Ricky, the issue is deciding what content goes into restricted mode or not and whether that was based on content-neutral manner but was rather was done based on political views
Bbauska simply assumed that Prager was being discriminated against. Period.
In order to prove that he would have to offer evidence that there was similar content that was being allowed through to those who chose the filter... He didn't.
I don't see an issue that you do with the filter. Most users of You Tube do not choose the filter. Those that do accept that they are subject to whatever standards Youtube chooses.
As long as there is an option to use Youtube in an unfiltered fashion, free speech has not been in any way constrained...
The US Supreme Court held in Marsh v Alabama that a Jehovah's Witness had the right to distribute leaflets near a post office in a company owned town because basically the town and shopping district were open to the public just like any other town.
No one is forced to take a brochure when offered.
Similarily, if someone chooses the you Tube filter.... its the same as saying no thanks to the brochure.