'Innocence of Muslims' actress Cindy Lee Garcia seeks sanctions against Google

[Himanshu Arora]

Just a month after she won a controversial decision that ordered Google to take down and prevent new uploads of the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims from YouTube, actress Cindy Lee Garcia has now filed for a contempt of court order alleging that the company has failed to comply with the ruling.

Garcia on Tuesday filed an emergency motion (PDF) in Los Angeles, claiming that a version of the video that includes her performance was still available on the Internet. She also complained that instead of removing the video, Google has temporarily disabled some copies, along with a message that mocks her.

“For Google, it is a pedestrian, technical exercise to take down those URLs, to hire an intern to just search for ‘Innocence of Muslims’...,” counsel M. Cris Armenta wrote in the filing.

In her initial takedown notices, Garcia provided a list of 852 YouTube channels and URLs where the video can allegedly be found. She is now demanding a maximum penalty of $150,000 per channel, and wants the court to order Google to post a bond for the amount for each of these links.

Garcia claims that she had been hired to act in a different film, but the filmmaker tricked her by dubbing anti-Islamic slurs, and used the footage in some other film. The 14 minute video triggered international outrage and sparked protests around the world. She also says that she has been receiving death threats from around the world. Even a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) is said to have been issued in Egypt for her execution.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/56140-innocence-of-muslims-actress-cindy-lee-garcia-seeks-sanctions-against-google.html

 

[Guest]

"The 14 minute video triggered international outrage and sparked protests around the world."

Really you think so? A poorly made clip which barely had any views before that consulate attack and all?

 

[Guest]

After reading about this, I am going to find a copy and upload non-stop... censorship based on religion? Not a chance would I ever accept this.

 

[psycros]

So someone made a film mocking the idea that Islam is a religion of peace..and gets death threats and jihad in response. Sounds like mission accomplished to me.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Garcia claims that she had been hired to act in a different film, but the filmmaker tricked her by dubbing anti-Islamic slurs, and used the footage in some other film.

So... shouldn't she be suing the filmmaker? Oh, right... Google is the one with the money.

If she weren't asking for money I'd get it... Those Islamists don't fool around when someone ridicules them.

 

[Guest]

Mocking any one else's religion is an unethical act. protesting against the unacceptable act is the right of everyone. I am sure if this video was made on any other religion, people of that religion would have acted the same way and would have demanded that the video be taken down. Everyone is ignoring the fact that the initiator should be blamed for doing wrong, not the people who is reacting to the action. Every action has a reaction to it. It's natural.

 

[wastedkill]

Garcia claims that she had been hired to act in a different film, but the filmmaker tricked her by dubbing anti-Islamic slurs, and used the footage in some other film.

So... shouldn't she be suing the filmmaker? Oh, right... Google is the one with the money.

If she weren't asking for money I'd get it... Those Islamists don't fool around when someone ridicules them.

If she got $150k per link then she would essentially get billions... its pathetic...

 

[Guest]

It amazes me that in a country that claims freedom of beliefs as one of fundamental freedoms, there is so much fighting against various religions. I think that attacking any religion in not just anti-religious, it's Anti-American. Whoever does that, steps on the principles of a free world.

 

[Holotus]

Muslims are whiny children who take their fairy tale fable way too seriously. Their mindset is a thousand years old, the modern world should of left them alone in their dry desert. What's shocking is that there's over a BILLION of them on this planet --- 1/7 of Earth's population --- this planet is f*cked.

 

[Guest]

Let us not forget Google/YouTube exists based on the CONTENT contributions of individuals. Google seeks to control this content and copyright at all costs and in this example - complete disregard for the rights of the Individual and threats to her life. The Google PR machine (YouTube’s blocking messages trumpeting free speech) is ultimately threatening individual rights on the web. Law firms in defense of Google/Hollywood are merely courting big money and seek to make it harder for the individuals to protect themselves.

This is not about Freedom of Speech or censorship. This particular case should be centered on the rights of an individual that are subject to great fraud, politics and Google self-interests.

A convicted felon using countless aliases lied to actors. The actors claim they signed no contracts. The only contract to surface was after Google sent their attorney to a visit Nakoula Basseley Nakoulais convicted felon in JAIL and asked the fraudster for contracts to help Google discredit a copyright claim. Why would Google go to such length to seek a contract from a convicted felon who has committed countless fraud?

With regard to Copyright and contracts. Hollywood has contracts, this case is not Hollywood. This case is NOT threatening Hollywood. In this instance a reasonable CONTRACT would have likely caused the 9th Circuit to throw this out. All the Hollywood Hoopla is a PR distraction.

Imagine agreeing to act in a kid’s movie and ending up in a pornographic film. Imagine there were no contracts? The court asserts the actor has a right. IS EVERYONE WILLING TO BLINDLY GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS TO BIG BUSINESS AND GOOGLE? Hollywood has contracts for a reason. Is Google worried that individual contributors to YouTube actually have rights to their content? Take the time to read about the SEVERE fraud committed in this particular case. Is a producer granted a default copyright if they the product they create is illegally obtained?
Actors have zero rights? Is it right for a person to be subject to death threats based on a contribution to a film they never agreed to be in and words they never spoke?

With regard to Free Speech and First Amendment - Nakoula Basseley Nakoulais aka... is free to do what he wants with regard to his FREE SPEECH - Simply leave GARCIA out of it. The 9th Circuit agreed to allow Google to show the movie trailer without GARCIA's performance. Free Speech still exists.

Who is Google defending in this case? The rights of a convicted felon - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? or the politics surrounding “We will not take down this film” related to the Benghazi debacle? Google is not defending the rights of individuals or YOUR FREE SPEECH. Google is defending its POLITICAL AGENDA, HOLLYWOOD, and GOOGLE BUSINESS INTERESTS with regard to Content, Copyright and DMCA interpretation on the world wide web.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Google should stop being so ridiculous and take it down. Shame on them, it's all about money to them no matter who is harmed

 

[soulsassassin]

Garcia claims that she had been hired to act in a different film, but the filmmaker tricked her by dubbing anti-Islamic slurs, and used the footage in some other film.

So... shouldn't she be suing the filmmaker? Oh, right... Google is the one with the money.

If she weren't asking for money I'd get it... Those Islamists don't fool around when someone ridicules them.

you bet on that mr

 

[taimuraly]

What I would like to know is how did she come up with the figure for the fine, $150,000 per channel. I mean what did she consider would justify that amount per channel. Most of these channels for sure must be channels with only few videos if not only one.

It just seems that she wants to capitalize on this as much as she can as to what is stopping the videos from being uploaded on other sites. Also, how is Youtube to control what is uploaded to its site, it has messages informing the users of what is allowed and what not but they can not possibly screen every video uploaded to their servers.

P.S I am sure the moderators will respond but please people do not attack each other or any religion here. This here is a tech form and this is tech news so lets keep the the comments related to the news.

 

[Guest]

Muslims can be soooo oversensitive.

Imagine if Christians got all upset about depictions of Christ? Or Buddhists, Buddha?

So ridiculous to b so precious and get all cranky over nothing. It make something out of nothing indeed.

 

[Bubbajim]

Let's compare:

Book of Mormon gets made, the leaders of the church say: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

Innocence of Muslims gets made, the leaders of the faith say: (paraphrased) - kill them all.

Now, one production is vastly superior to the other, but still - proportional reaction, eh?

On topic: I don't know if Google's T&Cs say that they can edit content hosted on their sites, but would it be so hard to get an intern to cut out the 5 seconds she appears in, each time it's uploaded? (Genuine question, don't know myself...)

Personally I'm all for people having control over where their own image is used, even if in practice that's nigh-on impossible to control in the internet age. But on the other hand over-the-top lawsuits bug me. Lets all upload this to Vimeo.

 

[Guest]

If I were google, I'll sue her back because she was involved in that movie that has a very large potential to trigger international outrage no matter she was tricked or not. And this kind of movie will also triggered people to (re)upload it no matter what, which can cause inevitable losses to google.

 

[Guest]

What about bing.com? Is the actress going to sue them too? I just found that illegal movie though bing. Not that anybody uses it, of course...

 

[Guest]

Mike Powell said "Digital/internet/etc." is not "broadcasting" so all {info} through public airways is now in the hands of federal TRADE Commission. My $25.00 Citizens band license said- "Nothing illegal-immoral-subversive through PUBLIC AIRWAYS" {under possible penalty of arrest}- KLO-0290 [a grey eagle] had to identify each half-hour. As "Radio Corporation of America" began using tubes[w/mica] instead of 1930crystals, broadcasts through the Public's air ways began. American broadcast corporation-National broadcast corporation- became- ABC --NBC--CBS [broadcast system] then "Television" was given as "A Teaching Tool"-College courses on early morning systems later, turned into advertised entertainment for corporate wealth. FCC was responsible for "public good"-BUT Ten Rules were now made obsolete by congress [for Law] along with Sherman anti-trust--[corp. control] Glass/Steagal-[ Bank/money controls] Public Morality-[Deep throat]---Noah Webster [the "Wordsmith of our Constitution] was ignored-The first Religion, "Phallic Worship" took the place of "Ten Commandments" -The word "god" ["the greatest good"-n.W.] became whatever anyone thought, just as the "supreme" court turned the word "Corporation" into Citizen ! So... We want our corporate paychecks as "Citizens" we stand United!-and Amazon pays NO American Income Tax for sales, but puts all funds into Luxenborgs' banks! This uncontrolled "World-Wide Party line"is causing havoc on our children- at our >Expense<$$Cindy Garcia is my Hero!-a grey eagle

 

[CanadEan84]

Mocking any one else's religion is an unethical act. protesting against the unacceptable act is the right of everyone. I am sure if this video was made on any other religion, people of that religion would have acted the same way and would have demanded that the video be taken down. Everyone is ignoring the fact that the initiator should be blamed for doing wrong, not the people who is reacting to the action. Every action has a reaction to it. It's natural.

Ummm... "mocking" any religion is free speech and it happens, all the time. Islam as a religion of peace is laughable when any criticism gets a Fatwah on your head.

What people need to understand is, Islam isn't just your everyday religion. All you have to do is look at any country where Islam reigns supreme and you'll see that freedom doesn't. It's an ideology that isn't compatible with Western ideals. Censorship of criticism isn't something we should be striving for. If Islam has any value for us in the West, it should be able to stand up to the harshest of criticism. It doesn't belong in the free world otherwise.