It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The lawsuit never had legs to start with.


Google has won the dismissal of a lawsuit in California accusing YouTube of censoring conservative content.

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.

But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc, did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.

www.reuters.com...

More about the lawsuit here:


Youtube is a private company with no requirement or obligation to cater to any ideology right?

What's so funny about this is that Dennis Prager was among the vocal in favor of a Colorado bakery's rights to refuse, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a Same-sex wedding ceremony. Let's not forget the other options on the internet for Prager to freely voice what they believe (Vimeo anyone?) but of course this has little to do with 1st Amendment rights.




posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yea, because the “left wing bias” to the media is ridiculous..

They just won’t lie for conservatives.. that doesn’t make them biased..


+7 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Obviously Google and YouTube do censor conservatives, however, I can't see how it would be illegal for a corporation to set its own policies. While they may be against free speech they aren't required to allow it like the actual Government.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
California? Google?? 'nuff said 🤔😑😒😏



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Duh.

Private entities.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Obviously Google and YouTube do censor conservatives, however, I can't see how it would be illegal for a corporation to set its own policies. While they may be against free speech they aren't required to allow it like the actual Government.


Right. It's no more illegal than FaceBook and Twitter selling data collected from their free subscribers.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


As much as I disagree with Youtube and Google's double standards such as banning Conservative media but allowing North Korean propaganda to be accessible, they are private companies and the owners have the right to do what they want.


edit on 3/27/2018 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Find other companies instead of whining all the time. No one is forcing you to use Google and YouTube



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
....But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc, did not qualify as “state actors” ...


when you are a monopoly you are a state actor. that is unavoidable. they just get to pretend they arent a state actor cause the gov cant define or prove they are a monopoly.
edit on 28-3-2018 by NobodiesNormal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yea, because the “left wing bias” to the media is ridiculous..

They just won’t lie for conservatives.. that doesn’t make them biased..
ehhhh...

In any case, I knew the case was doomed from the start because Google is not government. Not officially at least. They belong to the unofficial 4th branch of government, but that certainly isn't covered in the constitution.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

their defense was simply the lawyer's phones and tablet.

Prosecutor : YouTube censors conservatives
defense lawyer : your honor, allow me to go on YouTube right now. exhibit a : alex jones, the mental case.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

except you tube has censored alex jones videos multiple times, but i guess since they havnt outright removed his channel yet that means his speech isnt infringed?

screwed up logic.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I frankly don't think Google deliberately censors anyone just because the bigwigs disagree with them. I think Google censors people they get a lot of complaints about. They're a typical finger in the wind business. If you rent an apartment and you take out a megaphone at 2 AM every night and start blasting your neighbors with your politics and they start complaining to the management, the management is going to respond by telling you to stop. It doesn't necessarily mean they care what your politics are. They just don't want to take the fallout from what you're doing. That's just business.

I am a libertarian, BTW. I don't think conservatives are wrong (not necessarily, anyway LOL). Let's face it. Conservatives are not too popular these days. If you're a conservative (or even a libertarian) and you make more than your fair share of noise, people are going to complain. People suck.
edit on 28-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Find other companies instead of whining all the time. No one is forcing you to use Google and YouTube


The same could be said about bakeries..



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: odzeandennz

except you tube has censored alex jones videos multiple times, but i guess since they havnt outright removed his channel yet that means his speech isnt infringed?

screwed up logic.


Screwed up logic is this post

Youtube is private. You (or Alex Jones) have no more right to free speech on YouTube as you do in my living room.

How badly do our schools miseducate?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your oily defence of a massive multi-national corporation’s censoring of someone’s free speech proves none of this is about principle, and we can put free speech in the growing pile of things you do not believe in.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
....But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc, did not qualify as “state actors” ...


when you are a monopoly you are a state actor. that is unavoidable. they just get to pretend they arent a state actor cause the gov cant define or prove they are a monopoly.

Google isn't a monopoly...

Here is a list of 14 really good search engines (Google included, so 13 minus Google). A monopoly requires there to only be one.

Youtube isn't a monopoly either. The OP pointed out Vimeo as an example.
edit on 28-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your oily defence of a massive multi-national corporation’s censoring of someone’s free speech proves none of this is about principle, and we can put free speech in the growing pile of things you do not believe in.


I'm sure you've heard the saying "your rights end where the rights of others begin", correct?

Apparently you do not believe in private property rights, because if you did, you would not have said such a thing.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your oily defence of a massive multi-national corporation’s censoring of someone’s free speech proves none of this is about principle, and we can put free speech in the growing pile of things you do not believe in.


I'm sure you've heard the saying "your rights end where the rights of others begin", correct?

Apparently you do not believe in private property rights, because if you did, you would not have said such a thing.


Your oily defence of a massive multi-national corporation’s censoring of someone’s free speech proves none of this is about principle, and we can put free speech in the growing pile of things you do not believe in.


Ahh, I see.

You're one of those folks that thinks repeating something over and over makes it true.

No wonder propaganda works so well. People even use the techniques on themselves.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join