The WSJ.com reports today that a federal appeals court in California on Wednesday ruled that privately operated internet platforms are free to censor content they don’t like.
The unanimous decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco marks the most emphatic rejection of the argument, according to the outlet.
Conservatives are concerned that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other giant tech platforms are not bound by the First Amendment, and are censoring people with whom they disagree politically.
The case concerned a YouTube channel operated by Prager University, a nonprofit founded by talk-radio host Dennis Prager. He produces short educational videos promoting conservative ideas.
In 2017, PragerU sued YouTube and its parent, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, after YouTube flagged dozens of its videos as “inappropriate,” stripping the clips of advertising and making them less accessible to students, library users and children.
The problem with this decision is that these companies are all run by leftists and they are monopolies.
There is little doubt from our experience that they are mercilessly censoring us.
We have the same problem with the mainstream media which is run by only six corporations, all leftists. When they report dishonest news, however, they are doing so under protections afforded by the First Amendment. Perhaps they should lose their protections, but that would apply to everyone if it happened. It would affect all the news.
The President is currently suing the NY Times for an op-ed which included fake news about Russia collusion. It’s not a bad idea. Perhaps it will make them think twice before they put their fake news safely under an op-ed category.
We doubt it, but it’s something.
OPINION
It’s actually a decent ruling on the face of it. Private companies should be allowed to censor content — they’re private and the government has no place in their business generally. But then Congress has to act, and they won’t.
We keep hearing it’s a conspiracy theory, there’s no censoring. But there is and the left is pretty much allowed to say what they want.
Privately operated internet platforms, such as YouTube, are free to censor content they don’t like, a federal appeals court in California on Wednesday ruled https://t.co/YRuZcuKBNU
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) February 26, 2020
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
What is being left out in many discussions is the fact the individual user is a “commodity” for their advertisers. It takes on more than First Amendment issues. It is sold as a “free service” to an individual but that same individual is a product that is sold. The providers are a “platform” for sales and use discriminatory practices in those sales. In essence they have a monopoly on the product and those products are selectively sold to their clients. Any comparisons to other companies omit the fact that Platforms are Not a “storefront”.
SCOTUS just loves to limit the scope of cases and as such the First Amendment is generally confined to the “Free Speech” aspect. But the First Amendment is Not limited to speech alone. What is overlooked in these arguments is the “freedom to assemble”. Given these platforms are considered the modern equivalent of the public square, it could be considered a violation on a public assembly grounds. There is also the consideration of current law that platforms are bound by. Section 230 give immunity to these companies. Essentially Congress has passed a law that abridges one persons Constitutional right over that of another, immunity for one and restrictions on another. There are many Constitutional questions, Antitrust questions and other possibilities that could call into questions current law and practices.
The MSM has devised and implemented their OWN rules over the last forty +/- years…
It’s all good. Use of those platforms isn’t mandatory just yet. I’ll listen to Das Radio and use El Computo where I control the programming.
It feels good out of the hivemind groupthink hordes of zombies and their endless affirmation circle jerk.
Freethink is the best and it will set you free.
While under current law I agree with the ruling, that doesn’t mean I don’t like it. Social media has become a major source of public communication so is why social media needs to play by the same rules & regulations the rest of the communications industry that uses public airways must. And, yes, the internet is a public airway.