HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judge denies bid to take ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:19 AM

Judge denies bid to take down anti-Muslim film

Source: Associated Press

Judge denies bid to take down anti-Muslim film

2:47AM EST December 1. 2012 - LOS ANGELES (AP) An actress who appeared in the anti-Muslim film blamed for sparking violence in the Middle East has lost another legal bid to have the trailer taken down from YouTube.

A federal judge in Los Angeles denied a motion for injunction on Friday by Cindy Lee Garcia. It wasn't immediately known whether Garcia's attorneys would file an appeal.

Garcia lost a similar legal challenge in state court when a judge rejected her lawsuit in September.

"Innocence of Muslims," which depicts Mohammad as a religious fraud and womanizer, enraged Muslims and ignited violence in the Middle East, killing dozens.


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/01/innocence-of-muslims-film/1738855/

6 replies, 1584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge denies bid to take down anti-Muslim film (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2012 OP
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #1
John2 Dec 2012 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #5
El Shaman Dec 2012 #3
Ash_F Dec 2012 #4
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #6

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:19 AM

1. 'innocence of muslims' wasn't the only document that depicts moh' that way

 

so does the koran. in fact that's why alex aan atheist in indonesia is in jail for sharing a comic book on facebook created by ex-muslim that said pretty much the same thing (with better drawings).

free speech trumps the imposition of religious dogma jail or no jail every time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:10 AM

2. I still

 

would like to see the judge's and perhaps your legal reasoning? The complainant bought a suit, because she thought, the producer of the film induced her to do it under false pretenses. Where is that protected under the cover of the Freedom of Speech? Her reputation was also damaged. So why shouldn't she be allowed damages? Since I'm not privy to this Judge's legal reasoning, then I would like to hear yours? He used her image or impersonated her voice also and I do believe her image and voice still belongs to her. And the way I see it, this Judge's decision would give more people the freedom to go out and do the same thing this zealot did under the cover of the Freedom of Speech. That is an abuse to me? Furthermore, I wonder if a jury would come to the same decision those Judges came too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:19 PM

5. She most likely signed multiple releases...waiving rights and claims.

That would make it black letter law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:30 PM

3. Free Speech

along with a little hate speech- that'll work!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:33 PM

4. She was duped on what the film was supposed to be about.

That must be breaking some kind of verbal or written contract. It's wrong to use her work like that regardless of whatever protests are going on the other side of the world.

If she was Viacom, the vid would be down in two seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:38 PM

6. They won't take it down because of free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread