On the day that the Muslim terrorist attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo were taking place in Paris, an Amicus Brief submitted by various news organizations on November 25th was officially filed with the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals in the case of Garcia vs. Google. The brief was submitted in support of Google, which is being sued by Cindy Lee Garcia to prevent the media giant from making available the infamous Innocence of Muslims video that the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks.

As far as the Muslim world is concerned, there is little to no difference between that anti-Muhammad video and the anti-Muhammad cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo. Garcia, an actress who appeared in the video, insists that she was duped into appearing in a movie that was in no way portrayed as having anything to do with Islam when she took the job. In fact, she says, her lone five-second appearance consisted of anti-Islamic words she did not utter; Garcia does not want the video made available based on a copyright claim.

To put this into context, imagine Charlie Hebdo discovering a very talented cartoonist it wanted to hire on a freelance basis to draw a specific cartoon. Let’s say this cartoonist’s name is “Stanley” and that he does not want to draw anti-Islamic cartoons. As a way around this, Charlie Hebdo assures Stanley before hiring him that this will not happen. After the cartoons are drawn, Charlie Hebdo changes the wording in the balloons, making them very anti-Muslim and publishes them without Stanley’s knowledge or approval. A terror attack and anti-Muslim protests all over the world are said to have been in response to Stanley’s cartoon.

Would Stanley then have the right to sue Charlie Hebdo and demand his cartoon be pulled?

That is essentially Garcia’s claim when that argument is applied to her role in Innocence of Muslims.

News organizations that were part of the Amicus Brief filed on the day of the Paris attacks included the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. The editorial boards of each of those entities have come out in defense of Charlie Hebdo, which is something that most first amendment proponents have done as well.

This would seem to convey consistency on the part of these organizations when it comes to freedom of the press. However, while the editorial boards of these news organizations champion freedom of the press, many of their writers come down against it in this case.

As Shoebat.com has reported, there is evidence of mitigating factors beyond Garcia’s copyright claim based on her having been duped by the filmmaker. In addition to the filmmaker – also being sued by Garcia – being a federal informant when he produced the video, there is additional evidence linking the Obama administration to the production of the video.

Should Obama administration involvement in the anti-Muhammad video ever be fully revealed to the American people, it would certainly pose problems for the administration narrative that the video was responsible for protests and the Benghazi attacks. Here is then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney three days after those attacks, essentially deriding the judgment of those behind the video:

Five days later, Carney would then question the judgment of Charlie Hebdo for publishing anti-Muhammad cartoons:

Any Obama administration involvement in the video would also cause problems for his very close foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who after the Paris attacks said he found the cartoons “appallingly vulgar and directed at the Prophet himself”, which is precisely what Innocence of Muslims was intended to do:

As Shoebat.com has reported, Google should either voluntarily or through subpoena reveal who is behind NewsPoliticsNow3, the YouTube channel that uploaded the 1:32 trailer excerpt and is the first known entity to reference the video by the name it has become known by today – Innocence of Muslims. That channel has since been removed.

According to Google’s own image capture algorithms, the NPN logo is likely the property of Stanley, Inc., a company that does work for the State Department and Intelligence Community. As if that’s not enough, Stnaley, Inc. is owned by CGI, the Canadian company that built the disastrous Obmaacare website.

NewsPolitcsNow Avatar tied to Stanley, which does work for Obama administration.

If it is revealed that the Obama administration was involved with the video, Garcia’s attorney should then file a motion to have Google’s attorney Neal Katyal removed from the case based on a conflict of interest. As Shoebat.com reported, Katyal was the Obama administration’s Solicitor General from 2010-11.

Should Obama administration involvement in the video’s production be revealed, a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit in favor of Google might seem like a victory for the first amendment but it would actually represent something far more insidious.