The Innocence of Muslims is truly the free speech story that keeps on giving. The crude, cheaply made anti-Islam film sparked international outrage when it first appeared on YouTube in September 2012, with even President Obama forced to weigh into the debate after the US Embassy in Cairo issued a tweet “condemning” the video. While ostensibly supporting free speech, the White House did suggest that Google should examine whether the video contravened its own terms of service.
Google eventually blocked the video of its own accord in Libya and Egypt. Meanwhile, in its move to censor the film, Pakistan simply blocked the whole of YouTube.
Now, a US court has ruled that Google should remove the video from YouTube. Not because of blasphemy, but because of copyright. The case against Google and the makers of the film was brought by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appears in the film for all of five seconds. Garcia claims that her single line, suggesting that Muhammad was a “child molester” was dubbed, and that she was duped into appearing in the anti-Muslim film, having been told it was a trailer for an adventure movie.
Crucially, she also says that she has a claim to the copyright of the film. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that she may have a claim, and on 19 February ordered Google to remove the film from its YouTube service.
The court further ordered that the ruling be kept secret until 26 February, when the 37-page opinion on the case was issued “to prevent a rush to copy and proliferate the film before Google can comply with the order.”
Google has said it will appeal the order, saying that not only could the copyright claim of a bit-part actor create havoc for filmmakers of the future, but that service providers could now also be swamped with takedown requests from people who regret appearing in works in the public domain.
Interestingly, it also suggests that the simple removal of the video could constitute a tampering with the historical record. That chimes with an argument Index has made before – we seem far more comfortable with the removal of web content than we do with, say, the pulping of books, even though the intent is the same.
As things stand, Google has complied with the order, and the Innocence of Muslims can no longer be found on YouTube.
In yet another twist, Pakistani web freedom campaigner and Index on Censorship award nominee Shahzad Ahmed has used the removal of the video to pressure his government to lift the YouTube ban.
“We think that now the government of Pakistan has been left with no excuse to continue blocking access to YouTube,” he is reported as saying. “But the ban on YouTube has got more to do with the government’s desires and efforts to impose censorship, content filtering and moral policing and we are fighting against them in court through a constitutional petition.”
Index on Censorship here. We’ve noticed some you have had trouble telling the difference between terrorists and journalist lately (yes, you too Barack: put the BlackBerry down). So we thought as people with some experience of the journalism thing, we could offer you a few handy tips to refer to the next time you find yourself asking: journalist or terrorist?
Have a look at your suspect. Is he carrying a) a notebook with weird squiggly lines on it, or b) an RPG-7. If the latter, odds on he’s a terrorist. The former? Most likely a journalist. Those squiggly lines are called “shorthand” – it’s what reporters do when they’re writing things down for, er, reporting. It might look a bit like Arabic, but it’s not, and even if it was, that wouldn’t be a good enough reason to lock the guy up.
A journalist
Still not clear? Let’s move on to the questioning part.
Questioning can be difficult. Your modern terrorist will be highly committed, and trained to withstand even your steeliest glare (and whatever other tactics you might use, eh? LOL! Winky Smiley!). So it may be difficult to establish for certain whether he or she is in fact a terrorist by simply asking them. They might even say they are a journalist, when actually they are terrorists! Sneaky! But there are some ways of getting past this deviousness.
Does your suspect have strong feelings about unpaid internships and their effect on the industry? Or “paywalls” and profit models? Your journalist will pounce on these question in a way that may be quite scary to watch, and keep you there talking about it long after you’ve told her she’s free to go. Your terrorist is not as bothered by these issues, generally, though may accept that it is very difficult for kids to get on the terror ladder these days and nepotism is not an ideal way to run a global bombing campaign.
A terrorist
Ask your suspect if he spends too much time on Twitter: If he gets defensive and says something along the lines of “Yes, but the fact is it’s justified. Stories break on Twitter. It’s not just all hashtag games and…” (again, this could go on for several hours, and will most likely end up being all about hashtag games), then he’s a journalist. [Note: If your suspects seem to spend a lot of time getting into Twitter spats with the Israel Defence Force, they may be a bit terroristy].
Does your suspect look stressed? Like, really, really stressed? Probably a journalist.
Finally, just try saying the phrase “below the line”. If you get a slightly confused look, you’ve probably got a terrorist. If there is actual wailing and gnashing of teeth, journalist.
Now let’s go over why you might be making this mix up. This is where a lot of people get confused, so we’ll be as clear as possible, but do keep up.
Terrorists generally hold quite extreme views which, it’s fair to say, most of us probably do not agree with. However, this does not mean that anyone you disagree with is a terrorist. Or, importantly, that someone who’s spoke to someone who you disagree with is a terrorist.
Sometimes, journalists will cover the activities of terrorist organisations, like al-Qaeda. This, however, does not automatically make them their “media man”. Get this — you can even interview members of a terrorist organisation without actually being a terrorist yourself.
Similarly, if someone has something that you want back, that doesn’t mean you get to use terrorism laws to get it, even if you think that thing is very, very important. And yes, even if they intend to use that thing to write stories about you.
Keep these basic ideas in mind and we can almost guarantee you’ll never make the embarrassing mistake of calling journalists terrorists again. Any doubts? Call us. We’re here to help.
On a Saturday afternoon in June, a group of activists walked into a bank in Manhattan, New York, and staged a peaceful protest performance. The Church of Stop Shopping, led by Reverend Billy, were protesting at JP Chase Morgan and other banks’ investment in fossil fuel projects, which they say is unethical in the face of climate change.
Bill Talen, 63, the man behind Reverend Bill and the Church of Stop Shopping, has been staging this kind of action for a while. I interviewed him for New Humanist magazine in 2004, after a protest at a Starbuck’s in Camden, North London.
But now Bill and his colleague Nehemiah Luckett are facing charges of riot in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, for their JP Chase Morgan protest. The pair could end with one year in jail. For a peaceful protest. They are due to appear in court on 9 December.
It’s hard not to think of the fate of Russia’s Pussy Riot when writing about Reverend Billy. Both Pussy Riot and the Stop Shopping Choir have used similar tactics, staging peaceful performance protests right in what they would see as the belly of the beast. And both have been subjected to very harsh charges. Earlier this year, members of Pussy Riot told me they “had not planned for the extreme reaction from the authorities,” after they staged their “Punk Prayer” in Moscow’s Christ The Saviour Cathedral. Similarly, Reverend Billy, while accepting that arrest is an occupational hazard for a protester, has been surprised by the riot charge and the potential sentence. The difference is, of course, that we don’t expect this kind of thing to happen in the US.
This week I asked Billy about the protest, and his upcoming court case.
Index on Censorship: Can you tell us what happened at JP Morgan Chase?
Reverend Billy: We interrupted the very wealthy of upper Manhattan in their “wealth management” sessions. The sea of white people at walnut desks looked up to confront large flaming frogs leaping on their desks, handing out information about the impact of their fossil fuel investments. An Elvis impersonator narrated the event while the “Golden Toads” – an animal forced into extinction 30 years ago by climate change – harmonised and hopped. Under the toad costumes was the singing group called “The Stop Shopping Choir”.
IoC:What were you protesting about?
RB: Banks and big hedge funds are busy investing in fossil fuel projects around the world, making high profits, at precisely the point that the natural scientists – as in the 5th IPCC report from the United Nations – are telling us that all we can do to save ourselves and the planet as we recognize it today is to immediately stop gas, oil and coal.
IoC: Were you surprised to be arrested? Or is it just something you see as a risk of the job?
RB:Although I’ve been arrested many times, like most activists – you’re always surprised.
IoC: You’re potentially facing a year in jail. Have you ever had charges this harsh before?
RB:No – the most time I’ve served was three days in the Los Angeles County Jail. Usually I have the overnight stay.
IoC: Why do you think this has happened now, after years of activism? Just a quirk of the prosecutor? Something else?
RB: Stopping the business of the very rich is altogether different kettle of fish from our usual “nonviolent dramatic action” – which is often in parks, lobbies, between cars in traffic jams, on the Staten Island Ferry, etc.
IoC: How do you intend to fight the charge?
RB: The “Necessity Defense” – which means that if someone is drawing a gun on us to kill us, we have the right to grab them and disarms them. I have the right to commit a minor crime to prevent a great crime that no other presiding authority can prevent. No presiding authority is dealing with climate change. Governments in the West and China – are committed to their deadly gradualism, controlled by fossil cartels.
IoC: How do you think this charge squares with your first amendment rights?
RB: The First Amendment has been under systematic attack in New York City for 20 years, under the leadership of Rudolf Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, their police and courts. The right to express in public space is besieged by permits and police, and overwhelmed by corporate expression – advertising in myriad forms, from the glowing gadget in the hand to the 80 foot tall Kate Moss looking at me like we just made love. We must reclaim freedom of expression, and we believe that this resurrection of extinct Golden Toads is the right drama. Earthalujah!
Sixty-six percent of American writers disapprove of their government’s collection of phone and internet data, according to a survey from the PEN American Center.
The survey of 540 US writers found that a majority assume that their communications are monitored. PEN says that this assumption has prompted some to self-censor when writing or researching certain subjects or communicating with sources, or friends, abriad.
“I assume everything I do electronically is subject to monitoring,” one writer said in responding to the survey.
The report states:
This assumption is striking: in a short span of time, the United States has shifted from a society in which the right to privacy in personal communications was considered inviolate to a society in which many writers assume they have already lost the right to privacy and now expect to be spied upon almost constantly.”
Survey respondents were concerned about the US framework for surveillance would become “business as usual” for the rest of the world.
Writers reported self-censoring on subjects including military affairs, the Middle East North Africa region, mass incarceration, drug policies, pornography, the Occupy movement, the study of certain languages and criticism of the US government.”
