9th US Circuit Court Judge gives sharia legal consideration in “Innocence of Muslims” ruling

via Florida Family Association.

9th US Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski gives legal consideration to Sharia fatwa in amended opinion for en banc hearing of his order to quash YouTube’s First Amendment Right to post anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims.”

Click here to send your email asking 43 appellate court judges to reverse 3 judge panel ruling and affirm district court order.

 Florida Family Association sent out several email alerts earlier this year that reported a 3 judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com.  The panel voted 2-1 to reverse a lower court order that denied the injunction sought in Cindy Lee Garcia’s law suit.  Garcia sued Google on October 17, 2012 seeking a restraining order that would require Youtube.com to remove “Innocence of Muslims”  from their web service.  Garcia claimed that she had a copyright for a five second video that was incorporated into the film and that she had not given permission for its use in the movie.  She also claimed that she would suffer irreparable harm from an Islamic fatwa if the movie were not removed from access on the World Wide Web.

 Innocence of Muslims” which sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.   In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a murderer and adulterer as well” according to TheBlaze.com

 Defendant Google, who owns YouTube, had petitioned the appellate court to hear the case en banc by all of the justices in the 9th US Circuit.   However, the en banc hearing was delayed until now to allow the three judge panel to amend the opinion and dissent.  The court amended the opinion and dissent on July 11, 2014.  This opinion amendment was not posted on the court’s web site until July 24,2014.

9th US Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski amended opinion states in part:

 

  • While answering a casting call for a low-budget amateur film doesn’t often lead to stardom, it also rarely turns an aspiring actress into the subject of a fatwa. But that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Lee Garcia when she agreed to act in a film with the working title “Desert Warrior.”
  • These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage.  An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.
  • There’s nothing in the record to suggest that Youssef was in the “regular business” of making films. Reid, 490 U.S. at 752. He’d held many jobs, but there’s no indication he ever worked in the film industry.  And there’s no evidence he had any union contracts, relationships with prop houses or other film suppliers, leases of studio space or distribution agreements.  The dissent would hold that Youssef was in the “regular business” of filmmaking simply because he made “Innocence of Muslims.” But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a video camera becomes a movie mogul.

 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion which references the fatwa against Garcia essentially elevates the Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This lawsuit would never have happened were it not for the fatwa issued by the Egyptian Imam that ordered the killing of anyone involved in the production of “Innocence of Muslims.”  Garcia did not take legal action until six months after the video was released.  The fatwa is the potential “irreparable harm,” one of four factors required for a restraining order, sited in the appellate court’s opinion for the basis of ordering Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube.  Any restraining order should be focused on the Islamists who want to kill Americans not on Americans who want to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

 Additionally, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially determines who serious producers are and who are not and elevates the copyrights of “aspiring actresses” over first time producers.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion erroneously discounts the fact that Youseff, the film’s producer paid Garcia, the actress, $500 for her video footage at issue.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially establishes that copyrights for amateurs and professionals are different when the court should be establishing equity.

 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion could empower Islamists to focus their angst against more actors in videos and perhaps people in photos with the goal of influencing them to demand removal of the same from movies, website posts or blog posts.  The Council on American Islamic Relations’ censorship of American films has been robust lately.  CAIR recently boasted:  CAIR has challenged actual and potential anti-Muslim stereotypes in productions such as ABC Family network’s “Alice in Arabia,” “Executive Decision,” “24,” “The Siege,” “True Lies,” “Rules of Engagement,” “Obsession,” “The Third Jihad,” “Jihad in America,” and “The Sum of All Fears.”

 Now the full 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the panel’s troubled ruling that was approved by a 2-1 vote.

 Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to the forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals justices urging them to affirm the First Amendment rights that all Americans cherish by reversing the panel’s troubled ruling and affirming the district court’s order.  Florida Family Association is taking a position in this case based upon judicial principle and without regard to the parties involved or content of the movie.

 To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.  

 Please click here to send your email to forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals judges.


 Send your email now or after reading FFA’s complete Email issue history.

 

Youtube, Vimeo Enforce Sharia, Delete the “Aisha and Muhammad” Movie

via Vimeo Also Deletes the “Aisha and Muhammad” Movie – Air-Tight Censorship against Criticism of Islam in Western Media.

Those, who are aware of the newly-released movie, “Aisha and Muhammad”, by producer Imran Firasat should already know that Youtube stood in constant and firm vigilance with an iron-whip in hand to strike down any attempt to promote the movie on its website.

Youtube deactivated the first link of the movie within one-and-a-half hours of activation. The second link was deactivated faster that the first. That’s how youtube dealt with Imran Firasat’s movie.

What baflles us most is the fact that youtube fought hard a legal battle to keep the rather shoddily made video, “The Innocence of Muslims”, after one of it actresses, following death-threat from Muslims, initiated a legal proceeding against Youtube after it rejected her request to remove the video on the ground of defending freedom of expression. The protracted legal battle ran on for nearly a year, and in the final court verdict, youtube lost the case a few months ago, and regretfully deleted the video, terming it a bad day for freedom of expression.

Compared to “The Innocence of Muslims”, “Aisha and Muhammad” is much more serious movie based on a much better-researched and better-written story setting with the critical elements of the movie fortified by accompaying references from original and respectable Islamic sources. Moreover, the story in the movie, which is rather grossly and lewedly described in Islamic sources, is presented in a very measured and restrained manner in this movie.

Having advised Imran Firasat on the production of the movie whenever he sought guidance, and seen it multiple times, I am firmly certain that Muslims will never protest, let alone engage in violence, over a movie like this, since it is based on the normative Islamic narratives of the past 14 hundred years. And so far, although various Islamic organizations are talking about insults of the prophet in the movie, are not calling upon the willing followers of Islam to take to the street in protest against it.

Amidst youtube’s resolute censorship of the movie, which has severely limited its reach to the viewers, now vimeo.com, which runs on a paid service platform, has also deleted the movie without any prior consultation with Imran Firasat, despite the fact that he paid for hosting the video on vimeo.com. Only after deleting the movie, they sent him an email to inform about the deletion. Here’s the screenshot of the email Imran Firasat received:

The ground for vimeo.com’s removal of the movie is that it either “harass, incite hatred or depict excessive violence”. Those, who have watched the movie, will clearly know that neither vimeo.com or Muslims will be able to show anything in the movie that harass” anybody, “incite hatred” against anybody or any community, or “depict excessive violence”.

To be noted that LiveLeak and DailyMotion also deleted all the trailers of the movie that Imran Firasat had posted in those sites.

So, that’s the way things seem to go even in the Western world today in the name of censorship about Islam. Vimeo.com (as well as youtube) is violating its own terms and conditions, and guideline, and is instead accusing Imran Firasat of doing the same, who has done absolutely none of that.

We all know that the mainstream western media have for a long time been a pliant servant of Islam, disregarding its responsibility of defending freedom of expression guaranteed in the UN Charter and in the Constitutions of Western nations. And now, even low-key media outlets like Youtube, Google, Facebook, LiveLeak, Daily Motion, and Vimeo etc., which had until now kept a flicker of hope for freedom of expression alive in the West, are also toeing the well-orchestrated Islamist line.

Therefore, freedom of expression, a most cherished human right established in the western world, is all set to die a quick death from the face of the earth, at least as far as its application to Islam is conerned.

 The video can be seen in full here.

Obama Smiles Immediately Upon Hearing Bergdahl’s Dad Declare Muslim Victory Call (video)

Instincts can’t be taught. via Father Of Soldier Who Obama Released, Declares Muslim Victory Call, And Obama Smiles As Soon As He Hears The War Cry Of Allah | Walid ShoebatWalid .

While the Obama administration is proudly touting how it was able to free an American soldier who was captured by the Taliban, what no one picked is the fact that Obama SMILED as soon as he heard the most famous war cry of Islam, “bismillah al-rahman al-rahim,” Arabic for “in the name of Allah the most gracious, the most merciful.”

Watch Obama smile as soon as Bergdahl gives the most famous Muslim expression, the “Bismillah” or the “Basmallah”:

The “basmallah” is the Islamic expression for victory and only indicates that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s father is a Muslim.

Think that the man is acting as “Muslim” for a stealth operation to rescue his son who is already in good hands in Germany? And what is with the long beard and trimmed mustache?

No this is not a bum, biker, or a Santa Clause fan. When one gives the basmallah, trims his mustache and elongates his beard, its the first sign of a convert to Islam…

Read it all at Shoebat.

Of course, the Taliban ‘was thrilled’ when deserter Sgt Bergdahl’s father thanked ‘Allah the merciful’ in his White House press conference.

An alternative theory questions if Sgt. Bergdahl, An Intelligence Asset was Endangered By Obama’s CIA Blunder?

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was a five-year captive of the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan, may have been an intelligence operative whose cover was blown after the White House outed the CIA’s top intelligence official in the Islamic country by mistake.

…it’s puzzling that Robert Bergdahl, Bergdahl’s father and an Idaho resident, can speak Pashto, one of the official languages of Afghanistan, considering that the State Dept.’s Foreign Service Institute considers Pashto one of the most difficult languages for an English-speaker to learn, especially without immersion in a native environment.

Both the FSI and the Pentagon’s Defense Language Institute are likely the two best sources for Pashto course material for native English speakers.

…it’s not entirely far-fetched to suggest that his statements and mannerisms are intended to give credibility to his son’s possible cover, and combined with the extreme political risk that Obama took to ensure the exchange…

 Something else not far-fetched:

CIA Chief: I Removed ‘Islamic’ from ‘Islamic Extremists’ in Benghazi Talking Points to Appease Muslims

via CIA Chief: I Removed ‘Islamic’ from ‘Islamic Extremists’ in Benghazi Talking Points to Appease Muslims – Fox Nation.

Congressman: Just want to clarify, how does the term Al Qaeda…how would that disclose classified sources? Number 1 and then secondly, OK if we can get there, you also took out Islamic extremist… (Cross talk)

Morrell: I did not take out extremists, I took out the word Islamic in front of extremist and I took it out for two reasons. Most importantly I took out because we were dealing with protests and demonstrations across much of the Muslim world as a result of the video and the last thing I wanted to do was to was to do anything to further inflame those passions and so that’s why I took the word Islamic out. It was a risk judgment. The second reason I took it out was-What other kind of extremists are there in Libya?

Per Wikipedia:97% of the population in Libya are Muslims, who belong to the Sunni branch.[150] Small numbers of Ibadi Muslims and Sufis also exists in the country.[151]  So the answer is none. There are only Muslim extremists. And CIA assets.

After former acting CIA Director Mike Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he is the one who changed the Benghazi talking points, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) renewed her call for a select committee to investigate the attack. She suggested that Morell either lied to senators shortly after the attack, or lied during his testimony today.

Islamic terrorists assaulted the American facility at Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, killing for Americans just weeks before the presidential election. Despite copious evidence that was available during the attack and immediately afterward that it was a premeditated terrorist attack, the Obama administration from the president on down initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest sparked by an obscure YouTube movie. That take fit well with the Obama campaign narrative that al Qaeda was “on the run,” while al Qaeda killing four Americans in a coordinated assault on a US facility did not. Morell testified today that a group of intelligence officers from the Office of Congressional Affairs, and CIA public affairs, removed a reference to al Qaeda from the talking points given to Congress. Morell testified that he changed the talking points himself as well, and removed “Islamic” from a description of the “Islamic militants” who assaulted the facility, because “What other kind of extremists are there in Libya?” He also admitted to making the change so as not to “further aflame” passions in the Muslim world.

Under questioning from Republicans on the panel, Morell also admitted that he was aware that the CIA’s Libya station chief never believed that there was a protest prior to the attack, but Morell sided with Washington-based analysts who blamed a protest. Left unanswered, is who decided to blame the YouTube movie in the first place? And who briefed Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on five political shows on the Sunday following the attack and blamed the movie while downplaying the al Qaeda and terrorist connections.

 Recall also that current CIA head (and Muslim convert) John Brennan’s company was behind the Youtube video.

Google ordered to remove Mohammed film from YouTube

Creeping in the 9th Pillar Circuit. via Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube – Yahoo News.

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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.

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

In a statement, Google said: “We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it.”

Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said she is delighted with the decision.

“Ordering YouTube and Google to take down the film was the right thing to do,” Armenta said in an email. “The propaganda film differs so radically from anything that Ms. Garcia could have imagined when the director told her that she was being cast in the innocent adventure film.”

The controversial film, billed as a film trailer, depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a fool and a sexual deviant. It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.

That outbreak coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.

Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries.

In court filings, Google argued that Garcia appeared in the film for five seconds, and that while she might have legal claims against the director, she should not win a copyright lawsuit against Google.

The film has now become an important part of public debate, Google argued, and should not be taken down.

“Our laws permit even the vilest criticisms of governments, political leaders, and religious figures as legitimate exercises in free speech,” the company wrote.

But Garcia argued that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright.

A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube. In Wednesday’s decision, however, 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.

Serious threats to her life and irreparable harm from whom? MUSLIMS!!!!!!!

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.

Which of her rights were violated and by whom? The world has been duped…by Islam.

The case is Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

*Note: We fell into the media trap of referring to this as an anti-Islam film rather than a film about Muhammad. Title now changed.

Video: Muslims Murder Buddhists In Burma

via New English Review.

A woman from northwest Burma — Rakhine State — tells her own story, and recalls the “massacre of 1942″ that few outside Burma may ever have heard about

Anjem Choudary & Omar Bakri Recruit, Vet Volunteers for Jihad in Syria

Video via MEMRITVVideos.

They send them to Turkey first. Do they receive U.S.-funded arms and CIA training?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36,049 other followers

%d bloggers like this: