Google Defeats Conservative Nonprofit's YouTube Censorship Appeal

[Frankeneinstein]

The company has been completely adverse to any suggestion that it is anything but a platform since basically forever."

Not a legal argument/question but did they say what they are a platform for?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not a legal argument/question but did they say what they are a platform for?

For whatever anyone wants to post presumably, unless there is a conservative message involved.
Then they are a publisher, and they can censor whatever they like.

 

[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.

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.

Abortion isn't a free speech issue, it is the taking of an American life..

 

[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.

You love abortions? Tell your mom to get one.

 

[2aguy]

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.

You love abortions? Tell your mom to get one.

For those who really support abortion, there is always self abortion.....notice how many of the left who believe the world is over populated never go in for that option....it is always someone else who has to be killed....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

For whatever anyone wants to post presumably, unless there is a conservative message involved.
Then they are a publisher, and they can censor whatever they like.

That's where I was going with this...while they cannot be held legally accountable they can now be declared politically biased for admitting they're a platform but not for everyone, just who they agree with.

 

[daveman]

Leftists have never understood this.

 

[2aguy]

Not a legal argument/question but did they say what they are a platform for?

For whatever anyone wants to post presumably, unless there is a conservative message involved.
Then they are a publisher, and they can censor whatever they like.

And that will be their problem.....once they say they are responsible for content, they can be sued for slander and libel...

 

[satrebil]

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.

You're right, we don't want government involved in private business. But it is. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "private business" means a company doesn't have to cater to people they don't want to cater to, why can't I ban blacks from my restaurant... hmmm?

 

[satrebil]

‘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.

"9th Circuit"

LOL.