- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: YouTube: More than 100,000 videos and over 17,000 channels removed
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:33 pm to McCaigBro69
Posted on 9/3/19 at 4:33 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:It is still a private company.
but google is publicly traded.
The issue lies with whether or not YouTube is a public forum. They certainly claim to be a public forum - this insulates then from any civil or criminal culpability for anything posted on their servers. As long as YouTube has that distinction then they can’t really be sued for anything anyone says or does in the videos.
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
Currently Prager U is suing YouTube/Google/Alphabet and is asking the court to make a determination. Either way is really fine, but YouTube will have to pick a side and follow that set of rules (or be forced to do such by the courts).
2
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:00 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
Then they should be held to this standard, and if Google tries to buy out any upstart competitors (which are sorely needed for YouTube) their trust should be promptly bust.
Posted on 9/3/19 at 5:11 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
The issue lies with whether or not YouTube is a public forum. They certainly claim to be a public forum - this insulates then from any civil or criminal culpability for anything posted on their servers. As long as YouTube has that distinction then they can’t really be sued for anything anyone says or does in the videos.
However, once they start discriminating as to which videos/speech they’ll disallow or which ones they’ll demonetize, they can no longer claim to be a public forum. They have become a publisher, and publishers can be sued and even held criminally accountable for the speech they choose to publish. YouTube does not want this.
None of this is correct...that is not how 1A application is determined. Internet forums are not the state. The law (which stat # I can't recall) does not hold internet companies liable for what users post - otherwise the internet wouldn't be possible. There's no requirement for "public forum" or non-discrimination in POVs.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News