Thursday, February 27, 2020

PragerU doesn't have a "first amendment" case against YouTube, which IS a private platform


Hoeg Law reviews a Ninth Circuit opinion that maintains YouTube is not effectively a “state actor” by providing an almost monopolistic platform for users to speak, and therefore PragerU as a plaintiff has no claim.


YouTube may lawfully suppress content from “conservatives” for its corporate purpose or for advertiser relations.

Hoeg says many of his videos are marked inappropriate for advertisers, or get delayed, costing revenue.

Anything socially or politically controversial is generally inappropriate for advertisers.  

This could become controversial in other ways of platforms eventually insist that user content pay its own way (the “commercial viability” idea).

YouTube has tagged many PragerU videos as restricted mode, which led to the litigation.

Some of PragerU’s videos are edgy, particularly when talking about “masculinity”, for example. 

Some populations find their criticism of the temperament of some people as offensive. 

Note Hoeg’s discussion of private property concepts at 28:25. 
    
He also discusses an old case with AOL (“you got mail”).

No comments: