Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google's assertion that the removal of the film "Innocence of Muslims," amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the US Constitution.
The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie.
Representatives for Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said she is delighted with the decision.
"Ordering YouTube and Google to take down the film was the right thing to do," Armenta said in an email. "The propaganda film differs so radically from anything that Ms. Garcia could have imagined when the director told her that she was being cast in the innocent adventure film."
It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.
That outbreak coincided with an attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya. US and other foreign embassies were also stormed in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
For many Muslims, any depiction of the Prophet (PBUH) is considered blasphemous.
Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries.
Garcia had claimed that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube.
But in Wednesday's decision, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim and having already faced "serious threats against her life," faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.
He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. "It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights," he wrote.
Due to the sacrilegious film, YouTube has been blocked in Pakistan since September 17, 2012. YouTube has also faced similar limited ban in other muslim countries including Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sudan.
COMMENTS (52)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
-(1)1717678110-0/Kendrick-(1)-(1)1717678110-0-165x106.webp "article")
1735299255-0/sidra--(18)1735299255-0-270x192.webp "song from pushpa 2 removed from youtube amid controversy")
1735380262-0/Untitled-design-(75)1735380262-0-270x192.webp "reham khan brides up again for wedding anniversary photoshoot with mirza bilal")
1735296145-0/sidra--(16)1735296145-0-270x192.webp "china approves construction of 127b dam in tibet")
@BruteForce:
And it is our right to ban anything in our country.
Some excerpts from our resident Hindu fascists. I wonder is this any way for a country to talk which has a 200 million Muslim minority. No wonder genocide against Muslims flares up every few years in India.
Jag Nathan : "Islam is etched as a violent faith and that Muslims can never live in peace with each other and with others. "
Prakash: "Tolerance is what is missing in the followers of Islam."
Tolerance is what is missing in the followers of Islam. There are plenty of butcher shops near places of worship in India selling all sorts of meat. If I start feeling offended, I will only make myself miserable. Just live and let live. My religion is not so insecure that something as frivolous as this can challenge it !
@STRONG SANITY: What would the figures be for Pakistan? Don't forget that India has a population of 1.2 billion and Pakistan 180 million. I am prepared to bet my savings that per capita Pakistan would be leaps ahead of everybody else.
@Nobody: Well said. I have been perplexed by the reaction of Pakistani clergy and officials on the so-called blasphemous material on the internet. I am not a Muslim and I can understand the ire to a degree. There is plenty of blasphemous material about my religion too. I don't really care to read or watch them. Why can't Pakistanis just ignore the videos too? Why give the perpetrators free publicity?
@Realist: There's nothing Islamic about Pakistan. It is a confused nation full of confused people. Pakistan's identity was far more clear before Zia's era. And instead of shoving religion down everyone's throat, make your own rules for yourself and live by them; stop expecting others to. I'm a Muslim and I thought the reaction to the video, albeit hateful, was over the top, self destructive and sadly, predictable. As long as Muslims behave this way, they will always be predictable thus they will always be easy to manipulate. Cheers.
Ban all you like. the fact remains that you cannot ban the thinking and questioning faculties of the human brain. In the minds of 5 billion people today, Islam is etched as a violent faith and that Muslims can never live in peace with each other and with others. And what was said in that stupid video is already well known and believed. The producer was just saying the obvious albeit in a funny way. Banning You Tube is not going to change how we think. It just reiterates what the producer was trying to communicate.
@BruteForce, You talked about the women in Muslim countries but WILL you DARE to talk about women in india (gang rape) which has become a past time of many indians. Tons of happening everyday. india stands at No.2 in rapes. 1st U.S 2,94,000 2nd india 95,000 3rd South Africa 18,000
Day dreaming is really harmful for one's own health. And we all know what west is upto for last 13 years...
@BruteForce, You talked about the women in Muslim countries but WILL you DARE to talk about women in india (gang rape) which has become a past time of many indians. Tons of happening everyday. india stands at No.2 in rapes. 1st U.S 2,94,000 2nd india 95,000 3rd South Africa 18,000
Day dreaming is really harmful for one's own health. And we all know what west is upto for last 13 years.
@IamSaneAMA:
"not because we demanded."
Let's talk the truth. The reason Cindy Lee Garcia filed the law suit demanding that the movie be removed was because she got death threats from Muslim extremists.
People - read the article again!
The video is to be removed for a 'Fraud perpetrated on the actress' and NOT for religious 'sensitivities'. It is a 'copyright' issue - not a freeedom of speech issue.
As always, if you deem it offensisve to you; don't see it - nobody's forcing you to watch it! Doesn't mean others should not be able to see it.
Attacking Islam and Muslims is encouraged by the West, its governments, media, armies, and their allies in Europe, India, Israel, Russia, etc. These objectionable movies were delivered to every American house in the US through mail, using the US postal service. Many senators and elected representatives supported the movie and even promoted it. These propaganda movies have lead to increased attacks on Muslims living in Western countries, including violent crimes like attacks on Mosques, rape of Muslim women, and abuse/torture of Muslims. Shame on them.
Pakistan and another Muslim states should provide a Muslim alternative to both Youtube and Google. This has much demand in Muslim countries.
IF a video is against your religion. DON'T WATCH IT !
@realist
The movie was made and uploaded in the US. Like you have enacted laws that take Islamic sensibilities into account (blashemy), the Americans have laws that allows them to criticize or mock religions. Their country, their laws right?
@Realist:
Exactly. If we, in the free, non-Muslim world, like to draw something, don't bother us. if you want you can start arresting people who use Google and Youtube.
@BruteForce:
May be silly for you. For us, it is matter of our religion. We live in an Islamic Republic. Go live somewhere else if you don't like it.
We should not be celebrating on behalf of angry religious people. They should be open to criticism and mockery and the freedom of expression. Certainly nobody should be apologizing for the reaction of those people. It's their job to act like adults
However, the decision seems correct for the sake of the plaintiff. Not because of the content itself.
"Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others"
Seriously? You think Google, the agency of choice for the NSA and the CIA would pick a fight with the White House over this?
Too early to celebrate: Google spokesman,
"Google will challenge the ruling. A spokesperson said by email: “Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an actress in the Innocence of Muslims trailer may have a copyright claim over her five-second appearance in the video. As a result the court ordered Google to remove the video from our services. We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it.”
Google is so stubborn, they know what happened back in 2012 because of this vid, what sort of policy is this that hurting billions & billions of people across the globe, they still need constitution to force them, there is one thing above all and that is humanity, religion is something very personal of everybody and hurting someone personally is inhuman, i wish this time its gets offline and this type of insanity never happens again, having a difference with someone's belief is something else but insulting his belief is totally wrong and unacceptable.
@Syed:
Drawing a picture is a hurtful? You feel offended?
So, what if I feel banning women from driving, triple talaaq, beating them black and blue for not covering themselves in a Burqa is offensive?
Who is this actually harming? While the rights of women and minorities in Muslim majority countries are non-existent.
Please feel offended by the right issues. Not these silly things.
I feel non-vegetarian food is offensive, should I ask restaurants around me to close down?
Absurd.
"Ruling turned on a copyright issue, not the film's content" (read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26362784) Important distinction to make to avoid confusion on this.
The actress went to court with the plea that she had been 'duped' into appearing in a video, the content of which she was unaware of, and after it was uploaded, she received threats. Therefore, the court has responded to a copyright claim based on her appearance in the video. The court has not taken any position on the content. Secondly, this is also not the final decision. A higher court could overturn it. This is most likely going to spark a legal debate in the US and perhaps counter suits too. Our access to the platform should not be dependent on what happens elsewhere or based on what others do or decide.
"Ruling turned on a copyright issue, not the film's content." An important distinction to avoid confusion re: how legal processes work. See BBC's report here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26362784
It was because the actress went to court saying she was 'duped' into acting in this video, and she received threats once it was launched. She asserted that she had a copyright claim on the video. "...the actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, retained a copyright claim that YouTube must respect because she believed she was acting in a different production from the one that ultimately appeared online." http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/27/youtube-remove-anti-muslim-film
@confused:
The report says the court copy rights violation because the movie used Ms. Garcia's clips without permission.
Most of the civilised world recognises freedom of speech to include anti religious speech. This includes anti christian (but sometime not anti zionist) speech
ya keep removing my comments because i told truth to public and you are lying ET
I think removal of that film does not open YouTube in Pakistan, the matter is something else... Our country is facing religious extremism right now, in the case of opening of YouTube there might be some opposition or reaction from extremist/militant wing and religious parties.. and there is a chance of chaos again which disturb the whole country and economy. Although it is good decision by Google to remove that controversial movie.. but they are actually late i think so...
Fingers crossed and waiting for the BAN to be lifted on the most educative and entertaining media ever available to sane people on this planet! YaY!
@Irum Ijaz: The reason US courts have ordered removal of this film isnt human rights or anything like that but due to the petitions filed by the actors who were unaware what roles they were playing in the film.
@confused your statement makes it clear that you like so many in Pakistan fail to grasp the concept of liberty. Freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right. Even distasteful speech. This case however in the end hinged on a copyright violation, not free speech.
@unbelievable the 9th circuit has always been more open to hearing cases that others don't, that's a reflection of area that it represents the lower courts underneath it. It's hardly considered a joke! An unqualified statement like isn't a joke, it's ignorance. But hey tell us a joke!
@confused: did you even read the article? she is asking for removal because
not because we demanded.
The Moulvis & the conspiracy anti American chaps should now do pro-American rallies and apologize for Christians killed when the senseless video was uploaded.
As usual, all Pakistan over reacts at any news. The order to remove the Youtube videos is because they contain copyright material i.e. its a copyright claim that has succeeded and has nothing to do with the movie itself being blasphemous.
Get a grip people, its only a movie. Don't watch it if you don't want to. But don't give such things undue publicity by over reacting. Nobody would have heard about this movie, had several Islamic governments not banned. Now it has millions of views because of the publicity. So think for a minute, forgetting who created the movie, but who really promoted it ?
This decision needs to be appealed and turned down, as otherwise the US legal system will also be getting contaminated by the blasphemy laws and this will be a great loss to the mankind. This court's decision can increase the likelihood of followers of religion of peace to kill innocent people, again, when they find something on the internet that they do not like. Google should challenge this decision and take the case to the US Supreme court! US is humanity's last hope and cannot let courts like this destroy this hope.
The judgement is based on copyright violation and has nothing to do with anti religious sentiment.
Finally, the wrong being rectified from the source that is the cause of irk aound the world nowadays.
@Irum Ijaz:
Pakistani courts are only interested in headline making newspaper statements and personal likes and dislikes rather than interpreting the law. You cannot compare our broken judicial and social system to a great one like the American one.
Black-and-White thinkers see only Red like the bulls in the arena of Spain!
Finally, the wrong being rectified from the same source which is the cause of the problems in the world. Ironical!
Ooooooooo yes! that might help opening Youtube in Pakistan.
If only they would have removed it because someone's freedom is hurting millions.
9th circuit court is considered a joke and is overruled by Supreme Court on a regular basis - no way this ruling will stand.
the news did not elaborated much on the detail about the judgment. is it because of the copyright or false disclaimer to the actor. or the order was given in accordance to negate the right of free speech that surpass others emotional/religious believes.
Good. Video gets removed and the ban on YouTube in Pakistan gets lifted. Very happy with this development.
May the bench declaring this decree stay blessed.
The moulvis should now do pro-American rallies and apologize for Christians killed when the senseless video was uploaded.
Well done US Court. Now, if the right-wing nutjob mullahs in Pakistan could read or understand English, maybe they would understand how the West's courts are actually more sympathetic and understanding on basic human and religious rights, than the so-called free Pakistani judiciary.
US appeals court has upheld human values. No civil liberty should be exercised or encouraged that ignites violence and seeds hatred among people.
Great! Somebody please take this to a high court or the Supreme Court in Pakistan and get an order asking the government/PTA to immediately lift the ban on YouTube.