When the morally superior Judge “Cow” Kozinki isn’t taking a wrecking ball to our freedoms by ordering Google to take down videos, he’s posting photos of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal on his website.

Chief Judge Alex KozinskiThe dhimmi Judge who ordered Google to take down the YouTube video that set off  our now constant companion, the hair-trigger violence of the Muslim world, is a pervert who won’t offend Muslims but thinks nothing of degrading women and sharing his predilection for bestiality. Selective censorship, Judge Moo.

The craven cowardice of the 9th Circuit’s ruling was a craven capitulation to the dictates of the sharia was based on technical copyright law. Imagine if every actor and actress sued to remove a film where the  producer changed the story or their lines were dubbed: we’d have very little cinema (with the crap Hollywood produces these days, not an altogether bad thing). The ruling was an affront to every freedom-loving American. Did Cindy Lee Garcia sign a release or did she not? And if she didn’t, why not just blur out her craggy face out and give us all a break?

Mark Nakoula, the filmmaker behind the controversial film, “Innocence of Muslims,” and William J. Becker, Jr., president and CEO of FreedomX, a nonprofit public interest law firm supporting conservative and Christian freedom of expression, counsel for Nakoula, are available to the media to respond to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling yesterday requiring YouTube to remove the video.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?(2)

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion overreaches and pretends to protect the rights of an actress, who claims to have been targeted by death threats, by ordering the removal of an entire movie trailer that has been up since 2012,” said Becker. “The court could have ordered the removal of Garcia’s appearance without having to censor the entire trailer or its message.”

Becker added: “Garcia’s identity is already publicly available to anyone who wants to learn it. Removing the film from YouTube will not alleviate the alleged harm Garcia claims she will suffer. In the end, this ruling amounts to nothing more than censorship of unpopular speech the First Amendment specifically protects.”

Becker stated that a tidal wave of misinformation about Nakoula is circulating online and in the media. “The Obama Administration apologized for our First Amendment rights when it had Nakoula arrested in the middle of the night simply for exercising his constitutional rights.”

Garcia Film of innocence film The great battle against the Innocence of Muslims trailer has finally been won thanks to a ruling by “Cow Sex” Chief Judge Kozinski. By Daniel Greenfield, February 27, 2016

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got in trouble for putting up “a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal” on his website, but the moral judge drew the line at videos that offend Muslims writing an absurd opinion that has no basis in copyright law.

Joining the “cow sex” judge in his illegal decision was Clinton judge Ronald M. Gould. Judge N.R. Smith, appointed by President Bush, despite Barbara Boxer’s best efforts, however rightly dissented from the decision, by pointing out that, “the plaintiff did not establish a likelihood that she had a copyrightable interest in her acting performance, nor did she clearly show that the performance was not a work made for hire.”

Judge Alex Kozinski claims that Youssef can’t be considered a filmmaker because he shot a single amateur film, but writing a book or filming a movie is exactly how you become a writer or a filmmaker.

“But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a videocamera becomes a movie mogul,” Kozinski writes trying to claim that amateur filmmakers should have different rules than professional ones.

This distinction is both dangerous and wrong.

Garcia auditioned for a role in a particular film, was paid for her performance and had every reason to believe Youssef would eventually release the film. Without an implied license, the performance for which she was paid would be unusable. Therefore, we agree with Google that Garcia granted Youssef an implied license.

Any such license must be construed broadly. If the scope of an implied license was exceeded merely because a film didn’t meet the ex ante expectation of an actor, that license would be virutally meaningless.

Nevertheless, even a broad implied license isn’t unlimited…  Here, the problem isn’t that “Innocence of Muslims” is not an Arabian adventure movie: It’s that the film isn’t intended to entertain at all. The film differs so radically from anything Garcia could have imagined when she was cast that it can’t possibly be authorized by any implied license she
granted Youssef.

If we take the cow sex judge’s argument at face value, then if a movie is marketed in a different way than the actors can sue for copyright violation. This is plainly absurd since movies change dramatically in the process and in the marketing. Comedies can become dramas and vice versa. Plenty of actors have been completely shocked by the film as it was released because it was different from what they thought they were making.

Something a shmuck like Kosinski would know if he had bothered to do the research. Judge Smith quickly takes the cow sex judge to law school.

The majority opinion omits applying the requisite standard of review that is especially pertinent to Garcia’s requested relief. Mandatory preliminary injunctions, similar to the one issued today, are “particularly disfavored.”…

Given this standard, the majority errs in requiring Google to pull the film from YouTube—at this stage of the litigation.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the law and facts did not clearly favor Garcia. Instead, the majority makes new law in this circuit in order to reach the result it seeks. We have never held that an actress’s performance could be copyrightable.

The question is whether Google will appeal. Even if it doesn’t, the decision has all sorts of troubling legal implications for the movie industry that will no doubt lead to further review.

You Might Like

Pamela Geller is the Editor of PamelaGeller.com