The Ninth Circuit says you remain completely full of bullshit as always, Tom T:
Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.
PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Just last year, the Court held 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.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment.
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. See Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1928 (the Free Speech Clause “prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,” and “does not prohibit private abridgment of speech”); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”).
Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.” Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934.
The relevant function performed by YouTube—hosting speech on a private platform—is hardly “an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1930. Private parties like “[g]rocery stores” and “[c]omedy clubs” have “open[ed] their property for speech.” Id. YouTube does not perform a public function by inviting public discourse on its property. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” Lloyd Corp., 407 U.S. at 569. Otherwise “every retail and service establishment in the country” would be bound by constitutional norms. Cent. Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 547 (1972) (private parking lots do not become state actors just because they are open to the public).
Shifting gears slightly, PragerU posits that a private entity can be converted into a public forum if its property is opened up for public discourse. This theory finds no support in our precedent. As the Supreme Court has explained, to create a public forum, the government must intentionally open up the property to public discourse.... That YouTube is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the government undermines PragerU’s public forum theory.
PragerU’s attempt to foist a “public forum” label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum also fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a “neutral public fora,” cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum. Whether a property is a public forum is not a matter of election by a private entity. We decline to subscribe to PragerU’s novel opt-in theory of the First Amendment.
They were that political hack group that tried and failed to cite a fictional story printed in the Daily Mail"'s sister rag Mail on Sunday* as "evidence" in their failed sham lawsuit to try to get a hold of NOAA scientists' emails for a defamation attempt.
"We know you just bought and paid full price for this 24-pack, but our new beer-cap policy means we must take back 23 of those cans from you with no refund. We'll tell you this is because there isn't enough beer to go around, and we're doing this so that some customers will have any chance to get any beer at all, but we'll then prove ourselves liars by letting you get he whole rest of the case anyway if you pay $10/can in overage fees and buy more cases too. On that last note, don't look at the dozens of cases we have in stock behind the curtain or the daily full supply truck out back.
Also, you should check out our zero-rating program, which lets you get free* beer**.
* only exempted from overage fees. Must still pay full price.
** We've decided to call these bottles of foamy, cloudy yellow liquid our part-time stockroom guy Randy said he brewed in the out-of-order restroom at he truck stop down the road 'beer.'
But now it looks like a better deal since you don't have to pay more for it, doesn't it?"
Re: Re: Re: Guess it's the lawyers who get the most of the money
Back in the real world:
Google did follow copyright law completely and to the letter, taking not a single letter of copyrighted material.
The one and only reason the lawsuit exists is not because of anything Google did, but because Oracle are nothing but greedy cybersquatting scammers now.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
In Tom's fantasyland, 1996 is "over a century old."
Perhaps he never thought that perhaps his issue is he demonstrates zero knowledge of any subject he's trolling about.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
The Ninth Circuit says you remain completely full of bullshit as always, Tom T:
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: The Other Foot
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: DC Appeals Court Affirms Sidelining Of Attorney Larry Klayman, Who Attempted To 'Change Sides' In Litigation
I thoight the name "Judicial Watch" was familiar.
They were that political hack group that tried and failed to cite a fictional story printed in the Daily Mail"'s sister rag Mail on Sunday* as "evidence" in their failed sham lawsuit to try to get a hold of NOAA scientists' emails for a defamation attempt.
On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another One Of His SLAPP Suits
Nunes, with his infamous fiction-based "memo," established that he'd sell bullshit for politics.
Everything he's done since then has only been to dig deeper.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Pretzel
On the post: Broadband Provider Wide Open West Tries To Justify Unnecessary Broadband Caps Using... Pizza?
A more realistic analogy using beer:
"We know you just bought and paid full price for this 24-pack, but our new beer-cap policy means we must take back 23 of those cans from you with no refund. We'll tell you this is because there isn't enough beer to go around, and we're doing this so that some customers will have any chance to get any beer at all, but we'll then prove ourselves liars by letting you get he whole rest of the case anyway if you pay $10/can in overage fees and buy more cases too. On that last note, don't look at the dozens of cases we have in stock behind the curtain or the daily full supply truck out back.
Also, you should check out our zero-rating program, which lets you get free* beer**.
* only exempted from overage fees. Must still pay full price.
** We've decided to call these bottles of foamy, cloudy yellow liquid our part-time stockroom guy Randy said he brewed in the out-of-order restroom at he truck stop down the road 'beer.'
But now it looks like a better deal since you don't have to pay more for it, doesn't it?"
On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another One Of His SLAPP Suits
Re: Ah to be treated like a lawyer...
It's past time one of these judges puts Biss out to pasture.
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Guess it's the lawyers who get the most of the money
Back in the real world:
Google did follow copyright law completely and to the letter, taking not a single letter of copyrighted material.
The one and only reason the lawsuit exists is not because of anything Google did, but because Oracle are nothing but greedy cybersquatting scammers now.
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re:
Don't hold your breath.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re: Re:
On the post: US Press Continues To Pretend The 'Digital Divide' Just Mysteriously Appeared One Day
Re:
Nobody else sees that because they don't consume the hallucinogens you do.
On the post: Georgia Republicans Try To Punish Delta For CEO's Statement About Voting Rights Law
Re:
Yeah, shame on Techdirt for sticking with reality, from which you "differ."
On the post: Georgia Republicans Try To Punish Delta For CEO's Statement About Voting Rights Law
As always, restless's accusations only describe himself.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Briefly Bans Russian Parody Accounts (2016)
Re: "Content Moderation" is newspeak for censorship.
[Asserts acts not in evidence]
On the post: As Steven Biss Continues Filing Bogus SLAPP Suits, He Finally Gets Sanctioned In Case Involving Devin Nunes' Aide
Re: That slogan
... to prison.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Automated Copyright Takedown Bot Goes Haywire (2018)
Re:
Yeah, yeah, you're one of the three trolls here who love censorship along with Koby and Restless.
Next >>