Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday March 02 2020, @12:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the or-social-media dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 03 2020, @12:38AM (2 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 03 2020, @12:38AM (#965762) Journal

    they make it pretty clear they are a private entity.

    So is a company town, but they still have to let you give or sell pamphlets on their streets.

    Personally I don't care either way as long as youtube can't disconnect you from the internet, you can still transmit a signal, until the ISP pulls the plug.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 03 2020, @04:29AM (1 child)

    by dry (223) on Tuesday March 03 2020, @04:29AM (#965849) Journal

    The courts did not rule that the private town had to pay for those pamphlets and I doubt they would have ruled the same if it was about the JW's being obnoxious.
    According to the summary, PragerU was suing over being demonetized and basically not pushing their propaganda rather then banned. That would be like the courts ruling that that private town had to post those pamphlets in a prominent place. Similar court cases about malls only allowed the pamphlet pushers to quietly stand in the background offering their pamphlet much like a pair of JW's I passed on the sidewalk today.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 03 2020, @06:16AM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 03 2020, @06:16AM (#965885) Journal

      According to the summary, PragerU was suing over being demonetized and basically not pushing their propaganda rather then banned.

      Holy shit! [soylentnews.org]

      Better hope youtube wins then, or Soylent is in big trouble

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..