Lawyers Who Sued YouTube For Anti-Conservative Bias Are Suing YouTube Again... For Anti-LGBTQ Bias
from the doesn't-that-debunk-your-first... dept
So, this is interesting. Every time we talk about alleged "anti-conservative" bias on various internet platforms, people who believe it's true (and who yell at us for daring to ask for evidence) tend to do two things: (1) cite Dennis Prager and his claims of YouTube's anti-conservative bias and (2) insist that there is no equivalent on the more liberal end of the spectrum that received similar treatment. We've discussed in great detail why both of those claims are laughably wrong, but we never quite expected the very same lawyers who filed Prager's failed lawsuit against YouTube -- the very same lawsuit that Prager himself just used on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to insist was proof of anti-conservative bias -- would now file a nearly identical complaint against YouTube... but on behalf of various LGBTQ+ YouTube channels.
In both cases, the plaintiffs are represented by Peter Obstler and Eric George of the law firm Browne George Ross law firm. And this new lawsuit has basically as much chance of succeeding as Prager's lawsuit did. Of course, it strikes me as rather ironic that this very lawsuit seems to undermine the basic claim of the Prager lawsuit, that the "only" reason why Prager's videos could have been put into restricted mode were because of the conservative viewpoints they represented. Yet, here, in this lawsuit, there are lots of claims about how Google/YouTube are purposefully discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community.
Since 2016, Defendants have exercised unfettered and absolute discretion to control, regulate, restrict, and manipulate the public video content and viewership of consumers on YouTube, based not on the content of the video, but Defendants’ subjective animus, dislike, or commercial bias with respect to the viewpoint and/or the identity of the content creator and/or the intended audience, including content that Defendants identify as being posted by or expressing a viewpoint of an LGBTQ+ user. In the exercise of that discretion, Defendants brand LGBTQ+ content as “shocking,” “offensive,” and/or “sexually explicit” not because of the video’s content, but either because the viewpoints expressed involve what a senior Google/YouTube content curator dubbed the “gay thing,” or because the content was posted by or viewed by YouTube Community members who identify as “gay.” At the same time, in direct violation of their Community Guidelines and monetization rules, Defendants use their absolute power and discretion over content regulation and monetization to promote, sponsor, and profit from violent, obscene, and threatening hate speech and online bullying directed at and against the LGBTQ+ Community, including the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs.
This lawsuit is almost certainly headed for a rapid Section 230 dismissal. YouTube is allowed to moderate the content on its site however it sees fit, and that includes putting content into restricted mode (which is a voluntary setting for parents who want to restrict access of certain content to children, and is only used by less than 1.5% of YouTube's users) or to demonetize videos.
This should be fairly simple: YouTube does not owe these video makers a free platform, a free audience, or especially (as they appear to claim) free ability to monetize their videos. There are other options. Go post your videos to Vimeo or DailyMotion or lots of other places.
And, of course, the lawsuit misunderstands how content moderation works -- insisting that there are discriminatory reasons for videos being classified as they are, when the reality is that (1) it's not easy to classify videos, (2) there are lots of gray areas, and (3) even with all of that sometimes mistakes are made. But, nope, the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs, are sure it's because YouTube hates the gays. Incredibly, even though the lawsuit admits that YouTube has said in the past that its moderation system is not perfect and makes mistakes, the lawsuit still insists that it's deliberately targeting them.
The lawsuit itself has lots of other problems. It misrepresents a famously leaked internal Google report about the impossibility of getting content moderation to a point that makes everyone happy as evidence that Google is conducting a "bait and switch fraud" in which it advocates being a platform for free expression while actually supporting censorship. That is... not an intellectually honest description of, well, anything here. It's a blatant misrepresentation of the difficulty of managing any giant platform. The fact that YouTube wants to be a platform for expression does not obligate it to host -- and monetize -- any content for any audience.
Hilariously, the lawsuit actually quotes the filings from YouTube in the Prager case, pretending that the fact that restricted mode is opt-in and only used by less than 1.5% of YouTube's users is somehow evidence that helps them. Also hilarious, they claim that putting "anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech in the 'Up Next'" box is another tool to suppress LGBTQ+ views. Like, say, the PragerU video of Ben Shapiro that mocks "gay" people for having more say on college campuses than the "straight white male?" Or does that one not count? Or how about the PragerU video where Prager himself drones on about the importance of marriage in which he only discusses heterosexual marriage, and insists that a key reason why marriage is important is because "the women in [men's lives] spur them to greater creativity." Or maybe the PragerU video asking "why all the confusion" about "gender identity." Do those count?
The complaint also insists that some of their videos end up with anti-LGBTQ+ ads on them. This seems... internally in conflict. First these plaintiffs are demanding monetization, but now claiming they should also have a say in exactly what kinds of ads? And doesn't that go against the rest of this lawsuit that seems to insist that YouTube, by saying it's a platform for free expression, should never moderate anything?
The complaint gets worse. It directly tries to blame YouTube for YouTube commenters. Really.
One of the principal ways of gaining new viewers and subscribers on the YouTube platform is to generate favorable comments and/or healthy discussion in the “Comments Section,” which appears when videos are played. Favorable comments can generate thousands of additional views for a video. Comments regarding video content can generate even more views where the viewers have differing opinions and perspectives. Defendants allow, and refuse to filter out from the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs’ channels and video comments sections those comments with obscene, homophobic, violent, threatening hate speech. Accordingly, viewers who play educational video content by QueerKidStuff designed for young viewers, supportive video content by BriaAndChrissy, and WonderWarriors designed for adolescents to young adults, and educational and supportive video content designed for adults by GNews! and uppercaseChase1, are exposed to vile hate speech when they view the videos uploaded by these LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs
So... YouTube, in the very same complaint we're told, is both liable for trying to prevent kids from seeing bad stuff and liable for failing to block kids from seeing bad stuff.
It's things like the above that made Section 230 necessary in the first place.
And, wtf is this?
The LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs strongly support the right of free Speech and expression for all Community Members. That right does not extend to Defendants’ promotion of anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech, speech which also violates Defendants’ own purportedly neutral content-based rules -- especially when Defendants unlawfully use those rules as pretext to censor, restrain, demonetize, silence, and squelch the engagement and distribution of LGBTQ+ video content or viewership. Such, actions unlawfully interfere with the express rights of LGBTQ+ Community Members to protect themselves by speaking out against hate and homophobia on a level playing field, as provided by Defendants’ representations and warranties that the rules apply equally to all on YouTube.
We support free speech... except for free speech that disagrees with our views, and how dare YouTube interfere with our right to speak out... while at the same time not blocking those we disagree with. Honestly, this entire lawsuit reads like a satire of what conservatives think "the left" believes.
Amusingly, the only reference to Section 230 -- which will be the basis under which this law is thrown out -- is to briefly (without any explanation) claim that this lawsuit will seek to answer the question of whether Section 230 itself represents unlawful prior restraint. I mean, this is not a serious legal complaint. This is a joke.
whether Defendants’ assertion of immunity from liability under the Community Decency Act 15 U.S.C. § 230 (c) (the “CDA”) with respect to any of the claims or allegations asserted by the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs, the YouTube Community Class, and/or the LGBTQ+ Community Subclass operates as an unlawful prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution.
It goes on along these lines for many, many pages, but the most telling reason why the whole thing is bullshit? The plaintiffs are promoting the fact that they sued... on YouTube which is clearly censoring their speech.
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, anti-lgbtq bias, bias, content moderation, dennis prager, section 230
Companies: youtube
