Court Orders YouTube To Remove Anti-Islamic Film

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Something tells me that, despite today's ruling, we haven't heard the last of this case yet.

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google's assertion that the removal of the film "Innocence of Muslims" amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,791
Good luck with that one Government. There is a good reason the first amendment is number 1.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
I hope this goes all the way to the supreme court and gets lot of media attention, that way the whining Muslims will realize that they can't bully the rest of the world into silence and the film will get so much more publicity than it otherwise could have hoped to achieve.

Look at the Katy Perry video which is staged in an Egyptian setting and she burns servants that bring her gifts she doesn't care for... well one of the servants had some bling that said mohammad on it, so there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of outraged muslims ranting on the video and all saying they are flagging it as inappropriate to get it banned.

They tend to "blow up" at the slightest provocation, if you know what I mean.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Garcia looks to take down the video from youtube but garcia doesn't own the rights to the video, Garcia claims to be mislead by what the film was about by the director. Threats to life troubles Garcia, Garcia looks to take down the film from youtube even though Garcia has no copyright to the film. Seems like Garcia should be suing the director not google in hopes of obtaining that copyright.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,255
Well, the government and everyone else is trying to tell Arizona what they can do with their freedom of religion in the name of "tolerance," so why wouldn't you expect them to curtail the freedom of speech in the name of "tolerance" also?
 

ViperGrendal

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
403
So it was ordered taken down because 5 seconds of the film that was taken out of context?


Doesn't the "news" and other media do this every single day? Not supporting this "film" in any way shape or form, just pointing out that it's kind of the norm for anyone with an agenda these days. Hell I even had something I said once totally twisted to fit someones agenda. The way it was published was no where near what I actually said. I didn't wallow around in my own piss about though, it's just what dishonest "journalists" do.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Government has to keep up appearances. Remember, it was this video, and certainly not terrorists, that caused the Benghazi incident that took four American lives. Or, like, it was for the first week and a half. Then it was terrorists. But they still arrested the guy who made the video because why the fuck not? If you're gonna lie, go big or go home! After all, as a future Democratic presidential candidate once said, what difference does it make?
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Well, the government and everyone else is trying to tell Arizona what they can do with their freedom of religion in the name of "tolerance," so why wouldn't you expect them to curtail the freedom of speech in the name of "tolerance" also?

Dude, you are totally free. You are free to choose to agree with the positions of certain people, or to choose to suffer the consequences of disagreeing with them, because disagreeing with them makes you a bad person.
 

DarkStar_WNY

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
2,362
Wait, are you really trying to make me believe that a branch of the US government is ignoring the Constitution? Wow, what a shocker!
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Well, the government and everyone else is trying to tell Arizona what they can do with their freedom of religion in the name of "tolerance," so why wouldn't you expect them to curtail the freedom of speech in the name of "tolerance" also?

We're supposed to find out Friday what Jan Brewer is going to do with that Bill. She's got the stones to sign it and tell everyone else to fuck off. But She said She is not sure we actually need a law for this. I've seen her make more then enough good calls to have some faith in her. Still, She is a politician so YMMV.
 

Tazman2

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Messages
4,984
1) LEOs-GOV don't have to follow citizen laws and usually don't and get away with it in case you haven't been following the news over the past year or so. 2) Only offending islam is wrong per NObama sooooo...
 

Yossarian22

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
1,793
I hope this goes all the way to the supreme court and gets lot of media attention, that way the whining Muslims will realize that they can't bully the rest of the world into silence...

Hear, hear!

I read awhile ago when researching Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoons that basically rabble rousers take the material in question and purposely pour fuel on the fire, but in general they have this concept that their law is absolute because they consider it divine (through their religion) in places where they've never heard of free speech or have trouble grasping the concept.

Tolerance to a large degree is condescension (if I was full of BS I would want someone to point it out) and turns into political correctness. Which is bad for advocates of free speech.
 

AK0tA

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
813
Only in a country run by terrorist would this be possible.l welcome you Kommrade husein obama the terrorist king of USA. Pay attention here American Consumer you freedoms are at arms length and can be taken in the wink of an eye. Get armed and be prepared to stand, our forefathers were shooting before things got this far out of hand.
 

HFBallad

Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
580
Fair ruling.
It's not about 1st Amendment. It's about copyright and slander. Now, if the guy who made the movie edits her out of the film, then it'd be a different issue.
 

Tuthmose

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
182
Fair ruling.
It's not about 1st Amendment. It's about copyright and slander. Now, if the guy who made the movie edits her out of the film, then it'd be a different issue.

Agreed. Despite the headlines playing up the anti-Islamic message of this trainwreck, that's not really what this case is about; that's just how its being billed to get media attention. The actress's bit in that film, tiny as it may be, was obtained under false pretenses, and her rights appear to have thus been violated.

-Tuthmose
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,106
Fair ruling.
It's not about 1st Amendment. It's about copyright and slander. Now, if the guy who made the movie edits her out of the film, then it'd be a different issue.

I thought her original story was that she agreed to do a film and that she did not know what it was about since everything was dubbed in later. Now she claims that she did another movie and was "clipped" in?

FYI this is ruling is NOT about upset Muslims. This is akin to that pregnant at 16 ho-bag complaining that the porn company she cashed checks from by letting some porn actor get in her backdoor was released without her permission.
 

[Tripod]MajorPayne

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
This was a copyright case. The actress who was the plaintiff contended that the footage she was filmed in was claimed to be involved in something different and then was used in this film without her consent, therefore violating her copyright interests to her own performance.

This had nothing to do with "free speech" or lack thereof, unless you believe that the government manufactured this plaintiff or somehow persuaded her to go ahead with her case.

There is no violation of free speech here...
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
I thought her original story was that she agreed to do a film and that she did not know what it was about since everything was dubbed in later. Now she claims that she did another movie and was "clipped" in?

FYI this is ruling is NOT about upset Muslims. This is akin to that pregnant at 16 ho-bag complaining that the porn company she cashed checks from by letting some porn actor get in her backdoor was released without her permission.
That's my understanding at which case the suit being against google seems silly it should be against the publisher/the person that owned the original contract.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Fair ruling.
It's not about 1st Amendment. It's about copyright and slander. Now, if the guy who made the movie edits her out of the film, then it'd be a different issue.

And arresting the guy who made it...what is that about, hmm?
 

griff30

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
6,697
hillary2_zps4453282a.jpg


They should lock up Hillary.
 

GaryJohnson

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,053
The controversial film, billed as a film trailer, depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a fool and a sexual deviant. It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.

Wasn't it determined after the fact that no one involved in the 2012 unrest had even heard of this video? It was just some pundit speculation about the cause that at the time was repeated over and over until everyone decided it was the truth.
 

Wrecked Em

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
7,454
I can't figure out why Muslims get so worked out of shape. If I called myself a prophet and fucked children, I'd pretty much expect people to make fun of me. What's so special about Muhammed?
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,625
I can't figure out why Muslims get so worked out of shape. If I called myself a prophet and fucked children, I'd pretty much expect people to make fun of me. What's so special about Muhammed?

Easy to say that when you don't believe in the religion. If you're a Christian and someone said Jesus was a child molesting pervert, wouldn't you be pissed too.

What I don't understand is why people have so much to say about things they don't practice or are a part of. I'm not religious, but I don't go out there and make fun of everyone's religion. If someone feels the need for a personal believe system, they should be able to fulfill it without being ridicule.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
I can't figure out why Muslims get so worked out of shape. If I called myself a prophet and fucked children, I'd pretty much expect people to make fun of me. What's so special about Muhammed?

They're all sexually repressed by their religion, and promised sexual bliss once they croak. No wonder they worship violence.
 

Acoustique

Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
941
They're all sexually repressed by their religion, and promised sexual bliss once they croak. No wonder they worship violence.

They're all sexually repressed by whatever US Puppet government that subverts religion into being used as a form of law.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
If you're a Christian and someone said Jesus was a child molesting pervert, wouldn't you be pissed too.

They'd be pissed, but only because it's a lie. In this case, however, that claim would be the truth.
 

Vorret

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
1,100
What in the actual fuck, let's rename this place ignorantforum.com

Pathetic.
 

BallerX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
1,599
Easy to say that when you don't believe in the religion. If you're a Christian and someone said Jesus was a child molesting pervert, wouldn't you be pissed too.

Actually, no I wouldn't.
As a person who is not religious in a strict sense, I feel that neither Jesus Christ or The Prophet Muhammad require mortal defense. If you believe in either of these deities, then you must also believe that they require no mortal defense from slander.

Oh wait, there goes my logic leaking out again.

They'd be pissed, but only because it's a lie. In this case, however, that claim would be the truth.

Truth or lie, this case isn't about freedom of speech or about what is offensive to you. It is about a persons performance that was used without legal right. I am not sure that Google/Youtube should be the ones that are being sued. However that is another matter entirely.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Easy to say that when you don't believe in the religion. If you're a Christian and someone said Jesus was a child molesting pervert, wouldn't you be pissed too.

Christianity is ridiculed on a regular basis in this country. Average response? Pat Robertson whines. People don't riot and call for the heads of the people responsible. People don't stab movie directors and leave notes on their corpses in the middle of the street. South Park handily demonstrated this when the Cartoon Wars series of episodes, which was ultimately prevented from showing Muhammed in the final part, yet ended with a crude mockery of Jesus Christ presented from the point of the terrorists, literally shitting over everything. Their point? Show Jesus defecating on President Bush and everyone laughs. Show Muhammed at all and entire television networks cower in fear.

They tried again a couple years later...and Comedy Central ended up bleeping every use of the word "Muhammed" throughout the entire episode. They even bleeped the customary "I learned something today" speech, about 20-30 seconds of continuous censor noise. Know what the speech was that they bleeped? A reminder that people shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied into silencing themselves.

Don't try to claim that the criticism of Jesus vs. criticism of Muhammed are even remotely comparable in today's world. It shows a fundamental lack of perspective on your part.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
What in the actual fuck, let's rename this place ignorantforum.com

Pathetic.

I know, right? It's full of people who make obsequious, dumbass posts that don't actually address anything or make any real argument, but instead just insult a bunch of people with no actual reason stated. Those people are real douchebags.

Cretinous.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Actually, no I wouldn't.
As a person who is not religious in a strict sense, I feel that neither Jesus Christ or The Prophet Muhammad require mortal defense. If you believe in either of these deities, then you must also believe that they require no mortal defense from slander.

Oh wait, there goes my logic leaking out again.



Truth or lie, this case isn't about freedom of speech or about what is offensive to you. It is about a persons performance that was used without legal right. I am not sure that Google/Youtube should be the ones that are being sued. However that is another matter entirely.

I would add that if criticism of your chosen diety/profit incites you to violence or demanding the censoring of free speech. Then your faith is questionable or the teachings are. So either the teachings and your faith are sound and the rantings of random "loud mouthed idiots" shouldn't bother you, OR what the "loud mouthed idiots" are saying is actually true and you are in denial and are the real problem.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Speaking of taking quotes out of context...

So let's have that context:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

The difference it makes is that we were told it was a protest by the Secretary of State, among others in our government. It was not. They were lying through their teeth. Emails have confirmed this.

The difference it makes is whether or not these people should remain in office.

That's a very big difference. A difference a future presidential candidate apparently doesn't want to be bothered about. Well, too fucking bad.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
I know, right? It's full of people who make obsequious, dumbass posts that don't actually address anything or make any real argument, but instead just insult a bunch of people with no actual reason stated. Those people are real douchebags.

Cretinous.

No it is full of people who respond to a post about copyright lawsuits by going on a religious rant. Because if you RTFA...you see all the Muslim and Benghazi ranting in this thread for what it is...blatantly off topic.

But by all means...continue being like 90% of the posters in this thread and have no fucking clue what the plaintiff sued Google for and why.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
No it is full of people who respond to a post about copyright lawsuits by going on a religious rant. Because if you RTFA...you see all the Muslim and Benghazi ranting in this thread for what it is...blatantly off topic.

But by all means...continue being like 90% of the posters in this thread and have no fucking clue what the plaintiff sued Google for and why.

Hey, the Arizona Religious Freedom Act had nothing to do with gays but hey, what are facts when perceptions are king, right? Right? :D I fully expect whatever is happening in the world will happen the same way here, no surprise there.

As far as reading the article goes, I am sure the news will say nothing about copyrights and everything about civil unrest.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
No it is full of people who respond to a post about copyright lawsuits by going on a religious rant. Because if you RTFA...you see all the Muslim and Benghazi ranting in this thread for what it is...blatantly off topic.

Oh, okay. We'll leave it solely at the fact that it's about a copyright lawsuit, and completely ignore the fact that the video in question was at the center of world events 18 months ago, and ignore the plethora of unresolved controversy surrounding it. Because all that other shit is so off-topic. :rolleyes:
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
Oh, okay. We'll leave it solely at the fact that it's about a copyright lawsuit, and completely ignore the fact that the video in question was at the center of world events 18 months ago, and ignore the plethora of unresolved controversy surrounding it. Because all that other shit is so off-topic. :rolleyes:

Good grief. Get out of the echo chamber and listen to yourself. It is off topic...any moderator who has ever moderated any site would agree with me.

Y'all want to bitch about Hillary and Benghazi head back over to Soapbox...this is a tech news forum with a post about copyright....which raises some legitimate questions about grounds for artists whose work was (allegedly) misappropriated under false pretenses.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Y'all want to bitch about Hillary and Benghazi head back over to Soapbox...this is a tech news forum with a post about copyright....

And I guess the title of the thread is completely indicative of that. Because the title is "Court Orders YouTube To Remove *cough* Film".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top