| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
New Battle For Obama’s Benghazi Scapegoat
Film blamed by president for 4 deaths center of free-speech dispute
WND
The short Internet video that the Obama administration blamed for the organized terror attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans now has been caught up in a First Amendment case.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-rights group focused on the “digital world,” is asking a federal appeals court for another review of its decision to have “Innocence of Muslims” removed from the Internet.
The 14-minute “trailer” of a purported full-length film by Egyptian-born Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, which was posted on YouTube.com, was blamed by top Obama officials including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the terror attack on U.S. operations in Benghazi.
A little more than two weeks after the attack, Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles and charged with violating terms of his probation on bank fraud charges. In an interview with WND, he said he made the movie to warn America about the threat of Islamic jihad.
The case was launched by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who claimed she was “was tricked into appearing on-screen, overdubbed, for five seconds.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Google to remove any traces of the video from the Internet.
Garcia sued Google, claiming a copyright infringement, even though the federal government declined to grant her a copyright for her five seconds.
She alleged that as a result, she has a right to the entire video.
A panel from the 9th Circuit agreed with her, ordering Google to remove the video and to not speak about the issue.
Now EFF and several other organizations are trying to have the decision reversed.
“The case is troubling for a number of reasons,” EFF said. “First, as the court itself admits, the copyright claim is doubtful at best (in fact the Copyright Office expressly rejected her effort to register a copyright). Second, the order amounts to a prior restraint of speech, something that should never happen where the underlying claim is ‘doubtful.’”
Reposted with permission
