d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > 9th District Court Upholds Private Property Rights > Prageru Vs Youtube
1235Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 29 2020 11:56am
Quote
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Using private property as a forum for public discourse is
nothing new. Long before the Internet, people posted
announcements on neighborhood bulletin boards, debated
weighty issues in coffee houses, and shouted each other
down in community theaters. Juxtaposed with today’s
digital platforms, these analog means seem quaint.
YouTube, LLC alone has more than 1.3 billion users—more
than 30 million visitors every day—and 400 hours of video
uploaded every hour.
Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a publicfacing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public
forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First
Amendment. Prager University (“PragerU”) sees things
differently and claims YouTube’s outsize power to moderate
user content is a threat to the fair dissemination of
“conservative viewpoints and perspectives on public issues,”
and that YouTube has become a public forum.
PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable
barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court
precedent. 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.”
Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921,
1930 (2019). The Internet does not alter this state action
requirement of the First Amendment. We affirm the district
court’s dismissal of PragerU’s complaint.


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/26/18-15712.pdf

To the surprise of nobody the first amendment does not apply to private websites which host content.



PragerU is a YouTube channel run by oil billionaire Dennis Prager. He is upset that he can't force YouTube to host his propaganda. Considering he has a ton of videos about how the government should butt out of everything, it's ironic that he would sue YouTube to force them to host his content.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 29 2020 11:57am
Member
Posts: 78,723
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 493.00
Feb 29 2020 06:53pm
freedom of speech dead
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 29 2020 07:11pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Feb 29 2020 06:53pm)
freedom of speech dead


Conservatives seem to think that free speech means being able to say it anywhere at any time to anyone.

Nobody is owed a platform or an audience. Removing from youtube or universities is not a free speech issue. You still have the ability to talk to anyone you want, just not on a stage you don't own.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 29 2020 07:12pm
Member
Posts: 6,517
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 12.79
Feb 29 2020 07:39pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 29 2020 08:11pm)
Conservatives seem to think that free speech means being able to say it anywhere at any time to anyone.

Nobody is owed a platform or an audience. Removing from youtube or universities is not a free speech issue. You still have the ability to talk to anyone you want, just not on a stage you don't own.


That's right, just make your own. Incredible logic, then when they refuse to let you use credit cards, make your own and when they don't give utilities to your house, make your own. Man what a flawless argument.

Hurry up and bet me your life savings that Bernie will win the presidency you europoor.
Member
Posts: 50,915
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Feb 29 2020 07:44pm
Monopolism of platforms is threatening free speech, but no laws exist to address it. That just says we need new laws. Of course, that very censorship makes it harder to drum up the support for such laws. Then again, tyranny isn't sustainable.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 29 2020 08:08pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 29 2020 07:44pm)
Monopolism of platforms is threatening free speech, but no laws exist to address it. That just says we need new laws. Of course, that very censorship makes it harder to drum up the support for such laws. Then again, tyranny isn't sustainable.


No matter how many times you call these platforms a monopoly it won't make it true.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 29 2020 08:08pm
Member
Posts: 6,517
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 12.79
Feb 29 2020 09:56pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 29 2020 09:08pm)
No matter how many times you call these platforms a monopoly it won't make it true.



Quit dodgin' europoor.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 29 2020 09:57pm
Quote (LA-Leviathan @ Feb 29 2020 09:56pm)
Quit dodgin' europoor.


Sounds like something a faggot would say
Member
Posts: 6,517
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 12.79
Feb 29 2020 09:59pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 29 2020 10:57pm)
Sounds like something a faggot would say


You have been caught engaging in hate speech, your local gulag associate will be with you shortly. Please stand by.
Member
Posts: 16,272
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Feb 29 2020 10:29pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Mar 1 2020 02:44pm)
Monopolism of platforms is threatening free speech, but no laws exist to address it. That just says we need new laws. Of course, that very censorship makes it harder to drum up the support for such laws. Then again, tyranny isn't sustainable.


Newspaper/tv/youtube/etc are not owned publicly in most cases therefore we can't be too entitled to demand how and what should be run.
Option 1: make suggestions for x to be done changed within internal parameters of the said company
Option 2: discontinue use of service/subscription
Option 3: make your own or use an alternative provider
Option 4: vent frustration/disagreements on forums
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
1235Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll