YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by creaghpatr on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:12AM (#22434476)

Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment. Google censorship being considered a "state action"? Yeah right.

A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session: https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-whistleblower-name-youtube-v...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by anon73044 on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:25AM (#22434636)

It's Google's platform, they're not the stewards of reality and are free to censor whatever they want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by creaghpatr on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:26AM (#22434646)

Freedom to censor being a legal right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by 0xffff2 on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:36AM (#22434785)

Yes. Free speech is just as much about your right to keep your mouth shut as it is the right to open it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by belltaco on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:55AM (#22435026)

Yes, just like the freedom to spread fake news and twisted facts that PragerU is using.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by shadowgovt on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:40AM (#22434842)

Freedom of the press is a legal right recognized in the US, yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by anoncake on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:34AM (#22434756)

Yes because some people don't actually care about freedom, they just think it's important that the people that reduce it weren't elected.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by klyrs on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:22AM (#22434586)

> A more interesting test case is Google removing footage of elected officials speaking in a congressional session...

Why is that any more interesting? Is google compelled to host and preserve any and all content?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by jjuel on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:20AM (#22434562)

I still don't think that would be a First Amendment issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by Analemma_ on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:31AM (#22434712)

> Seems like a pretty weak argument they made regarding the first amendment.

Because this was a publicity stunt, not an actual attempt to redress anything through the courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by zoonosis on Thursday February 27, 2020 @01:55PM (#22436480)

I wonder if government involvement in the creation of Google makes the case any stronger.

[ Parent | on HN ]