A controversial order requiring Google to censor the video “Innocence of Muslims” doesn't violate the free-speech rights of either Google or users who want to view the clip, actress Cindy
Lee Garcia argues in new court papers.
The actress, who is suing Google for copyright infringement, says that she received death threats since the inflammatory clip was posted to YouTube in 2012.
Garcia says she was duped into appearing in the movie, which she thought would be an action adventure film. She also says that the director dubbed her dialogue, making it appear as if she uttered
“hateful and violence-inducing” statements. She is now asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to let stand a prior order requiring Google to keep the clip off YouTube.
“Garcia and her family have received thousands of threats as the result of the [clip's] exhibition by Google,” she writes. She adds that the injunction against Google reflects a balance
between “Google's business interests in copyright infringement” and the “irreparable harm” that the clip is causing her.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit recently
ruled 2-1 that Garcia potentially has a copyright interest in her 5-second performance in the film. That court granted the actress's request for an order requiring YouTube to take down all clips and
prevent the film from being uploaded in the future.
The order has been widely criticized on several fronts. One of the major ones is that the injunction is a “prior restraint” --
that is, an order censoring speech before there's been a trial. Prior restraints on speech are almost always viewed as unconstitutional. Another main ground of criticism is that the court's reasoning
appears to give actors new veto power over online clips they don't like.
Google has asked the entire 9th Circuit to reconsider the case, and a host of Web companies (including WordPress,
Facebook, IAC/Interactive, Pinterest and Twitter) said in court papers filed last month that they intend to support Google's request.
For her part, Garcia says there's no reason for the 9th
Circuit to revisit the panel's “well-reasoned opinion.”
Her latest motion states: “The harm arising out of the infringement is undisputed. After hateful and violence-inducing
words were put in her mouth and broadcast worldwide, she received threats of rape and death unless the trailer came down, became the target of an Egyptian fatwa, and was forced to flee her home and
church.”