Posted on 02/26/2020 3:40:49 PM PST by semimojo
> If we allow this bullsh*t of private corporations controlling public speech, we are f***ing dead. <
I agree with that. But the remedy is for us to take our business elsewhere. Or if the corporation is big enough, to apply antitrust laws. We cannot expect the Bill of Rights to protect us. The Bill of Rights was meant to protect us from government tyranny only.
For example, I can stand on a public sidewalk all day long holding a sign saying “Chevy trucks stink”. No policeman can arrest me. No DA can file charges against me.
But if I take that sign into a Chevy dealership, they would certainly have me removed. Chevy can control what I say there. The 1A will not protect me. And it shouldn’t. To say otherwise would mean that property rights have no value.
I must emphasize this: My analogy fails if the corporation is so big that it essentially becomes a monopoly. Then it MUST be regulated as a public utility, or be broken up. Are YouTube or Google there yet? If not, they are getting close to it.
You made some excellent points there.
The income that YouTube content providers receive is justified because they share with Google the process that leads to the collection of ad revenues.
They are not lazy grifters riding on the gravy train. In some cases it takes hours to film, edit, and upload a 10 minute video. It is not an easy life … except of course for those that YouTube favors like Jennelle Eliana.
No, the laws are being enforced equally for everyone.
It's just that civil rights law differentiates among classes of people.
And how many billions of dollars and man years of effort did it take to develop and maintain the YouTube platform?
People wanting to use that resource for free have to follow the rules of the owner of the platform.
“Classes of people” is inherently unconstitutional.
Am I not typing slow enough for you?
You're reading that from a retarded libertarian website that is celebrating YouTube's right to arbitrarily remove content from their platform in violation of their own advertising as a free speech platform.
YouTube claims immunity from lawsuits on the grounds that it is not a publisher but seeks to assert that it is a publisher for purposes of banning Conservative voices for alleged "racism" or "offensive conduct".
This needs to go to the Supreme Court.
“...First Amendment, which constrains the government—not private actors...”
In regard to those words and not to the rest of the article:
“...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...”
Either they are a platform or publisher. They demand protections as a platform, but act as a publisher.
Communications Decency Act does no such thing. It allows immunity for "good faith" removal of "offensive content."
When YouTube is censoring you because you're not a tranny, are they acting in good faith and are they removing genuinely offensive conduct? Or are they making political decisions?
“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.”
EXACTLY.
Are you brain damaged? I think that's your problem, buddy.
Another great example of where Libertarians are not our friends.
Libertarians are NOT conservative.
So challenge the Civil Rights Act.
The obvious answer is for all conservative content be taken off youtube and put on a separate site. Conservatives would be fine with that because they support free speech. Democrats would still find a way to get the conservative site shut down.
Yep; we are in agreement.
It’s so big now with most the market share that it should have some kind rules and a watchdog group unless it loses its near monopoly in the video share market which isn’t likely.
Advertising's one thing. If Prager can show that YouTube violated their contract (TOS), then he might have something to work with.
Both ways.
They want to be not liable for content while censoring so-called “hate speech”, which is speech they disagree with politically.
The immunity is much broader than that.
Even if it were true, "offensive" is in the eye of the owner of the forum.
Quote the statute then, dumbass. I've read it AND the case law on it months ago.
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.