Posted on 02/26/2020 3:40:49 PM PST by semimojo
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday affirmed that YouTube, a Google subsidiary, is a private platform and thus not subject to the First Amendment. In making that determination, the Court also rejected a plea from a conservative content maker that sued YouTube in hopes that the courts would force it to behave like a public utility.
Put another way, had the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Prager University—also known as PragerU—and against YouTube, it would have violated YouTube's First Amendment rights.
Headed by conservative radio host Dennis Prager, PragerU alleged in its suit against YouTube that the video hosting platform violated PragerU's right to free speech when it placed a portion of the nonprofit's clips on "Restricted Mode," an optional setting that approximately 1.5 percent of YouTube users select so as not to see content with mature themes. (It's worth noting that PragerU is not an actual public or private university, but rather "an online video resource promoting knowledge and clarity on life's biggest and most interesting topics.")
"PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent," wrote Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown. "Just last year, the Court held that 'merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints,'" she wrote, referencing the recent decision in Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck.
Indeed, the conservative nonprofit's lawsuit sought to radically alter the First Amendment, which constrains the government—not private actors like YouTube—from infringing on free speech rights. PragerU's suit rested on the claim that YouTube has become so ubiquitous that it is now a public utility owned by the people. The claim seems more at home among the rising democratic socialists often criticized by PragerU in its videos, and it's one that the Ninth Circuit fundamentally rejected.
"Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine's distinction between government and private entities because 'all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints,'" noted McKeown. "Importantly, private property does not 'lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.'"
PragerU's argument boils down to the following: YouTube performs a function of value to the public, so it is therefore a public utility bound by the same rules as any other government agency. But that argument would require, at minimum, for YouTube to hold a monopoly on internet video hosting. As that is not the case, PragerU was essentially asking YouTube to be treated like a government agency based on its largeness.
PragerU also put forth claims under the Lanham Act, contending that the company engaged in false advertising when it said, for instance, that "people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities." Not so, said the Ninth Circuit, likening such declarations to non-actionable "puffery" that do not constitute binding commercial behavior.
"Google's products are not politically biased. We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account," Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson, told Reason in September, following oral arguments.
In Prager's defense, videos that fall under Google's Restricted Mode are tagged with an algorithm and often evaluated again by a human reviewer, who inevitably comes to the table with his or her own intrinsic biases. For instance, restricting PragerU's "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" makes sense; tagging "The Ten Commandments: What You Should Know" does not. (Karan Bhatia, a former conservative operative and now Google's vice president for government affairs, said the video references mature themes, like murder.)
They should have taken the tact of criminals using a phone for illegal business and the telephone company not being liable.
That’s basically how big and dominant You Tube, Twitter and Instagram have become.
Are they a platform or a publisher?
“Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
B. Franklin (attrib.)
Those who think YouTube is a public utility should tell their congressional representatives to change the law. The courts follow existing law.
This does underscore the seriousness of certain monopolistic entities controlling our society and Our communications. Google/ YouTube bring right at the top of the list
Exactly. Release the kraken (lawsuits).
Ever hear of coal miners??
They've known for at least a century that corporate executives supersede the Constitution. Worth reading up on while we're in another cycle of stupidity where libtards side with corporations rather than the individual.
Their doing so and nitwits who believe there really is an invisible had still allowed to work in this country are the reason why while corporations are in theory individuals, they can get away with violating individual rights when living, breathing, human, individuals can't get away with it in the same circumstances.
either youtube is a common carrier or it is liable for all content.
They claim that they are a common carrier. But farcical application of their rules shows that is a lie.
The transformation of the 9th Circuit Court is not yet complete. Patience. It is coming.
>>He said they have strict rules for their employee to say absolutely nothing.
witness tampering and intimidation
Ok. So if we were to apply this to FR and Jim’s right to zot at will. Can FR be held liable and sued for our posts?
Agree....
Free thought outside of what is “acceptable” must be shut down in their view and what is “Politically correct” become the mandate and form that is allowed to flourish as free thinking and ideas is to be suppressed
It’s a monopoly in the sense that they pay the owner of the channel money for X number of views.
Bitchute.com is a good alternative if someone just wants to post a video for people to see. Some people make six figures a year doing youtube videos.
This is the problem with Conservatives judges when they won't use the liberals rule book against them. They are too focused on what the words say rather than the purpose which they were intended to convey.
Never before in history did a "private" corporation have so much control over public speech. Had the founders conceived of it, they would have prohibited it.
These judges might be correct in the specifics of the language, but they are absolutely incorrect in purpose and intent.
Jim had to go to court to defend users of this site posting news articles.
Many videos on youtube violate copyright, yt says they aren’t accountable.
Youtube is a monopoly should be held responsible for fairly editing materials. Anyone who believes that the Constitution should be able to be used as a vehicle to destroy America is sick. And that is what the left does. You know it.
No, we are not helpless against the Soroses of the world, UNLESS YOU LET IT HAPPEN.
Stuck on specific wording in the Constitution rather than intent? Focused on a tree rather than the forest?
Lincoln said it aptly.
"... I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together... "
If we allow this bullsh*t of private corporations controlling public speech, we are f***ing dead. D-E-A-D Dead.
And they are almost that stupid. With private control of public speech, they can manipulate the public to elect a government that will put us in gulags.
It can censor *AND* not be held accountable. It can have it's cake and eat it too!
“”Google’s products are not politically biased. We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account,”
****
this statement alone should be used for suing YT..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.