Bullied No More: PragerU Files Lawsuit Against YouTube

[Machiavelli]

John Porter
Louder with Crowder
October 24, 2017

We’ve all had our issues with YouTube, but the company seems to have a problem with PragerU more than most (see Fascism? YouTube Marks 21 PragerU Videos As “Restricted” and YouTube Just Restricted a Mike Rowe Video. And He’s Speaking Out…). Well, guess what? PragerU is fed up.

On, it’s on now.

Prager University, a nonprofit that produces short, educational videos from conservative perspectives, is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, claiming the tech giant is illegally censoring some of its content as part of a wider effort to silence conservative voices.

A lawsuit filed Monday evening in federal court in San Francisco says YouTube’s more than 30 million visitors a day make the site so elemental to free speech in the digital age that it should be treated as a public forum.

More

[DiogenesLamp]

It's a start.    Goolag needs to be buried under an avalanche of lawsuits and anti-trust prosecutions.   

[roamer_1]

Yeah... I see it coming... I am a youtube freak, and every one of the channels I subscribe to have complained likewise... two channels have been utterly annihilated - they are no more - with several others making moves to other venues in preparation for the inevitable... No one knows how they will be able to go forward when Google inevitably swings the axe.

All the same, PragerU will lose this case. And I hope they do. Google is a private company, and not government... There can be no 1st amendment right here. Even less so than a liberal newspaper can be sued...

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah... I see it coming... I am a youtube freak, and every one of the channels I subscribe to have complained likewise... two channels have been utterly annihilated - they are no more - with several others making moves to other venues in preparation for the inevitable... No one knows how they will be able to go forward when Google inevitably swings the axe.

All the same, PragerU will lose this case. And I hope they do. Google is a private company, and not government... There can be no 1st amendment right here. Even less so than a liberal newspaper can be sued...

We can all object to the Government taking our guns away.   But what if a private company was doing it?   Would that be okay because it wasn't the government doing it?   


Shouldn't the objection be that the guns are being taken,   not how or by whom?   

[Sanguine]

Good for Prager.

[Machiavelli]

PragerU

PragerU on YouTube

[aligncare]

We can all object to the Government taking our guns away.   But what if a private company was doing it?   Would that be okay because it wasn't the government doing it?   


Shouldn't the objection be that the guns are being taken,   not how or by whom?

Nice analogy. Not a perfect one, but I like it nonetheless. It sufficiently makes the point.

[Cyber Liberty]

YouTube even masked Mike Rowe's speech he did for PragerU.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/now-youtube-restricting-mike-rowe-videos-hes-speaking/

[roamer_1]

We can all object to the Government taking our guns away.   But what if a private company was doing it?   Would that be okay because it wasn't the government doing it?   


Shouldn't the objection be that the guns are being taken,   not how or by whom?

You are actually setting up that scenario... Force Google, and you admit government authority to establish content. What makes you think they won't use that precise precedence and apply it to gun makers?

[jmyrlefuller]

Yeah... I see it coming... I am a youtube freak, and every one of the channels I subscribe to have complained likewise... two channels have been utterly annihilated - they are no more - with several others making moves to other venues in preparation for the inevitable... No one knows how they will be able to go forward when Google inevitably swings the axe.

All the same, PragerU will lose this case. And I hope they do. Google is a private company, and not government... There can be no 1st amendment right here. Even less so than a liberal newspaper can be sued...

There are perhaps two lines of attack PragerU could exploit here: 1, false advertising, by proving that Google states they maintain a neutral platform but do not actually do so; this, however, would be a longshot.
2, they could go the antitrust route and argue that Google uses its integration into the Android operating system to filter traffic to its own services, then show favoritism toward what is allowed on the service. That might be a stronger case.

[roamer_1]

There are perhaps two lines of attack PragerU could exploit here: 1, false advertising, by proving that Google states they maintain a neutral platform but do not actually do so; this, however, would be a longshot.
2, they could go the antitrust route and argue that Google uses its integration into the Android operating system to filter traffic to its own services, then show favoritism toward what is allowed on the service. That might be a stronger case.

You may be right on both approaches, though I would favor the first, if any.
But neither one is just.

They are a private business and they should be able to control their content in light of how they want their business to be presented and represented... Just as much as the Christian baker should be able to control his.

I don't agree with what Google says, but I will die for their right to say it.
If one wishes to bring down Google, provide the alternate.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are actually setting up that scenario... Force Google, and you admit government authority to establish content. What makes you think they won't use that precise precedence and apply it to gun makers?

Let us keep things separate.   I am in favor of anything that destroys Google.   I regard it as a threat.   If we could talk ISIS into attacking it and destroying it,   I wouldn't mind.    If we could infest it with Termites,  that would be okay.    If we can call Shiva the Destroyer to drop a space rock on it,   I would not object. 


An effort to use the Government to smash Google is not primarily about the Government setting up some sort of control over Google,   It's about using the biggest rock I can find to smash the D@mn thing.   


I am all about Google getting destroyed,   not about letting the government regulate anything.   In my thinking,  the government just happens to be a convenient tool that can help with the job,  but the job is breaking apart that power structure so it no longer appears to be the threat that it currently appears to be. 


If the Courts spun  it apart like the Bell Group,  I could live with that.   It would still be "private",  just a lot of little "privates"  instead of one great big one. 

[roamer_1]

Let us keep things separate.   I am in favor of anything that destroys Google.   I regard it as a threat.   If we could talk ISIS into attacking it and destroying it,   I wouldn't mind.    If we could infest it with Termites,  that would be okay.    If we can call Shiva the Destroyer to drop a space rock on it,   I would not object. 

Thus 'the ends justify the means'. And 'some are more equal than others'.

Be careful what you wish for.

This is exactly why principle must, MUST, prevail over pragmatism.

[DiogenesLamp]

You may be right on both approaches, though I would favor the first, if any.
But neither one is just.

They are a private business and they should be able to control their content in light of how they want their business to be presented and represented... Just as much as the Christian baker should be able to control his.

And just as people who don't want to serve blacks at their lunch counters can control theirs. 


"Common Carrier."  Look it up. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Thus 'the ends justify the means'. And 'some are more equal than others'.

More like "If the only tool you have is a hammer,  your problem starts to look like a nail." 

Be careful what you wish for.

This is exactly why principle must, MUST, prevail over pragmatism.

We can debate principle till we are all hanged.   If we don't do something to stop this power grab by Goolag,  that time will come sooner than later. 

[roamer_1]

And just as people who don't want to serve blacks at their lunch counters can control theirs. 


"Common Carrier."  Look it up.

Actually I think the business should control itself. If somebody want's to not serve blacks, let em. The market will respond, and provide a place without that bias, and rightly so.

Likewise the baker.
Likewise Google.

There is no difference.

[roamer_1]

More like "If the only tool you have is a hammer,  your problem starts to look like a nail."

So then the end DOES justify the means?
 

We can debate principle till we are all hanged.   If we don't do something to stop this power grab by Goolag,  that time will come sooner than later.

There's your problem right there. Going against the principle is going against the truth.

If you want to kill Google, provide the alternative.

[Sanguine]

Prager is a solid conservative who knows the Constitution.  I would think whatever course he is taking would be from a constitutional standpoint.

[aligncare]

Prager is a solid conservative who knows the Constitution.  I would think whatever course he is taking would be from a constitutional standpoint.

I recently started listening. What a voice. He has that same relationship to the microphone and his audience that Mark Simone has. A way of speaking that makes you feel comfortable listening. Come to think of it, he brings a perspective to the issues of the day that I would also describe as comfortable.

[Emjay]

We can all object to the Government taking our guns away.   But what if a private company was doing it?   Would that be okay because it wasn't the government doing it?   


Shouldn't the objection be that the guns are being taken,   not how or by whom?

Not the same thing.  No private entity could take our guns in any way that I'm aware of.

I think UTube will win this and probably should.  I seldom go there and if everyone stops, they might change their policies.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not the same thing.  No private entity could take our guns in any way that I'm aware of.

They cannot,  but they can most certainly take away our ability to communicate with large masses of people.   


This is the *ONLY*  communication that matters for political purposes,  which is what the 1rst amendment was designed to protect. 

[Suppressed]

I recently started listening. What a voice. He has that same relationship to the microphone and his audience that Mark Simone has. A way of speaking that makes you feel comfortable listening. Come to think of it, he brings a perspective to the issues of the day that I would also describe as comfortable.

He's a brilliant man.

Sad to see him have to buckle under pressure recently, but he's a good man.

[roamer_1]

I think UTube will win this and probably should.  I seldom go there and if everyone stops, they might change their policies.

I agree with you on this 
But in saying that, recognize the monumental necessities involved in a boycott. @DiogenesLamp is right in stating Googles 'near monopoly'... This very website has special scripting to make it easy to link embedded Youtube vids - a thing it does for no other that I am aware of.

That ubiquity is what drives Youtube... and it's huge library of goofy and trending nonsense that actually gathers the lion's share of it's viewers. If everyone boycotted Youtube, I doubt it would even feel the pain, as so much of it's income and volume comes from the inane and incidental. It is no small thing.

But, the alternative survives, and as long as there is an alternative, monopoly does not exist. People are free to seek out the alternative, and that is what I would encourage. Likewise for the rest of Google's empire.

[Machiavelli]

Here are some articles that are more detailed:

Legal Insurrection: PragerU Sues Google and YouTube, Claims Unlawful Censorship and Discrimination

The Christian Post: PragerU Files Lawsuit Against Google, YouTube for Discrimination and Censorship

Breitbart: PragerU Sues YouTube and Google over Alleged Censorship of Conservatives

[DiogenesLamp]

But, the alternative survives, and as long as there is an alternative, monopoly does not exist.

As rational as saying Standard Oil can be opposed by  citizens collecting bacon grease.