Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

[Meghan54]

Wonder when the outcry, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right will commence about this......

Google has won the dismissal of a lawsuit in California accusing YouTube of censoring conservative content.

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.

But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.

“Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” Koh wrote.

The San Jose, California-based judge also dismissed a claim that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager’s videos were “inappropriate,” and dismissed various law claims. Koh gave Prager a chance to amend its lawsuit.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...g-youtube-censors-conservatives-idUSKBN1H320D

 

[Commodus]

Not surprising, but good all the same. It's still ironic how many modern conservatives complain about liberal "snowflakes" yet whine that they're 'entitled' to speak on private companies' sites. They're in favor of treating companies as people... up until those 'people' say something they disagree with.

 

[interchange]

Importantly the basis for the dismissal was that Google has the right to discriminate what content they allow. It would have been far more interesting for them to have concluded that Google did not discriminate, but we won't find out the court's opinion on that.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not surprising, but good all the same. It's still ironic how many modern conservatives complain about liberal "snowflakes" yet whine that they're 'entitled' to speak on private companies' sites. They're in favor of treating companies as people... up until those 'people' say something they disagree with.

It's... It's almost like they are disengenous hypocrites that'll say anything to get what they want! Say it isn't so Commodus! Say it isn't so!

 

[Blackjack200]

While most YouTube conservatives are vile fucks that I have no sympathy for, I wonder if anyone else is deeply concerned about he market power that these platforms have.

Yes, they're privately owned, and as such not subject to 1st amendment protections, but they also essentially control access to large audiences. Go ahead and try reaching your audience without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, YouTube (Google) etc.

A lot of these platforms have banned sex workers or made their profiles invisible, with no due process or recourse for the individuals impacted.

 

[Commodus]

While most YouTube conservatives are vile fucks that I have no sympathy for, I wonder if anyone else is deeply concerned about he market power that these platforms have.

Yes, they're privately owned, and as such not subject to 1st amendment protections, but they also essentially control access to large audiences. Go ahead and try reaching your audience without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, YouTube (Google) etc.

A lot of these platforms have banned sex workers or made their profiles invisible, with no due process or recourse for the individuals impacted.

Oh, we should be concerned that these companies could have too much power. The solution, however, is to foster competing options, not to dictate the views these oplaces must host.

Besides, imagine the freak-out conservatives would have if they realized what this would mean for their favorite media outlets. Basically, it'd be the Fairness Doctrine reborn -- Fox News would have to actually include fair and balanced reporting instead of offering hyper-conservative spin with a token liberal host. Something tells me advocates of forcing YouTube to become a neutral platform would back off if it meant that Fox and other conservative media outlets lost their influence.

 

[brycejones]

While most YouTube conservatives are vile fucks that I have no sympathy for, I wonder if anyone else is deeply concerned about he market power that these platforms have.

Yes, they're privately owned, and as such not subject to 1st amendment protections, but they also essentially control access to large audiences. Go ahead and try reaching your audience without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, YouTube (Google) etc.

A lot of these platforms have banned sex workers or made their profiles invisible, with no due process or recourse for the individuals impacted.

I'm far more concerned about concepts like net neutrality and ensuring new entrants into the marketplace are accessible than I am about forcing content providers to carry certain content.

 

[sandorski]

Age restrictions?

 

[vi edit]

I would imagine if I tried to sue Breitbart for not having pro liberal positive black lives matter content the result would be much the same.

Something something both sides.

 

[JSt0rm]

It would have been far more interesting for them to have concluded that Google did not discriminate, but we won't find out the court's opinion on that.

because it doesnt matter.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh, we should be concerned that these companies could have too much power. The solution, however, is to foster competing options, not to dictate the views these oplaces must host.

Besides, imagine the freak-out conservatives would have if they realized what this would mean for their favorite media outlets. Basically, it'd be the Fairness Doctrine reborn -- Fox News would have to actually include fair and balanced reporting instead of offering hyper-conservative spin with a token liberal host. Something tells me advocates of forcing YouTube to become a neutral platform would back off if it meant that Fox and other conservative media outlets lost their influence.

There are competing options like Liveleak or twitch. But You Tube has all the market power. That needs to be addressed or they will continue to have too much power over content.

I'm far more concerned about concepts like net neutrality and ensuring new entrants into the marketplace are accessible than I am about forcing content providers to carry certain content.

Not sure what this has to do with net neutrality. I support net neutrality too, but it won't stop consolidation of social networking and content platform.

I would imagine if I tried to sue Breitbart for not having pro liberal positive black lives matter content the result would be much the same.

Something something both sides.

There's a big difference between a (horrible) news website and a content platform.

 

[soulcougher73]

Maybe conservatives just need to create ConservaTube.com.

Edit: Im too scared to goggle and find out if this is a real thing already.

 

[vi edit]

Maybe conservatives just need to create ConservaTube.com.

Edit: Im too scared to goggle and find out if this is a real thing already.

Isn't that foxnews.com?

 

[bshole]

There are competing options like Liveleak or twitch. But You Tube has all the market power. That needs to be addressed or they will continue to have too much power over content.
.

I mean they are like providing none of the content. They are simply profiting from the work of others.

I kind of wish youtube didn't even look at the content at all except for violations of federal/state/local law. If content violated criminal/copyright laws, the appropriate law enforcement agency could then be contacted.

 

[Moonbeam]

I mean they are like providing none of the content. They are simply profiting from the work of others.

I kind of wish youtube didn't even look at the content at all except for violations of federal/state/local law. If content violated criminal/copyright laws, the appropriate law enforcement agency could then be contacted.

I think what we need is a real face book. Imagine what the effect would be if you had to go through life with what kind of bigot you are stamped plainly on your forehead for anybody to read and hiding your forehead was a capital offense.