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.
Generally there are no laws today for social media it will stay that way until we get a congress that cares.
The transformation of the 9th Circuit Court is not yet complete. Patience. It is coming.
Section 230 specifically protects public forums. It was drafted to address Prodigy and the like.
FR is a public forum. Has Jim lost the ability to control content?
The liberals are seeing that it is mostly conservative speech that is being muzzled so they're OK with it.
The "conservatives" on the court are mostly pro-business so they will not want to step on the dainty little toes of megacorps.
Unless Trump starts tweeting on this conservative thought on the internet is headed for the dust bin.
“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.
Thank you. I was wondering if someone would mention that. Reason is usually somewhat intellectually honest, but this article is contemptible.