This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/12/us-appeals-court-innocence-of-muslims-case
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| US appeals court to reconsider whether Google must remove anti-Islam video | US appeals court to reconsider whether Google must remove anti-Islam video |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A US appeals court will reconsider whether Google Inc must remove from its YouTube video sharing service an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests across the Muslim world. | A US appeals court will reconsider whether Google Inc must remove from its YouTube video sharing service an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests across the Muslim world. |
| Earlier this year a three-judge panel on the ninth US circuit court of appeals in San Francisco sided with a woman who appeared in the film and ordered Google to take it down. An 11-judge panel will now rehear the YouTube case, the court said on Wednesday. | |
| The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, objected to the film after learning it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?” | The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, objected to the film after learning it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?” |
| On Wednesday, Garcia’s attorney Cris Armenta said her legal team will continue to advance Garcia’s copyright interests and “her right to be free from death threats”. In a statement, Google said it is pleased the court agreed to re-examine the case because it strongly disagreed with the initial decision. | |
| By a 2-1 vote, a ninth circuit panel 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 decision raised questions on whether actors may, in certain circumstances, have an independent copyright on their individual performances. Several organizations, including Twitter, Netflix and the ACLU, filed court papers opposing that idea and urged the court to rehear the case. | The decision raised questions on whether actors may, in certain circumstances, have an independent copyright on their individual performances. Several organizations, including Twitter, Netflix and the ACLU, filed court papers opposing that idea and urged the court to rehear the case. |
| The controversial film, billed as a trailer, depicted the Prophet Muhammad 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. | |
| That outbreak coincided with an attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya. For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous. | That outbreak coincided with an attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya. For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous. |
| In court filings, Google argued that Garcia appeared in the film for five seconds, and that while she might have legal claims against the director, she should not win a copyright lawsuit against Google. | In court filings, Google argued that Garcia appeared in the film for five seconds, and that while she might have legal claims against the director, she should not win a copyright lawsuit against Google. |
| The film has now become an important part of public debate, Google argued, and should not be taken down. | The film has now become an important part of public debate, Google argued, and should not be taken down. |