Appeals court rules that the first amendment does not apply to YouTube

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
339

Tigar

A Most Inappropriate Tigar 🐯
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,131
Location
Dallas or nearby
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
🌟not on file
SLU Posts
666
You have no rights if any other person can take them away when ever they feel like it.

Don’t forget, a corporation is a person.
 

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,611
Location
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42
In this case, YouTube did not remove any videos. The complaint is that YouTube (1) blocked videos from appearing to minors (2) demonitized PragerU videos and (3) placed them low in search results. They are suing for the right to monitize hate speech on Google's platform, to avoid child filters for hate speech, and to change search algorithms that are designed to reduce the rankings of disinformation and hate speech.
 

Lady Darnk Juniorette

⚧🎃💀Chaos Agent diminished middle 💀🎃⚧
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,029
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Dec 2012
SLU Posts
9114
In this case, YouTube did not remove any videos. The complaint is that YouTube (1) blocked videos from appearing to minors (2) demonitized PragerU videos and (3) placed them low in search results. They are suing for the right to monitize hate speech on Google's platform, to avoid child filters for hate speech, and to change search algorithms that are designed to reduce the rankings of disinformation and hate speech.
When I saw it I laughed like Tim Curry in IT.

HU-WHAH HU-WHAH HU-WHAH!!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Imnotgoing Sideways

Puts the FU in Cute
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
215
Location
Morbidette
You have no rights if any other person can take them away when ever they feel like it.

Don’t forget, a corporation is a person.
Thing is, no rights were actually taken away. What did happen was that Youtube protected their own platform from being used for content they fundamentally consider harmful. Maybe petty. Maybe just looking at the 'bottom line'. But, completely within their rights to manage their own property.

There's nothing stopping P-U from setting up their own server to host their own views on their own resources.

Anyone can stand at any street corner and describe the benefits of pubic hair straightening. Just, don't do it while standing on my back yard lawn. I'm within my rights to fence off my yard, lock the gate, keep the key for myself, and provide a copy to a professor of the Curly Crotch Consortium. (-_-)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,139
Location
Portland, OR
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
Anyone can stand at any street corner and describe the benefits of pubic hair straightening. Just, don't do it while standing on my back yard lawn.
I am surprised you don't support the pubic hair straightening movement since you refuse to go sideways.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,697
SLU Posts
18459
The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

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
Which law upon which YouTube relied did they say contravened this Amendment?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
3,878
Location
Gulf Coast, USA
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
God I hate the phony "PragerU", I'm glad they got ruled against. For quite a while like early last year or 2018, YouTube let them push these videos that were branded as "ads" for the channel but in reality were just their normal channel content - like just 5 minute political mini-lectures. There's nothing like clicking on a video game review and having some smug old white man pop up with like "Hey did you know the female wage gap doesn't really exist?" and actually having to listen to him for a while before you're allowed to hit "skip".

Crap like this is how Google/YouTube helped grow the alt-right. But, the exact nature of their politics makes them easy to hate of course; politics aside, I've never seen a single other case of a YouTube channel (and that's all Prager "U" is, for anyone who doesn't know - it's a YouTube channel that cross-posts to Facebook, that's it) being allowed to hawk itself via YouTube ads on other peoples' videos.
 

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
339
The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,


Which law upon which YouTube relied did they say contravened this Amendment?
The amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about private company policies.

Prager U are a bunch of assholes, but at the same time, this is a new clarification of the law, for me. Private companies have to respect certain civil rights on property they make public. That's how Occupy Wall St. was able to use Zuccotti Park in NYC the way they did. That park was privately owned, but publicly available. This precedent comes from cases involving company towns and things like that. This means that online spaces may not be considered publicly available, even if they seem that way to users. That's how I interpret this, at least. I'm not a lawyer.

I'm happy to see Prager U waste money on losing court cases, but I worry that this may weaken civil rights, if groups like Occupy Wall St. have to use privately owned public property for protests again.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,241
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
Crap like this is how Google/YouTube helped grow the alt-right. But, the exact nature of their politics makes them easy to hate of course; politics aside, I've never seen a single other case of a YouTube channel (and that's all Prager "U" is, for anyone who doesn't know - it's a YouTube channel that cross-posts to Facebook, that's it) being allowed to hawk itself via YouTube ads on other peoples' videos.
The downside to free speech is that everyone, no matter how repugnant their ideas, gets the chance to use the public square. The answer to that is more speech, not using the government to clamp down on it. It is a dangerous thing to start making companies like Facebook and YouTube arbiters of what is acceptable speech. It's only a matter of time before reasonable contrasting voices are stifled out. It's already happening. Dissent is an American tradition. We don't need a Ministry of Truth and the last people I would want to be the judge of that are people like Mark Zuckerberg.
 

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,611
Location
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42
I'm happy to see Prager U waste money on losing court cases, but I worry that this may weaken civil rights, if groups like Occupy Wall St. have to use privately owned public property for protests again.
The distinction in this case is that YouTube has always been clear that hosting videos there is for a commercial purpose and that their terms and conditions reflect that. The park in question had been open to the public and had an established history of use for public speech including protests without restriction.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,697
SLU Posts
18459
The amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about private company policies.

Prager U are a bunch of assholes, but at the same time, this is a new clarification of the law, for me. Private companies have to respect certain civil rights on property they make public. That's how Occupy Wall St. was able to use Zuccotti Park in NYC the way they did. That park was privately owned, but publicly available. This precedent comes from cases involving company towns and things like that. This means that online spaces may not be considered publicly available, even if they seem that way to users. That's how I interpret this, at least. I'm not a lawyer.

I'm happy to see Prager U waste money on losing court cases, but I worry that this may weaken civil rights, if groups like Occupy Wall St. have to use privately owned public property for protests again.
I know nothing about US land law or about the status of Zuccotti Park in NYC but I see from Wikipedia that
Privately owned public spaces (POPS) in New York City were introduced in a 1961 zoning resolution. The city offers zoning concessions to commercial and residential developers in exchange for a variety of spaces accessible and usable for the public. There are approximately 503 POPS at 320 buildings in New York City and are found principally in Manhattan. Spaces range from extended sidewalks to indoor atriums with seating and amenities. International attention was brought to POPS during the Occupy Wall Street movement begun in 2011 in Zuccotti Park.
That suggests to me that the owners of Zuccotti Park made specific commitments to NYC that wouldn't apply to YouTube (and probably don't apply, either, to access to a public space like, for example, the atrium in Trump Tower).
 

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
3,878
Location
Gulf Coast, USA
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
The amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about private company policies.

Prager U are a bunch of assholes, but at the same time, this is a new clarification of the law, for me. Private companies have to respect certain civil rights on property they make public. That's how Occupy Wall St. was able to use Zuccotti Park in NYC the way they did. That park was privately owned, but publicly available. This precedent comes from cases involving company towns and things like that. This means that online spaces may not be considered publicly available, even if they seem that way to users. That's how I interpret this, at least. I'm not a lawyer.

I'm happy to see Prager U waste money on losing court cases, but I worry that this may weaken civil rights, if groups like Occupy Wall St. have to use privately owned public property for protests again.
YouTube may seem like a "public place" because so many people use it; but I think there's some very important differences between it and say a park - or even places that have been ruled "semi-public", like a mall.

Like with a park, everybody - I mean absolutely everyone, automatically, without restriction, is just allowed to go there and use it; it's more or less a universal right that only gets taken away if you've done something legally wrong.

YouTube isn't like that. For starters, Joe Rando can't just go to YouTube and start posting videos; you need to get a Google account first, and there are some meaningful restrictions on who's allowed to have a Google account (for instance, little kids can't have them, even though they can enter public spaces like parks and malls whenever they want), and activity restrictions that you have to agree to ahead of time in order to be given one.

But even those differences are kinda beside the point this time, because PragerU wasn't banned from YouTube. They were just demonetized - their videos are still up. Joining YouTube's ad-sharing program is a step beyond the right to speak in a public space, it's a business relationship that comes with additional restrictions on top of regular YouTube use. Even if everyone did agree that everyone has a First Amendment right to put videos on YouTube, that doesn't come with a right to get paid by YouTube for doing it.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,697
SLU Posts
18459
It's important, I think, to distinguish between various sorts of public spaces.

There are places that are public, in the sense that, one way or another, the public has access to them, so that's anything from public parks to a movie theatre or even a private club, and places to which the public has a right of access.

The two are very different, legally and conceptually.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Free

10K under the hat
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
10,782
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
This is starting to sound like a Second Life thread.