8 ms·

Good riddance. It's pure garbage, regardless of the legal reasons behind the takedown.

by beedogs 13y ago

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Being able to say something controversial or offensive is precisely the reason why freedom of speech is necessary. There's no need to have "freedom" to do what everyone else finds non-objectionable.
- Gigablah 13y ago
  There's an extra dimension to this, namely the actress who doesn't want to be associated with the film.
  - harshreality 13y ago
    If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she doesn't want death threats, which should be the real story. (Some) Muslims, yet again, issuing death threats because their view of their religion on being insulted by non-believers.
    - jonmrodriguez 13y ago
      > If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she What are you talking about? Youssef (the guy who made the film) tricked her (Garcia) into thinking she was acting for a completely different film and role. That should be illegal...
      - harshreality 13y ago
        Her claims are allegations, not truths. If I were the one getting death threats about my appearance in a controversial film, I wouldn't hesitate to lie about how much I knew about the film going into it. As far as what actually happened, I haven't seen any alleged contract, and it seems to me if you act in a film you should expect no control over the final product unless you have a contract saying you do. The nature of the film could be changed; your lines could be dubbed.
        kubiiii 13y ago
        >If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. >you should expect no control over the final product So be sure to watch the final product before acting in a movie.
      - belorn 13y ago
        It is illegal, and she can use sue in the civil court if she wanted. Fraud is serious, and if the allegations are true, she has a good chance to win. However, this court case is about copyright claims and work contracts.
    - arjie 13y ago
      If the producer didn't want this to happen he should have had her sign an appropriate contract. The death threats are another case, and should probably be investigated so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted. However, I'm not eager to throw actors' rights out the window just because their motives for exercising them arise from their being wronged by a third party. Copyright is copyright and in America, we take intellectual property seriously.
- Crito 13y ago
  To add to your point: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
  - pekk 13y ago
    We seem to be implying that this means we have a specific obligation to defend all scoundrels and all terrible propaganda movies, when in fact that isn't the case
    - Crito 13y ago
      There is an obligation to defend all scoundrels when their rights are threatened, though obviously not otherwise.
    - InclinedPlane 13y ago
      In that there is an "obligation" to defend our liberties there is an obligation to defend attacks on scoundrels insofar as such attacks strike at fundamental freedoms. Scoundrels are the easiest targets but denying them of freedoms ultimately denies everyone of those same freedoms.
- rmc 13y ago
  You can see the trailer here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims-movie-muslims-don-t-want-people-to-see_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims... It's "garbage" in the sense of "terrible film making". The actor's voices change occasionally, probably because it was poorly edited afterwards to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.,
theorique 13y ago
So you're the authority over what's "garbage" and what's permissible on YouTube? Must be a fun job.
Shivetya 13y ago
one man's garbage is anothers Well I hope you get the point, once you assign the power to the government to censor someone else then you give them the right to censor you. Sorry, that is not one step most of us want to take.
ewillbefull 13y ago
I truly hope you aren't an American; having the right to offend others is a good test of whether you live in a free society or not. And twisting legal justifications to fit your perspective of what's okay is even more messed up.

Good riddance. It's pure garbage, regardless of the legal reasons behind the takedown.

by beedogs 13y ago

Good riddance. It's pure garbage, regardless of the legal reasons behind the takedown.

Being able to say something controversial or offensive is precisely the reason why freedom of speech is necessary. There's no need to have "freedom" to do what everyone else finds non-objectionable.

Gigablah 13y ago
There's an extra dimension to this, namely the actress who doesn't want to be associated with the film.
- harshreality 13y ago
  If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she doesn't want death threats, which should be the real story. (Some) Muslims, yet again, issuing death threats because their view of their religion on being insulted by non-believers.
  - jonmrodriguez 13y ago
    > If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she What are you talking about? Youssef (the guy who made the film) tricked her (Garcia) into thinking she was acting for a completely different film and role. That should be illegal...
    - harshreality 13y ago
      Her claims are allegations, not truths. If I were the one getting death threats about my appearance in a controversial film, I wouldn't hesitate to lie about how much I knew about the film going into it. As far as what actually happened, I haven't seen any alleged contract, and it seems to me if you act in a film you should expect no control over the final product unless you have a contract saying you do. The nature of the film could be changed; your lines could be dubbed.
      - kubiiii 13y ago
        >If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. >you should expect no control over the final product So be sure to watch the final product before acting in a movie.
    - belorn 13y ago
      It is illegal, and she can use sue in the civil court if she wanted. Fraud is serious, and if the allegations are true, she has a good chance to win. However, this court case is about copyright claims and work contracts.
  - arjie 13y ago
    If the producer didn't want this to happen he should have had her sign an appropriate contract. The death threats are another case, and should probably be investigated so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted. However, I'm not eager to throw actors' rights out the window just because their motives for exercising them arise from their being wronged by a third party. Copyright is copyright and in America, we take intellectual property seriously.
Crito 13y ago
To add to your point: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
- pekk 13y ago
  We seem to be implying that this means we have a specific obligation to defend all scoundrels and all terrible propaganda movies, when in fact that isn't the case
  - Crito 13y ago
    There is an obligation to defend all scoundrels when their rights are threatened, though obviously not otherwise.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    In that there is an "obligation" to defend our liberties there is an obligation to defend attacks on scoundrels insofar as such attacks strike at fundamental freedoms. Scoundrels are the easiest targets but denying them of freedoms ultimately denies everyone of those same freedoms.
rmc 13y ago
You can see the trailer here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims-movie-muslims-don-t-want-people-to-see_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims... It's "garbage" in the sense of "terrible film making". The actor's voices change occasionally, probably because it was poorly edited afterwards to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.,

theorique 13y ago

So you're the authority over what's "garbage" and what's permissible on YouTube? Must be a fun job.

Shivetya 13y ago

one man's garbage is anothers Well I hope you get the point, once you assign the power to the government to censor someone else then you give them the right to censor you. Sorry, that is not one step most of us want to take.

ewillbefull 13y ago

I truly hope you aren't an American; having the right to offend others is a good test of whether you live in a free society or not. And twisting legal justifications to fit your perspective of what's okay is even more messed up.