Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jan 2018, 10:35 am

https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2017/10/24/youtube-accused-of-discriminating-against-conservative-videos/?slreturn=20180012120904

Prager U had some of it's videos removed from Youtube/Google for alleged hate speech. Having seen ALL of them, I would have to say that there is not any hate speech at all. Certainly there may be a conflicting view to some people, but it is not hateful or inciting discord.

Does Youtube/Google have the right to refuse service to a person/entity just because it does not agree with them?

I would say yes, they do have that right to refuse service. Every business does.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Jan 2018, 1:25 pm

No videos were removed.
The lawsuit comes from Prager University, run by radio-talk-show host Dennis Prager. According to the plaintiff, many of its "educational" videos have been put into "restricted mode."


Being put into "restricted mode" isn't removing. As Google Says:
"YouTube is an open platform and, to make it a great place for users, creators and advertisers, we provide different choices and settings. Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a small subset of users to filter out videos that may include sensitive or mature content. Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship. In fact, this is exactly the type of tool that Congress has encouraged online services to provide for parents and others interested in a more family-friendly experience online
."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which explicitly gives an ISP immunity from "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

In short, Google might not need any reason at all to restrict videos it chooses not to carry on its video-sharing site
.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... es-1052745
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jan 2018, 1:50 pm

You think a business may treat a user differently based upon the perspective of the business then?

Google does not agree with some of the Prager videos, and restricts them. You are OK with that, RickyP? I just want to understand you...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jan 2018, 2:58 pm

bbauska wrote:You think a business may treat a user differently based upon the perspective of the business then?

Google does not agree with some of the Prager videos, and restricts them. You are OK with that, RickyP? I just want to understand you...


Understand, dear rickyp, that you are about to enter a bear trap.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jan 2018, 8:06 pm

Why pull the leaves off of the hole in the path?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jan 2018, 9:01 pm

bbauska wrote:Why pull the leaves off of the hole in the path?


:laugh:

He can’t possibly be that foolish . . .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 7:53 am

bbauska
You think a business may treat a user differently based upon the perspective of the business then?
Google does not agree with some of the Prager videos, and restricts them. You are OK with that, RickyP? I just want to understand you
..

Maybe you don't understand what the restricted Mode is .... Its opt in. Which means that everyone who has not specifically chosen to have You Tube censor their content for them , gets everything.
The only people who are restricted from seeing Pragers videos are those who have expressed a desire to be shielded from such content by choosing a setting on "Restricted Mode".
Should consumers not have this option? (Schools use it. Parents use it. Mormons use it.)

What is YouTube Restricted Mode? "Restricted Mode is an opt-in setting available on the computer and mobile site that helps screen out potentially objectionable content that you may prefer not to see or don't want others in your family to stumble across while enjoying YouTube. You can think of this as a parental control setting for YouTube
."
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2018, 8:16 am

I do understand it (I use it!). Now answer my question.

Do you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?

If need be, I can post links to very politically conflictive topics that are not restricted, and are allowed. Of course, they are left leaning.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 8:40 am

If you understand the restrictive mode than you should understand that Google is treating customers all the same way.
They all have the ability to choose whether or not to allow Google (Youtube) to censor their content based upon Youtubes criteria.
Again, they have freely chosen to have their content curated by Google. What's wrong with that?


Bbauska
Do you think a business should treat people customers differently based upon the the business views?

How is Google treating customers differently?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2018, 9:29 am

RickyP, you do this every time. You don't answer, but ask more questions.

I will answer when you do.

A yes or no would be most surprising from you.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Jan 2018, 10:07 am

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. California has, based on the California Constitution, protected free speech in malls based on the theory that the malls have opened up their property to general use by the public in a similar manner as public property is opened up to the public. 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. A later US Supreme Court case said that a mall could not prohibit union picketing of a shopping center that employed non-union workers, saying that a shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district in Marsh. However, a later US Supreme Court case held that a mall could prohibit free speech activity unrelated to the business of the mall. However, the California Supreme Court in Fashion Valley Mall v NLRB held under the California Constitution free speech activity unrelated to the business of the mall was protected. So the California Constitution protects more free speech activity at malls than the US Constitution does.

So the issue is whether platforms like Google and Facebook are like malls where members of the public congregate? I think they are. The next question is whether the films are related to the business of Google? Well, that's a difficult question. Because a mall is whether people come to primarily shop, whereas on YouTube people congregate to exchange First Amendment content (images and films are protected by the First Amendment). The business of YouTube is the exchange of First Amendment content, so I think there is a good argument that they should not be allowed to unilaterally restrict content.

It's a very interesting case with significant implications.

Here's the California decision that summarizes relevant California and US Supreme Court decisions on this subject.

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/fas ... nlrb-33217
Last edited by freeman3 on 13 Jan 2018, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 10:10 am

freeman3 wrote:Ricky, the issue is deciding what content into restricted mode or not and whether that was based on content-neutral manner but was rather was done based on political views. California has, based on the California Constitution, protected free speech in malls based on the theory that the malls have opened up their property to general use by the public in a similar manner as public property is opened up to the public. The US Supreme Court held in Marsh v Alabama hold 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. A later US Supreme Court case said that a mall could not prohibit union picketing of a shopping center that employed non-union workers, saying that a shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district in Marsh. However, a later US Supreme Court case held that a mall could prohibit free speech activity unrelated to the business of the mall. However, the California Supreme Court in Fashion Valley Mall v NLRB held under the California Constitution free speech activity unrelated to the business of the mall was protected. So the California Constitution protects more free speech activity at malls than the US Constitution does.

So the issue is whether platforms like Google and Facebook are like malls where members of the public congregate? I think they are. The next question what is free speech related to the business of Google? Well, that's a difficult question. Because a mall is whether people come to primarily shop, whereas on YouTube people congregate to exchange First Amendment content (images and films are protected by the First Amendment). The business of YouTube is the exchange of First Amendment content, so I think there is a good argument that they should not be allowed to unilaterally restrict content.

It's a very interesting case with significant implications.

Here's the California decision that summarizes relevant California and US Supreme Court decisions on this subject.

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/fas ... nlrb-33217

Thanks for this.

I wonder if YouTube’s position might, if it wins in court, make it subject to more government regulation. In other words, if they might lose by winning.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Jan 2018, 10:30 am

Maybe. But as much as I disagree with those videos I think major platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube should not regulate content based on political views. These are modern public forums where people should be able to freely expressly their views with only time, place, manner type restrictions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 11:07 am

freeman3 wrote:Maybe. But as much as I disagree with those videos I think major platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube should not regulate content based on political views. These are modern public forums where people should be able to freely expressly their views with only time, place, manner type restrictions.


I agree with you.

My point is they might find themselves subject to regulation as some kind of "utility" or subject to anti-monopoly legislation if they don't permit free expression of disparate political views.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2018, 1:22 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Maybe. But as much as I disagree with those videos I think major platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube should not regulate content based on political views. These are modern public forums where people should be able to freely expressly their views with only time, place, manner type restrictions.


I agree with you.

My point is they might find themselves subject to regulation as some kind of "utility" or subject to anti-monopoly legislation if they don't permit free expression of disparate political views.
Wouldn't that also challenge the decision to cancel Net Neutrality.