I do not want to address all issues relating to the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims.
Just a few remarks about the making of the film; and about how YouTube, where it was uploaded, deals with it.
There is fraud, fraud, and fraud again about the United States extreme Christian Right’s production of this film.
Mr Nakoula, probably the producer of the movie, is a convicted fraudster.
He used a false, non-existent name, Sam Bacile.
He falsely claimed that “Sam Bacile” was Jewish and Israeli, and that many other Jews and Israelis were involved; while neither Jews nor Israel had anything to do with this film.
Apparently, the aim of the film was to get Jews and Muslims, Israel and Muslim countries, at each other’s throats, with as many dead people on both sides as possible as a consequence. This does not just fit into the crazyness of just one individual, Nakoula. It fits into the broader ideological spectrum of Christian and not so Christian far rightists, promoting bloody Muslim-Jewish conflicts. In the case of the Christian far right, which “loves Israel” but hates Jews, because they believe such wars will lead to Armageddon, where they, being the “true” Christians, will go to heaven. And “not so true” Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, etc. etc. will go to hell. Not that Christian far Rightists like Brigitte Bardot and others in her French Front National are both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic, and would not object to both objects of her hatred killing each other off as well.
The fraud does not stop here. Apparently, Nakoula had the movie made by a porn film director (this is not the first connection between the porn industry and the United States Christian far Right). Nakoula defrauded that director into believing that the film was just a film about war in a desert very long ago. He did not say anything about Islam, the prophet Muhamad or any other religious subject. The Islamophobic stuff, familiar from xenophobic politicians like Geert Wilders, was all inserted after the director, actors and actresses had finished their work.
Nakoula defrauded not only the director, but the actors and actresses as well about the subject of the film. Apparently, he also did not pay them for their work.
And now, YouTube. Whenever I go to the YouTube site (which I do quite often to search videos which fit into my blog posts), I see on their home page Nakoula’s video, whether I like it or not. That, to me, looks a bit like not just hosting, but also promoting that video.
Hosting, promoting that video; a question of “free speech”? Then, for YouTube, apparently there should be free speech for some, but not for others:
And there are double standards.
Earlier this year the US government asked YouTube to take down so-called “Muslim extremist” videos. The firm rushed to comply. But when it comes to the anti-Islam video the Google-owned website hosts it everywhere it can.
There are still more double standards here. On the one hand, the United States government here banning “Muslim extremist” videos from YouTube. On the other hand, the United States governmental history of military alliances with Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, in what was then Yugoslavia, in Libya (yes, the people who recently killed the US ambassador there), and now in Syria.
And there are more, not just US government, but also YouTube, double standards.
I had embedded a YouTube video by Amnesty International on my blog about torture by United States soldiers. Soon, YouTube deleted that video, as it was supposedly “hateful” to the United States government. So, United States Islamophobic fraudster Nakoula seems to have more “free speech” rights at YouTube than Amnesty International. Neo-nazis also seem to have more free speech rights on YouTube than Amnesty International, as YouTube does not delete their Hitler-worshiping, Jew-hating videos.
When I tried to embed a satirical video about Shell pollution in Nigeria on my blog, I could not do that, because YouTube had obeyed Shell and had deleted that video from its site.
Quite some times, I have had to replace some video embedded on my blog, because some big money corporation had made some spurious complaint to YouTube about their “copyright”, and YouTube had obeyed that corporation. Copyright is a long issue. Let me at the moment just say that originally, it was supposed to protect authors’ and other makers’ right. Today, more often than not, it does not protect authors and other makers; it protects capitalist corporations. Corporations claim copyright to words which have existed in English or other languages for centuries. They claim copyright to Renaissance paintings, made centuries before the founding of the corporations; paintings to which the corporate fat cats did not contribute a single drop of paint.
It seems that, to YouTube, capitalism is far more sacred than either free speech by satirists and others, or than a religion like Islam.
From Associated Press:
‘Innocence Of Muslims’ Actress Cindy Lee Garcia Sues YouTube, Producer
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY
09/19/12 08:07 PM ET EDT
LOS ANGELES — An actress who appears in the anti-Muslim film trailer that has sparked riots in the Middle East is suing the filmmaker for fraud and slander, and is asking a judge to order YouTube to take down the clip.
Cindy Lee Garcia’s lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles claims the actress was duped by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind “Innocence of Muslims” who has been forced into hiding since its 14-minute trailer rose to prominence last week. She was unaware of the film’s anti-Muslim content and the pages of the script she received had no mention of the prophet Muhammad, religion or sexual content, according to her complaint.
The lawsuit states Garcia responded to an ad and thought she was appearing in an ancient Egyptian adventure film called “Desert Warriors.” Dialogue in the amateurish film was later dubbed to include anti-Islamic messages and to portray Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester, and it was also translated into Arabic.
“The film is vile and reprehensible,” Garcia’s attorney, M. Cris Armenta, wrote in the document. Her client has received death threats since the film’s trailer began drawing attention, and she is no longer able to care for her grandchildren, the lawsuit states.
“This lawsuit is not an attack on the First Amendment nor on the right of Americans to say what they think, but does request that the offending content be removed from the Internet,” the complaint states. Garcia’s attorneys plan to seek an injunction against the film Thursday in a Los Angeles court.
YouTube has refused Garcia’s requests to remove the film, according to the lawsuit. The complaint contends that keeping it online violates her right of publicity, invades her privacy rights and the post-filming dialogue changes cast her in a false light. “(Garcia) had a legally protected interest in her privacy and the right to be free from having hateful words put in her mouth or being depicted as a bigot,” the lawsuit states.
YouTube said it is reviewing the complaint and its lawyers will be in court on Thursday. The site is owned by search giant Google and has blocked users in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt from viewing the “Innocence of Muslims” trailer. It has also blocked the video from being viewed in Indonesia and India because it violates laws in those countries.
Garcia, who lives in Bakersfield, Calif., claims her association with the film has harmed her reputation and caused “shame, mortification, and hurt feelings” and will impact her ability to get future acting roles, according to the lawsuit.
A man who answered the phone at the law offices of Steven Seiden, who represents Nakoula on any criminal repercussions he may face, declined comment. He said Seiden does not represent Nakoula, who is on probation for a bank fraud case in which he opened 600 fraudulent credit accounts, in civil matters.
According to the terms of his probation, Nakoula was allowed to only access websites with the permission of probation officials and for work purposes. It is unclear who uploaded the film to the site.
The lawsuit also names Sam Bacile, an alias that Nakoula gave to The Associated Press after the trailer was linked to protests that have since killed at least 30 people in seven countries, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
A US magazine cover screams out the general media slant of the last two weeks: the Muslim world is burning with anti-western anger over an Islamophobic film, with hordes of violent protesters on the streets threatening us all … but is it really? Here.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week’s assault on the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a “terrorist attack” apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al Qaida’s leadership or regional allies.
“I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,” said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week. “The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,” Olsen said.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/19/169102/us-official-calls-benghazi-consulate.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
Pingback: Islamophobic film and Christian fundamentalists | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US taxpayers’ money to Al Qaeda | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: General Petraeus, Libya and Afghanistan | Dear Kitty. Some blog