[From article]
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.
“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 film sparked rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.
The larger 9th Circuit panel said it was sympathetic to Garcia’s concerns, but copyright law is not intended to protect people from the type of harm Garcia claimed to have suffered, including death threats.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/18/court-says-google-shouldnt-have-been-forced-to-take-down-anti-muslim-film/
Court says Google shouldn’t have been forced to take down anti-Muslim film
By Associated Press
New York Post
May 18, 2015 | 3:43pm
No comments:
Post a Comment