CoronaVirus

ZCanadian · 04-29-2020, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spooler

We are in the USA. We have the 1st Amendment. Folks can say whatever they want for the most part unless they threaten someone's life. Even if I don't agree with them, they have a right to free speech.
That was my point with all of this and some of you guys completely missed it.

Your First Amendment means that they can post it themselves without the fear of GOVERNMENT prosecution, retribution, or censorship.

So they, you (or I, were I American) are entitled to voice our opinions, regardless of how uninformed they might be.

But is an independent business required to repeat it? YouTube is not a government (although it can act like one sometimes).

I'm sure that the terms and conditions of YouTube have been tested by now. Not that I (or anyone that I know) have actually read them.

Rusty · 04-29-2020, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZCanadian

Your First Amendment means that they can post it themselves without the fear of GOVERNMENT prosecution, retribution, or censorship.

So they, you (or I, were I American) are entitled to voice our opinions, regardless of how uninformed they might be.

But is an independent business required to repeat it? YouTube is not a government (although it can act like one sometimes).

I'm sure that the terms and conditions of YouTube have been tested by now. Not that I (or anyone that I know) have actually read them.

There is a couple of law suits going through the courts right now against youtube for violating gov't regs.

ZCanadian · 04-29-2020, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty

There is a couple of law suits going through the courts right now against youtube for violating gov't regs.

One was decided by an appellate court in February - in favour of YouTube.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-conte...ent-ruling.pdf

In a unanimous opinion, the three judges of the 9th circuit wrote:
"PragerU's claim that YouTube censored PragerU's speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech."

Your Supreme Court has also ruled that:
"merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1702_h315.pdf