PragerU and the Deep state

YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled today. “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,” the court said.

PragerU, a conservative media company, sued YouTube in October 2017, claiming the Google-owned video site "unlawfully censor[ed] its educational videos and discriminat[ed] against its right to freedom of speech.

Either Youtube is part of the deep state, has tremendous power over the deep state, or, the court ruled correctly.

I think the latter is reality.



YouTube is owned by Google. This was a losing battle.

Why does the ownership matter? Is Google that powerful?

Yes. lol

1 Like

Yes…when you can hire teams of lawyers.

1 Like

@conan @SixFoot
Do both of you think the court ruled incorrectly? And was it due to Google’s influence, or they just have good lawyers?

We don’t have free speech here either.


It’s a bit more complicated than “it’s private, the 1st doesn’t apply”. It might still be the correct ruling but I think they simplified the ruling too much.

YouTube tries to skirt a line. Publisher, which can moderate their content, but by doing so they take responsibility for their content… VS a public forum, where the owning company doesn’t moderate their content, and bears no liability for content on the site.

YouTube has been arguing both sides of that distinction on a case by case basis for a long time.

Hopefully I got the terminology right. I haven’t read up on the issue in quite a while.


YouTube is a private forum, owned by Google, more appropriately named Alphabet Inc., which is a public company.

Had they less than the raw power that they do, they very well could have lost like some peon baker.

You have a right to free speech.

You don’t have a right to someone else’s private platform.

Seems about right.

1 Like

Ownership matters.

private vs government

I don’t think the courts ruled wrong in this case…may problem they don’t rule even handily concerning other parts of 1st Amendment.

All of their videos are easily viewed.

Pragers team of lawyers filed suit solely to generate the response that the herd of independent thinkers is quick to provide. Success!

Amirite? Moo moo moo.


So, you agree with the ruling?

What parts of the 1st are you referring to?

Which baker case are you referring to?

The 1st Amendment addresses limits the power of government to restrict free speech – which was the matter that concerned the framers of the Constitution. They worried about the Court of St. James restricting the rights of gentleman farmers. As owners of business, they did not place any restrictions on their rights regarding speech. Since Google is a corporation (publicly traded not private, btw) the 1st Amendment restriction of power does not apply.

Without getting into the opinion of the court I agree with what I’ve read in the op.

They are a private company and can set rules for their services (as long as it meets things like non discrimination based on race, sex, age and that, nor does it violate decency standards). You don’t like their rules, then don’t use their services (either watching or contrubiting).

They (youtube) don’t have to allow anything they don’t want to. It’s not an infringement on the 1st amendment.

1 Like

Are they not claiming that their content was limited by Google/youtube? You do not have the ability, at youtube, to see what was not allowed.

Which doesn’t meant that I believe youtube should be treated as a government organization where the first applies. They are not. PragerU could probably just give a link to their own site for those who want more information from them.

1 Like

Religious liberties…