Google Defeats Conservative Nonprofit's YouTube Censorship Appeal

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

 

[Nia88]

But I thought conservatives didn't want government involved in private businesses?

Conservatives can come up with their own platform if they feel their voices are being suppressed.

 

[2aguy]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

This was the first step...next comes the argument that if youtube can censor content....they are a publisher, and no longer just a platform....big difference, and if they are a publisher, they can be sued for libel and slander.............whereas a platform can't....

 

[Mac-7]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

Hopefully this case will go to the Supreme Court

 

[Lysistrata]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

This was the first step...next comes the argument that if youtube can censor content....they are a publisher, and no longer just a platform....big difference, and if they are a publisher, they can be sued for libel and slander.............whereas a platform can't....

What does this case have to do with libel and slander? Who said what to whom?

Google is a private company.

That said, these "conservatives" can't figure out where they are on "free speech" issues, anyway. In the orange whore's administration, federal (taxpayer) funding is denied to any medical facility if the word "abortion" is even uttered there, but then he issues an order revoking federal funding to universities that don't do enough about free speech on campus.

President Trump Issues Executive Order on Campus Free Speech

So, in regard to governmental entities rather than private entities, is it discrimination based on whether government officials like or dislike the content of speech or is it free speech for all?

 

[2aguy]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

This was the first step...next comes the argument that if youtube can censor content....they are a publisher, and no longer just a platform....big difference, and if they are a publisher, they can be sued for libel and slander.............whereas a platform can't....

What does this case have to do with libel and slander? Who said what to whom?

Google is a private company.

That said, these "conservatives" can't figure out where they are on "free speech" issues, anyway. In the orange whore's administration, federal (taxpayer) funding is denied to any medical facility if the word "abortion" is even uttered there, but then he issues an order revoking federal funding to universities that don't do enough about free speech on campus.

President Trump Issues Executive Order on Campus Free Speech

So, in regard to governmental entities rather than private entities, is it discrimination based on whether government officials like or dislike the content of speech or is it free speech for all?

Because if they are censoring content...they are not longer a "platform." There is a major legal difference between a "platform," and a "publisher."

A platform is the phone company....you use them and you can do and say anything on your phone and they can't be held liable cause they have no control over the content on their phone lines......if you call in a terror threat, or lie about someone on the phone, they are legally safe.

A publisher doesn't have that protection since they actually control the content that they publish....if you are a newspaper...and you publish a story that is a lie about a citizen, they can sue you for Libel..........if you are on a radio show and you lie about someone, a private citizen, you can be sued for slander.........

If youtube is now censoring content.....they are a publisher, with control over content...this opens them up for libel and slander ......which is something they do not want....

 

[2aguy]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

This was the first step...next comes the argument that if youtube can censor content....they are a publisher, and no longer just a platform....big difference, and if they are a publisher, they can be sued for libel and slander.............whereas a platform can't....

What does this case have to do with libel and slander? Who said what to whom?

Google is a private company.

That said, these "conservatives" can't figure out where they are on "free speech" issues, anyway. In the orange whore's administration, federal (taxpayer) funding is denied to any medical facility if the word "abortion" is even uttered there, but then he issues an order revoking federal funding to universities that don't do enough about free speech on campus.

President Trump Issues Executive Order on Campus Free Speech

So, in regard to governmental entities rather than private entities, is it discrimination based on whether government officials like or dislike the content of speech or is it free speech for all?

You don't understand what Trump did.......universities are discriminating against Conservative speakers on public university campuses.......they are taking government funds so he has the Right to stop that money if they refuse to protect freedom of speech.

 

[anynameyouwish]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

I have no problem with conservatives saying "global warming isn't real....and I have some evidence to prove it...."


but when they say ....

"I want to rape and kill greta....."

simply because she wants her grandchildren to drink clean water....

they go too far.....

 

[2aguy]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

I have no problem with conservatives saying "global warming isn't real....and I have some evidence to prove it...."


but when they say ....

"I want to rape and kill greta....."

simply because she wants her grandchildren to drink clean water....

they go too far.....

And "they" aren't saying that....some individual troll is saying that.......but, actual bernie bros are saying they think gulags are good and they would like to put rich people up to the wall and execute them......this was said in candid moments...not trolling on the internet.....

The actual political violence is coming from the left, not conservatives......as an experiment....wear a MAGA hat into a democrat party area, see what happens.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The infamous and notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the country and no doubt they
will be slapped down again if this case is appealed as sure as Facebook is a publisher and not a platform.

 

[Oddball]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

Three cheers for the corporate tech oligarchy!

Fucking tool.

 

[Lysistrata]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

This was the first step...next comes the argument that if youtube can censor content....they are a publisher, and no longer just a platform....big difference, and if they are a publisher, they can be sued for libel and slander.............whereas a platform can't....

What does this case have to do with libel and slander? Who said what to whom?

Google is a private company.

That said, these "conservatives" can't figure out where they are on "free speech" issues, anyway. In the orange whore's administration, federal (taxpayer) funding is denied to any medical facility if the word "abortion" is even uttered there, but then he issues an order revoking federal funding to universities that don't do enough about free speech on campus.

President Trump Issues Executive Order on Campus Free Speech

So, in regard to governmental entities rather than private entities, is it discrimination based on whether government officials like or dislike the content of speech or is it free speech for all?

You don't understand what Trump did.......universities are discriminating against Conservative speakers on public university campuses.......they are taking government funds so he has the Right to stop that money if they refuse to protect freedom of speech.

Then why is he conditioning receipt of federal funds on obedience to a government demand for censorship instead of protecting free speech between medical professionals and patients? This is such a wonderful example of hypocrisy, as well as a misuse of governmental authority.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

You are in "good" company here with some of your other misinformed leftist comrades when it comes to hypocritical entities like Facebook who call themselves a platform, when it suits their interests in court. but who have also referred to themselves as a publisher most recently Facebook Called Itself a 'Publisher' in Court After Repeatedly Rejecting the Label in Public now that it benefits them to claim that in another court.
They can't be both and that's very important to know, not that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
has paid any attention to this vital distinction. Or you.

Did the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the most overturned court in the country) take any note of this when they made their most recent ruling which, in all certainty, will also be overturned? It doesn't seem they did based on their decision.

You and your pals like to claim Facebook and Google are private companies (true) which means they can do whatever they like with their business (not exactly true) and that will come out when this case is heard on appeal.

Oligarchs probably are wagering they can spend billions on legal teams and the puny conservative plaintiffs cannot (true again) but the facts of this case favor conservatives and NOT those greedy hypocritical oligarchs who claim they are one sort of business when it benefits them and another when it doesn't (also true).

Read the Gizmodo link if you have any questions. Facebook should know better and undoubtedly they do and I'm not surprised you and your ilk are spouting falsehoods because your understanding of this issue seems to be almost nil.
And I'm certain your conservatives bad, billionaire oligarchs good philosophy is responsible for that.

 

[The Purge]

‘In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges.

It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

PragerU claimed that YouTube’s opposition to its political views led it to tag dozens of videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism for its “Restricted Mode” setting, and block third parties from advertising on the videos.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown said YouTube was a private forum despite its “ubiquity” and public accessibility, and hosting videos did not make it a “state actor” for purposes of the First Amendment.’

Google defeats conservative nonprofit's YouTube censorship appeal

Exactly.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private individuals and private entities – such as online hosting platforms.

Conservatives should, of course, applaud the ruling as a victory for private property rights and a defeat for advocates of government regulation.

But conservatives are for the most part inconsistent hypocrites who have no problem with big government using its authority and power to punish private entities conservatives incorrectly perceive to be ‘hostile’ to rightwing dogma.

The plantation darkie has spoken...ya'all hears him?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Then why is he conditioning receipt of federal funds on obedience to a government demand for censorship instead of protecting free speech between medical professionals and patients? This is such a wonderful example of hypocrisy, as well as a misuse of governmental authority.

Start a thread about it rather than clog up this thread with your over simplified one sided claims and rants.

 

[Lysistrata]

Then why is he conditioning receipt of federal funds on obedience to a government demand for censorship instead of protecting free speech between medical professionals and patients? This is such a wonderful example of hypocrisy, as well as a misuse of governmental authority.

Start a thread about it rather than clog up this thread with your over simplified one sided claims and rants.

We're talking about censorship here, dingbat. You "conservatives" are all for censorship until you are against it. There is nothing "over simplified" about what I said. It's worse when taxpayer money is involved.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

We're talking about censorship here, dingbat. You "conservatives" are all for censorship until you are against it. There is nothing "over simplified" about what I said. It's worse when taxpayer money is involved

I know what the issue is. Do you know if Facebook is a platform business (they can censor what they don't like)
or a publisher sort of business (they cannot)? Because Facebook has claimed both and that's not possible.
Read the Gizmodo link I provided and educate yourself, for once.

Read my link, if you are able.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Didnt YouTube sign an agreement to allow content in exchange for not be subject to lawsuits as owner of the content? Hmmm

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

But I thought conservatives didn't want government involved in private businesses?

Conservatives can come up with their own platform if they feel their voices are being suppressed.

I agree with this. But then they subject themselves to lawsuits as a publisher of content since they are now discriminating vs just being a conduit. Do they want to be more like the NYT where they publish content or AT&T where they are just a conduit. AT&T could not care less what people say on its airwaves. NYT does. Cannot have it both ways.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

“The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts,” Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, said in court.

That is a complete 180-degree shift for Facebook from its previous, publicly-stated position that it is in no way a publisher. The company has been completely adverse to any suggestion that it is anything but a platform since basically forever."

They are liars and hypocrites! Don't you get it? And they will say whatever it is they think
they need to say to support the scam Facebook is running. And the sycophantic 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pays no attention at all.