The Internet is forever. Anything posted online will stay online long after it is “deleted,” whether in Google’s search cache or in some other form. There really is nothing you can post to the Web – the network of networks we now take for granted as part of our communications and entertainment infrastructure – that you can then remove. But what if you have a court order claiming that a search engine or other Internet entity must unring the bell? And what if that Internet entity refuses to comply?
CNET reports that an actress in the film “Innocence of the Muslims” – which the Obama administration falsely blamed for the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans – seeks to hold Web giant Google in contempt of court. The actress, one Cindy Lee Garcia, previously won a decision ordering Google to remove the film from the video-sharing site YouTube (which Google owns). Garcia claims YouTube hasn’t taken action fast enough.
While CNET cites the “international outrage” and “protests around the world” the 14-minute video has supposedly spurred, the nature of the film itself is not at issue. Yes, Obama and his lackeys tried to claim (before changing their stories) that the assault on the American mission in Benghazi was an unplanned political protest propelled around the globe by this amateur film (despite the relatively small number of views the video had before President Mom Jeans and his disciples began flogging the movie as their scapegoat). Garcia’s court case was based on the idea that she was essentially tricked into performing in the film, then became the subject of death threats from Muslims. The takedown order, which declares the movie “infringing content,” is derived from that deception.
At issue in the case was whether ordering Google to remove the film constituted a “prior restraint on speech,” which Google claimed it did. According to The Free Dictionary, prior restraint is the government prohibition of an idea prior to its publication. Protection against prior restraint is one of the fundamental protections of the First Amendment and is derived from English Common Law. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals (an often-overturned body that is not known for its brilliant constitutional insights) ordered Google to remove the video from its servers and claimed this was not, in fact, a prior restraint on speech. Now Google, in dragging its feet to comply with the order, is allegedly trying to get Garcia to identify the numerous links to the video that she wants eliminated.
“Garcia’s motion claims that Google has taken the position that it is incapable of complying with the order,” writes Steven Musil, “and that it is trying to transfer to her the burden of identifying links that may be in violation of the order.” Musil quotes Garcia’s contempt motion: “As is clear from Google’s near-total disregard of the order and its ridiculing of the Court’s authority, Google is thumbing its nose at the Court and making a mockery of our judicial system in an apparent attempt to encourage the public to blame and harass Ms. Garcia and to continue to use the infringing content to generate YouTube revenues from traffic directed through the 852 URLs that have illegally posted the content.”
Google might argue that the very nature of the Internet makes it impossible to remove every reference to a file served somewhere on the Web. Consider the Internet Archive which describes itself as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose goal is “building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, the print disabled, and the general public.” The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine allows users to view archived logs of websites past and present, including sites that no longer exist.
Want to see the earliest version of your personal website? There’s a good chance it’s there. The “snapshots” taken by the Internet Archive can also give you an idea of a website’s establishment and evolution over time, which is helpful when researching and vetting both companies and individuals. But stop and truly understand the implications of such a technology: If it was EVER on the Web and publicly viewable, it is STILL publicly viewable through the Wayback Machine even if it was “deleted” or replaced years ago.
What’s more, the organization behind the Wayback Machine wants to add materials to its digital library that exist now only in analog form. Specifically, the Internet Archive has embarked on a project to upload some 40,000 VHS and Betamax tapes containing privately recorded content from various television broadcasts.
“It’s not immediately obvious, however, exactly why it is useful to have this 45-year-old snapshot of intellectual discourse available online,” writes Sarah Kessler. “[The archivist behind the video upload project] argues that’s not the point of preserving historical media.”
That’s the attitude our courts and Ms. Garcia are trying to fight, a position that Google clearly believes is untenable. When an army of countless people who believe history, for the sake of history, should be made available everywhere, for free, forever, how does one block such a force? Will Ms. Garcia seek a court’s judgment against every conceivable Internet archiving service? What of other YouTube users who take it upon themselves to re-upload the video? The legions of almost-anonymous participants in YouTube and other online communities are notoriously unforgiving of perceived attempts at censorship. It’s not hard to imagine the establishment of a cottage industry in uploads of “Innocence of the Muslims” simply because some robed liberal said you ought not be able to see it.
Attempting to disappear or otherwise declare non grata any discrete file on the Internet is essentially impossible. Whether Google complies with Cindy Lee Garcia’s wishes is irrelevant. The movie was on the Internet; it therefore always will be, no matter how hard we try to eradicate it. You can file a court order against the weather, too, but it’s still going to rain.
Media wishing to interview Phil Elmore, please contact [email protected].
|
