Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube

Happens all the time, or at least they try....

CAIR is always trying to stop people from speaking the truth about islamist extremist terrorists. This whole country and perhaps the world is bowing down to their crazy beliefs in an effort not to get blown up.

I honestly feel that is not a "racist" statement. At the best could be considered anti religious but what race is Muslim? Its the truth. We all know the majority of Muslims are not extremists but that does not forgive the fact that the majority of all terror acts are committed by muslims.

Its just too overwhelming to think about. The goal of islam is to take over the world.

I think Hillary Clinton supported a law making it illegal to say anything bad about Islam.

Stop using YouTube then.

When they started to try force me to use my real name & give them my telephone number, I moved over to a few other video hosting sites that are not censored; Dailymotion, Vimeo or Liveleak - to get my news or alternative videos from.

We can scream free speech all we want, but at the end of the day its their website and they can censor what they want, when they want and be as biased as they like.

I still visit YouTube for funny videos, but anything pretty serious I'll go elsewhere now

n00bUK

We can scream free speech all we want, but at the end of the day its their website and they can censor what they want, when they want and be as biased as they like.

There's a difference between a private company choosing what content to host or not to host versus a court of a government decreeing a private company host or not host.

Think of it as free will. Google has the free will to take it down or leave it up. A court order removes that free will.

Commercial speech

Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[112]
1.The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
2.The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
3.The contents reference a specific product.
4.The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.

here is a whole bunch on First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I read most (skimmed) and had to crack open a beer lol!!
but, its almost 5 PM en.wikipedia.org...

Why do we coddle these people to begin with?

Oh, look what I found.
www.memri.org...

All that time on their hands

reply to post by QuantumDeath


Why do we coddle them? because they bitch and whine if we don't and blow innocent people up.

Can't serve pork in prisons because the muslims

Cant serve pork in public schools because muslims

Install foot baths in public Universities because of muslims

Muslim only swim days at public pools....do they have Catholic only days? just a question.

There are links to all that so don't think I'm making it up.

I really think the news media is so hell bent on trying to portray themselves as non-racist that they have become racist.

tinner07
reply to post by QuantumDeath

 

Why do we coddle them? because they bitch and whine if we don't and blow innocent people up.

Then you've already submitted, they're going to kill innocent people anyways.

The Islamic react because they hate being told the truth of their prophet. You know that prophet that murdered, pillaged, raped many women, and also married a child.

It is pretty much the equivalent of when a child covers their ears and starts screaming "I CANT HEAR YOU, I CANT HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!"

Evil men use religion to gain power from fools who believe in the adult version of santa.

Oh my God... I can't believe I'm reading these comments in a forum with 'Education' in the title. Has anybody actually read the article??? I only saw one poster point out that this has nothing to do with insulting Muslims, or the oppression of free speech.

It was deemed by the courts that there was copyright infringement - the lawsuit was made by one of the NON-MUSLIM actors. I'm far from being supportive of Islam, but I know I'd rather understand the truth to a story than just assume from a headline that those Muslims are taking over the free world once again.

This stuff happens ALL THE TIME on YouTube - companies who feel like their copyrights are being abused have videos taken down all the time. This is what has lead to such an increase in 'fair use' claims. But just because it's not something that will whip up some public hatred and get people reading headlines, you don't hear about it in the press.

Non-muslims love to whip themselves into a frenzy. Has anyone ACTUALLY heard a Muslim complain about Christmas carols or decorations in shops? No. Not one. Non-muslims impose their OWN restrictions on themselves, and then get angry that they're being persecuted in some way. It just makes us all look like morons. Yet people lambast Muslims for getting upset at things...

Seriously, this whole thing is a non-event to anybody who has actually read the article...

[/vent]

Regards,
Rewey

Relax everyone.

You can still watch a vid of a Cross in a jar of urine!

This is such a dangerous web the government is weaving with the restriction of our free speech, I wonder, what is the breaking point of the people?

RUFFREADY
an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.

Funny. The film didn't spark protests across the world UNTIL Obama and his administration brought a whole lotta attention to it. No one had really heard about it or cared about it until then.

reply to post by buster2010


Sorry but Google does not have to take anything down, bunch of bunk. It will end up at supreme court. That whacko can't make them the it down. We will see what high court does. Muslims can go suck it, r very religion gets made fun of here. Don't like it buster, turn it off. Not like you can get it in Iran anyway.

I am sick of pussy footing around muslims so not defend them. Screw that. Let's start talking about how they treat women and young girls age an of twelve being sold to uncle for bride. Let's get serious. Talk about human rights as women are treated as sex slaves and worse.

Muslims need to learn how to laugh at themselves. Take the turbine loose and let your hair out. Cus you suck......


The Bot

reply to post by RUFFREADY


First Amendment violation. This country is doomed if we don't pull their heads out of our arses soon.

reply to post by RUFFREADY


This case is not based on any rights to free speech. It is a copyright claim.

From your source

But in Wednesday's decision, 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.

reply to post by Rewey


As soon as I read the article, I posted. I was happy to see your post on the second page here. Restored a little hope in me for my fellow man and ATS members.

reply to post by Witness2008


Thanks... I'm glad you can read too!

Seriously - even after my post there are a bunch of people swearing to damnation about Muslims and Free Speech... What the heck is going on here? What is wrong with people??? I'm not American, and even I know that the First Amendment does not protect people engaging in Copyright Infringement!

Sometimes I think the Freedom of Speech has been thwarted by a lack of Freedom of Reading and Freedom of Comprehension...

Regards,
Rewey

reply to post by dlbott


Well done. You have completely ignored what the article has said to the point that I don't think you even read it.

It has nothing to do with offending Muslims, or Freedom of Speech. Your reaction is EXACTLY why media sources have dumbed the 'news' down to nothing more than misleading and inflammatory headlines - because they know people like you will just get upset and rant without bothering to read any further...

Regards,
Rewey

thisguyrighthere
Eh, who needs a first amendment anyway?

Exactly. I mean if it was "that" important, you think they'd have got it right the first time. But nooooo.. it's added on, like "the first change that we like" in the thing that is supposed to be all defining.



Amen...dment.

Darolla
This is such a dangerous web the government is weaving with the restriction of our free speech, I wonder, what is the breaking point of the people?

And this is just so far off the mark it's just dumb. Freedom of Speech does not mean that a privately owned and funded website that you upload your 'free speech' to is bound to host it into perpetuity. They are privately owned, and have very clear legal Terms and Conditions. Just because you have the Freedom to say what you want, doesn't mean that YouTube has to host it for the world to see. Dissemination of your opinion is your problem, not theirs.

And Freedom of Speech also doesn't negate people's legal copyright protection. If you actually read the article rather than jumping straight on to the rant bandwagon based on your assumption of what the article's headline means, you'd probably understand that it's exactly what the article is about...

Just slow down and take the time to read things...

Regards,
Rewey