Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Order by Chief Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

ORDER

As noted in the order filed March 14, 2014, a judge of this Court made a sua sponte request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s order of February 28, 2014 denying an emergency stay of the panel’s prior orders, as amended, directing Google and YouTube to remove immediately all or part of a film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” from their platforms worldwide and to prevent further uploads.

Pursuant to General Order 5.5(b), a vote of the non-recused active judges was conducted as to whether to rehear the panel order en banc. A majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote in favor of rehearing en banc. Therefore, an order was issued on March 14, 2014, pursuant to General Order 5.5(c), returning control of the case to the panel.

Separately from the en banc call as to the panel’s stay order, a judge of this Court made a request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s amended opinion. A majority of the non-recused active judges voted in favor of rehearing the case en banc, and an order was issued on November 12, 2014 ordering that the case be reheard en banc. Oral argument was held…

dissenting from initial denial of emergency rehearing en banc (although agreeing with opinion of the en banc court):

This is a case in which our court not only tolerated the infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights but was the architect of that infringement. First we issued an order that prohibited the public from seeing a highly controversial film that pertained to an ongoing global news story of immense public interest. Then we ordered that the public could see it only if edited to exclude a particular scene, thereby conditioning freedom of expression on .a judicially sanctioned change in the message expressed. We did this primarily because persons or groups of *729 fended by the film’s message made a threat — in the form of a fatwa — against everyone connected with the film. By suppressing protected speech in response to such a threat, we imposed a prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment and undermined the free exchange of ideas that is central to our democracy and that separates us from those who condone violence in response to offensive speech.

Although I agree with the en banc opinion that is being issued in the normal course well over a…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CINDY LEE GARCIA, No. 12-57302 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:12-cv-08315-MWF-

VBK

GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, AMENDED ORDER

and

NAKOULA BASSELEY

NAKOULA, an individual, AKA Sam Bacile; et al., Defendants.

Filed May 18, 2015

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge

Order by Chief Judge Thomas; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt SUMMARY*

Copyright / Preliminary Injunction

Chief Judge Thomas issued an amended order denying rehearing en banc of the three-judge panel’s order directing Google and YouTube to remove immediately all or part of the film Innocence of Muslims from their platforms and to prevent further uploads.

Dissenting from the initial denial of emergency rehearing en banc of the three-judge panel’s order, Judge Reinhardt wrote that this was a case in which the court not only tolerated the infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights but also was the architect of that infringement. He wrote that although he agreed with the en banc court’s majority opinion, immediate en banc…