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: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2020, @05:00PM (2 children)
I think you err.
First, it is the "Federal Communications Commission". Communications being the key word, there. The FCC has an obligation, a mandate, even, to regulate. We went astray when the ISP's pleaded not to be classified as common carriers. They are, in fact, and they should be, legally, common carriers.
Second, the entry bar is so high, the average citizen isn't going to create anything to compete against the established tech companies. It's kinda like the broadcast days, when Joe Sixpack couldn't even dream of owning his own radio station. Today, Joe can have a station, but the bandwidth involved in reaching millions is prohibitive.
Third - about that crazy talk. You've bought into the idea that numbers make right? Or, might makes right? Let us take political parties as an example. D's actually have some good ideas. And, so do the R's. And both have shit ideas that no one in the world will accept, unless they are a D or an R. You've heard the talk from Europe and other places in regards to our political system? We suck, in many ways. But, if we accept that might makes right - then all the rest of the world is wrong, because we are strongest, and most influential, therefore everything we say is right.
Let the crazies speak. There is a helluva lot less evil down that road, than chasing censorship to hell, and beyond.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @06:23PM
I don't have a problem letting the crazies (on both sides) speak. But no platform should be obligated to host them. I'm not for censorship, but community standards and rules seem necessary if you don't want to end up with 8chan. Rule enforcement should be even handed.
If we're going to go down the road of requiring platforms to host content against the owner's wishes, then let's start with FoxNews. But Nooo! Somehow that won't fly.
The internet allows the average citizen to compete against larger and louder voices than anything in history. If the average citizen has something to say, they only need to promote it and people will listen. If nobody cares what they say, then that is not some inherent unfairness. They should be able to force anyone to listen, nor force anyone to host their speech. And that works both ways. As it should.
For $5 / mo a citizen can host a pretty powerful megaphone. If they get traction, then they can upgrade to $10 or $15 a month. Or more. Support it with ads.
I would also point out that most "average citizens" DO IN FACT use YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. And the vast majority seem to be able to express all kinds of different ideas without causing trouble.
PragerU is not an average citizen. For what they've spent on litigation, they could set up a web site with decent bandwidth and reach. If nobody wants to listen, that's too bad (for them). Moving onto someone else's platform where their view is unwelcome is not going to somehow change what they have to say. If what they have to say is so great, people will tune in. After all, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and others don't seem to have any trouble drawing crowds.
The only issue I see here is that PragerU doesn't want to follow YouTube's rules and thinks that YouTube shouldn't be able to have rules.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @07:40PM
An additional thought. YouTube is an advertising platform. Their customers are the advertisers. They want their platform to be appealing to advertisers. YouTube has every right to groom their platform for the advertisers they want to seek out. Compelling YouTube to make their platform unappealing to selected advertisers is direct interference with their business.
I don't know if this line of argument was raised in the litigation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
Revisiting a point in my prior reply. Would having any kind of rules be defined as censorship. I hate to have a sentence say "I don't want censorship, BUT . . ."
It seems (to me) that rules and community guidelines are necessary on the internet. Today maybe more than ever. It's not the wild west of Usenet of the 80's anymore. Maybe that strictly qualifies as some form of censorship. Just as censors on network TV might censor malfunctioning wardrobes or certain words.
I don't know what caused YouTube to have a problem with PragerU given that there are so many views expressed on YouTube.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.