First Amendment Doesn't Apply On YouTube; Judges Reject PragerU Lawsuit (arstechnica.com) 474
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled today (PDF). "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 Ninth 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 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 Ninth 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.
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that they argued because it was on the internet somehow YouTube became a public actor and therefore subject to the 1st Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
That's almost as bad as the people arguing "well, it's on the Internet so that means it's been released to the public domain and I can use it in any way I want."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as PragerU will pay, they can certainly find lawyers who will work for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are. The Framers' understanding of impeachment comes directly from the British concept, where Parliament could go after agents of the Crown for anything they deemed to be malfeasance. In fact, the version of impeachment found in the Constitution is lifted pretty much entirely out of the British Parliamentary power of impeachment. Of course, in Britain, they came up with a much better way for Parliament to hold the Executive account; the power of revoking
Reflects BADLY on the "school" (Score:2)
They should have put the effort they put into their videos and arguments made into the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Prager U plonked down money up front what lawyer would turn that down?
An ethical lawyer should have told them they had a snowball's chance in hell, and warned them they would almost certainly lose. If PU wanted to continue, then fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From a judge's perspective, throwing a case out is a more extreme measure. It happens, but only with the most frivolous cases (i.e. I have an allergy to Golden Oldies music, and my neighbor is broadcasting the Platters into my brain). Judges may also allow cases of this nature to go to trial precisely because the precedents that might be set or further confirmed are deemed to be of importance. Attacking YouTube and other major social media companies because they violate some bizarre notion of First Amendmen
demonetization (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, how will I ever Free speech if I'm not paid for it?!
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be conveniently ignoring the part about restricted mode, which makes it very hard for anyone to find the video and reduces the number of views to practically nothing.
Free speech has little value if nobody can hear what you're saying.
Re:demonetization (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. They weren't promoted within YouTube, but their links weren't taken down or scrambled such that content was "hidden" in any way.
YouTube's failure to promote them isn't censoring them in any way.
Show some proof that people who followed their channel were unable to see recent uploads if they went to the channel page. Or that subscribers who selected "notify" weren't notified, or that Twits were unable to click links in Twats, then there could be some claim of censorship.
This is like suing a Ford dealer for not selling them a Corvette. Your stupidity isn't a tort.
Bonus Chutzpah points for PragerU taking the public position that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, while suing if someone doesn't deal with them in the exact manner they desire.
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment applies to the government. It doesn't apply to private property. No matter how many ways you try to argue it, you can't put a sign on my front lawn without my consent, and if I let you do it, my contract with you can stipulate any conditions I so desire, and if you don't like those conditions, you can go to someone else or plant in on your front lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's a free speech issue. It's just not a FIRST AMENDMENT issue.
Re:demonetization (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the Right Way to Do This (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly everyone agrees certain things should be banned or blocked from YouTube.
Yes, there are clearly horrible things that shouldn't be allowed on YouTube...videos that makes progressives uncomfortable are definitely not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube has a far greater fiduciary responsibility to Alphabet's shareholders, and those shareholders have made it pretty damned clear that Youtube cannot function like some Wild West, that to allow certain kinds of content materially harms their investment.
Welcome to capitalism. The owners (read: the shareholders) get to decide what happens on their property, and if you don't like their rules, you can get stuffed.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube has a responsibility to the people that earn money there. At the drop of a hat YouTube demonetizes entire swathes of it's platform and a person that made $10,000 per video can go to zero and with no good or specific reason given. There needs to be some kind of employee protection program for those making money on the platform so their lives aren't throw into disarray on a whim.
That's not going to happen. Even the Supreme Court of California said [wikipedia.org]:
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectible [sic] by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
Now YouTube creators aren't actually employed by YouTube, as they have very broad creative control and set their own hours so I don't think they should be either. But even if they were, that'd only give them a few employment benefits and minimum wage they still could be given the boot at any time. At least in the US.
Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
Ninth Circuit
That's all you need to read.
SCOTUS will decide this.
Re: Nope (Score:3)
Bad headline (Score:3)
Of course the First Amendment applies on YouTube, and this ruling doesn't change that. The US Government cannot arbitrarily censor it.
The First Amendment has nothing to do with YouTube or Alphabet's decisions about what can be shown on the channel, because Alphabet is a private owner of the channel. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you automatically get a printing press for free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of the press doesn't mean you automatically get a printing press for free.
"getting a printing press for free" is a complete red herring. Youtube is altering the deal, for content Prageru provides, whereas other similar content providers with different political stance are not receiving the same kind of treatment.
But I guess it's fine for the Overton window to dictated to the rest of the country by vertical monopolies based in San Francisco, because it's not me that they are censoring right now.
We're talking about something as vital to our democracy as free speech, with gatekeepe
Re:Bad headline (Score:4, Interesting)
It was about the undercover operations of a hostile foreign government. That would be different from a US corporation deciding what they will and will not publicize.
C'mon, you can do it. Make the connection... You're almost there!
What was the evil nasty foreign government supposedly doing? What was the power that our saviors would use to protect our pure-as-driven-snow political process from being violated?
If these corporations are in such a position of power that just a tiny few of them can actually affect political outcomes, are you really going to tell me that they should be treated as just any other corporation?
Re:Bad understanding of headline (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be ridiculous. Freedom of speech does not immunize you, and has never immunized you, against valid claims of slander or libel. I said arbitrary censoring.
Fuck PragerU (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they sue when someone refuses to treat them the way they want, because the business owner doesn't like them.
They can go pound sand. They were treated as they wish to be treated, and see no hypocrisy in their stance of bigotry and discrimination.
Also note, YouTube didn't reject them. YouTube just didn't promote them. If they uploaded a video and sent the link to that to 1,000,000 people, the 2 who care could still click on that link, and the video was there. YouTube gave them free hosting, and they sued YouTube. They didn't sue for deletion of content (something that has happened to some gun sites), but "demonetization" and lack of promotion of their content.
Re:Fuck PragerU, I watched several of their vids` (Score:3)
I agree with the parent. I watched several of their videos when they were first getting started, and found their messages to be inaccurate and disgusting.
Since then, whenever I see one of their video titles, I *always* exercise the control to stop seeing it, labeling it "inappropriate". I wonder whether other people do the same thing? I understand that I cannot (and truth be told, should not ever be able to) affect what others see directly. But I absolutely insist on not being personally bombarded by those
Two Sides (Score:2, Interesting)
This was never going to win based on the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely about the US government not being able to curb people's right to free expression. Kind of interesting that they'd waste their money going from that angle.
On the other, YouTube is a giant platform and almost a monopoly for video content. When you're not able to post on there, your reach is severely hampered. It'd kinda be like being only able to speak freely in small, specific spots in public because all the rest of the
Re: (Score:3)
PragerU is not a "conservative media company" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And who exactly do they hate? Give me some examples from their videos.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why we need an Amendment.
It's legal, the judge was correct, but it's fundamentally at odds with our conception of freedom and the way we interact with each other in these, supposedly private, spaces available freely to the entire public without any restriction whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you propose to increase freedom by making a law to force people to broadcast a message?
Might I propose an alternative, don't put everything in the hands of the private sector. Especially the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 21st century, online communication.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
So you propose to increase freedom by making a law to force people to broadcast a message?
No. No one's saying anyone should be forced to publish what they don't want.
If you curate your content, you should be liable for that content. If you don't curate your content, then the users who post it should be liable for it. Currently Youtube can editorialize its content according to its own political views, yet still be immune from liability for that act of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't curate your content, then soon your service will be full of conspiracy theories, nazis both rhetorical and actual, porn and vast amount of copyright infringement. Youtube are doing their best to have it both ways by doing half-hearted curation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there's evidence. Look at Prager's lawsuit. They marked a ton of his family-friendly videos as supposedly not appropriate for children. That's editorializing. Youtube is expressing their free-speech opinion, which THEY should be liable for.
Re: Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
But they're not [cornell.edu].
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen a single Prager video that is appropriate for children. I admit, I haven't looked much. But the few I saw certainly weren't.
Is there one you think is?
Re: (Score:2)
When those "people" are responsible for a publicly accessible forum, yes.
See the bulletin board at your public park being forced to allow fliers for Christian summer camp and gay pride events.
See public restaurants being forced to allow black people to eat there.
See publishers being held responsible for content they editorialize.
See providers (like phone companies) not being held responsible for content they deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand you correctly, you want an Amendment that compels private entities to host speech they don't want to?
How do you suppose that will work in regards to trolls and spam? I do hope you understand that such an amendment won't allow for any kind of moderation of content, unless such content breaks the law.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is private or they're editorializing it (creating, promoting, suppressing, censoring, etc.) in any way, then they can do what they want as long as they're held liable for the content they publish.
But Youtube is not held liable. They want the protections afforded to a public platform. So they should be held to the same standard.
Trolls and spam? Tough shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that would apply to every single public message board on the Internet. Any attempt to moderate content would fly foul of such an amendment.
It's an absurd demand. It would make most publicly-available message boards and public posting content systems utterly unusable, as every Nazi and other fruitcake flooded them with garbage. The entire reason that moderation was introduced to Usenet back in the day was because spam and trolls rendered many newsgroups unreadable.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think Slashdot for example should be liable for things YOU post here just because they have a moderating system?
I do hope you understand that what you propose affects ALL sites, not just Youtube.
And regarding trolls and spam, if you want to wade into the cesspool of zero moderation may I point to 8chan as a cautionary example of what will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
But spam is free speech and should be protected too! (cough)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We absolutely do not need an amendment.
If the company is promoting or censoring ideas in a way you find reprehensible, don't do business with that company.
You can be kicked out of any private space, even if it is open to the public. Traditional social venues such as bars, concerts, and sports arenas can and do remove patrons who are rude or unruly. This is no different.
Imagine there was a bar that had an open mic night. They let people do all kinds of comedy, poetry, political rants, etc.---but they still k
Re: (Score:2)
So let's get this straight. You want to force newspapers to publish every letter to the editor that comes in, and you want to force me to put up with someone sitting in my living room declaring things that I don't agree with.
Don't think much of property rights, I see.
Re: (Score:3)
There, I did my best to accomodate both you and LR, given the limited amount of signature space Slashdot allows me.
Copacetic? Good.
Re: (Score:2)
Privately owned public spaces.
I'm not a fan of the idea, but it will eventually be forced on these platforms I expect, eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsensical. You are advocating for infringing one party's free speech rights, in order to give extra rights to the other party. Telling me what to say infringes my free speech rights. Forcing me to publish something I do not want to is NOT protecting free speech, it is destroying it.
If free speech means anything, it means being able to refuse to say things you don't believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
> it means being able to refuse to say things you don't believe in.
To be clear, when youtube hosts something like PragerU or John Oliver, it is youtube speaking.
All the copyright claims against youtubers for violations should be directed at youtube not the people uploading to youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
Not according to the communications decency act of 1996, section 230.
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-... [minclaw.com]
Please, try not to spread disinformation about the law. If you think it should be changed, contact your representative in congress.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has to publish anything. What people want is legal responsibility when platforms choose to editorialize.
If I choose to publish user content indiscriminately, then that content is the user's speech, and they should be liable for it, not me. If I choose to editorialize content, then that editorialization is my speech, and I should be held liable for it. Currently, youtube is editorializing content, yet also is immune from liability for their editorializing.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the public notice board, usually found on private property. Even though I might remove content I dislike, which is my free speech and property rights in action, I am not responsible for things that were posted, but not removed. The author is. I can always reasonably state that I did not see the post in question, so why should I be liable? Perhaps I was just about to remove it. You can't prove otherwise in a court of law.
Liable and slander require three things in US law: the statement is false, the
Re: (Score:2)
If you're YouTube, you're not saying anything, you'ye providing a public platform.
Should ATT be able to cut your service if they detect you using a bad word on a call that runs through their system?
(The answer is no. This is a long-settled legal issue. YouTube is acting as a publisher but is not held liable for content. If they want that protection, they need to be held to a higher standard and be treated as operating a public service, which they absolutely are doing.)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are people here so ignorant of US law, yet so adamant in their certainty?
Please read and understand this before making further comments:
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-... [minclaw.com]
This is the law. Is it how things should be? I'll be honest, I don't really know. If you do, good for you! Contact your representative in congress and ask them to overturn the Communications Decency Act of 1996. But don't pretend you are well versed in laws governing online communications.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you point to the part of the Constitution that requires all platforms to be part of the government?
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:4)
Marsh Vs Alabama comes to mind as the closest thing to what you ask for.
Re: (Score:3)
Marsh Vs Alabama comes to mind as the closest thing to what you ask for.
Interesting. So people have a right to free speech on privately owned sidewalks, but not in a privately owned mall.
So is YouTube the sidewalk of the Internet or more like a mall?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If it doesn't apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:4, Informative)
She could have spoken to other people elsewhere, but the Supreme Court ruled she didn't have to. She had a constitutional right to trespass on private property and say things the property owner didn't agree with.
This is an incorrect reading of this ruling. SCOTUS ruled that the act of opening up and continued use of the streets and sidewalks by the public reduced the private nature of said streets and sidewalks. So there was no trespass because they operated the sidewalks as if they were public property.
A mall on the other hand is locked to the public at certain points during a day. So maybe if the company had regulated use of the side walks to only certain times of day then they would have had a stronger argument that those sidewalks were indeed private.
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. What's your point? The communications decency act carved out the exception for online publishers way back in 1996. They can curate content without being held liable for it. Don't try using the telecommunications standards for online businesses. They simply don't apply.
The thing is, mandating that a private individual or entity must publish things they don't want to is the worst sort of abuse of free speech. It is forced speech, at one party's expense, for the benefit of the other party.
If I refuse to publish your screed, I am not infringing your free speech, I am using my free speech rights to decide what I do and do not want to say.
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:5, Insightful)
If I refuse to publish your screed, I am not infringing your free speech, I am using my free speech rights to decide what I do and do not want to say.
If I refuse to produce your custom message on a cake, I am not infringing on your free speech, I am using my free speech rights to decide what I do and do not want to say. Right?
How many arguments did we hear about not being allowed to discriminate arbitrarily when offering a service to the public, and especially not against "protected groups" that must at all times be treated more equally than others? How many?
But since we're talking about vertical monopolies that dominate the online public square and have tremendous reach, and not some irrelevant cake shop owner, suddenly free speech matters for these corporations with fictional personhood to be able to discriminate as they want.
How convenient.
Baking a cake is not speech (are you stupid?) (Score:4, Insightful)
If I refuse to produce your custom message on a cake, I am not infringing on your free speech, I am using my free speech rights to decide what I do and do not want to say. Right?
Wrong. You can refuse custom messages on your cake [washingtonpost.com], you cannot however refuse to MAKE a cake for a black customer (or whatever).
This distinction should be obvious, but has been lost on everyone who modded you up.
Re: If it doesn't apply (Score:2)
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:5, Interesting)
You can sue anyone you like. What's your point? Oh, you want a shot in hell of winning? Sue the author.
This is like a public notice board on private property. Anyone can post anything. Owner can remove whatever they want. Owner would not be liable for the content they chose not to remove. Sorry if that feels unfair, maybe try to get the communications decency act overturned? Sure, that would destroy the business model of almost all social media. But is that a bad thing? I don't really know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that what you're saying has been defended in a court, and I'm not sure it would win. This case explicitly said that Youtube is NOT a public message
Re: (Score:3)
This guy just said "Personally, I think that web site owners should be responsible for what's on their servers, and yes, it would (and should) destroy any social media that doesn't police their services well enough."
He's not one of us, beware!
All analogies are flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like a public notice board on private property. Anyone can post anything. Owner can remove whatever they want.
YouTube is such a unique entity, unlike anything that came before it, that all analogies are flawed. There is no "public notice board" that has been viewed trillions of times by people all over the world; and which actively puts forth suggestions to users as to what content should be viewed next.
Normally I'm very much in favor of private entities being given broad control over how they conduct their own private business. But YouTube's algorithms, and the small cabal of humans who develop those algorithms, have tremendous power to steer public opinion -- orders of magnitude greater than a large newspaper's power to steer public opinion.
Plus, in the case of Prager, it was YouTube's human management, not algorithms, that made the decision to apply "restricted mode." Said mode is meant to shelter users from mature or explicit content. Google's claim that Prager's genteel praise of the Ten Commandments, for example, "isn't appropriate for younger audiences" belies blatant politically-correct hackiness.
Again... normal private entities should be free to display blatant politically-correct hackiness in spades, if they want to. But an entity whose power to steer public opinion is orders-of-magnitude greater than that of a large newspaper is not a normal private entity.
Re: All analogies are flawed (Score:3, Informative)
This is also a public forum (as in, a large variety of "public" can and does read content posted here). You are not so important that every message posted here as a response to your post is exclusively for you. So, GP is giving his opinion in a public forum. Hopefully it will be one minuscule part of the larger public opinion building process. And then, the outcome may be noticed by the representative (or not).
Everyone need not contact the representative directly. And they may post here in addition to conta
Missing the nuance (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic idea stems from libel and slander laws. Very early on it was found that mass printing very untrue things about a political opponent or someone you do not like to harm their reputation is a bad thing. This puts a limit on speech, to the effect that newspaper can be sued if the print something that is known to be false. This means the editors have to check sources and take every precaution to make sure a story is true.
In contrast, a platform is like the phone company. It was recognized it would be absurd to hold the phone company accountable for every stupid thing someone said over the line. Also, no one really wants them listening to everything to make that so. So, a special dispensation is offered to these "platforms" that make them immune to slander or liberal, but in exchange, they may NOT interfere with communication or make editorial comments. I.E. It is illegal for Sprint to drop your calls even if you are a democrat.
Tech companies have been trying to have it both ways. They want to freedom of being a platform, but recently, have started dabbling in thought policing, allowing only content they agree to exist. Under the law, you can not have the protections of both. Zuckerberg realized this when he was called before congress, and has been change FB to be more of a platform since. He understands his error and has the good legal advice to avoid the consequences that the future holds. Google has been in clear violation of these principals. They are essentially a platform and deserve to be punished for editorializing.
Remember, these rules are put in place to ensure free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Principals that many on slashdot say they agree with. you need to remember that free speech is not just agreeing with you think, but hearing what you do not like to hear too.
Re:Missing the nuance (Score:4, Informative)
Tech companies have been trying to have it both ways. They want to freedom of being a platform, but recently, have started dabbling in thought policing, allowing only content they agree to exist. Under the law, you can not have the protections of both.
This is a lie, and and a particularly obtuse one. The governing law (used by Facebook and everyone else) for interactive computer services is 47 CDA 230 [cornell.edu], which makes no platform/publisher distinction, and explicitly allows the thing you say it doesn't:
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
Any interactive computer service that supplies information posted by anyone else is not liable for that content, regardless of any removal of content it finds "otherwise objectionable" for any reason. The platform / publisher distinction does not exist for this; there is no requirement of neutrality.
The only holes carved in this law were for sex trafficking via FOSTA/SESTA (which, of course, has had the opposite of the intended effect).
The only thing OP assumed is that everyone else is as ignorant as you and he are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, as long as I can sue you for what you do publish.
You may not have noticed but that happens all the time too. It's not an either/or.
Props to them that they still exists as a business with all the whiny fucks out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're free to sue anybody for darned near anything. Of course, the judge is almost certain to throw such a lawsuit out, and pull too many of those stunts, and you'll get declared a vexatious litigant.
The argument is over. YouTube can publish or pull whatever content they like. You don't like it, start your own video streaming service, and you can dancing Nazis singing about sending Jews to the oven 24-7 if you so please.
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation consist of people. You are essentially saying that groups of people who choose to associate should have less rights than one individual, but that would then infringe the rights of the people who associated. Which I think was the point the SC made when they allowed corporations protection under the 1st, 5th and 14th amendment
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:4, Insightful)
In point of fact, nobody has rights except those that we all agree to uphold and defend. Don't believe me? Try arguing the non aggression principle with a bear. Try telling the hurricane about your property rights. Try being a poor minority in America. Rights in the abstract sense don't keep your teeth in your mouth or your body free of bullet holes, the only thing that does is society choosing to defend those rights, and punish those who abuse them.
Trying to say certain rights that you like are "natural" or "god given" is a simple case of argument from authority. It's just trying to make a case stronger by implying that it wasn't you who invented the idea, it was Nature or God. In the end, the whole reason you would ever be trying to make a strong case is because you know that unless the majority agree with you, your ideas about rights are meaningless. Stop trying to bully or shame people into supporting your idea of rights. Tell them why upholding those rights would benefit them.
Right now, the communications decency act of 1996, section 230, specifically carves an exemption for online publishers. The entire business model of all social media would fall apart if it were overturned. Is that a bad thing? Honestly, I don't know.
I do know that corporations have human owners, and if I owned stock in a social media company, I would not want my property used to publish crap by nazis. What about my free speech rights?
Re: (Score:3)
No he is just being sarcastic and trying to point out the awful consequences of rights not being universal, as a way to try to convince that they are. Because if they weren't, he would (and I obviously should) feel bad, and scared.
Yes, it is scary that rights are not universal and depend on other humans accepting and defending them. It implies that, on a whim, those rights could be taken from us.
That's just observably true in this world. You can see it happen. Rights get violated all the damn time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Congress shall make no law" (Score:2)
According to the summary, which may be bullshit argued that the FIRST AMENDMENT controls what YouTube can do. The text of the first amendment as is follows:
--
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--
It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It s
Re:If it doesn't apply-they can't hide behind 230 (Score:2)
Maybe that was Prager's intent all along. Editing for content makes Youtube no different than a newspaper.
They should be held liable for what users publish on their system.
Re:If it doesn't apply (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct.
If YouTube is a "private" platform with the right to editorialize/promote/demote/censor content, then it is liable for that content.
The day YouTube is held liable for its content is the day YouTube ends.
If YouTube is a privately run public platform, which is actually is, then it is basically free from being held liable for content, but the cost is that it cannot editorialize/promote/demote/censor content.
This was the 9th circuit. The jokiest joke that ever joked.
SCOTUS will take this up, and it will come down to Kavanaugh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not. [cornell.edu]
Nothing short of repealing the CDA will change that. But go ahead and sue on that basis and lose just like these guys did.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then Youtube is a publisher then not a platform.
And either way, Youtube is not violating the 1st Amendment. You don't understand how the 1st Amendment works. This xkcd [xkcd.com] explains it succinctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Finally! Some common sense.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Finally! Some common sense.... (Score:4, Insightful)
People HAVE been doing something about it. The problem is that every time they try to make an alternative social media platform, the media blasts it as being the second coming of Hitler, and activists send hate-mail to the domain registrar, the webserver host, and the payment processor, until it gets shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like it? Start your own site...
People tried. The left will then fight to deplatform them from their hoster, their domain registrar and their payment provider.
Far-left leaning Silicon Valley companies have a stranglehold on the Internet and they see it as their mission to prevent another 2016 by any means necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did the Occupy Wall Street left-wing turn into anarcho-capitalists?
Re: (Score:2)
If Prager U had spent money hiring developers instead of lawyers perhaps they’d already have a good platform of their own to do their thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the objective is to get this all the way to the Supreme Court. And of course, when SCOTUS inevitably dismisses the case, then they can start complaining about uppity activist courts (which can roughly be defined as "they didn't rule the way I wanted them to").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, you clearly don't understand how the amendments work. Go back to school.
Re: (Score:3)
How do they do that? Honest question. I have never given any social media platform the ability to "un-person" me. My self-worth, my dignity, my financial security, my hobbies... everything that makes me "me" has nothing do with a social media presence.
They un-person you by getting your bank to cancel your bank account.
https://www.projectveritas.com... [projectveritas.com]