The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Google should not have been forced to remove the scapegoat anti-Islamic video that “caused” the Benghazi attack.
“The 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Google, which owns YouTube, saying the previous decision by a three-member panel of the same court gave ‘short shrift’ to the First Amendment and constituted prior restraint — a prohibition on free speech before it takes place.”
We now know that the film had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack but was merely an administration talking point to deflect from the ineptness regarding the attack and murder of four Americans in Libya.
“The mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a politically significant film — based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in an opinion joined by nine other judges. “In so doing, the panel deprived the public of the ability to view firsthand, and judge for themselves, a film at the center of an international uproar.”
The injunction against the film was sought by a cast member, Cindy Lee Garcia, who wanted the film removed because she was receiving death threats for appearing in the film. “Her lawyer argued that she believed she was acting in a different production and had a copyright claim to the low-budget film.”
The 9th Circuit Court decided that while sympathetic to Garcia’s situation, it had nothing to do with copyright law. “The copyright office said it does not allow such claims by individual actors involving performances in movies, according to the court.”
“We are sympathetic to her plight,” McKeown wrote. “Nonetheless, the claim against Google is grounded in copyright law, not privacy, emotional distress, or tort law, and Garcia seeks to impose speech restrictions under copyright laws meant to foster rather than repress free expression.”
No word on when the film will return to You Tube.