{"id":1042,"date":"2012-09-30T14:42:23","date_gmt":"2012-09-30T14:42:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1042"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:06","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:06","slug":"judge-refuses-to-order-youtube-to-remove-anti-islam-video","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/judge-refuses-to-order-youtube-to-remove-anti-islam-video\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Refuses to Order YouTube to Remove Anti-Islam Video"},"content":{"rendered":"

Saturday, September 29, 2012, by Anu Madan
\nThe controversial anti-Islam film trailer, \u201cInnocence of Muslims,\u201d has spawned violent protests and unrest spread throughout the Muslim world.\u00a0 The fourteen-minute trailer, which depicts Muhammad as a womanizer, fool, and child molester, remains posted on YouTube, despite objections from White House administrators.\u00a0 YouTube has refused to take down the video in the United States, stating that the trailer does not violate its Terms of Use.\u00a0 The site did however remove the clip on its own volition in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Indonesia, and India, as its content violates laws in those nations.
\nOn Thursday, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that YouTube does not have to remove the anti-Islam video.\u00a0 Actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the trailer, lost her legal suit to remove the clip from the popular video-sharing website.
\nAccording to Section 230<\/a> of the Communications Decency Act, \u201cNo provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.\u201d\u00a0 As such, third party actors, like YouTube, are immune from liability for the content their users post.\u00a0 Any policy that requires sites to monitor all postings, and remove objectionable content, would have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet.\u00a0 Accordingly, the court found that Garcia\u2019s legal claims against YouTube, and its parent company Google, had little merit.
\nEven former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the issue.\u00a0 Clinton addressed the recent turmoil in the Middle East, stating, \u201cin order to preserve freedom, and liberty, including the freedom of religion, you have to allow people to say and do things that you find abhorrent.\u00a0 And you can\u2019t react every time you\u2019re insulted.\u201d\u00a0 The First Amendment is deemed to be the cornerstone of this nation\u2019s democracy.\u00a0 Yet, despite this nation\u2019s strong free speech laws, some types of speech are not afforded protection under the First Amendment.\u00a0 The Supreme Court has carved out several limits to the freedom of speech right guaranteed in the First Amendment.\u00a0 For example, words that would spur immediate violence and child pornography are not protected.\u00a0
\nCourts have the important task of striking a balance between the benefits of open and free speech, and the consequences of hateful and inflammatory dialogue that may spark violence. \u00a0In denying Garcia\u2019s request to remove the controversial video from YouTube, the judicial system once again tipped the scale in favor of free speech.
\nGarcia also sued the producer of the trailer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, alleging fraud and slander.\u00a0 In her complaint<\/a>, Garcia accused Nakoula of tricking her into appearing in the trailer, which she was led to believe was an adventure film.\u00a0 The complaint stated that the video was edited in a manner \u201cto make it appear that Ms. Garcia voluntarily performed in a hateful anti-Islamic production.\u201d\u00a0 Even if a judge granted an injunction against the filmmakers to order them to remove the content, it would have little effect; after all, what happens on the Internet, stays <\/em>on the Internet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Saturday, September 29, 2012, by Anu Madan The controversial anti-Islam film trailer, \u201cInnocence of Muslims,\u201d has spawned violent protests and unrest spread throughout the Muslim world.\u00a0 The fourteen-minute trailer, which depicts Muhammad as a womanizer, fool, and child molester, remains posted on YouTube, despite objections from White House administrators.\u00a0 YouTube has refused to take down …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1042"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7686,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042\/revisions\/7686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}