Posted on 02/26/2020 3:40:49 PM PST by semimojo
Ping
It’s discrimination against those of faith but only Christians can be forced to bake the cake even in states that did not recognize same sex marriage. < /s >
What a silly comment, I bet you cannot explain it when the company is individuals who collectively pool views
Care to splain that?
Given that that private business is effectively a monopoly......Alphabet should either be regulated like a utility ie no discriminatory provision of service OR they should be held to be an illegal monopoly and broken up.
Libertarian essayist proving once again that they don’t understand how the real world works. The libertards will be the next to be deplatformed.
I think this was a good ruling. As you noted, the First Amendment does not apply to private businesses. But Prager does make an interesting point. At some point, a company becomes so big that it essentially a public utility.
Google has around 75% of the market share in internet searches. Suppose Google decided to delete all references to conservative sites and conservative politicians. Should the government step in? Maybe.
Were YouTube been found to be a ‘public utility, the company just might have seen that other ‘public utilities’, such as light, power, and gas companies, CHARGE for their services!@!
I hate to say it, but could you see the fallout, and the consequences wrought, if all the YouTubers had to pay, and how many turd flinging monkeys would there be?
My lawyer told me that these social media corporations are spending tons of money for lobbyist to keep it this way
It’s this stupid mentality which is why they’re going to successfully censor the internet. Apparently it’s OK to be subject to tyranny so long as it’s corporate executives who do it.
Libertarians would be apologizing for Amazon while they round them up into their corporate detention processing centers because they’re “technically” not gulags because it’s not the government doing it.
Actually, the article is a lie. Prager asked that YouTube either be classified as a public forum *OR* as a content editor. This is an either/or classification, and YouTube has been laying claim to the benefits of both.
As a public forum, YouTube would lose much of its ability to control content. As a content editor, YouTube would be subject to the same forms of liability that newspapers and magazines have historically be subject to.
As has been the case throughout my life, the 9th "Circus" Court has ruled against America.
If Youtube is a public carrier, like the phone co., then it is not liable for content.
If it is a private business, and claims it censors hate speech, then it can be held liable for content (defamation, etc.)
Which way does Youtube want it?
Seems to me, they could go after entities for libel/slander, as they put PragerU into same categories as things such as p0rn and “hate speech.”
It’s this stupid mentality which is why they’re going to successfully censor the internet. Apparently it’s OK to be subject to tyranny so long as it’s corporate executives who do it.
Government is outsourcing totalitarianism. Until voters hold their elected officials accountable for this nothing will change. In the meantime the beltway Swampers will continue stuffing their pockets with Big Tech cash and doing the bidding of these liberal fascist companies.
The argument about sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. is whether they are platforms or publishers. The distinction makes a huge difference in the legal liability of the company for the content posted on the site. If the site is a platform and exercises no editorial control over what is posted, the site get some degree of legal immunity under federal law. However, if the site exercises editorial control, which they do when they list Prager’s videos as Restricted content, then they become publishers and lose a lot of the immunity they had. So while this may seem like a loss for Prager, in the long run it will be a loss for YouTube and similar sites, as they will be eventually reclassified as publishers, either by the courts or by Congress.
No, it’s odd that YouTube is censoring conservative voices.
Generally there are no laws today for social media it will stay that way until we get a congress that cares.
And yet, bakers and wedding vendors, all PRIVATE companies, are not allowed that right by this hypocritical court.
They want it both ways so they can stamp out all dissident speech.
Anything homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, or racist will be banned. IF you engage in such speech, then you’ll be cut off from the internet and the global economy.
They’re going to turn the internet into the new cable TV where all you see is approved messaging by the leftist elites in Washington, San Francisco, and Wall Street.
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.