U.S. court appeals rules you tube can censor conservative content

[MindWars]

U.S. Court of Appeals rules YouTube can censor conservative content
(CP) – A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously ruled that YouTube can censor conservative content, as it is not compelled by the First Amendment to allow all viewpoints. The popular conservative YouTube channel PragerU filed a lawsuit against YouTube and Google, accusing the entities of wrongfully censoring their videos.



Don't worry Karma will take these pigs back out wake up your gonna be some sorry SOB's.lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

These publicly traded companies are protected by various laws from anti-trust prosecution, and in return they are supposed to provide neutral administration of the sites.

They are not doing it.

If they want protections from anti-trust prosecution, they need to be neutral or lose it.

Congress needs to take action and bust these F'ers up.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

These publicly traded companies are protected by various laws from anti-trust prosecution, and in return they are supposed to provide neutral administration of the sites.

They are not doing it.

If they want protections from anti-trust prosecution, they need to be neutral or lose it.

Congress needs to take action and bust these F'ers up.

As long as Democrats hold the House and those sites are just punishing the Conservatives then do not expect anything to happen...

But

When one of those sites slam down hard on a leftist group expect the House to do something!

 

[Syriusly]

These publicly traded companies are protected by various laws from anti-trust prosecution, and in return they are supposed to provide neutral administration of the sites.

They are not doing it.

If they want protections from anti-trust prosecution, they need to be neutral or lose it.

Congress needs to take action and bust these F'ers up.

You mean publicly traded companies like Fox News?
NASDAQ: FOXA

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

 

[Leweman]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

They open themselves up to lawsuits from any and everyone for any and everything. Some kid watches a You Tube video of some moron lighting his farts on fire and does the same and burns his nuts off, guess what? You Tube is responsible. Right now they are protected from that. This ruling means they will not be.

 

[Blackrook]

The proper response is for conservatives to launch a competitor to Youtube. It's actually anti-First Amendment to seek a court ruling to force a private entity to publish content it disagrees with.

 

[Syriusly]

U.S. Court of Appeals rules YouTube can censor conservative content
(CP) – A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously ruled that YouTube can censor conservative content, as it is not compelled by the First Amendment to allow all viewpoints. The popular conservative YouTube channel PragerU filed a lawsuit against YouTube and Google, accusing the entities of wrongfully censoring their videos.



Don't worry Karma will take these pigs back out wake up your gonna be some sorry SOB's.lol

Funny how not one of you Contards even bothered to comment on the actual point- that the First Amendment covers government restrictions on free speech- not speech by individuals or businesses.

Which is why for instance- USMB can censor this site anyway they feel like.

 

[Syriusly]

The proper response is for conservatives to launch a competitor to Youtube. It's actually anti-First Amendment to seek a court ruling to force a private entity to publish content it disagrees with.

Did hell just freeze over? I actually agree with you on something- good post.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The proper response is for conservatives to launch a competitor to Youtube. It's actually anti-First Amendment to seek a court ruling to force a private entity to publish content it disagrees with.

People have been calling for conservatives to do just that.

 

[Syriusly]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

They open themselves up to lawsuits from any and everyone for any and everything. Some kid watches a You Tube video of some moron lighting his farts on fire and does the same and burns his nuts off, guess what? You Tube is responsible. Right now they are protected from that. This ruling means they will not be.

Nope- doesn't change any of that.

 

[Leweman]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

They open themselves up to lawsuits from any and everyone for any and everything. Some kid watches a You Tube video of some moron lighting his farts on fire and does the same and burns his nuts off, guess what? You Tube is responsible. Right now they are protected from that. This ruling means they will not be.

Nope- doesn't change any of that.

Welllllll, not technically. That's under the assumption that congress will eventually pull their protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, something more likely to happen after the next election. I'm not even sure it's not unconstitutional. Pretty sure government can step in if any private institution tries to restrict the free flow of information.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The proper response is for conservatives to launch a competitor to Youtube. It's actually anti-First Amendment to seek a court ruling to force a private entity to publish content it disagrees with.

They are out there but for now youtube has the eyeballs and that's what matters to content creators and advertisers

 

[Syriusly]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

They open themselves up to lawsuits from any and everyone for any and everything. Some kid watches a You Tube video of some moron lighting his farts on fire and does the same and burns his nuts off, guess what? You Tube is responsible. Right now they are protected from that. This ruling means they will not be.

Nope- doesn't change any of that.

Welllllll, not technically. That's under the assumption that congress will eventually pull their protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, something more likely to happen after the next election. I'm not even sure it's not unconstitutional. Pretty sure government can step in if any private institution tries to restrict the free flow of information.

Pretty sure government can step in if any private institution tries to restrict the free flow of information

What makes you believe that? When you join Facebook or USMB- their terms and conditions are pretty clear that they can limit content anyway that they want to.

And no one requires newspapers to print everything some idiot on the right or left wants them to publish.

 

[theHawk]

I agree it’s a private entity so they can do whatever they want. But the neo-Marxists have taken over the social media sector and show their true colors by censoring conservatives or any criticism of leftwingers they don’t like. They abuse power whenever they have it to destroy their political enemies. Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The proper response is for conservatives to launch a competitor to Youtube. It's actually anti-First Amendment to seek a court ruling to force a private entity to publish content it disagrees with.

Did hell just freeze over? I actually agree with you on something- good post.

Yes, it’s freezing in Hell.

 

[Blackrook]

The proper response is for conservatives to invest in creating internet based companies that will compete with youtube, twitter and facebook.

 

[pknopp]

Kinda ironic. "Conservatives" not understanding the Constitution.

Or maybe just par for the course.

 

[CWayne]

It's the correct ruling. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector. This has been explained repeatedly.

Yes, that is the correct ruling. However, they should no longer enjoy the protections they were offered when they claimed they would be a 'neutral platform'.

They should not be open to all the lawsuits that protection afforded.

 

[CWayne]

Kinda ironic. "Conservatives" not understanding the Constitution.

Or maybe just par for the course.

Naw, real conservatives understand that this was the correct ruling.

Real conservatives also understand that these social media corporations were given a free pass a number of legal jeopardies.

It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS will do, though I don't think they'll take the case.