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
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.
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.”
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.
And yet, bakers and wedding vendors, all PRIVATE companies, are not allowed that right by this hypocritical court.
They should have taken the tact of criminals using a phone for illegal business and the telephone company not being liable.
That’s basically how big and dominant You Tube, Twitter and Instagram have become.
Are they a platform or a publisher?
“Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
B. Franklin (attrib.)
Those who think YouTube is a public utility should tell their congressional representatives to change the law. The courts follow existing law.
This does underscore the seriousness of certain monopolistic entities controlling our society and Our communications. Google/ YouTube bring right at the top of the list
Ok. So if we were to apply this to FR and Jim’s right to zot at will. Can FR be held liable and sued for our posts?