And..............Another Attack on Free Speech

[Sawbriars]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The lesson here, don't fuck with copyrights. Also, Muslims. Oddly enough the Muslims will only kill you but the lawyers will bleed you to death. I'd go with the Muslims in this case.

 

[Howey]

Good

 

[Sawbriars]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The lesson here, don't fuck with copyrights. Also, Muslims. Oddly enough the Muslims will only kill you but the lawyers will bleed you to death. I'd go with the Muslims in this case.

I think the copyright issue was just a red herring tossed out by the plaintiff who agreed to participate in the film......the real reason she objected to the film was most likely something else............irregardless not enough information on that...........but In a statement, Google said: "We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it."

Which makes me think if it was a open and shut case of violation of a copyright...google would not be fighting it.....this appears more a case of the courts trying to dissuade people from saying anything bad about islam.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think...

And that is where the failure occurred.

 

[Sawbriars]

I think...

And that is where the failure occurred.

No...the failure is your inability to grasp what the true intent of the court was.

Political Correctness causes such to happen. AKA....criticize Christianity to high heaven.....but we must be very careful not to say anything bad about islam...........bullshite.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think...

And that is where the failure occurred.

No...the failure is your inability to grasp what the true intent of the court was.

Political Correctness causes such to happen. AKA....criticize Christianity to high heaven.....but we must be very careful not to say anything bad about islam...........bullshite.

Your Jesus glasses are fogging your vision. The court wasn't protecting Islam, it was protecting something that actually mattered, copyright laws.

 

[Mojo2]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

They think of government as an entity much like Amazon .com or their University bursar's office or something, I think.

They have only seen government while it has been benign and only reasonably irritating or annoying.

They have no idea that when we lose control of government and let it become OUR boss, (as it is quickly trying to become) it turns into a Tiger.

They are too inured to sensory input on one sized screen or another.

They have no idea that people are actually fighting and dying around the world for what they are non-chalantly willing to give away to the government...especially to the likes of a scheming lying manipulative asshole government led by a POTUS like Obama.

Those freedom fighters have an advantage over Americans in one way, however.

They KNOW that Government is not your friend. And it is only benign when kept in check by laws and their enforcement by a vigilant public.

 

[The Rabbi]

From reading it seems the issue was not that Muslims were offended but that the actor in the film was mislead as to the nature of it, and this misleading caused potential damage.
But hard to know. The pressure from the White House mentioned is deeply troubling. Yes, there is a press to rein in free speech. The libs of course are all for it, because liberals today are like fascists of the 1930s.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Anything that controls freedom of expression that they don't like is just peaches with them.

The same end of the spectrum that USED to be FOR freedom of expression, individuality, and "do you own thing".

Ironic, huh?

.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

They think of government as an entity much like Amazon .com or their University bursar's office or something, I think.

They have only seen government while it has been benign and only reasonably irritating or annoying.

They have no idea that when we lose control of government and let it become OUR boss, (as it is quickly trying to become) it turns into a Tiger.

They are too inured to sensory input on one sized screen or another.

They have no idea that people are actually fighting and dying around the world for what they are non-chalantly willing to give away to the government...especially to the likes of a scheming lying manipulative asshole government led by a POTUS like Obama.

Those freedom fighters have an advantage over Americans in one way, however.

They KNOW that Government is not your friend. And it is only benign when kept in check by laws and their enforcement by a vigilant public.

The copyright claim seems extremely dubious at best. She appeared in the film and I don't see anything that indicates that she owns that copyright to the skit itself.

Where I think she has a good claim is that she was misled in what the film depicts. Being that it offends her and brings her harm, I can see why such should not be allowed. I just find it asinine that the actual claims could not center around that and had to take the form of a 'copyright' infringement case.

 

[Wildman]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The lesson here, don't fuck with copyrights. Also, Muslims. Oddly enough the Muslims will only kill you but the lawyers will bleed you to death. I'd go with the Muslims in this case.

i have no doubt because you are one of them

 

[editec]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie,

I'd say this has nothing to do with FREE SPEECH and everything to do with character assassination (slander or perhaps liable?) .

The suit is not being brought by Islam, after all.

Its is being brought by a person whose character is being distorted in a notorious venue available to the general public.

A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube. In Wednesday's decision, however, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim, and having already faced "serious threats against her life," faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. "It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights," he wrote.

The case is Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

 

[Sawbriars]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie,

I'd say this has nothing to do with FREE SPEECH and everything to do with character assassination (slander or perhaps liable?) .

The suit is not being brought by Islam, after all.

Its is being brought by a person whose character is being distorted in a notorious venue available to the general public.

A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube. In Wednesday's decision, however, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim, and having already faced "serious threats against her life," faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. "It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights," he wrote.

The case is Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

The above information indicates to me her claim is phoney....who was threatening her life? Sounds like a liar to me. Liberals are the ones who usually threaten people when things do not go their way and the liberals would have no cause to threaten her....it appears the courts bought into the b.s. just in order to dissuade any disclosure of negative informtion on islam....the government's desire to protect islam is without a doubt infringing on our freedom of speech...the governments position is based on ignorance, cowrdice and a complete disregard for freedom of speech.

 

[Jarhead]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

They think of government as an entity much like Amazon .com or their University bursar's office or something, I think.

They have only seen government while it has been benign and only reasonably irritating or annoying.

They have no idea that when we lose control of government and let it become OUR boss, (as it is quickly trying to become) it turns into a Tiger.

They are too inured to sensory input on one sized screen or another.

They have no idea that people are actually fighting and dying around the world for what they are non-chalantly willing to give away to the government...especially to the likes of a scheming lying manipulative asshole government led by a POTUS like Obama.

Those freedom fighters have an advantage over Americans in one way, however.

They KNOW that Government is not your friend. And it is only benign when kept in check by laws and their enforcement by a vigilant public.

The copyright claim seems extremely dubious at best. She appeared in the film and I don't see anything that indicates that she owns that copyright to the skit itself.

Where I think she has a good claim is that she was misled in what the film depicts. Being that it offends her and brings her harm, I can see why such should not be allowed. I just find it asinine that the actual claims could not center around that and had to take the form of a 'copyright' infringement case.

the producer dubbed over her voice and therefore had her saying things that she, personally, would have never said...be it off camera or on.

It is not a freedom of speech issue.

It is an issue of fraud.

 

[jillian]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The lesson here, don't fuck with copyrights. Also, Muslims. Oddly enough the Muslims will only kill you but the lawyers will bleed you to death. I'd go with the Muslims in this case.

so the o/p saying it was about free speech was false….

thanks

 

[Jarhead]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie,

I'd say this has nothing to do with FREE SPEECH and everything to do with character assassination (slander or perhaps liable?) .

The suit is not being brought by Islam, after all.

Its is being brought by a person whose character is being distorted in a notorious venue available to the general public.

A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube. In Wednesday's decision, however, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim, and having already faced "serious threats against her life," faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. "It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights," he wrote.

The case is Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

The above information indicates to me her claim is phoney....who was threatening her life? Sounds like a liar to me. Liberals are the ones who usually threaten people when things do not go their way and the liberals would have no cause to threaten her....it appears the courts bought into the b.s. just in order to dissuade any disclosure of negative informtion on islam....the government's desire to protect islam is without a doubt infringing on our freedom of speech...the governments position is based on ignorance, cowrdice and a complete disregard for freedom of speech.

No.

A review of the film showed that what she was saying on the film in no way represented what her lips and throat movements were saying.

It was pulled because she was a victim of fraud....making the film fraudulent...giving the courts the right to have it pulled.

 

[g5000]

And that is where the failure occurred.

No...the failure is your inability to grasp what the true intent of the court was.

Political Correctness causes such to happen. AKA....criticize Christianity to high heaven.....but we must be very careful not to say anything bad about islam...........bullshite.

Your Jesus glasses are fogging your vision. The court wasn't protecting Islam, it was protecting something that actually mattered, copyright laws.

Exactly.

If I posted a Glenn Beck video on my YouTube account, Glenn Beck could take me to court to have it removed. That is not an attack on free speech.

 

[Sallow]

It is becoming obvious to anyone interested in free speech that there is a full court press directed at Freedom of Speech.

I do not think many people understand the significance of what has been happening....it also appears that a lot of people simply do not care.

I started a thread once on another message board about the importance of free speech on the internet ...and amazingly to me...most of those who responded saw no problem with it. Their usual argument going something like....well its privately owned...they can do what they want.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-ordered-remove-anti-islamic-film-youtube-165609763--

The lesson here, don't fuck with copyrights. Also, Muslims. Oddly enough the Muslims will only kill you but the lawyers will bleed you to death. I'd go with the Muslims in this case.

I think the copyright issue was just a red herring tossed out by the plaintiff who agreed to participate in the film......the real reason she objected to the film was most likely something else............irregardless not enough information on that...........but In a statement, Google said: "We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it."

Which makes me think if it was a open and shut case of violation of a copyright...google would not be fighting it.....this appears more a case of the courts trying to dissuade people from saying anything bad about islam.

This whole "law" thing escapes you, does it?

The producer of the film is a criminal.

Nakoula was born in Egypt,[1] and speaks an Egyptian dialect of Arabic.[14] In a September 2012 interview with Voice of America's Arabic language station, Radio Sawa, he stated that he was graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University, and claimed to be a researcher of Islamic thought.[14] At some point in his life, Nakoula emigrated to Southern California where he operated gas stations in Hawaiian Gardens, California.[15] and resided in Cerritos, in Los Angeles County, California[16][17][18][19] Nakoula attended a number of Coptic churches in the area, including St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in Bellflower, but he was not a regular member.[20]

According to the Associated Press, "Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems".[21] In 1996, a lien for $194,000 was filed against Nakoula's gas station for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest dating from 1989 to 1992.[19] A $106,000 lien was filed against him in 1997.[21] He filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000,[19][22] owing several banks a total of $166,500, but later failing to make payments under the bankruptcy plan.[19][23] A $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in 2006.[21]

The Daily Beast reported that Nakoula was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1997 after being pulled over and found to be in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash.[19] Nakoula was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.[18] He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation. According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, he violated probation in 2002 and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail.[24]

In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. Nakoula had opened bank accounts using fake names and stolen Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child,[3] and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs.[25] The prosecutor described the scheme as check kiting: "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money."[4] Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript shows that after being arrested, he testified against an alleged ring leader of the fraud scheme, in exchange for a lighter sentence.[26][27][28] He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, followed by five years probation (supervised release), and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution.[4][29] He was sent to prison, then to a halfway house,[30] and was released from custody in June 2011.

A few weeks after his release, Nakoula began working on Innocence of Muslims.[30][31] Conditions of Nakoula's probation include not using aliases and not using the Internet without prior approval from his probation officer.[32][33]
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sawbriars]

Further research on this also ndicates that the actress is lying about what she actually said in the script.

First, she does not say "is your God a child molester" at 9:05 in the trailer. Go to the video and read her lips. Yes, the word "Muhammed" was dubbed over some word(s). But "Muhammed" was not dubbed over the word "god."

Second, the question "Is your God a child molester?" makes no sense in light of the dialogue. The man in the scene says "My daughter shall have the stars." The actress claims that she replies "Is your god a child molester?" She continues, "Our daughter is but a child, and he is 55 years old." To whom is she referring? To the person that that the word "Muhammed" was dubbed over. Not to god. God makes absolutely no sense in light of the context.

Is she lying or did she forget what was in the script? I don't know. However, it appears, based upon her lips and the context of the script, that she did not say "god.

I think her real objection to the movie is that she wants some publicity and probably frightened some muslim might kill her....when she heard how the muslims reacted to the film.....but the really outrageous thing about this whole affair is how the courts were more than willing to buy into this minor actresses story....they were glad to be able to use her to curtail freedom of speech...that is the bottom line. Deal wid it chumps.