Free speech at stake in anti-Muslim film case

A low-budget anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to the actors involved was compared with the likes of Titanic and The Lord of the Rings in a federal appeals court.

A lawyer for Google argued that if a ruling stands allowing a bit player in Innocence of Muslims copyright privileges, it could extend to minor characters in blockbusters, shatter copyright law and ultimately restrict free speech because anyone unhappy with their performance could have it removed from the internet.

“The ultimate effect is to harm the marketplace of speech,” attorney Neal Katyal told a 10-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said the court would rule later on Google’s request to reverse a decision forcing YouTube to take down the film that inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the prophet Muhammad.

A divided three-judge panel of the court ruled in February that actress Cindy Lee Garcia had a copyright claim to the 2012 video because she believed she was acting in a much different production than the one that appeared.

Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said the extraordinary circumstances justified the extreme action of a court injunction against YouTube.

“She is under threat of death if she is not successful in removing it,” Armenta said.

Judges peppered the lawyers with questions mostly focused on copyright law and how Garcia’s performance compared to those of other actors and musicians.

Google was joined by an unusual alliance of filmmakers, other internet companies and prominent news media organisations that don’t want the court to alter copyright law or infringe on First Amendment rights.

If the court upholds the smaller panel’s ruling, YouTube and other internet companies could be besieged with takedown notices, though it could be hard to contain the film that is still found online.