Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83

Thread: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

  1. #1
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    https://www.businessinsider.com/yout...endment-2020-2

    So PragerU sues Youtube claiming Youtube censoring their videos is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Judge dismisses the case as the 1st Amendmemt does not apply to private companies.

    Not looking so good for the right-wingers who want free speech to apply privately.

  2. #2

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Good. Considering the abhorrent content PragerU has uploaded and their assertion that they are an "online University", a claim which is misleading at best, I say good riddance.

  3. #3
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,181
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Is anyone really surprised by this ruling?

    The 1st amendment says
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
    The only people who are going to be shocked by this are the ones who don't understand the 1st amendment.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  4. #4
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Good. Considering the abhorrent content PragerU has uploaded and their assertion that they are an "online University", a claim which is misleading at best, I say good riddance.
    I see their videos all the time on Facebook as sponsored content. Only one or two videos weren't blatant propaganda or bad logic.

  5. #5

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    https://www.businessinsider.com/yout...endment-2020-2

    So PragerU sues Youtube claiming Youtube censoring their videos is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Judge dismisses the case as the 1st Amendmemt does not apply to private companies.

    Not looking so good for the right-wingers who want free speech to apply privately.
    A variety of strategies should be pursued, not just civil cases. Encouraging wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer to buy out (at least in part) platforms like Twitter is also an option.

    Nevertheless, the relationship between YouTube and its content creators needs to be scrutinized for reasons other than censorship; it currently behaves as a shadow employer which is able to avoid virtually all worker protections.



  6. #6

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Another bunch of fraudsters engaging in a publicity stunt to push their faux intellectual propaganda. Speaking of rights, what does the law say about a private enterprise calling itself a university to push false and misleading disinformation?

    It’s interesting to see the right wing adopt what are normally leftist talking points about worker’s rights (even though having a Youtube channel doesn’t make you an employee of Youtube), or enforcing alleged federal civil rights concerns on private entities based on the notion that YouTube is some kind tragedy of the commons. Political expediency is immune to irony or self awareness I suppose.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; March 05, 2020 at 11:29 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  7. #7
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A variety of strategies should be pursued, not just civil cases. Encouraging wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer to buy out (at least in part) platforms like Twitter is also an option.

    Nevertheless, the relationship between YouTube and its content creators needs to be scrutinized for reasons other than censorship; it currently behaves as a shadow employer which is able to avoid virtually all worker protections.
    What worker protections are they avoiding?

    And owning part of Twitter means nothing. Doubt it would change their content policy.

  8. #8

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Worker protections such as what exactly?

  9. #9

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Worker protections such as what exactly?
    Under normal market circumstances, all parties are protected by balanced contracts. Though because YouTube exists in a grey space with regard to employment law, it has the power to arbitrarily (and retroactively) change any and all arrangements it has with creators, the vast majority of whom do not even have access to human liaisons. This can create situations where creators who've spent years building up a channel on YT can have their livelihoods instantly destroyed even if they're not involved with controversial topics.

    In any case, the radical leftists who harassed social media companies into making their platforms more restrictive are getting their just deserts: YouTube in particular has now become dominated by the very corporate channels which actively oppose the likes of Sanders and Corbyn. The law of unintended consequences I suppose.



  10. #10

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Under normal market circumstances, all parties are protected by balanced contracts. Though because YouTube exists in a grey space with regard to employment law, it has the power to arbitrarily (and retroactively) change any and all arrangements it has with creators, the vast majority of whom do not even have access to human liaisons. This can create situations where creators who've spent years building up a channel on YT can have their livelihoods instantly destroyed even if they're not involved with controversial topics.

    In any case, the radical leftists who harassed social media companies into making their platforms more restrictive are getting their just deserts: YouTube in particular has now become dominated by the very corporate channels which actively oppose the likes of Sanders and Corbyn. The law of unintended consequences I suppose.
    I would argue that this is permissible. Content creators are really just contractors and YouTube is not obligated to do anything to help them really. What is troubling to me is not YouTube choosing which creators succeed and which ones don't, but the abuse of copyright law by corporations. The issue of copyright should be solved using the courts rather than negotiation with YouTube, and as far as YouTube harassing content creators. Well, I would hope that an alternative would emerge rather than having the government do anything. Everybody tries to steer clear of controversial topics due to fear of demonetization. I saw it just this week with many refusing to say "coronavirus" due to these fears. What needs to happen is for content creators to find alternative sources of funding and an alternative to YouTube as a platform.

    All things easier said than done, admittedly. One of the reasons why YouTube is so vulnerable to corporate pressure is because Google itself relies on corporate partnerships to make their model work. Had YouTube remained a standalone profit, I think they would've been much more independent.

  11. #11
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Under normal market circumstances, all parties are protected by balanced contracts.
    Can you cite the relevant US law? I'm not finding anything on fair balance contracts.

    Though because YouTube exists in a grey space with regard to employment law, it has the power to arbitrarily (and retroactively) change any and all arrangements it has with creators, the vast majority of whom do not even have access to human liaisons. This can create situations where creators who've spent years building up a channel on YT can have their livelihoods instantly destroyed even if they're not involved with controversial topics.

    In any case, the radical leftists who harassed social media companies into making their platforms more restrictive are getting their just deserts: YouTube in particular has now become dominated by the very corporate channels which actively oppose the likes of Sanders and Corbyn. The law of unintended consequences I suppose.
    Can you cite the employment law?

  12. #12

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    LOL at the idea of right wingers complaining about workers rights... Sure, have a little moan on the internet then off you all pop to vote blindly for a party that despises the very idea of workers rights because... something... something socialism. Like I said LOL.

    As for the court ruling. Oh dear, I guess the far-right will have to find somewhere else to be racist trolls...
    Last edited by TheLeft; March 05, 2020 at 11:39 AM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I would argue that this is permissible. Content creators are really just contractors and YouTube is not obligated to do anything to help them really.
    I'm not saying that the current arrangements are illegal or that YouTube is obliged to "help" creators; I'm saying that the relationship between creators and publisher should be scrutinized further to prevent certain abuses.

    What is troubling to me is not YouTube choosing which creators succeed and which ones don't, but the abuse of copyright law by corporations. The issue of copyright should be solved using the courts rather than negotiation with YouTube, and as far as YouTube harassing content creators. Well, I would hope that an alternative would emerge rather than having the government do anything. Everybody tries to steer clear of controversial topics due to fear of demonetization. I saw it just this week with many refusing to say "coronavirus" due to these fears. What needs to happen is for content creators to find alternative sources of funding and an alternative to YouTube as a platform.
    Copyright abuse by corporate channels is certainly an issue; it highlights how poorly protected ordinary creators actually are.

    All things easier said than done, admittedly. One of the reasons why YouTube is so vulnerable to corporate pressure is because Google itself relies on corporate partnerships to make their model work. Had YouTube remained a standalone profit, I think they would've been much more independent.
    The corporate pressure isn't just about the algorithms which put Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC etc. at the top of the search results, it's also about advertisers refusing to sponsor certain content because of the howling of political radicals. In the end YT became loathed to allow anything to be monetized which wasn't corporate dross.



  14. #14

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Can you cite the employment law?
    The employment law for what? I'm not claiming that YT's terms are illegal, only abusive by the standards of ordinary employment contracts.



  15. #15
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The employment law for what? I'm not claiming that YT's terms are illegal, only abusive by the standards of ordinary employment contracts.
    Its alright i just got confused when you were talking about contracts. Thought you were referring to the TOS Youtube makes you accept to use their service. I see what you were referring to now.

  16. #16

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I'm not saying that the current arrangements are illegal or that YouTube is obliged to "help" creators; I'm saying that the relationship between creators and publisher should be scrutinized further to prevent certain abuses.
    Right, I'm not arguing about the legality of it. I'm arguing that philosophically neither the government nor YouTube should do anything about it. Google chose to pursue its own market model and it's working. I think we should let the market run its own course to come up with a solution. Content creators are already looking for alternatives anyway.

  17. #17

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    PragerU actually has some good videos but this suit was almost frivolous. Everyone has a God-given human right to do as they please with their own property - yes, even the leftists that run Google/YT. That includes the right to discriminate against conservatives and God-worshipers. The way to 'beat' them is through boycotts and competition, not force.
    Last edited by Prodromos; March 05, 2020 at 01:39 PM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  18. #18
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    One of the suppressed videos was called "facts don't care about your feelings".

    I had a quick browse, saw a video about the 10 commandments and its ahistorical rubbish. Mr Prager presents a very distorted view of the Bible's importance prior to the rise of Christianity.

    That said his material is really only a danger to someone who believes old men in suits speaking loudly. It would only take five minutes to pull apart his weak theses. Arguably he is as much a threat as a personal grooming tutorial that objectifies women or men.

    It appears Google has undertaken to protect its users from themselves?

    I have to say there are a handful of near ubiquitous platforms dominating content delivery and they amount to public spaces: I think the simple declaration "private space=private rules" has been abused before (for example in certain private clubs that wanted to continue racist and sexist membership policies when they serve as de facto professional and political fora-eg the Melbourne Club, literally "the top end of town" in my city still does not allow women, and Catholics and Jews seem to be curiously under-represented) and this may well be one of those cases.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  19. #19

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    I think the question of when and where can private business discriminate is not a simple yes or no. In the case of YouTube and political speech, I think it is very much okay for Google to determine what can or cannot be said on their platform. Ultimately, if users are offended by Google's rejection of absolute free speech, then they should seek a different platform. Surely, if there is such a great demand, then a market alternative can emerge.

  20. #20
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: PragerU free speech lawsuit against Youtube dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I think the question of when and where can private business discriminate is not a simple yes or no. In the case of YouTube and political speech, I think it is very much okay for Google to determine what can or cannot be said on their platform. Ultimately, if users are offended by Google's rejection of absolute free speech, then they should seek a different platform. Surely, if there is such a great demand, then a market alternative can emerge.
    Given their defacto monopoly on the market of public forums, there is no possibility of an alternative with or without great demand. And even if there weren't great demand, and the popular-will were to meekly acquiesce to the whims of our plutocratic overlords: there's something troubling about a private company being the ultimate judge and gatekeeper of the world's largest and most important public forum with practically no oversight.
    Personally I have mixed feelings about the censorship of PragerU, I mean they're pieces of , I doubt many would disagree with that. But what goes around comes around, it is inevitable that the same mechanisms that combat the ideas I disagree with might be used with the same unquestionable and absolute power to eradicate other ideas from the humanity's most significant public forum.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •