US 9th Circuit rules First Amendment does not apply to YouTube and other online forums

[wiyosaya]

I understand avoiding using the company name, if you mean what you say the message should identify it by it's rotten name, which I believe is GOOGLE.

GOOGLE benefits from that obfuscation, do you really want to give them that?

Thanks for the advice. I think the nickname is obvious enough, and I use it in articles that specifically reference Google. (Eww, using that name just leaves me with the slimy feeling ? - like something I can't wash off.)

Maybe you do. You're basically stating, I trust Google to make the right decision and the courts and the Constitution will bear out my right to be ignorant of the protestors.

No. You are putting words in my post and reading into it what you think you see or want to see or both - at least as I see it.

I trust Google (@CharmsD there, I used it) no farther than I can throw them. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. IMO, in patronizing them, you enable them.

The Constitution set up three branches of government - Executive, Congress, and Judicial. That's the way it is. As I see it, those who founded this country had their fill of being told what they could and could not do and that is why they came to this land and formed the country.

That division gives balance that was not, by any stretch of the imagination, present in the system of government that the founders left behind. They recognized that a balance was necessary and that without that balance, tyranny or anarchy were the only options.

Would you rather have mob rule where anyone, right, left, or in the middle, is able to simply change the laws, and the constitution for that matter, because they don't like them or on whims? Mob rule would, IMO, run completely contrary to the first amendment's statement of a right to peaceably assemble.

Or would you rather have a monarchy/dictatorship where the leadership gets to tell free-enterprise how to run their company?

The simple fact is that if gagme were run by the government, Prager would likely have a case - as long as his material does not incite violence - which is completely contrary to the first amendment's statement of peaceable assembly and SCOTUS has ruled is not protected first amendment free speech. Google is not run by the government, though. It's run by a private entity. If you don't like them, don't use them.

If you, or anyone for that matter, don't like the way the government is set up with a judicial branch that is charged with determining the constitutionality of laws and has ultimate authority in court cases, you are free to move to a place that implements a form of government more to your liking.

 

[wiyosaya]

Well, Trump is forced to not block people on twitter, a free enterprise, and these same people are OK with that. Hypocricy is alive and well.

It will be hilarious when the precious snowflakes that push for censorship start having their content censored because advertiser revenue. It's gonna be funny.

"Yeah, get those bigoted NAZIs that support DRUMPF off of youtube, SHUT THEM DOWN! BASH THE FASH! WAIT!, dont get rid of me, I'm a good transgirl, I didnt do nothing!"

The salt is going to give google heart disease.

The drama runs thick with this one.

 

[Evernessince]

Well, Trump is forced to not block people on twitter, a free enterprise, and these same people are OK with that. Hypocricy is alive and well.

It will be hilarious when the precious snowflakes that push for censorship start having their content censored because advertiser revenue. It's gonna be funny.

"Yeah, get those bigoted NAZIs that support DRUMPF off of youtube, SHUT THEM DOWN! BASH THE FASH! WAIT!, dont get rid of me, I'm a good transgirl, I didnt do nothing!"

The salt is going to give google heart disease.

This is less hypocrisy and more the president has to follow the constitution and laws of the land. Trump blocking people on twitter, of which he is using to speak in official government capacity as a representative of the people, shall not infringe anyone's right to speak out against him nor may he discriminate in how receives his messages. He is a representative of ALL Americans, regardless of whether he wants to accept that or not.

Private entities and individuals DO NOT have to follow those rules and are not subject to upholding the 1st amendment or record keeping requirements. I should not have to point out that the president is supposed to be held to a higher standard then random citizens.

 

[candle_86]

I think a better tactic would be to get platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook ECT grouped under the same laws that apply to radio. Radio required by law to give equal airtime to both sides for political conversation. The same rules should also be forced onto cable and broadcast television.

 

[CharmsD]

I think a better tactic would be to get platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook ECT grouped under the same laws that apply to radio. Radio required by law to give equal airtime to both sides for political conversation. The same rules should also be forced onto cable and broadcast television.

Good luck with that. The Presidents' best man dismantled the last opportunity!

On Internet Regulation, The FCC Goes Back To The Future

Each of former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's eight major Internet policy initiatives has now been reversed by a combination of courts, Congress, and the agency itself. The lesson: only Congress can grant new powers to federal regulators.

www.forbes.com

 

[wiyosaya]

I think a better tactic would be to get platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook ECT grouped under the same laws that apply to radio. Radio required by law to give equal airtime to both sides for political conversation. The same rules should also be forced onto cable and broadcast television.

This post makes the "equal air time" law sound like it generally applies to anyone. It does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule It only applies to political candidates who request equal time.

 

[wiyosaya]

I think a better tactic would be to get platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook ECT grouped under the same laws that apply to radio. Radio required by law to give equal airtime to both sides for political conversation. The same rules should also be forced onto cable and broadcast television.

A fascinating, IMO, and relevant read on the subject is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine - which may very well be what you were thinking of.

The fascinating part of it is that for years it existed and then was abandoned by Regan's administration ostensibly because it was an attack by government on the first amendment rights of broadcasters - as I suggested in my post above.

Interestingly enough Democrats supported it - even the viciously evil (sarcasm) Nancy Pelosi. As I see it, it may have covered Prager's beef with Google. Too bad it was abandoned by Republicans, and I see it as rather ironic that conservatives now want exactly what "The Fairness Doctrine" required.

Round and round the wheel goes; where it stops nobody knows. Step right up! Place your bets. Will Prager appeal to SCOTUS???

 

[candle_86]

Good luck with that. The Presidents' best man dismantled the last opportunity!

On Internet Regulation, The FCC Goes Back To The Future

Each of former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's eight major Internet policy initiatives has now been reversed by a combination of courts, Congress, and the agency itself. The lesson: only Congress can grant new powers to federal regulators.

www.forbes.com

Never agreed with net neutrality it stifles innovation. But I do agree that something with such a wide reach as YouTube, Facebook ECT should be forced to give equal weight to both sides. Right now they could ban all Republican videos, media, and run disinformation campaigns designed to hurt any canidate, and that's also not right given the wide reach.

 

[GirlDownunder]

"Former US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said courts have remained consistent that privately-held internet forums do not qualify as state actors. He asserts that if they did, the internet would be a very different place, “chock-full of sexually explicit content, violent imagery, hate speech, and expression aimed at demeaning, disturbing, and distressing others.”"

Literally, the definition of the internet- lol....

 

[Yynxs]

The problem there is that Trump chooses to use Twitter to announce national policies. So he should not be free to block who he wants, as long as he persists in using Twitter in such an official capacity. He forced Twitter to make an exception for him. If he only used Twitter to talk with fellow golfers about the courses he visits and the scores he has, then normal Twitter rules would apply.

and apparently you think 'announce national policies' is the same as implementing them.

If you followed the press, all of the press, you would find that using the normal media to "announce national policy" doesn't get "national policy" announced. In a significant majority of cases, the opposite occurs and lies are trumpeted to the US public while the 'national policy' gets tossed in favor of negative speculation.

President Trump looked at positions on the battlefield of US information, and it is a battlefield, and took a position that allows information straight to the US citizen, or quite a lot of them anyway.

It is also apparent you don't follow what is said about President Trump when he acknowledges ALL Americans, Charlottesville springs to mind, but that was the most blatant with videotape giving the lie to it.

I believe it was announced here on Techspot: https://www.techspot.com/news/73397-twitter-targets-bots-crackdown-bulk-tweets.html, hmmm...22Feb2018, https://www.techspot.com/news/84124-report-shows-one-quarter-all-tweets-about-climate.html 22Feb2020.
Two full years and bots are still 'being banned' on Twitter.

The gist of of this, you don't get to broad brush Twitter as being 'pure' so the President shouldn't be allowed to electronically ignore it's problems and sort through the bots to delineate the citizens. Twitter is a tool. Most of the anti-Trump crowd just detest it wasn't left to them to exploit.

 

[Yynxs]

People like Prager opine that their rights, a word that I will interpret as "power", is being taken away from them by gagme. The way that I see it is that Prager, and others who hold a similar opinion, GAVE their power to gagme, and have basically said do with our power what you will - since they signed gagme's use agreement. The way I see it, that is the problem of the people who freely give their power to gagme and no one else.

No one 'gave their power' to Google. Google took "power" and used massive dollars to stifle and buyout every competitor that's appeared. Google planted developers in Mozilla and every competitive browser to siphon off code to be exploited for their own use. Google's 'free security' checks insure every browser in the world goes to their websites 'to prevent malware'. Google has taken the best Machiavellian and Harvard graduates to make themselves as 'all powerful' as is possible in the data and information distribution game and then bribed and slanted every position that seeks to reduce this control under the cover of 'free internet'. It's not free. It's being robbed from the people that installed and maintained the infrastructure. Much like the airways.
I remember "Ma Bell". The Post Office was the only alternative to the telephone in those days. Federal laws were made to 'protect' citizens using the telephone. "Ma Bell" was eventually broken up and innovation and change ensued.

It isn't a matter of 'giving their power' to Google and no one else. There is no one else. Yahoo is gone. No 'user content hosting' Dec 14, 2019. (Odd how it used to be bigger but is no more. Probably just 'market factors'.) What is Microsoft's alternative again> Perhaps Bezos' servers? Nope.

So please, stop this looking at one small part and saying it's the whole. Support breaking up Google and creating an ad supported or subscription Youtube with parts. One for the TDS CD people, another for free speech, ALL free speech (as you said you can ignore the ones you don't like with a button) and very clearly, NO PROGRAMMABLE AI's "helping" to sort the babble.

 

[Yynxs]

No. You are putting words in my post and reading into it what you think you see or want to see or both - at least as I see it.

I trust Google (@CharmsD there, I used it) no farther than I can throw them. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. IMO, in patronizing them, you enable them.

No I'm not. Someone has a specific complaint about Google. They've said they're being stifled for false reasons. You state, paraphrasing "...'that's rough' don't use Google..." I say, maybe you should see what the complaint is. You say I don't need to know, I've got more important issues to deal with than free speech on the largest privately owned platform on the planet. There's alot of other ranting and quoting revolving around the Constitution and businesses being free to do what they want, except they're not.

Cake makers are stifled because they have Christian beliefs. There's one 50 miles from me who had SCOTUS decide in their favor and is now defending anew against the ultraleft mob. I tried defending the Indiana cake business during it's time and was mobbed for it. Try refusing business to anyone for any particular reason you like and watch the hordes descend on your place of business and blackmail and blackball you in the press and online. All 'unconstitutional' but, that doesn't matter to you.

Lots of people talk about the Constitution and what it means. It's all talk until you start defending the Constitution and what it means. Shouting 'fire' in the theater is a modern contrivance to try to say "see, there are exceptions, therefore, stop complaining." Real life. This real life doesn't work that way and there are evil little people eating away at free speech under the guise of "free internet" and 'shouting fire is illegal' and 'people have rights' and 'it doesn't matter to me'.

Pity.

 

[GirlDownunder]

Most of the anti-Trump crowd just detest it wasn't left to them to exploit.

And liars think everyone is a liar, and thieves think everyone is stealing from them....can you grasp the drift?

 

[Yynxs]

And liars think everyone is a liar, and thieves think everyone is stealing from them....can you grasp the drift?

Yes. I've seen 'innuendo obfuscation' many times. See Scott Adams for an excellent explanation of CD.

 

[gamerk2]

Well, Trump is forced to not block people on twitter, a free enterprise, and these same people are OK with that. Hypocricy is alive and well.

Public officials are held to a different standard then private citizens.

 

[bandit8623]

Uhh...no. It's more that the right has a completely perverted view of the Constitution and the protections that it does (and does not) offer.

Regardless, this is one of those cases that is obvious to pretty much everyone. It's *very* well understood the protections offered in the Constitution apply *only* to laws passed by the Federal government. Private industry is free to restrict those rights so long as you are under their domain in whatever way they so choose, so long as they are consistent with laws passed by Congress. As the Internet is nothing more then a series of privately owned websites networked together, you do "not" have the right to free speech, and you do "not" have the right to spout whatever nonsense you want. Your rights are limited by each websites TOS, period.

so why cant biz choose who they do biz with. example the wedding cake maker refusing to make a cake for gay couple. they got heat and were told they had to serve them. im not saying I agree or disagree, but as a biz owner you should then have the right to do what u want since its a private entity. I get they are different, but in a way not all that different especially if you get into advertising.

 

[gamerk2]

so why cant biz choose who they do biz with. example the wedding cake maker refusing to make a cake for gay couple. they got heat and were told they had to serve them. im not saying I agree or disagree, but as a biz owner you should then have the right to do what u want since its a private entity. I get they are different, but in a way not all that different especially if you get into advertising.

Except there are laws on the books that make it illegal to deny serving people based on race, ethnicity, and religious beliefs.

 

[havok585]

"The First Amendment does not apply to private businesses such as restaurants and banks or online platforms like YouTube."

THANK YOU - someone read the acctual constitution!!!

As a user of these social media platforms, (a Youtube partner) I understand that these are not simple "utilities" and they aren't "public".

You don't have a right to say whatever you want on my channel just as much as I don't have a right to say whatever I want on Youtube.

That's why I use that Block and Ignore button when people annoy me.

Let the free market work.

If people think my channel is bad then my 65,000 subs will leave.

The Free Market is ALWAYS right.

That said: Apple should absolutely REFUSE to let the Europeans force them into USB C or battery redesigns.

If Europe can't handleit then stop selling Europe iPhones.

These are constitutional issues.

Freedom of speech, expression and right to associate with entities who uphold my values.

You should have stopped at thank you and that's it.

The rest is just babbles..

 

[wiyosaya]

Google took "power" and used massive dollars to stifle and buyout every competitor that's appeared.

Bullcrap. You must be powerless or like playing the "victim".

 

[wiyosaya]

No I'm not. Someone has a specific complaint about Google. They've said they're being stifled for false reasons. You state, paraphrasing "...'that's rough' don't use Google..." I say, maybe you should see what the complaint is. You say I don't need to know, I've got more important issues to deal with than free speech on the largest privately owned platform on the planet. There's alot of other ranting and quoting revolving around the Constitution and businesses being free to do what they want, except they're not.

Cake makers are stifled because they have Christian beliefs. There's one 50 miles from me who had SCOTUS decide in their favor and is now defending anew against the ultraleft mob. I tried defending the Indiana cake business during it's time and was mobbed for it. Try refusing business to anyone for any particular reason you like and watch the hordes descend on your place of business and blackmail and blackball you in the press and online. All 'unconstitutional' but, that doesn't matter to you.

Lots of people talk about the Constitution and what it means. It's all talk until you start defending the Constitution and what it means. Shouting 'fire' in the theater is a modern contrivance to try to say "see, there are exceptions, therefore, stop complaining." Real life. This real life doesn't work that way and there are evil little people eating away at free speech under the guise of "free internet" and 'shouting fire is illegal' and 'people have rights' and 'it doesn't matter to me'.

Pity.

And, BTW, your shaming BS will get you no where with me. You're responsible for your own actions as is everyone else.

Don't like google, don't use google. Otherwise, go to your representatives and demand action.

Right now, I very rarely use google, so I don't GAF about google. Laws aimed at their, and similar practices from other companies, are about the only thing that will reign in google - other than a drop in the numbers of their users.

 

[Yynxs]

And, BTW, your shaming BS will get you no where with me. You're responsible for your own actions as is everyone else.

Don't like google, don't use google. Otherwise, go to your representatives and demand action.

Right now, I very rarely use google, so I don't GAF about google. Laws aimed at their, and similar practices from other companies, are about the only thing that will reign in google - other than a drop in the numbers of their users.

and, again, if you read or cared about anything else besides your focal range, you would know, I don't. That doesn't mean I'm not being betrayed to them and by them by others.

Because you're so used to being the smart tech guy in the room, you simply don't "get" it. I understand, you don't get it. The US government and most state governments are using 'CAPTCHA' to identify non-bots on their web pages. Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you. US government entities are using gmail to communicate with US citizens. Doesn't matter. Doesn't affect you. Commerce Department and Census dot gov are using Google analytics so everyone contacting the government and thus their electronic census info contact, et al. is being passed to Google. Doesn't matter. Doesn't affect you.

The problems of the herd (otherwise known as the body politic) has nothing to do with you. Nothing affects you and you get the representation you deserve. I also understand you're not ashamed of that.

 

[Yynxs]

Bullcrap. You must be powerless or like playing the "victim".

Read something, practically anything. Perhaps you think Europe, the, uh, continent and it's governments are 'bullcrap'. Google will be happy to know your opinion. Perhaps you could write the EU and tell them they feel that way because they "...like playing victim..."

Phrased another way; for god's sake read about an issue before you comment on it.