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 legont on Tuesday March 03 2020, @02:56AM (2 children)
The really sad part is that business typically does not want to censor speech. Government presses them to do it little by little. This is a conspiracy between government and corporations which is what fascism is.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 03 2020, @04:35AM
Of course businesses want to censor speech that eats into their profits. Shit, if a business could get away with it, they'd censor any good reviews about their competition and only allow their advertising on the public airwaves and elsewhere.
For my small business, I'd fire any employee who swore at clients even if it is their right to swear. Lots of businesses will take it further and monitor social media to make sure employees aren't saying the wrong thing
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 04 2020, @02:26PM
Oh yes they do.
Every news organization is constantly censoring what ends up on the air or in print. Every employer is quick to censor anything that smells remotely like unionizing. Every company tries to make sure anybody that they can get to sign a contract legally prevents them from talking to the press or law enforcement agencies about their company without their approval. Many businesses do their best to censor what their customers say on review sites, including retaliating against customers who say something nasty.
As a simple example of this, news outlets owned by Comcast have been remarkably reluctant to talk about one presidential candidate's plan to create municipal broadband.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.