SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
First Amendment doesn't apply on YouTube; judges reject PragerU lawsuit:
YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled today. "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, 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 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 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.
Appeals court judges were not convinced. They pointed to a Supreme Court case from last year in which plaintiffs unsuccessfully "tested a theory that resembled PragerU's approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its 'operation' of the private property as 'a public forum for speech.'" The case involved public access channels on a cable TV system.
The Supreme Court in that case found that "merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints."
"If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum," the Supreme Court decision last year continued.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2020, @03:59AM (4 children)
No one uses an ISP to host websites anymore; they use hosting companies.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by fustakrakich on Monday March 02 2020, @04:31AM (3 children)
A hosting company is the same as youtube, your account can disappear just as quickly. I'm talking about self hosting, from your own machine. I'll bet the ISP's upload bandwidth alone will slow things down pretty good. If we regulate them like utilities as we should, many restrictions would be lifted. Then we won't have to think about youtube or any other hosting company.
But then the ISP can cut you off too, and then you have no internet at all. That makes the ISP a much bigger threat than funky old youtube.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @08:04AM (2 children)
You really don't know how this works...
If you are hosting some weird shit and it gets taken down, then maybe you are the problem? There are hundreds of hosting providers around the world. And if none want your shit for $$$, then maybe something is wrong with it??
Hosting it on "your own machine" .... is this like a 12-year old talking here? You don't even know you can *OWN* the machines and just buy bandwidth at HUNDREDS of colocation providers? And then why do that when you can just rent the machine at a reduced rate anyway and just take care of the data? The data being what you want to host anyway? Right?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday March 02 2020, @01:56PM
That can be because there's something wrong with it, sure. Or it can be because some powerful government is able to put enough pressure on said hosting providers (say via credit card companies and banks) to keep your shit turned off. The elephant in this room is censorship by proxy. If YouTube can censor you for any reason, then they can censor you in exchange for quid pro quo with the governments of the world.
And I find it remarkable how the judge in this case could dismiss YouTube's advertising:
False advertising that is allowed to stand because YouTube was allegedly vague enough.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday March 03 2020, @01:47AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.