Legal Radar

Court: Google Won’t Have to Get Rid of “Innocence of Muslims” Video

A federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco early this week overturned last year’s ruling that demanded Google to remove a YouTube video, in which an actress was seen to have made anti-Muslim statements.

A majority of the 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that Cindy Lee Garcia’s video performance, the actress who objected her portrayal in the clip, called “Innocence of Muslims,” didn’t entitle her copyright protection of the film, which a three-judge panel from the 9^th Circuit ruled in 2014.

In the absence of copyright protection, it was ruled by the 9^th Circuit, that Garcia has no power to order Google to remove the video off YouTube.

The court threw out an injunction issued in the previous year that prompted Google to remove the film. It reinstated from an earlier ruling which found Garcia without copyright protection.

Garcia believed her performance in the film gave her copyright protection and that such shield would allow her to get YouTube to take it down.

Turkish Court: Facebook Pages Should Be Banned

A court in Turkey threatens to halt entry to Facebook in the country if the social media giant fails to remain compliant in censoring Facebook pages deemed to be “an insult” to the Prophet Mohammad. Turkey’s state-operated news agency, Anadolu, broke the news early this week.

The order made by the country’s court early this week followed a request by the state prosecutor, according to TRT, the state’s broadcaster. None of the Facebook management was available for comment at the time.

It was one of the recent moves in the country to cracking down online content deemed “offensive” to religious groups in the country’s Muslim population, where its President Tayyip Erdogan is leaning towards an Islamist agenda.

Prosecutors early this month kicked off an inquiry into a local paper which reprinted certain parts of French satirical Charlie Hebdo in the wake of Islamic attacks in the offices of Paris.

 

The decision of the court was actually referred to the country’s telecommunications authority, according to Anadolu.

SC Ruling for Muslim Prisoner Who Objected on Beard Ban

The religious freedom law allows a Muslim inmate to grow a half-inch beard, according the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling early this week, putting off concerns brought up by Arkansas prison officials in which inmates could hide contraband in beards.

The result showed how the SC, under Chief Justice John Roberts, is becoming deferential to religious pleas being exempted from general laws.

The argument made by prions is difficult to consider since over 40 state and federal prisons allow half-inch beards for religious, medical, and other reasons.

Justice Alito rejected an Arkansas prison’s claim that a beard ban can help identify prisoners, since they can easily change their look by shaving off their facial hair. The court also said that prisons can resolve this issue by taking pictures of inmates in both their bearded and non-bearded appearance.

In a court ruling for Gregory Holt, an inmate, the Supreme Court said that while prison security was potentially interesting, Arkansas failed to show ways in reaching its goals by forcing Holt to shave.

Court Looking Into “Innocence of Muslims” Footage

A video in YouTube that triggered mass protests in the Muslim makes its way back to the spotlight early this week. The issue involved a legal battle between an actress and numerous internet and media firms.

A panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Pasadena, California, will look into the previous ruling made on Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress of the “Innocence of Muslims,” regarding a copyright claim on her acting performance.

The previous ruling was heavily criticized by internet and media firms since allowing a copyright claim to an actor/actress will make it challenging to create films and forcing media outlets such as YouTube to copyright claims.

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit gave a 2-1 ruling early this year allowing Garcia copyright claim on the film which led YouTube to delete the video at her request.

Despite the ruling, the court agreed to look into the case once again. It’s a rare move that suggests that a bigger judge panel may end up reversing the ruling.

City of Warren Sued for Violating Free Speech

The City of Warren Michigan may be in legal trouble after refusing Freedom from Religion to use a public atrium. James R. Fouts, the governor of Warren stated in a letter to the director of the group that since the group was not a "religion" and has no tenets, congregation or official place of worship, they could not use the space. Fouts also stated that the group was known to oppose the nativity and the Prayer Station in the atrium as well as the Annual Day of Prayer which is held in front of the City Hall. In his statement to the group, Fouts stated that the atrium was not available for anti-religious groups which were "intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms." However, the governor's rejection itself is unconstitutional and violates the Free Speech Clause. The government is not allowed to discriminate against any religious opinions including those which are anti-religious or irreligious in nature. 

Religious Exemption Case to be Heard by High Court

The Town of Catskill has been accused of denying property tax exemptions for a religious group. Recently the New York Court of Appeals has granted the motion for leave to appeal which the town had filed. The group, although pagan, are considered religious in nature and therefore should be eligible for a property tax exemption under 420-a. The appeal will be heard even though the official time for an appeal to be made has passed. The appellants stated that it was an "abuse of discretion" to deem the primary use of the property in question as residential instead of religious. They hold that the property does satisfy the requirement under the Real Property Tax Law and that the property is used primarily and exclusively for religious purposes under a religious corporation. The Appellants also claim that it was an "abuse of discretion" for the trial court's findings due to witness credibility issues.

Supreme Court Refused to hear Mosque Case

 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that they will not hear an appeal made by a neighborhood group which is trying to block the construction of a mosque in the town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The neighbors have thus far been unsuccessful in blocking the construction and have appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the board members from the Islamic Center stated that he hoped the Supreme Court's refusal will help bring back some unity to the small community. The argument brought up by the neighborhood has been going on since 2010. Those arguing against the mosque's construction state that there was not enough public notice given prior to the meeting of the planning commission. It was in that meeting that the approval was granted. The mosque was build anyway while the case was moving through the court systems. A lawyer which represents the opponent of the mosque stated that they have done all they can but they are now suing to prevent a cemetery on the property of the Islamic Center.

Local Resident Sues New Jersey of Denied Vehicle License Plate

Shannon Morgan, a local resident from Leesburg, New Jersey, is a proud atheist who wanted to declare her false belief in God by customizing her license plate. She indicated of going over to the state motor vehicle commission’s site and applying for a plate labelled as “8THEIST.”

After handing out her request, the website told her it wouldn’t process the plate since it was deemed “objectionable,” based on a federal complaint she recently filed. She said when she tested the website to use the word “BAPTIST” for her plate, she found the word to be free from red flags.

Morgan, currently represented by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is blaming New Jersey for violating her rights under the First Amendment, which prevents the government from promoting or advertising a religion.

A spokesperson from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission didn’t comment on the issue.

According to the New Jersey Administrative Code, customized license plates are prohibited from showcasing a combination of words or letters or both, which may bring out offensive meaning to the public

Prayers at Public Meetings Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

Greece, New York has a custom of beginning their town meetings with prayer. Some town residents filed suit complaining that it violated their rights and religious views. The Plainiffs filed the suit in the District Court and alleged that the practice was a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause particularly because they sponsored sectarian prayers. They also contended that such prayers were only permisssible if there was mention of a nonsecterian "generic god." 

The District Court upheld the town's practices of opening meetings with prayer. This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Second District since the prayers were primarily performed by those of the Christian faith and nonbelievers were being alientated. The town appealed this decision.

The Supreme Court decided the invocations were not in violation of the Establishment Clause.  It was determined by the Court that as long as the town continued to use discretion and purposefully choose to be nondiscriminatory, they were not required by the Constitution to seek those outside the Christian faith to lead the prayers. The Courts stated the town officials were not coercing others to pray and the meeting participants were not a "captive audience" as in many school settings.

Statement, Re: Appellate Court Decision Upholding Illinois' Moment of Silence Law

Earlier this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a divided ruling upholding Illinois' mandatory moment of silence law.  The law requires all Illinois public schools to begin the school day with a moment of silence "for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."   In January 2009, a U.S. District Court found the law to be unconstitutional.  Today's ruling reverses that decision.   The following statement can be attributed to ACLU of Illinois Senior Staff Counsel Adam Schwartz:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is disappointed that this divided appellate court panel today gave its endorsement to a statewide law that coerces children to pray in our public schools.  In the words of Appellate Judge Williams' dissent from this decision:

"The Act makes what I believe to be an unnecessary reference to prayer, signaling a predominantly religious purpose to the statute.  And by enumerating prayer as one of the only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options."

Judge Williams also concluded the government's supposed secular purpose - calming children - was a "pretext," among other reasons because legislative sponsors equated the moment of silence in school with the prayers recited each day before the General Assembly convenes.

The appellate court's majority also ignored District Judge Gettleman's determination below that under the law, a "teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning..."   This is not the appropriate role of public schools.  Beyond encouraging prayer, the law also prefers those religions that practice silent prayer over those that do not.

As the courts long have recognized, it is not the role of government (including public schools) to tell children when and how to pray.   Religious exercise is a matter for students and parents, not politicians and school officials.

Even without this law, students in Illinois remain free to pray on their own, in a non-disruptive manner, throughout the school day.  Public school students in Illinois do not require the permission of the General Assembly to engage in this constitutionally protected activity.  

SOURCE ACLU of Illinois