Rights are coextensive among all those involved; the rights of the producer don't trump all. As my dad says, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. As for other clips, if they are all products of fraud, then I suppose so. But its worthy to note the injunction in this case served as a precautionary remedy to an alleged wrong done by the content owner. It may seem simple enough to just remove her portion and then wait for any subsequent complainant to pursue removal of their respective portions, but you know as well as I that once one portion were removed a league of alternative content providers would then host the video and it would become difficult, if not impossible to remove all such copies-- de facto, rendering any any ruling moot. Clearly there's a compelling government interest in preserving the effectiveness of our justice system.

[jimnyc]

It's my understanding that she wasn't the only participant that felt defrauded; I believe some 80 cast and crew felt similarly duped; she's just the only one that's sought legal remedy.

Rights are coextensive among all those involved; the rights of the producer don't trump all. As my dad says, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. As for other clips, if they are all products of fraud, then I suppose so. But its worthy to note the injunction in this case served as a precautionary remedy to an alleged wrong done by the content owner. It may seem simple enough to just remove her portion and then wait for any subsequent complainant to pursue removal of their respective portions, but you know as well as I that once one portion were removed a league of alternative content providers would then host the video and it would become difficult, if not impossible to remove all such copies-- de facto, rendering any any ruling moot. Clearly there's a compelling government interest in preserving the effectiveness of our justice system.

I believe you may have misread my point... All legal issues aside, Jafar, and many others, simply wanted the movie removed because it was insulting. This was long prior to any legal issues brought up in this complaint. Even if I created a Youtube "movie" right now, and simply spoke into it and insult about Muhammed and Allah, with only myself in the video - it would also receive similar treatment, as in many Muslim folks wanting it removed - and not for legal issues - but rather because they feel insulted. At least here in America, one doesn't really have a right NOT to be insulted, unless of course it breaks the law. In other words, the very same movie, all with actors agreeing and not a single complaint - the desire and complaints to have it removed wouldn't be any different.

[aboutime]

I do but the point is that freedom must have limits.



Here in Oz, we have limits. You can say what you like but if you try to use it to discriminate or to stoke hatred you better be prepared to spend time in jail for it.


That's exactly NOT what we in America call FREEDOM. Guess OZ doesn't believe in FOR ALL?

[jafar00]

That's exactly NOT what we in America call FREEDOM. Guess OZ doesn't believe in FOR ALL?

We just prefer peace and social cohesion with our freedom.

[jimnyc]

We just prefer peace and social cohesion with our freedom.

First off, don't pretend that Australia doesn't have it's share of offensive people, and offensive people that say and do things that are completely legal.

But let me ask you directly - if the aforementioned film was made "as-is", just with different actors and was all legal as to the actor/filmer, and no complaints from that side, but the story remained identical - would you and many others still be wanting the movie removed from Youtube and/or banned? There were petitions galore and tons of complaints long, long before any other legal issues came about, not to mention riots. Muslim folks simply didn't want this film out there. And THEY certainly didn't care about peace and social cohesion!!

[logroller]

I believe you may have misread my point... All legal issues aside, Jafar, and many others, simply wanted the movie removed because it was insulting. This was long prior to any legal issues brought up in this complaint. Even if I created a Youtube "movie" right now, and simply spoke into it and insult about Muhammed and Allah, with only myself in the video - it would also receive similar treatment, as in many Muslim folks wanting it removed - and not for legal issues - but rather because they feel insulted. At least here in America, one doesn't really have a right NOT to be insulted, unless of course it breaks the law. In other words, the very same movie, all with actors agreeing and not a single complaint - the desire and complaints to have it removed wouldn't be any different.
Ignoring any legal aspects, one doesn't have the right to not be insulted at all. But it would serve to reason that insulting others' most intimate beliefs serves no good purpose IMO. Challenge them, sure, but not insult.

Does intolerance, even of hate and evil have a right to be? I guess, but it doesn't mean it should be relished. I mean, if it just boils down to what is, no good/evil, then wtf does any of it matter? So some guy insults, someone takes offense, demanding removal, perhaps falsely attributing the insults as the impetus for the murder of someone to stoke condemnation...does it really matter ...is that all just free speech... it is what is it is; no need to consider the ramifications?
Perhaps some day, but I suspect that level of tolerance would only occur after a nihilistic period of apocalyptic proportion.

[jimnyc]

Ignoring any legal aspects, one doesn't have the right to not be insulted at all. But it would serve to reason that insulting others' most intimate beliefs serves no good purpose IMO. Challenge them, sure, but not insult.

Does intolerance, even of hate and evil have a right to be? I guess, but it doesn't mean it should be relished. I mean, if it just boils down to what is, no good/evil, then wtf does any of it matter? So some guy insults, someone takes offense, demanding removal, perhaps falsely attributing the insults as the impetus for the murder of someone to stoke condemnation...does it really matter ...is that all just free speech... it is what is it is; no need to consider the ramifications?
Perhaps some day, but I suspect that level of tolerance would only occur after a nihilistic period of apocalyptic proportion.

I'm not defending any insults but rather the rights of one to be insulting. Even if no good purpose, that right still exists. It is black and white too, as once you start chipping away at freedom of speech, you're opening the door for more to be halted down the road. That's why no matter how insulted, I always support FOS. Granted, harassment isn't allowed, and your freedom of speech can't put someone into a potentially dangerous position (fire in a theater). But none of these existed. Even if someone made a 5 second youtube video, with 2 quick no purpose insults about Muhammed - the attempts to have it taken down and petitions would still be had. And that IS mine or another persons RIGHT to do so if they choose (not debating rules of a website). Same as if in public and having a conversation between 2 folks - I am allowed to say perhaps the most insulting things on earth, even if someone else overhears and doesn't care for it. My right to FOS trumps their desire not to be insulted.

And I DEFINITELY don't think we should EVER try and silence people "for the greater good". And yes, that obviously meant that we shouldn't be able to make certain insults, as somehow that is for the greater good.

[logroller]

I'm not defending any insults but rather the rights of one to be insulting. Even if no good purpose, that right still exists. It is black and white too, as once you start chipping away at freedom of speech, you're opening the door for more to be halted down the road. That's why no matter how insulted, I always support FOS. Granted, harassment isn't allowed, and your freedom of speech can't put someone into a potentially dangerous position (fire in a theater). But none of these existed.
i believe Garcia received credible death threats.


And I DEFINITELY don't think we should EVER try and silence people "for the greater good". And yes, that obviously meant that we shouldn't be able to make certain insults, as somehow that is for the greater good.
So no 'fighting words' exception? Even here we have such exceptions, eg insulting another's family; is this it not done for the 'greater good'?

[jimnyc]

i believe Garcia received credible death threats.


So no 'fighting words' exception? Even here we have such exceptions, eg insulting another's family; is this it not done for the 'greater good'?

The ONLY time I think speech should be silenced is if it's unlawful. It's really that simple. I don't know of which exception you speak of, or just speaking in general, but insulting someones family is not unlawful. If getting in your car in the morning, and your neighbor is outside too, you can tell him that he and his entire family suck ass. If solely as I just described, that is fully legal.

We have a US constitution. the "Greater Good" is upholding this constitution. Stepping on it in order to make others not feel insulted - NOT for the greater good.

Look at in many countries where it IS a penalty of sorts to insult another. Do you want to live somewhere where you pay a $75 fine if you call someone an asshole? Perhaps get caned/flogged for insulting someone? Maybe even killed if you insult someone of the highest order? No thanks, not for me.

[logroller]

The ONLY time I think speech should be silenced is if it's unlawful. It's really that simple. I don't know of which exception you speak of, or just speaking in general, but insulting someones family is not unlawful. If getting in your car in the morning, and your neighbor is outside too, you can tell him that he and his entire family suck ass. If solely as I just described, that is fully legal.

We have a US constitution. the "Greater Good" is upholding this constitution. Stepping on it in order to make others not feel insulted - NOT for the greater good.

Look at in many countries where it IS a penalty of sorts to insult another. Do you want to live somewhere where you pay a $75 fine if you call someone an asshole? Perhaps get caned/flogged for insulting someone? Maybe even killed if you insult someone of the highest order? No thanks, not for me.
Its not that I disagree, but by what justification do we, as a society, determine what is 'unlawful' speech? Specifically, what's the standard ???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Its not that I disagree, but by what justification do we, as a society, determine what is 'unlawful' speech? Specifically, what's the standard ???
Here is the standard.. --Tyr




http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.




Printer-Friendly Version
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.





Pay special attention to number 10.... That is the one the Feds almost totally ignore now.... and the ramifications of that are perilous indeed IMHO..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Its not that I disagree, but by what justification do we, as a society, determine what is 'unlawful' speech? Specifically, what's the standard ???

As it currently stands, what IS already declared unlawful, and I don't think it should go a step further than what is already declared unlawful. Of course if someone feels that certain words or speech is against the law, they can certainly file suit - but I would hope that the COTUS and precedent would prevail over simply hurt feelings, or shooting down speech "for the greater good".


The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

So of course, as already stated, freedom of speech comes with responsibility. But that responsibility doesn't pertain to "speaking words that may offend others". There are quite a few ways where speech can rise to the level of unlawful - but simply someone stating their opinion to another, I can never see that rising to such a level. We would be talking harassment, trying to incite immediate violence, speech that would provoke others into danger, verbal threats of course. But what we're talking about? People disparaging a religion on Youtube, calling names from afar and such. No way. Hell, anyone is more than free to simply not click on a particular video if they don't like the contents. But it's not even remotely in the same universe as unlawful speech. I would imagine if it's lawful for someone to call the president of the USA a chimpanzee, or a subhuman mongrel, surely it's ok to also insult a religion. Surely if someone can literally burn an American Flag, another can state their contempt/hatred of another persons race or religion. These are our protected rights, whether you agree or not.

[jimnyc]

i believe Garcia received credible death threats.


So no 'fighting words' exception? Even here we have such exceptions, eg insulting another's family; is this it not done for the 'greater good'?

In reference to the "fighting words". I was reading more in this subject and came across a site that covers a great range in defining freedom of speech, in a legal sense solely. While other great coverage in there about freedom of speech prevailing, this one caught my eye:


Since the 1980s, a number of laws have been passed that attempt to regulate or ban "hate speech," which is defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally invalidated such laws on the ground that they infringe First Amendment rights. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the Court invalidated the city of St. Paul's hate-crime ordinance, ruling that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech. The defendant in that case had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family's residence.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the ordinance was limited to restricting conduct that amounted to Chaplinksky "fighting words." Therefore, the ordinance was not impermissibly content-based because it was "narrowly tailored" to further the "compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order." The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion, wrote that, even assuming that the cross burning was proscribable under the "fighting words" doctrine, the ordinance was, on its face, unconstitutional. It violated the First Amendment because it prohibited "otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." Scalia agreed that the government may constitutionally proscribe content such as libel, but that it may not proscribe only libel that is critical of the government. In Scalia's view, the unprotected features of "fighting words" are their "nonspeech" element of communication. Thus, fighting words are like a noisy sound truck: each is a mode of speech, and both can be used to convey an idea, but neither has a claim on the First Amendment. The government cannot, however, regulate fighting words or a sound truck based on "hostility-or favoritism-towards the underlying message expressed."

I do see where the government has regulated some speech, and rightfully so. Like pornography for example, I don't think people should be able to put it on display just on any old road for kids to see. But they don't ban the content itself. And with some political things, or religious, they may regulate where, and during what hours. But very, very few times do you see the actual content shut down, as it's covered by the constitution.

But lots of good reading on this page and reference to quite a few court cases.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech

[jafar00]

First off, don't pretend that Australia doesn't have it's share of offensive people, and offensive people that say and do things that are completely legal.

But let me ask you directly - if the aforementioned film was made "as-is", just with different actors and was all legal as to the actor/filmer, and no complaints from that side, but the story remained identical - would you and many others still be wanting the movie removed from Youtube and/or banned? There were petitions galore and tons of complaints long, long before any other legal issues came about, not to mention riots. Muslim folks simply didn't want this film out there. And THEY certainly didn't care about peace and social cohesion!!

If the video was deemed Anti Semitic, would we even be discussing this?

And there is this...
https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines


We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation/gender identity, or their status as a returned soldier).

[jimnyc]

If the video was deemed Anti Semitic, would we even be discussing this?

And there is this...
https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines


We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation/gender identity, or their status as a returned soldier).



So if not on Youtube, but a site where they wouldn't mind - you would then be cool leaving it everywhere in the name of freedom of speech? Many, many other Muslims want it removed entirely, not because it violates a websites rules, but because they feel offended. MANY, many were and are willing to become violent over the movie as well.

This isn't about youtube anymore. I never once stated that a business as such doesn't have the right. Youtube was within their rights to remove the movie. I'm talking about freedom of speech, from the beginning of the thread. The movie is out there on thousands of other sites right now, most of which don't have a rule against offensive material.

There's a HUGE gap in the belief of freedom of speech and expression between the USA and countries to the East. We believe in freedom of speech, but violence isn't part of that. Over there, many people decry freedom of speech, and will use violence and threats to get their point across. Odd that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If the video was deemed Anti Semitic, would we even be discussing this?

And there is this...
https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines


We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation/gender identity, or their status as a returned soldier).
Any government taking that approach has taken a huge leap towards setting up a dictatorship.

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation/gender identity, or their status as a returned soldier). Permitting hate speech must be allowed. Simply because when its forcibly suppressed opposing speech by those not in power gets labeled as "hate speech" and is duly censored thus setting up a dictatorial control by the group currently in power--a control that helps them stay in power!! That lays the solid foundation for a dictatorship IMHO.. For he that gets to say what is "hate speech" gets to rule the others. I'll lay even odds that many sites proclaiming that as a policy also ignore attacks upon Christians while rigidly apply it to all other. --Tyr

[jafar00]

So if not on Youtube, but a site where they wouldn't mind - you would then be cool leaving it everywhere in the name of freedom of speech? Many, many other Muslims want it removed entirely, not because it violates a websites rules, but because they feel offended. MANY, many were and are willing to become violent over the movie as well.

This isn't about youtube anymore. I never once stated that a business as such doesn't have the right. Youtube was within their rights to remove the movie. I'm talking about freedom of speech, from the beginning of the thread. The movie is out there on thousands of other sites right now, most of which don't have a rule against offensive material.

There's a HUGE gap in the belief of freedom of speech and expression between the USA and countries to the East. We believe in freedom of speech, but violence isn't part of that. Over there, many people decry freedom of speech, and will use violence and threats to get their point across. Odd that.

If it generated debate and asked questions, I wouldn't mind if it stayed up, but it is just a trashy, offensive film that insults and lies throughout and it taunts those of us with less self control to protest in a violent way. It's better for all of society if that sort of thing was suppressed.

[jimnyc]

If it generated debate and asked questions, I wouldn't mind if it stayed up, but it is just a trashy, offensive film that insults and lies throughout and it taunts those of us with less self control to protest in a violent way. It's better for all of society if that sort of thing was suppressed.

You just described and endless slew of Hollywood movies over the years. Thing is, it's offensive to YOU. If it were doing the same to Christianity, while I'm not saying you would cheer for it, I doubt you would petition for it's removal. Different strokes for different folks. Some would ban certain curse words altogether. Some want a level of nudity banned. Some want offensive religious stuff removed. Some want a level of violence removed. How about these people simply not watch things that offend them, and not stomp on the freedoms of others?

[jafar00]

Anti Semitism is universally looked down upon and is even a criminal act in some countries. Why not include Anti "Islamism" in that?

[DragonStryk72]

Good to see good sense prevailing even if it is because of a copyright claim rather than just burying the trashy film born of deceit and sickness for what it is.

Not really. What's actually happening is that, because of this case, the movie is gaining even more attention, and getting the chance to offend more people. Instead of it being a minor little thing that fades into irrelevance, it keeps grabbing headlines, bringing it to the attention of more people, who will watch it and pass it on.

It's on the internet, there is no stopping the watching of it should someone wish to. Everyone would be better served to grow up, and move on.

As to the copyright claim, you'd better pray that it doesn't get upheld. I'm serious, imagine every movie that has even one bit-part actor in it slapping down copyright claims on the movie or even other media, and you can easily see where this would lead.

[DragonStryk72]

Anti Semitism is universally looked down upon and is even a criminal act in some countries. Why not include Anti "Islamism" in that?

It's not illegal here. Looked down on certainly, but it's not illegal. You are totally free to be an asshole, and we are free to treat you like one.

[jimnyc]

Anti Semitism is universally looked down upon and is even a criminal act in some countries. Why not include Anti "Islamism" in that?

And it's looked down upon here. But as DS pointed out, not illegal. And it shouldn't be. Every religion known to man gets mocked or trashed by someone, somewhere, almost everyday. A woman just stood nearly naked in front of the Texas capitol building a few days ago and proceeded to destroy the bible. I couldn't care less. She looked like an idiot, but that's her choice if she wants to. No wars were started. No riots. No violence. The only person she hurt was herself. Now, if thousands rioted, it went viral and all Christians went batty over it, petitions and such... None of that happened.

And while no way in hell is "Anti "Islamism" to be against any laws, nor is it illegal to be against ANY religion and speak out against it, however much it may insult people.

No one who is offended by the Islam film would be as offended unless they watched it. Simple then - don't watch it, just as I don't watch things that may bother me. For example, atheists bother me for always trying to prove my religion wrong. I simply don't read stories on atheism, don't watch the videos, just don't let them make me angry at all. But they have that right to talk down about Christianity if they choose, as I have the right to ignore them.

What NONE of us need is the government further stepping over the line and telling us what is offensive and what is not. How would they determine that? Take a poll? EVERYONE is offended by something, the list would ban everything! Or should it be like in Islamic countries - where you can't insult the one religion, can't insult the religious figures running the country, can't insult Muhammed and such?

Amazing that the skin is so think of so many Muslims, but thick enough to riot and kill if the wind blows in the wrong direction. Or the desire to lose things that are offensive also then goes into the wind - and suddenly the right to offend America/Bush/Obama/Military and anything Western surges.

[aboutime]

Anti Semitism is universally looked down upon and is even a criminal act in some countries. Why not include Anti "Islamism" in that?


jafar. So, tell us. How many Israeli's flew planes into buildings on September 11, 2001?

[jafar00]

jafar. So, tell us. How many Israeli's flew planes into buildings on September 11, 2001?

How many Israelis were seen dancing and celebrating as it happened, and filming it on cameras they had already set up to document it?

[aboutime]

How many Israelis were seen dancing and celebrating as it happened, and filming it on cameras they had already set up to document it?


Wrong again jafar. Your lies still won't work. Those photos you so HAPPILY speak of were proven to be Members of Hamas. Guess you are convinced all of us are as GULLIBLE as you, with your fabrications to defend Terrorists???

[jimnyc]

How many Israelis were seen dancing and celebrating as it happened, and filming it on cameras they had already set up to document it?

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some Israeli's celebrated for whatever reason. But knowing in advance, is that what you are implying? I don't recall you being much of a conspiracy theorist. No one can find a single shred of evidence of pre-planning in NYC, not a piece of yarn, a single wire, eyewitness, not anything. But some unknown and unnamed people knew in advance to setup cameras?

[jafar00]

Wrong again jafar. Your lies still won't work. Those photos you so HAPPILY speak of were proven to be Members of Hamas. Guess you are convinced all of us are as GULLIBLE as you, with your fabrications to defend Terrorists???

Seriously? What kooks proclaimed this? One of your hate blogs?

[Abbey Marie]

And it's looked down upon here. But as DS pointed out, not illegal. And it shouldn't be. Every religion known to man gets mocked or trashed by someone, somewhere, almost everyday. A woman just stood nearly naked in front of the Texas capitol building a few days ago and proceeded to destroy the bible. I couldn't care less. She looked like an idiot, but that's her choice if she wants to. No wars were started. No riots. No violence. The only person she hurt was herself. Now, if thousands rioted, it went viral and all Christians went batty over it, petitions and such... None of that happened.

And while no way in hell is "Anti "Islamism" to be against any laws, nor is it illegal to be against ANY religion and speak out against it, however much it may insult people.

No one who is offended by the Islam film would be as offended unless they watched it. Simple then - don't watch it, just as I don't watch things that may bother me. For example, atheists bother me for always trying to prove my religion wrong. I simply don't read stories on atheism, don't watch the videos, just don't let them make me angry at all. But they have that right to talk down about Christianity if they choose, as I have the right to ignore them.

What NONE of us need is the government further stepping over the line and telling us what is offensive and what is not. How would they determine that? Take a poll? EVERYONE is offended by something, the list would ban everything! Or should it be like in Islamic countries - where you can't insult the one religion, can't insult the religious figures running the country, can't insult Muhammed and such?

Amazing that the skin is so think of so many Muslims, but thick enough to riot and kill if the wind blows in the wrong direction. Or the desire to lose things that are offensive also then goes into the wind - and suddenly the right to offend America/Bush/Obama/Military and anything Western surges.

Yes, that is because we know that our God is much bigger than the book that describes Him. And we know how it ends.
:cool: