First Amendment doesn’t apply on YouTube; judges reject PragerU lawsuit

[TheCount]

YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled today (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/youtube-1st-amendment-ruling.pdf). "Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," the court said.

PragerU, a conservative media company, sued YouTube in October 2017 (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-youtube-says-it-censors-conservative-videos/), claiming the Google-owned video site "unlawfully censor[ed] its educational videos and discriminat[ed] against its right to freedom of speech."

PragerU said YouTube reduced its viewership and revenue with "arbitrary and capricious use of 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' viewer restriction filters." PragerU claimed it was targeted by YouTube because of its "political identity and viewpoint as a non-profit that espouses conservative views on current and historical events."

But a US District Court judge dismissed PragerU's lawsuit against Google and YouTube, and a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that dismissal in a unanimous ruling today.

"PragerU's claim that YouTube censored PragerU's speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech," judges wrote.

PragerU claimed (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prager-youtube-1st-amendment.pdf) that Google's "regulation and filtering of video content on YouTube is 'State action' subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment." While Google is obviously not a government agency, PragerU pointed to a previous appeals-court ruling (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332974.html) to support its claim that "[t]he regulation of speech by a private party in a designated public forum is 'quintessentially an exclusive and traditional public function' sufficient to establish that a private party is a 'State actor' under the First Amendment." PragerU claims YouTube is a "public forum" because YouTube invites the public to use the site to engage in freedom of expression and because YouTube representatives called the site a "public forum" for free speech in testimony before Congress.

Much more at link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/

[Brian4Liberty]

When government is your biggest customer, are you really independent of government?

[Warlord]

When government is your biggest customer, are you really independent of government?

1233486436722266114

[Todd]

These yokels on social media platforms can't have this both ways. They should have to decide what they are. If they are private then this applies and they should have it revoked.


Related:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/thomas-luongo/dont-be-fooled-by-the-deplatforming-of-facebook/


he solution to the Section 230 Immunity issue for these companies is to remove it and open them up to civil liabilities for their inconsistent enforcement of their own policies.

Because once you do that they have no protection under commercial contract law.

Those users that use these platforms for commercial purposes are materially harmed by the ever-changing rules of these platforms.

They entered into an agreement with YouTube or Facebook in good faith expectation of a certain level of service.

Facebook’s business is built on the implicit guarantee of that service. In turn, (and YOUTUBE * emphasis mine) Facebook was built on the backs of those using the platform.

Unilaterally taking away that access without compensation simply because Facebook said so is a perversion of contract law. Why should Facebook be allowed to do that? Why hasn’t this clear inequity between parties to a contract been addressed by the courts?

[nikcers]

When government is your biggest customer, are you really independent of government?

It's usually better when other companies bid for government contracts but they are really good at investing into next Gen technologies. I am sure there is quite a bit of overlap where their employees will be contracted to build next Gen tech because they are the best people to build it. I am sure that's where a lot of this is coming from. They are in an AI race with China's Search company.

[Created4]

The solution to the Section 230 Immunity issue for these companies is to remove it and open them up to civil liabilities for their inconsistent enforcement of their own policies.

Because once you do that they have no protection under commercial contract law.

This ^^^.

Complaining about free speech and the 1st Amendment with private companies is not going to get you far in the courts, and it should not.


Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act grants immunity to companies like Facebook and Google from prosecution for content hosted on their services as they argue they are not publishers but rather just pass-through entities or platforms of user-generated content.

[jkr]

for the LAST fkn time
ALPHABET IS GOBBERMINT

the rest is bukkaki theater

[Swordsmyth]

for the LAST fkn time
ALPHABET IS GOBBERMINT

the rest is bukkaki theater
^^^THIS^^^

And you can't be a platform and a publisher at the same time.
Plus SCOTUS ruled that states can't bar sexual predators from social media because it is the public square, if it's the public square then they can't censor.

[Stratovarious]

Google is much larger than thousands of local public utility companies combined I'm sure,
and some of the larger ones as well.
Google/Youtube and peripheral attachments operate AS UTILITIES , they are an assault
to our free speech.
They, Google, not only monitors us like NSA, they also censor us and filter what we are allowed to see
and read, much like what they (Google) do in China.

The ridiculous excuse that they 'had too' or China would have stolen the tech and done it themselves
is like saying America should have butchered the jews cause Hitler was going to do it anyway.... facepalm....

[Grandmastersexsay]

First, duh. Of course 1st amendment restrictions don't apply to private companies, nor should they.


This ^^^.

Complaining about free speech and the 1st Amendment with private companies is not going to get you far in the courts, and it should not.


Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act grants immunity to companies like Facebook and Google from prosecution for content hosted on their services as they argue they are not publishers but rather just pass-through entities or platforms of user-generated content.


This isn't the answer either. This would litterly kill every small conservative and libertarian site over night. Saying things like the government is Google's largest custom, would end up with this forum getting shut down. Right now, saying something like that is just stupid because they make a shit ton of money on advertising and haven't ever received any money from the government directly. Did they get some initial CIA money from third parties? A little, but saying the government is there number one customer is just ridiculous.

As it is, Google doesn't have the time or money to go after every idiot on the internet. If this website could be held liable, google would have an easy time suing the owner of RPF, making it smarter for the owner to just shut it down. Liberals love using the courts. No Avenue for free thought would survive on the internet. To think otherwise is just foolish.

The only answer is competition. I shouldn't even have to say this on here, but I guess this isn't the same place it used to be.