YouTube is under no legal obligation to be fair
Dan Calabrese , Bio and Archives--April 5, 2018
American Politics, News | Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
This probably isn’t the news you want to hear about this, and it probably isn’t the take you want to hear either. PragerU, the conservative organization headed by Dennis Prager that produces educational videos with a conservative point of view, sued YouTube after YouTube restricted its videos in what appeared to be a very blatant case of viewpoint discrimination. The earnest young liberals at YouTube were putting the screws to PragerU because they didn’t like its conservative opinions, so they concocted pretexts for finding its content objectionable.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh didn’t deny that YouTube had done this when tossing PragerU’s suit, but she tossed it anyway for one simple reason: YouTube is under no legal obligation to be fair:A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by conservative nonprofit PragerU against Google, arguing that subsidiary YouTube did not violate First Amendment rights by partially censoring or limiting the organization’s YouTube videos. Presiding U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled Monday that, inherently serving as a privacy company, Google has no obligation to equally apply its services, or in this case, its ostensible penalties. “Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation that governs and operates all municipal functions for an entire town,” Koh wrote while referencing other cases involving the First Amendment, according to Courthouse News Service, “or one that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park, or one that has effectively been delegated the task of holding and administering public elections.” PragerU attempted to argue that although YouTube is a private entity, Google operates it as a public forum (perhaps due to its apparent ubiquitousness), and thus is liable to First Amendment oversight.PragerU’s basic factual claim has been largely vindicated here, although its claim of a right to legal redress was not. And I think Judge Koh (an Obama appointee, for the record) got it right on the law. Yes, YouTube did discriminate against PragerU, applying the arbitrary judgment of some of its employees to determine that PragerU’s videos contained objectionable content. That’s a completely absurd notion. PragerU’s videos are very informative and well sourced. They deal with matters of public policy and history. The only thing the team at YouTube could possibly be worried about is that young people might be influenced by the conservative notions put forth in these videos.
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.