Federal appeals court orders Google to remove Mohammed movie from YouTube

posted at 5:21 pm on February 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

It’s not what you think. In fact, the opinion was written by Alex Kozinski, a famously libertarian-leaning judge who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by Reagan. The question wasn’t whether the film is defamatory or a species of “fighting words” unprotected by the First Amendment (although Kozinski does, in fact, use that exact term at one point in its colloquial sense to describe the film’s offense to Muslims). The question is whether an actor owns a copyright in her performance and whether that copyright is violated if the filmmaker so distorts that performance that it violates the “implied license” she’s granted him to use it on film. It’s an intellectual property rights case, in other words, albeit against a stark First Amendment backdrop.

Google, which could have quietly purged “Innocence of Muslims” long ago to spare itself lots of grief and death threats, fought this all the way. Held: The filmmaker did exceed the implied license he had to use a cast member’s performance in his film. He convinced her she was acting in a completely different movie, then overdubbed her lines in post-production so that he could stick the footage he’d shot into the anti-Mohammed film instead. Essentially, he obtained her copyright to her performance under false pretenses. Take it down, says Kozinski:

“This is a troubling case,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Garcia was duped into providing an artistic performance that was used in a way she never could have foreseen.”

Garcia sued after she discovered she was in the video, after efforts to persuade Google to take it down from YouTube were repeatedly rebuffed. The actress had been cast in a minor role in a film called “Desert Warrior,” and paid $500 by director Mark Basseley Youssef, but the movie never materialized, according to court papers…

In her suit, Garcia maintained that YouTube’s unrivaled popularity gave the film a broad audience, and that she had a right to get it removed because she had been misled by the director and retained copyright protections to her artistic work.

A key bit from the opinion on the “implied license” a filmmaker enjoys to his cast’s performance. It’s reeeeeeally broad, but not so broad as to include fraud:

ko

How broad is the implied license in cases that don’t involve outright fraud, i.e. in a case where a filmmaker sincerely sets out to make a certain kind of film and then changes his mind midway through? Hard to say, but it probably doesn’t matter. How often will an actor sue to minimize his exposure in a high-profile project by having it taken offline?

There is a dissent, incidentally, beginning on page 19 of the opinion, but that too focuses on property rights more so than the First Amendment. An actor does not in fact have a copyright to her performance, Judge Smith argues, which means Garcia has no cognizable interest in having the film removed from YouTube. I don’t know what practical reason she has, frankly — after 18 months of infamy in the Middle East, the death-threat cake is baked whether the movie stays up or not — but oh well. If the filmmaker’s determined to keep this going, presumably he could edit out Garcia’s scenes and then re-upload it without a problem — unless and until the next cast member sues.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Thank God they stopped this senseless crime-wave!

Lanceman on February 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM

****Heads UP:

Arizona anti-gay bill
3m
Sources say Gov. Jan Brewer will be announcing her decision to veto SB1062 at 4:45 today – @KVOA
see original on twitter.com

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 5:20 PM

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Bizarro-World

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2014 at 5:28 PM

“The Innocence of Muslims” is not an Arabian adventure movie? Says who?

“The Innocence of Muslims” is not intended to entertain at all? Says who?

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 5:29 PM

So the edited version didn’t match the script? I bet that almost never happens. Kevin Costner should have sued for being edited out of “The Big Chill”.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM

An actor does not in fact have a copyright to her performance, Judge Smith argues, which means Garcia has no cognizable interest in having the film removed from YouTube.

This has generally been true.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM

It’s not what you think.

That’s not stopping people from freaking out.

Too bad, if she is telling the truth, it is the right decision.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Long show trials and disappearances.

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 5:32 PM

He convinced her she was acting in a completely different movie, then overdubbed her lines in post-production so that he could stick the footage he’d shot into the anti-Mohammed film instead
=============================================

War on Woman,..opens a new front, er wait,
I’ll have to re-think dis………
(sarc)

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM

“This is a troubling case,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Garcia was duped into providing an artistic performance that was used in a way she never could have foreseen.”

How is this different than any actor who signs on for a stinker of a movie? You really think Tom Hanks, Ossie Davis, and Meg Ryan think their performance in Joe Versus the Volcano weren’t duped into providing an artistic performance that was used in a way they never could have foreseen?

But more importantly, if this film really was a source of death and riots, why was it available up until now? Where are the continued series of riots over its very existence?

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Hillary says,

What difference – at this point, what difference does it make

Buck_Nekkid on February 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM

This has generally been true.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Except in the case of fraud.

Film maker hires you to narrate Goldilocks. You do it, filmmaker uses it in Goldilocks XXX. Do you just walk away?

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:34 PM

How many anti-Christian videos are on youtube?

JellyToast on February 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM

All I know is that I will regret to my dying day the fact that I missed the opportunity to obtain and view this masterpiece of the cinematic arts.

Fenris on February 26, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Good thing they pulled it.. I mean another embassy might have went up in flames//

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 5:42 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Couple of question, are they using my real name in the credits and did I get paid?

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Oh please. Cindy Lee Garcia knew EXACTLY what the movie would be – she LOVED the attention, until ‘team obama’ made up stories about the film, and she got nervous about what SHE had done.

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Doesn’t matter, fraud voids contracts.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Nope. Its why I said generally. If in fact the terms of the contract have been misrepresented, then she may have a case. Its a new story for me, hasn’t been on my radar at all. I’m not sure whether to bother reading any more on it though. ; )

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Back into Hillary’s dungeon with him!

forest on February 26, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Fenris on February 26, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Somewhere I read that at the time it gained its infamy as the reason Amb. Stevens and company were killed it had 200 hits.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:44 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

She should sue him for all the money he made.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Nakoula Basseley Nakoua / Snowden 2016 !

mjbrooks3 on February 26, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

I think I remember a similar case to what I described in a pre-law class.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:47 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:47 PM

I would hope pre-law would cover contracts. Usage is always been a stickler.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Never watched it anyway. I presumed it was offensive. Anything less than abject reverence sparks bloody insanity in some circles.

novaculus on February 26, 2014 at 5:49 PM

How many anti-Christian videos are on youtube?

JellyToast on February 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM

none. there is no such thing as anti-Christian anything. Christians are never hated or bullied. Christians are privileged in society, they have it easy.

/

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM

The actress had been cast in a minor role in a film called “Desert Warrior,” and paid $500 by director Mark Basseley Youssef, but the movie never materialized, according to court papers.

If this is true, she has a valid case.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:44 PM

From what I remember of the original controversy, the actors didn’t know the film had been made. And it was not the film any of them signed up for.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Very disappointed in Koz.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2014 at 5:53 PM

The actress had been cast in a minor role in a film called “Desert Warrior,” and paid $500 by director Mark Basseley Youssef, but the movie never materialized, according to court papers.

If this is true, she has a valid case.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Case seems like a “let’s find a reason to rule the way we want to” opinion. But, I guess, in theory, there could be an argument. But, if she took money and didn’t put any limitation on the usage of her IP at the time of taking the money, I don’t buy the argument. Then again, I don’t care enough to actually read the opinion. So maybe I should shut up. :)

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Hard to say, but it probably doesn’t matter. How often will an actor sue to minimize his exposure in a high-profile project by having it taken offline?

Lawsuits to try to avoid offending Islam will become far more common as Islamic supremacism continues its unobstructed ascendance.

Let’s concentrate on changing our society so their delicate sensibilities aren’t offended. That’ll work, for sure./

It’s not what you think. In fact, the opinion was written by Alex Kozinski, a famously libertarian-leaning judge

This is just another example of how worthless ‘libertarians’ are in the struggle against Islamic supremacism.

fadetogray on February 26, 2014 at 5:58 PM

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2014 at 5:53 PM

That’s alright, I am regularly disappointed in your ranting.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:58 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:53 PM

I never watched it but did the thing put on YouTube qualify as a film? I thought I had read that it was short and disjointed, more like a coming attraction. Considering the reaction of the movie, real or imagined, I can understand the actress involved being more than a little nervous about it being available. Mostly I’m being a smartazz because of the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Mostly I’m being a smartazz because of the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Completely understandable. Whenever the shoe is on the other foot, reactions are different. Our side needs to be consistent in the law.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:03 PM

I don’t know what practical reason she has, frankly — after 18 months of infamy in the Middle East, the death-threat cake is baked whether the movie stays up or not — but oh well.

A civil suit for damages. With this in hand look for her to file one against the director at the very least, and maybe even Google hoping for a payoff.

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Google should take after AG Holder and not abide by the ruling if they think it’s wrong. Because, after all, that’s where we are now.

OccamsRazor on February 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 6:07 PM

To be fair, that youtube flick probably killed any chance at an acting career these people had.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM

The future must not belong to those who insult the Prophet.

VorDaj on February 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Any image of Mo that does not have his head cut clean off and on a pike is an insult to me.

VorDaj on February 26, 2014 at 6:11 PM

It’s that the film isn’t intended to entertain at all.

Pure, unadulterated bullshiite!! The film is extremely entertaining. It’s a friggin hoot …. AND, it also happens to be true to the koran and muzzie lore.

It’s pretty clear that this ruling had nothing to do with alleged “copyright” (I mean, give me a friggin break) but was merely about getting the movie taken down.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2014 at 6:13 PM

And it was not the film any of them signed up for.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 5:53 PM

How is this different than Ishtar or Bonfire of the Vanities (1990 really was a bad year for Tom Hanks)?

Seriously, entertainment law is a specialty with a lot of nuance. I’m not going to second-guess the ruling. All I will say is that if this were a film associated with such outrage among the Muslim animals that they would engage in spontaneous attacks on US facilities abroad and kill four including an Ambassador; why was this video still available? Where was CAIR urging calm among the Muslim animals as they sought to get it removed? Why just the one attack for which Susan Rice still has no regrets in the way she lied her ass off?

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Oh please. Cindy Lee Garcia knew EXACTLY what the movie would be – she LOVED the attention, until ‘team obama’ made up stories about the film, and she got nervous about what SHE had done.

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM

What attention? The film didn’t even have any credits, as far as I know.

In addition, it’s pretty blatant in the film’s audio that some of the references to Muhammad were overdubbed. According to cast members, the main character was called “Master George” in the originally shot scenes and only later was the name dubbed over to become “Muhammad.”

J.S.K. on February 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM

The future must not belong to those who insult the Prophet.

VorDaj on February 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Actually the future of this nation must belong to those who do defend the right to represent or even mock Islam’s false prophet.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I never watched it but did the thing put on YouTube qualify as a film? I thought I had read that it was short and disjointed, more like a coming attraction. Considering the reaction of the movie, real or imagined, I can understand the actress involved being more than a little nervous about it being available. Mostly I’m being a smartazz because of the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 6:01 PM

I understood back then that what was on Youtube was an extended intro, or teaser to the film, and that very few people had actually seen the theater version.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 6:17 PM

This was never about intellectual property or copyright, this was about erasing history. This was about government officials blaming a national tragedy on this film and this film alone while knowing what they were selling to the US public was a low down dirty lie. If this film cannot be found by the public, it will never exist. History by omission, forgotten and lost.

OliverB on February 26, 2014 at 6:20 PM

How is this different than Ishtar or Bonfire of the Vanities

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:15 PM

At least those two ended up being the same movies they started out as. Not so with this one.

I won’t pretend to know the nuances of what laws are being argued, it bridges entertainment and contracts.

What is known about the youtube video, at the very least gives the take down and lawsuit merit.

If you don’t think so, you are taking the 0bama, “because I say so” emotional route.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:22 PM

To be fair, that youtube flick probably killed any chance at an acting career these people had.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM

To be honest, people that show up in these things didn’t have an acting career in the first place.

When I was living in Los Angeles, I met a woman who was very proud that she got the role of a flight attendant that coughs TWICE and collapses from a mysterious illness on some television series. As far as I can tell, “Stewardess #3″ was the highlight of her career. The people in this YouTube production aren’t even that accomplished.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Google, which could have quietly purged “Innocence of Muslims” long ago to spare itself lots of grief and death threats, fought this all the way.

google did block it and stuff at first but way too many uploaded it.
plus many self hosted so as to not have to deal with google.

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM

No doubt. IIRC, Sylvester Stalone’s first acting job was in porn. Then he went on to Death Race 2000. I imagine there are a lot of good actors doing some bad stuff.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Another example of the obvious redubbing in the film: In a scene set in modern-day Egypt, a Coptic Christian man writes on a chalkboard:
Man + X = B.T.

He explains that this means “Man plus X equals Islamic terrorist.”

Obviously, the original script must have referred to something that starts with the letter B instead, because otherwise he would have written “Man + X = I.T.”

J.S.K. on February 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM

I never watched it but did the thing put on YouTube qualify as a film? I thought I had read that it was short and disjointed, more like a coming attraction. Considering the reaction of the movie, real or imagined, I can understand the actress involved being more than a little nervous about it being available. Mostly I’m being a smartazz because of the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 6:01 PM

thats the 2 min trailer, whole thing about 74 minutes.
its also bad, I could not watch it.

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 6:34 PM

thats the 2 min trailer, whole thing about 74 minutes.
its also bad, I could not watch it.

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 6:34 PM

I don’t think there is a real 74-minute version per se. I had seen something on YouTube purporting to be the 74-minute version, but it actually consisted of the same 14 minutes of footage being shown five times in a row (with some unrelated footage at the start). The only content that Nakoula released appears to be about 14 minutes long.

J.S.K. on February 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM

its also bad, I could not watch it.

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 6:34 PM

It’s not bad. It’s hysterical. It is good, biting satire (that really isn’t satire, since it’s true to the koran and muzzie tradition) that does a decent job of explaining islam to those who don’t know about it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2014 at 6:37 PM

So the edited version didn’t match the script? I bet that almost never happens. Kevin Costner should have sued for being edited out of “The Big Chill”.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Is that the one that ended up billed as Waterworld?
Someone should sue about that for certain.

That was Costner right? I’m not watching it again to be sure.

gekkobear on February 26, 2014 at 6:37 PM

No doubt. IIRC, Sylvester Stalone’s first acting job was in porn. Then he went on to Death Race 2000. I imagine there are a lot of good actors doing some bad stuff.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:26 PM

When did Stalone jump into doing good stuff? ;0

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Another example of the obvious redubbing in the film: In a scene set in modern-day Egypt, a Coptic Christian man writes on a chalkboard:
Man + X = B.T.

He explains that this means “Man plus X equals Islamic terrorist.”

Obviously, the original script must have referred to something that starts with the letter B instead, because otherwise he would have written “Man + X = I.T.”

J.S.K. on February 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM

The real equation is Man + X= B. H. O. Which obviously equates to Islamic terrorist- if you know what I mean.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I mentioned the high point of his career: Machine Gun Joe Viterbo

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

So the edited version didn’t match the script? I bet that almost never happens. Kevin Costner should have sued for being edited out of “The Big Chill”.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Hey! That was his best work!

Seriously, Big Chill would have been utterly awful with flashbacks to the corpse. The whole point was this presence of “Alex” without ever seeing or knowing Alex other than through others. It would have spoiled the persona of Alex as the brilliant person who got all these other disparate personalities into the same orbit. There would have been no tension as the various characters were dealing with the fact that he killed himself.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

It’s not bad. It’s hysterical. It is good, biting satire (that really isn’t satire, since it’s true to the koran and muzzie tradition) that does a decent job of explaining islam to those who don’t know about it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2014 at 6:37 PM

meh, the poor acting, crappy scenes, and overall theme bored me. doesn’t take 74 minutes to say pray to me or I keeel you, takes seconds at most. see I know islamists :)

so to me its bad, so I didn’t watch it all, just scanned to make sure no errors on uploads.
course I had to deal with thousands of hack attacks after but oh well, ips autobanned by system and I just ended up blocking a few countries by country code in csf firewall settings. the ones smart enough to use proxies just got banned as they tried stuff. iirc had 5k or so ip in banned list after 24 hours.

dmacleo on February 26, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I mentioned the high point of his career: Machine Gun Joe Viterbo

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

My apologies! ;0

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Oh heck, why not.

This is the re-release. Not the original.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

I agree, they made the correct call.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Why defraud the actress, anyway? It’s not like she’s Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergmann. Just find another actress.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Our side needs to be consistent in the law.
cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Short of the posted speed limit I always obey the law. And the only thing I care about in this case was that this man was kept in jail for over a year on trumped up b.s. to cover The Won’s hindquarters. Considering some of the decisions coming from judges, I will not promise to always obey the law. Sometimes I think we are hurling towards a tipping point.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

The guy got screwed by the government. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a crook.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Sad to hear considering the implications of this film being shut down, but at least that reason makes sense. If I had made a video that I thought was supporting, say… Christianity but was actually used to blaspheme my own beliefs, I would hope I’d have a case.

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Damn! And it was a classic at the Whitehouse!

vnvet on February 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Well gee, cozmo, the same could be said about all of us. I don’t want my government screwing people over for expressing themselves, especially when said government so easily used that expression to lie about him and his “movie” to cover up their own ineptitude. Today’s verdict had nothing to do with his treatment by our illustrious leader.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I don’t care what anyone says..this is sharia law being applied!

sadsushi on February 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Today’s verdict had nothing to do with his treatment by our illustrious leader.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM

The why the *&%$*$#@$&^!!! did you bring it up?

And the only thing I care about in this case was that this man was kept in jail for over a year on trumped up b.s. to cover The Won’s hindquarters.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

I don’t understand women. Y’all don’t think like we I do.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

I tried to watch this work of art to see what all the fuss was. It was so tedious, poorly done and boring that I finally clicked out. I would have rioted if I had had to watch all of it.

jazzuscounty on February 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

LOL! Your fun to mess with.

I don’t understand women. Y’all don’t think like we I do.
cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Havin’ yourself a real “No sh!t, Sherlock” moment there aren’t you? See how fun this is?

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM

I would have rioted if I had had to watch all of it.

jazzuscounty on February 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Maybe that’s what happened in Egypt.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You’re
.
.
.
I can have fun too.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:27 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:27 PM

You’re the best.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Yes we are.

Just don’t tell ALyT.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM

What’s the real story here. No $500 a pic is going through all this expense to get a utube pulled. Follow the money. Who gains from this. Yes the one and only Hillary gets to put one hurdle behind her.

jpcpt03 on February 26, 2014 at 11:27 PM

So how is it that this is copyright infringement, but when parody groups overdub old movies with completely new dialogue that the original actors obviously didn’t intend, that’s like okay?

This is a BS case, they just wanted a face-saving way to pull the video off of Google.

EVA-04 on February 26, 2014 at 11:32 PM

“Innocence of Muslims”…I thought it was the “Incontinence of Muslims.” Every Muslim I’ve come into contact (close proximity) has had incontinent behavior or their emotions are not controlled well. I spent (wasted) two years of my life sailing with the Navy in the Indian Ocean watching Sadam and Ayatollah lob bombs back and forth at each other because one was Shiite and the other was Sunni.

It was almost like the Lilliputs and Blefuscus in Gulliver’s Travels where both nations follow the teachings of a prophet, Lustrog. Sectarian divisions exist in the debate between “Little-Endians,” who open their eggs at the little end, and “Big-Endians,” who open their eggs at the big end.

I think the Prophet would call them fools. Ignore the movie. Please.

HHW on February 27, 2014 at 1:52 AM

Doubt this will really do much to take it offline, the internet being what it is.

Still, I think I have to agree with the judge on this one – the film-maker knowingly lied etc. But looking at what was posted, it seems to me that the 1st Amendment aspect of the movie is fine – had he been honest, it would still be up there, protected by said amendment. So, not so much a defeat for freedom of speech as an irrelevance.

Teleros on February 27, 2014 at 5:09 AM

We need to ban the Koran. What other book incites such hatred and demands domination and subjugation of infidels?

el hombre on February 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM

You are one of my favs here Sachi ^_^

Gatsu on February 27, 2014 at 8:20 AM

presumably he could edit out Garcia’s scenes and then re-upload it without a problem — unless and until the next cast member sues.

Not likely. Remember that he was re-arrested because his posting the video online violated his parole in another case. It might be that this restriction is now lifted, but I doubt it.

Also, please remember that even though we like to use the administration’s prevarication concerning this video to beat them soundly, that 1) the guy actually was in violation of his parole, and that gets you arrested, and 2) the guy is a fraudster. He is not a hero.

As to the ruling, I think the court had it right that there was fraud involved. Shame that these things almost always involve cases where there is no real good guy.

GWB on February 27, 2014 at 9:07 AM