The absurd hypocrisy of conservative Youtube outrage

[Mormolyce]

Incidentally, the PragerU case failed earlier this year, for pretty much the obvious reason:

Google Beats Lawsuit Accusing YouTube of Censoring Conservatives

Google has prevailed in a lawsuit that alleged YouTube has been violating the First Amendment by censoring conservative viewpoints. On Monday, a California federal judge agreed to dismiss a complaint from Prager University, run by radio talk-show host Dennis Prager.

The plaintiff produces videos with titles like "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion." In the lawsuit, Prager's company asserted that YouTube professes viewpoint neutrality but censors conservatives by putting age restrictions on certain videos. The decision-making is far from even-handed, Prager contends, pointing to, among others, a restricted video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" compared to better treatment for a Real Time with Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground.

Prager sought an injunction.

Since the First Amendment free speech guarantee guards against abridgment by a government, the big question for U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh is whether YouTube has become the functional equivalent of a "public forum" run by a "state actor" requiring legal intervention over a constitutional violation.

Koh agrees with Google that it hasn't been sufficiently alleged that YouTube is a state actor as opposed to a private party.

"Plaintiff does not point to any persuasive authority to support the notion that Defendants, by creating a 'video-sharing website' and subsequently restricting access to certain videos that are uploaded on that website, have somehow engaged in one of the 'very few' functions that were traditionally 'exclusively reserved to the State,'" she writes. "Instead, Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendants hold YouTube out 'as a public forum dedicated to freedom of expression to all' and argues that 'a private property owner who operates its property as a public forum for speech is subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.'”

The judge turns to precedent, particularly a 1945 Supreme Court case, Marsh v. Alabama, that involved a Jehovah's Witness who distributed religious literature in a town that was entirely owned by a private corporation. In that decision, the high court held that the corporation acting as a state actor was required to run the town in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. But Koh then emphasizes later Supreme Court decisions that limited the reach of this holding, including one — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner — where a privately owned shopping center could prohibit anti-Vietnam War protesters from distributing literature.

Koh writes she "is not convinced that Marsh can be extended to support Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants should be treated as state actors subject to First Amendment scrutiny merely because they hold out and operate their private property as a forum for expression of diverse points of view."

There's also a nod to another recent opinion from the Supreme Court — Packingham v. North Carolina — which generated a great deal of speculation about implications when the high court justices invalidated a North Carolina state law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a social media website.

According to the judge, "Although Packingham spoke of 'cyberspace' and 'social media in particular' as 'the most important places...for the exchange of views' in modern society, Packingham did not, and had no occasion to, address whether private social media corporations like YouTube are state actors that must regulate the content of their websites according to the strictures of the First Amendment."

Ultimately, the judge doesn't think that YouTube is very much like that private corporation governing all municipal functions of a town.

"Instead, Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website," the opinion states. "Numerous other courts have declined to treat similar private social media corporations, as well as online service providers, as state actors."

The complaint was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended version if they wish.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...atives-1097631

[Xath]

Most conservative youtube personality are bombastic idiots but youtube is basically a monopoly unlike a bakery which even most small towns have at least two. It's not exactly the same thing.

[Malaky]

Embarassing thread. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that Youtube has a de-facto monopoly with obscene power while that single isolated baker guy just wanted to be left alone.

But then again the left doesn't believe in individuals so it isn't surprising that Mormolyce wouldn't see difference between a gigantic tech company and a man with a shop.

[Mormolyce]

Embarassing thread. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that Youtube has a de-facto monopoly with obscene power while that single isolated baker guy just wanted to be left alone.

Maybe you should tell it to the District Court that threw that argument out.

[RickJamesLich]

The problem is that youtube (and the google corporation in general) has a massive amount of power and by banning certain types of view points they are essentially controlling what people think and believe. This is likely one of the big reasons why there are so many young people that lean to the left. Even if you lean that way yourself, politically, surely you can see the dangers in a corporation having that level of power, and wielding it how they see fit.

[nymphetsss]

hmm two replies and the thread is over

Youtube is a scary example of what happens when one camp controls one of the most common platforms of spreading propaganda

[ManiaCCC]

Embarassing thread. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that Youtube has a de-facto monopoly with obscene power while that single isolated baker guy just wanted to be left alone.

While you are not wrong, there is no reason for google to stay neutral just because no one can pull free video streaming systems like google can (to be fair, even they have problem to get YouTube into profitable state). As baker in town, google has rights to censor what they want too. So yes, it's still hypocrisy in my book.

There is another big issue - Advertisement. It's bread and butter of all youtube channels and youtube itself. When google didn't regulate content on youtube, they lost huge chunk of their partners. They just have to act.

[ro9ue]

Since Google is a private business I agree that the ruling is 'technically' correct. However, the government is no longer threatening first amendment rights, it's extremely powerful companies in the private sector.

I'm really not sure what can be done about it outside of more competition.

[Malaky]

Maybe you should tell it to the District Court that threw that argument out.

The CALIFORNIA district court that threw that out. You know, California, one of the craziest of the crazies in terms of crazy left and getting abandoned by the numbers.

[Weeps]

The CALIFORNIA district court that threw that out. You know, California, one of the craziest of the crazies in terms of crazy left and getting abandoned by the numbers.

LOL. The poor are leaving, the rich are coming. California is doing more than fine, buddy.

Time to leave whatever echo chamber you're in.

[Adam Jensen]

There's literally nothing in the first amendment guaranteeing your right to a platform.

You can speak all you want, no one is compelled to listen.

[Torto]

Either you support free speech or you don't. Cheering the fact that a monopoly has been given carte blanche to censor views that you are politically opposed to, whilst cheering that a humble baker is being pushed to bankruptcy for also having views you are politically opposed to, shows you don't actually believe in free speech. You believe in the total opposite, you are a supporter to political censorship so long as it is biased towards your political views.

But Mormolyce is a rabid leftist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[ManiaCCC]

Either you support free speech or you don't. Cheering the fact that a monopoly has been given carte blanche to censor views that you are politically opposed to, whilst cheering that a humble baker is being pushed to bankruptcy for also having views you are politically opposed to, shows you don't actually believe in free speech. You believe in the total opposite, you are a supporter to political censorship so long as it is biased towards your political views.

But Mormolyce is a rabid leftist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Either you understand what free speech means or you don't. You didn't.

[Torto]

There's literally nothing in the first amendment guaranteeing your right to a platform.

You can speak all you want, no one is compelled to listen.

People are compelled to watch Youtube?

[Endus]

Embarassing thread. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that Youtube has a de-facto monopoly with obscene power while that single isolated baker guy just wanted to be left alone.

Youtube is dominant in the marketplace.

They are not a monopoly.

And even if they were a monopoly (which they aren't), that still wouldn't make them a state actor, to whom the First Amendment would apply.

Since Google is a private business I agree that the ruling is 'technically' correct. However, the government is no longer threatening first amendment rights, it's extremely powerful companies in the private sector.

I'm really not sure what can be done about it outside of more competition.

It literally can't be a threat to First Amendment rights, because those don't apply to private businesses in the first place. How big those businesses are doesn't enter the picture.

This isn't about freedom of speech, at all. What we're discussing is some people's irrational and baseless sense of entitlement to other people's property.

[Deleted]

They are so close to working out that thier arguments about the free market are all complete bullshit. Its quite painful.

[Torto]

Either you understand what free speech means or you don't. You didn't.

Censoring views you disagree with isn't free speech.

[Malaky]

While you are not wrong, there is no reason for google to stay neutral just because no one can pull free video streaming systems like google can (to be fair, even they have problem to get YouTube into profitable state). As baker in town, google has rights to censor what they want too. So yes, it's still hypocrisy in my book.

That's the point though, the baker doesn't have the level of power Youtube has. That baker didn't decide that "gay cakes" are forbidden everywhere, just in his own little shop. With an equally if not bigger rival allowing them next street easily. We can't say that about Youtube, which is pretty much the only option now and extremely exceedingly difficult to rival.

[ManiaCCC]

Censoring views you disagree with isn't free speech.

As I said, you have no idea what Free speech is. So go ahead, try to find out.

[Endus]

Either you support free speech or you don't. Cheering the fact that a monopoly has been given carte blanche to censor views that you are politically opposed to, whilst cheering that a humble baker is being pushed to bankruptcy for also having views you are politically opposed to, shows you don't actually believe in free speech. You believe in the total opposite, you are a supporter to political censorship so long as it is biased towards your political views.

But Mormolyce is a rabid leftist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

1> Youtube isn't a monopoly, by definition.
2> There wasn't even any indication that any of this was politically-biased.
3> This isn't about free speech, in any way whatsoever.

This whole ridiculous persecution complex is about conservative shitbags who feel they're entitled to other people's property, against the owner's wishes.