Judge Apparently Uncomfortable With 'Innocence Of Muslims' Ruling, Asks Court To Reconsider Stay Denial
from the that's-odd dept
We've written a few times about the terrible ruling from Judge Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th Circuit, finding a bizarre copyright interest by an actress who appeared in 5 seconds of the 13 minute "trailer" for the controversial "Innocence of Muslims" video, thus allowing her to get all copies of the video taken off of Google sites. Google quickly filed for a stay, noting that the ruling was likely to be overturned, and it made no sense to allow for this controversial censorship which likely violated the First Amendment, until such time as the details could be reviewed en banc (by a larger panel of judges). Kozinski almost immediately rejected the request for a stay.Now, in a move that is quite odd, one of the other judges on the 9th Circuit has apparently asked the court to reconsider the motion for a stay en banc. This is surprising on a few levels. First, it's quite rare to see such a "sua sponte" request. That is, it's common for the parties in the lawsuit (i.e., Google) to request an en banc hearing, but it's not at all common for a judge to step in and make the request for an en banc hearing of his or her own accord. But that's what's happened here. It's important to note that the request for an en banc hearing is only covering the issue of whether or not the court should stay the original order, and not about reviewing the original order (which is likely to happen separately). I assume this is so that things can happen much more quickly with a review of the narrow question of whether or not Google should be forced to keep the content down while the original order is debated.
Either way, the parties have been asked to file briefs on whether or not an en banc panel should explore whether or not their should be a stay on the original order by next Wednesday, so there should be a pretty quick turnaround on this one. Still, the fact that a judge decided to do this suggests that there's at least one judge in the 9th Circuit who is uncomfortable with Kozinski's ruling. We already knew that there was strong dissent to his opinion, and it's possible that the judge requesting this is the one who dissented, but it's still a somewhat surprising move.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alex kozinski, copyright, first amendment, free speech, innocence of muslims
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awkward!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refreshing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably not Judge Smith
Of course, the ruling itself is even more of an embarrassment for Kozinski....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer found whole bunch of really weird stuff disparaging women. One even with Kozinski parading with life size manequin of a child attached to his belly, looking like child was performing oral sex on him. I am not making this up!
So, yes, Kozinski does not surprise me at all.
PS: anyone has links to those pics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proofread fail
What's worse, you got it right just a few words later, in the same sentence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: proofread fail
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: proofread fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare to Library of Congress' posted rules
What About Copying One of P&P's Images from a Book or Other Published Source?
If you are planning to copy and publish an image from a copyrighted, published source (e.g., a book), you should check with the publisher, since technically it owns the rights to the version appearing in the book--though few publishers realize that or seem to wish to control such copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]