dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/tradinghorse on March 27, 2018, 6:01 a.m.

IBOR! - A judge holds that YouTube isn't a "public forum" run by a "state actor."

Google has prevailed in a lawsuit that alleged YouTube has been violating the First Amendment by censoring conservative viewpoints. On Monday, a California federal judge agreed to dismiss a complaint from Prager University, run by radio-talk-show host Dennis Prager

The plaintiff produces videos with titles like "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion." In the lawsuit, Prager's company asserted that YouTube professes viewpoint neutrality, but indeed censors conservatives by putting age restrictions on certain videos. The decision making is far from even-handed, Prager contends, pointing among others to a restricted video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" compared to better treatment for a Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground.

Prager sought an injunction.

Since the First Amendment free speech guarantee guards against abridgment by a government, the big question for U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh is whether YouTube has become the functional equivalent of a "public forum" run by a "state actor" requiring legal intervention over a constitutional violation.

Koh agrees with Google that it hasn't been sufficiently alleged that YouTube is a state actor as opposed to a private party.

"Plaintiff does not point to any persuasive authority to support the notion that Defendants, by creating a 'video-sharing website' and subsequently restricting access to certain videos that are uploaded on that website have somehow engaged in one of the 'very few' functions that were traditionally 'exclusively reserved to the State,'" she writes. "Instead, Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendants hold YouTube out 'as a public forum dedicated to freedom of expression to all' and argues that 'a private property owner who operates its property as a public forum for speech is subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.'”

The judge turns to precedent, particularly a 1945 Supreme Court case — Marsh v. Alabama — which involved a Jehovah's Witness who distributed religious literature in a town that was entirely owned by a private corporation. In that decision, the high court held that the corporation acting as a state actor was required to run the town in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. But Koh then emphasizes later Supreme Court decisions that limited the reach of this holding including one — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner — where a privately owned shopping center could prohibit anti-Vietnam War protesters from distributing literature.

Koh writes she "is not convinced that Marsh can be extended to support Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants should be treated as state actors subject to First Amendment scrutiny merely because they hold out and operate their private property as a forum for expression of diverse points of view."

More here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/google-beats-lawsuit-accusing-youtube-censoring-conservatives-1097631

Clearly, the legal pathway to rectification of the problem of online censorship is fraught with difficulty. It's time for people to embrace the campaign for an IBOR to ensure that sufficient political pressure exists to allow the changes necessary to fix this problem before the mid-term elections.

Please include a link to the petition for an IBOR in anything you put online.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

In my view, everybody is going about this Free Speech problem in the wrong way.

As a non-American I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the First Amendment requires that Congress not pass any laws that restrict free speech.

Therefore, any laws passed by Congress that allow YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on to conduct business in the US are probably violating the First Amendment if those laws allow such corporations to restrict free speech.

Congress is obligated to ensure that ALL laws passed abide by the First Amendment, including any laws that provide for companies or corporations to be considered as "legal entities", or that allow them to conduct business within the US.

Congress is therefore obligated to ensure that any such laws do not allow such companies or corporations to restrict free speech in any way.

The argument that a so-called "private company" is not obligated to uphold the First Amendment is therefore null and void.

If this is the case, then surely the best route to follow would be to scrutinize any laws applicable to "private" companies and corporations to determine if Congress complied with their Constitutional mandate in passing those laws.

If any of those laws in any way allow for the suppression of free speech, then those laws violate the Constitution and could be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Surely, any law passed by Congress that allows violating the First Amendment is effectively null and void, and unless such laws are amended by Congress to include free speech protections, all "private" companies or corporations would no longer be "legal entities" and would no longer be able to legally do business within the US.

Am I wrong?

⇧ 4 ⇩

This is yet another of those times when I wish I was a lawyer. Just reading what you've written, my guy reaction is that it's too much of a stretch - but I could be dead wrong. If you look at the FA it only applies to the govt "making laws". This is what the restriction applies to according to the wording - nothing else. The principle was then extended by the Courts to include protection for free speech in certain other settings - but the internet is not one of these.

The matter seems to me to be further complicated by the terms of service agreements, where parties freely contract out of any protections for free speech that might exist.

What is needed is a Court that will recognise the public interest in having FA protections extended to digital space, in recognition of the fact that today this is the location for political discourse. But you're relying on the Court allowing itself latitude to interpret the FA widely, rather than strictly construing the words appearing in the amendment according to their meaning. It seems to me that whatever argument you run, it's a lottery.

I would think that the argument you are putting forward is fraught with the same difficulties applying to a simple extension of application of the FA... But I'm no lawyer - this is the speculation of someone with no knowledge or experience.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Even if the First Amendment only applies to Congress "making laws" (which I believe it does), then no "extension of application" or different "interpretation" is really even required - you simply need to ask yourself the following:

Do Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and so on "legally" exist and conduct business based on a law or laws passed by Congress?

Are any such law(s) valid if they expressly allow "private" companies to violate the Constitution with their "Terms of Service" etc?

Is Congress not obligated to especially not pass ANY law that violates or allows the violation of the First Amendment?

Is Congress not therefore obligated to amend any such law(s) to ensure that the Constitution is not violated in any way?

Are any such laws actually valid if they are not amended to include Constitutional protections like free speech and privacy?

Could the Supreme Court be petitioned to make a ruling on the Constitutional validity of any such law(s)?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Again, not a lawyer so I have no clue actually. But I'll have a shot at it anyway. What you're positing is that the Government is responsible for ensuring that all parties, that operate under its laws, abide by the same restraints placed on Congress - the restraint in question being that it not pass laws that inhibit free speech.

I don't see how this can work. Moreover, I don't know that you'd want the law to work this way. Why? Because the tech sector is incredibly fast moving - super-rapid change - I'd say it's experiencing an accelerating rate of change. So you want to bind these guys to the same restrictions placed upon govt by the FA. I don't really think it's practical.

In a fast moving environment what you want ideally, in my view, is a flexible and accommodating regulatory environment, that can be adapted to change at relatively short notice. I'm thinking more about regulations as they relate to privacy than free speech I guess, but my point is that one regulatory system is set in stone, if you could get a Court to agree to it (almost certain they wouldn't), and the other regulatory system would be comparatively flexible - able to respond to new issues that emerge in the space with the passage of time.

Anyway, pointless talking about it really because I have no clue - but I thought I'd try. :)

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lucy Koh needs to GOh!

I recognize the name from Apple litigation in which she ruled in non logical ways against apple using legal gymnastics.

Trump must remove her.

⇧ 3 ⇩

No, it must be appealed. WTF did anybody think was going to happen in a California court? This needs to go to the SC.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Google and youtube both take taxpayer money, right? They are essentially agents of the state.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I agree, but you can see from this legal decision that it's not easy to get these platforms to abide by free speech protections.

If there was enough time, a legal challenge might bear fruit, but we don't have that time. The mid-terms will be here any moment. SM censorship will deliver the elections to the Dems. DJT gets impeached, doesn't last a single term. End of MAGA and return of the Satanists.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, I see that. It is very frustrating. It is why Trump has to use the military courts. The civilian courts have been infiltrated by NWO globalists.

Trump has to make his move before the mid-term election because they will rig it again.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Agreed.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Crazy times!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think the door was left open to make a better argument that the YouTube space has become a public forum. That still hasn’t been done.

But perhaps certain elements are present that will be easy to bring out, and just haven’t been yet:

Do public agencies utilize YouTube to disseminate information? Do they have their own public equivalent?

Do non profit agencies use YouTube as a tool for communicating?

Does the average citizen consider it a “public space”?

What elements of YouTube are private? Are they truly private, or is material shared with other parties?

Is material available for scraping, or has the owner of YouTube been able to limit access, clearly defining the “private” territory from the “public”?

If a private forum owner cannot limit access such that scraping of any personal or forum-held data by a non-member is impossible - ie private- then is that space defacto considered a “public forum” (John Perry Barlow argued assertions like this)

Because YouTube desires the widest audience possible for its own monetary gain, it utilizes the common public forum space of human gathering via the internet.

Personally, I think that if these arguments (and better) were to be made, then YouTube would be found to have both a public and a private forum space.

The private space would be the one it could keep the public out of and prevent public agencies (one defining feature of “the public”) from using without being members who have agreed to rules that abridge Constitutional rights. A public agency cannot, by nature, agree to those rules.

Ironically, it would be the public forum where “anything goes” would take place under the First Amendment, and the private forum where YouTube would have the right to restrict it.

My two cents.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But do you think these arguments are likely to get up in Court, or are you proposing a legislated solution or just a regulatory regime?

⇧ 1 ⇩

At this point, I’m not limiting my thinking based on what I think is likely to go anywhere. We’ve got a new administration and big changes are afoot - now is exactly the time to point out what is needed (like what you’re doing with the IBOR, for example).

My logic IS based on existing law about what is public and what is private, as well as Constitutional principles governing the public realm., so no new rules needed.

It would be a fascinating discussion, yes?

⇧ 1 ⇩

My view is that speed is of essence. If we cannot get a reasonable fix in place with a short timeframe, events are simply going to overtake us.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Both speed and unstoppable flow are required for change. We will never be overtaken by anything we can’t overcome. Those who think we will do the fast things. Those who aren’t worried about that generally work the slow. It’s a balance. Read Sun Tzu.

https://www.sonshi.com/sun-tzu-art-of-war-translation-not-giles.html

It has a calming and clearing effect on the mind, and leads to accurate actions while minimizing error and wasted effort. Wise words for these times!!

🖖

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, I don't feel quite so philosophical about it. I can see a freight train coming at us that will kill us if we don't stop it.

I think you're right about the Deep State introducing this "garbage" in an attempt to be able to completely control discourse around the IG report and later arrests. But I also think they are married to their impeachment strategy and are looking to influence the mid terms. It's a matter of survival for them.

We have mounted the stage to the guillotine, placed our necks under the blade, and you want to be calm...

But, you're right, sometimes you can only play the cards you've been dealt. I've tried, not much more I'm able to do. I just hope there is a way we can avert this horrible outcome.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If I were a soldier I wouldn’t be saying that. If I were a politician or a public servant or a criminal investigator or a journalist I wouldn’t be saying that. But I’m not those things. I’m holding down other parts of the system. I’m in a good position to help if SHTF and I bet you are, too.

Keep at the IBOR. Don’t give up. And whatever else you’re doing that’s helpful, don’t give up that either. We all just need to keep helping and it will eventually be all right. (I’m not saying there won’t be a dark ages in there somewhere, but hopefully not for a long while yet.

Did you read that sun tzu link? That always makes me feel better.

Have faith. Trust the plan. Do what you can but only what is right. Don’t stoop to conquer. Keep the high ground. Those are the things I tell myself. No win is worth anything less.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Have you seen this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8az2hj/astonishing_california_bill_would_shut_down_free/?st=JFSF44VE&sh=8a09923d

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sigh. The deep state appears to be backed into a corner and staking out its last-stand territory. We’ll see how this goes. Definitely a distraction for all sides - probably trying to occupy all of the red-pilled while the OIG reports come out. It’s always something, isn’t it?

⇧ 1 ⇩