In 2012 a controversial video went viral on YouTube that angered Muslims across the Middle East, sparking riots and leading to several deaths. The Innocence of Muslims is a 74 minute piece of junk (that I watched), which shows the prophet Muhammad as a fool, a fraud, insane, and a sexual deviant. Unsurprisingly it was blocked in numerous countries, including Libya, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Russia. Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, even went so far as to ban YouTube entirely.
Despite mounting pressure, including from the White House, Google refused to remove the film from YouTube, because it didn’t violate its policies. However, The Innocence of Muslims fell victim to a specious copyright claim, and ended up being removed anyway.
Actress Cindy Lee Garcia -- who claimed she was tricked into appearing in the video and overdubbed for five seconds -- sued Google to have the footage removed and when the district court refused her demand, she appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google to take the video down, despite branding Garcia’s copyright claim as "doubtful".
Google asked the court to reconsider, on the basis that Garcia’s appearance in the film should not give her any rights to copyright, and it did -- but took 15 months to do so.
Garcia received death threats after appearing in the film, but this should have had no bearing over the appeal court’s original decision.
"In this case, a heartfelt plea for personal protection is juxtaposed with the limits of copyright law and fundamental principles of free speech", wrote Judge M Margaret McKeown. "We are sympathetic to her plight. 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".
Judge Reinhardt added in a separate opinion that the court should have reheard the case immediately:
By leaving in place the panel’s unprecedented gag order for well over a year, we surrendered to the threats of religious extremists who were offended by the film. For a United States court to do so was anathema to the principles underlying the First Amendment. It is remarkable that this late in our history we have still not learned that the First Amendment prohibits us from banning free speech in order to appease terrorists, religious or otherwise, even in response to their threats of violence.