Status
Not open for further replies.

upnorth

Level 41
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled today. "Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," the court said.

PragerU, a conservative media company, sued YouTube in October 2017, claiming the Google-owned video site "unlawfully censor[ed] its educational videos and discriminat[ed] against its right to freedom of speech." PragerU said YouTube reduced its viewership and revenue with "arbitrary and capricious use of 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' viewer restriction filters." PragerU claimed it was targeted by YouTube because of its "political identity and viewpoint as a non-profit that espouses conservative views on current and historical events." But a US District Court judge dismissed PragerU's lawsuit against Google and YouTube, and a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that dismissal in a unanimous ruling today.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 85911

LOL another idiot suing for puny reason. The court was right. Forums or sites aren't democracies, but they must abide by their own rules.
the video that got Google upset was one that asked "Was the Civil War About Slavery"
you know, cannot offend black americans

yet PewDeePie and sh|tTubers making money hand over fist on YouTube
drug and so many other inapporiate vids on youtube are rated as OK by Google
lol

we can always count on people to ruin something that was always intended to be completely free speech, the internet
and by that yes i mean people and their rules and sensitivity
 
F

ForgottenSeer 85911

Wasn't really the video content i questioned but this suing tendencies when people feelings get hurted.
they sued because they are an online "university" and felt the educational material was censored om violation of the law
the butthurt one were Google, not PragerU
Google got butthurt and took videos down despite allowing much more offensive sh|tTubers and other inappropriate material
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

they sued because they are an online "university" and felt the educational material was censored om violation of the law
the butthurt one were Google, not PragerU
Google got butthurt and took videos down despite allowing much more offensive sh|tTubers and other inappropriate material
because they mistaken Youtube as a public area, which is not since you have to register and accept their rules.
If you come to my house and then start saying stuff i don't like to hear, you will know how is to fly through my door quite fast.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 85911

because they mistaken Youtube as a public area, which is not since you have to register and accept their rules.
If you come to my house and then start saying stuff i don't like to hear, you will know how is to fly through my door quite fast.
it is just important to identify who the butthurt part was it was not PragerU it was Google
yet if Google decide take down all chinese or black american vids it never geta way with it
they would sue and court would say "discrimination !"
pathetic intenret and forums rules
 

Burrito

Level 23
it is just important to identify who the butthurt part was it was not PragerU it was Google
yet if Google decide take down all chinese or black american vids it never geta way with it
they would sue and court would say "discrimination !"
pathetic intenret and forums rules
Nah, I think it was the right-wing idiots at PragerU who were butthurt.

Without comment on the issue of the First Amendment at Youtubeland --- I'm happy to see PragerU get put in their place. Extreme political organizations and their propaganda masquerading as academia is unsavory. Not much different from 'Trump University.' Basically fraudulent.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 85911

Nah, I think it was the right-wing idiots at PragerU who were butthurt.

Without comment on the issue of the First Amendment at Youtubeland --- I'm happy to see PragerU get put in their place. Extreme political organizations and their propaganda masquerading as academia is unsavory. Not much different from 'Trump University.' Basically fraudulent.
your country is supposed to be about free speech and all
their right to free speech protects your free speech
if you want to silence what you disagree with then you have no right to free speech
 

Burrito

Level 23
your country is supposed to be about free speech and all
their right to free speech protects your free speech
if you want to silence what you disagree with then you have no right to free speech
Yep, I support and defend free speech.

But... free speech does not necessarily include lies, distortions, offensive material, on any microphone or platform of one's choosing.

Here is a primer on free speech.

----------
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[3]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[4] With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries.
----------

 
F

ForgottenSeer 85911

Yep, I support and defend free speech.

But... free speech does not necessarily include lies, distortions, offensive material, on any microphone or platform of one's choosing.

Here is a primer on free speech.

----------
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[3]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[4] With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries.
----------

your govt upheld numerous cases allowing porn and other offensive material
your govt also upheld many cases involving white supremacist free speech that includes lies, distortion and hate speech
PragerU did not even come close

you don't even know your own country's laws
 
Status
Not open for further replies.