News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private forum, appeals court rules. Parent comment

Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by jakelazaroff on Thursday February 27, 2020 @11:29AM (#22434680)
> Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?

PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations.

Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by _-david-_ on Thursday February 27, 2020 @01:20PM (#22436060)
If a video on YouTube constitutes YouTube's speech then does that mean if somebody posts a video containing something illegal YouTube should be held responsible?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by shadowgovt on Thursday February 27, 2020 @01:53PM (#22436450)
It's not the video that YouTube creates; it's the metadata of recommendations, classification, and advertising association.

PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube can restrict PragerU because it is a private foru... by jakelazaroff on Saturday February 29, 2020 @11:07AM (#22451220)
If I lend you my megaphone, should I be held responsible if you use it to say something illegal?
[ Parent | on HN ]