Google lawyer argues free speech at stake in banned anti-Muslim film

YouTube was forced to take down an anti-Muslim film "Innocence of Muslims" that inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. A Google lawyer argued that the court is undermining free speech. 

(AP Photo/Adel Hana, File)
In this Sept. 12, 2012 file photo, Palestinians protest against the movie, "Innocence of Muslims," near the United Nations office in Gaza City. The banner reads in Arabic "you are more dear than my father and mother my beloved prophet Mohammed." A federal appeals court is reconsidering a decision to order YouTube to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will consider arguments Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, by Google, which owns YouTube, to reverse its earlier decision.

A low-budget anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to the actors involved was compared with the likes of "Titanic" and "The Lord of the Rings" in a federal appeals court Monday.

A lawyer for Google argued that if a ruling stands allowing a bit player in "Innocence of Muslims" copyright privileges, it could extend to minor characters in blockbusters, shatter copyright law and ultimately restrict free speech because anyone unhappy with their performance could have it removed from the Internet.

"The ultimate effect is to harm the marketplace of speech," attorney Neal Katyal told a 10-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said the court would rule later on Google's request to reverse a decision forcing YouTube to take down the film that inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad.

A divided three-judge panel of the court ruled in February that actress Cindy Lee Garcia had a copyright claim to the 2012 video because she believed she was acting in a much different production than the one that appeared.

Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said the extraordinary circumstances justified the extreme action of a court injunction against YouTube.

"She is under threat of death if she is not successful in removing it," Armenta said.

Judges peppered the lawyers with questions mostly focused on copyright law and how Garcia's performance compared to those of other actors and musicians.

Google was joined by an unusual alliance of filmmakers, other Internet companies and prominent news media organizations that don't want the court to alter copyright law or infringe on First Amendment rights.

If the court upholds the smaller panel's ruling, YouTube and other Internet companies could be besieged with takedown notices, though it could be hard to contain the film that is still found online.

Katyal said 300 hours of content is uploaded to YouTube every minute.

Garcia was paid $500 for a movie called "Desert Warrior" she believed had nothing to do with religion, but ended up in a five-second scene in which her voice was dubbed over so her character asked if Muhammad was a child molester.

"Is there anyone in the world who doesn't know your client is associated with this movie?" Judge Richard Clifton asked Armenta.

Google had argued that the copyright was owned by filmmaker Mark Basseley Youssef, who wrote the script, managed the production and dubbed over Garcia's dialogue.

A dissenting judge in the 2-1 decision said Garcia played no creative role that would give her ownership rights.

Until the court order, YouTube had rejected calls by President Barack Obama and other world leaders to pull the video, arguing that it would amount to government censorship and violate free speech protections.

Garcia has support from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians.

Alex Lawrence, a copyright and intellectual property lawyer in New York not connected with the case, said he thinks the court will reverse the earlier ruling because the judges reached a decision to give Garcia some relief on thinly grounded law.

"There's a lot of sympathy for Miss Garcia," Lawrence said. "She got paid $500 and received death threats. Everyone feels sympathy for her, but using copyright in this way is a real problem for a lot of industries."

Armenta said that every actor in battle scenes in "The Lord of the Rings" has a copyright claim as do the oarsmen rowing the lifeboats in "Titanic."

That's exactly the scenario Katyal argued against, saying it would fragment copyright into 1,000 possible claims.

"There is zero precedent that a work can be splintered and fragmented," Katyal said. "It will cause untold mischief."

The film drew the attention of federal prosecutors, who discovered that Youssef had used several false names in violation of probation from a 2010 check fraud case. He was sent back to prison in 2012 and was released on probation in September 2013.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Google lawyer argues free speech at stake in banned anti-Muslim film
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today