It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


I didn't read any of that but you;'re wrong. The internet is free. It should be unrestricted. Like beer.

How dare you try to curtail my free speaeach. I will not stand for this. My chair is comfortable and Im lazy. So a forum rant I shall make. Post haste.

Down with google!!!!! it's a monster and shall not be obeyed.

Now excuse me as I google how to spell speech, and then watch a youtube video with alex jones.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


There is just this one oddity concerning the case and it is this.....


By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google's assertion that the removal of the film "Innocence of Muslims," amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.


You Tube and Google are pretty on the ball about copyright infringement, and this girls claims were more valid than a lot of others that have been removed by google. So why use a constitutional argument for a case of copyright? The government had not brought the case, and we are only protected constitutionally from our own government.



edit on 27-2-2014 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Agreed. And to be honest, I think the Copyright Infringement aspect of this whole story is a little bizarre when you think about the actual problem they're trying to address. According to the courts, the actor's work IS independently 'copyrightable'. I think Google is arguing that her claim should be against the director (who used her recorded footage from another movie, hence breaking copyright), and I think they're right for saying that. But I think this move is essentially trying to affect the director by stopping the distribution of his work.

I guess in that sense, it's like attacking ISP's for people illegally downloading movies. The ISP has nothing to do with the act, but targeting them is a means to trying to stop people engaging in illegal activity.

But the ranting about this move being to placate angry Muslims, and the suppression of Free Speech is laughable.

Cheers,
Rewey



new topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join