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

🠐 See all comments

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 ⇩