law discussion weekly
Just recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that YouTube was not a public forum platform that would be subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The suit was initiated by PragerU, a conservative non-profit group. PragerU claimed that its conservative videos were put on restrictive mode due to its tags such as “abortion”, “Islam”, “gun rights”, etc. As such, advertisements were blocked from playing on those videos (advertisement viewership generates money). PragerU also claimed that YouTube was engaged in false advertising under the pretense that it was a public forum accepting all ideas. The appellate court held that YouTube is not a public forum despite its open access to majority of the public.
PragerU is not the first entity to have issues with YouTube. YouTube has garnered criticism from conservative and liberal groups alike. LGBTQ+ uploaders state that YouTube claims to support freedom of speech but deems their content too offensive. YouTube released a policy that would ban videos from groups that deem themselves better in order to spread hateful messages. Unsurprisingly, there is substantial backlash against this policy. You will find a brief history of YouTube’s content moderation here.
2 pages double space . Answer the question:
Please discuss the economic, social, and political perspectives, present and future, of these questions/issues in the contex
Identify and discuss at least two actual or potential outcomes resulting from these developments
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!