Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should Conservatives Sue Private Media Companies Over Content?
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. The suit argues the site must use the “laws governing free speech,” not its own discretion, to make decisions about what to censor.
The nonprofit, known as PragerU, alleges that by limiting access to some of its videos without clear criteria YouTube is infringing on PragerU’s First Amendment rights. [emphasis added]
So a conservative organization is demanding that the government override the private-property rights of a private media company, and instead treat this private media outlet like a government organization? A conservative plaintiff is saying that?
And these “conservatives” are also insisting that a private company be required to meet the “First Amendment” standards of public entities?
I wonder how the folks at Hillsdale College feel about that? Or Liberty University? Or Chick-Fil-A?
I’m thinking that private companies should have control of how they run their businesses, up to the point that they are directly endangering others.
On the other hand….
As I said on the podcast today, this is a tough call because 67 percent of Americans really do get their news via Facebook. Newspapers call it “the real front page,” the place where most of their customers access the news content. YouTube is the portal for video content that millions of people in the real world actually use. So while libertarian ideals sound great, in fact if YouTube does shove conservative content onto the back shelves, the practical impact is very real. The Right is already getting our head handed to us in popular culture (and not even trying to fight back). Getting marginalized on YouTube on top of that is very troubling.
So which comes first: The conservative principles of private property and individual choice, or the political survival instincts for ideas that could literally die in darkness?
I look forward to hearing what the Ricovanchists think!
Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 72 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Please read this article from National Review. This is what’s at the heart of the Prager U. complaint. What Prager is demanding is in essence a return to the Fairness Doctrine to use government via the FCC to mandate that video hosting services like YouTube post their content. Again, Prager has alternatives to spread their message and there’s nothing preventing Prager from courting deep-pocketed conservative allies to launch their own video hosting service. You want bigger, more intrusive government?…then support Prager in its effort but don’t try to claim this is somehow a principled conservative position.
Brian you got a shout-out in today’s podcast!
Dad Dog, you got a shout out in the podcast today!
Dorrk, you got a BIGTIME shout out in today’s podcast!
Annefy, I read your post in today’s podcast. Just FYI…
Disagree – My argument would be that Youtube is a common carrier of video content and subject to those same rules.
Not the only entity, just an entity large enough that it acts like a monopoly. Standard Oil wasn’t the only oil company, just the largest. Likewise, AT&T wasn’t the only telephone company, just an outsized one that used its position to stifle competition.
Furthermore, your cite of the 2007 “fairness doctrine” doesn’t apply – for a couple of reasons. First, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters devote an equal number of minutes to opposing viewpoints. There are only 1440 minutes in a day (thus minutes are scarce) and the evening news only had 20 minutes of content. Youtube boasts that they have effectively unlimited storage and playing conservative videos consumes no more bandwidth than cat videos – bolstering the common carrier argument and demolishing the Fairness Doctrine argument.
Furthermore the news broadcasts were push media in that they promulgated a viewpoint – and the Fairness Doctrine insisted they show multiple viewpoints- which they didn’t. YouTube on the other hand is an on demand service where the hosting doesn’t compel delivery of any particular message to anyone – how does one show the opposing viewpoint of Nerdy Nummies anyway?
Lastly – don’t pull the “no true Scotsman” fallacy of “it is against conservative principles and no true conservative can support this.” Nope – I applaud Prager U for their lawsuit and wish them well.
In my own case I would like to apply the full weight of the federal government into every lefty institution in the country. Let them have government intrusion until it makes them sick – then see if they are willing to accept de-regulation.
Your argument is weak.
Where is your proof that YouTube stifles competition? Is Vimeo suing them? Has Prager U. successfully shown that without YouTube their content cannot be seen? A great deal, if not all Prager U. content is available on Facebook and Twitter and it has the ability to use Vimeo as its hosting platform. It has the ability to work with other corporate entities or entrepreneurs to develop their own hosting platform.
Nice try. The principle of the Fairness Doctrine rested not on time frames but on providing an opportunity for any and all opposing views on any given issue.
Perhaps you should direct that last question to the braintrust at Prager U. It seems that they are the ones making the argument that their freedom of speech has been violated and their viewpoint on any given issue is being unfairly trammeled upon.
If you’re advocating more government control and intrusion, then you’re in opposition to the first principles of limited government as articulated by the Founders and Framers. Tyranny to coerce under penalty of law to make things “more fair” is still tyranny.
I didn’t take it sarcastically. I just haven’t been back since yesterday. Sure, if one is banned by most mainstream outlets then leveraging anything is a tall order. However, one could maintain his/her own website and tweet, post, snap, “acceptably” on the big sites with URLs pointing to the original non-YouTube, non-Facebook video site.
Looks like these things are facts that can be properly established by a jury – thanks for accepting the merits of the case.
Unless you are arguing that these opposing (or contrasting) views required zero time to air, it does, ultimately, come down to the some time must be devoted to them.
Why yes, in our system of jurisprudence the plaintiff in a case does have to allege some harm in order for the case to go foreward. But if you are ignorant of the stealth banning of conservative views on Youtube by any number of conservative youtubers, then perhaps you should do a better of of keeping up with the FLOT. (Forward Line of Troops).
You get it, and I agree that it is tyranny.
We already exist in a time where limited government has been rendered non-existent. However, the intrusions we have are acceptable to the left. The left doesn’t like to debate these things, so I am perfectly fine with weaponizing the government against them too – hopefully they will learn to become libertarian as well.
In either event, this method of demonstrating government overreach to people who don’t believe it can is one way to make them amenable to voting for laws that repeal extra-constitutional usurpation of government power.
Beats having a civil war over it.
You fail to show why.
Prager’s complaint lists seven causes of action (really just six as the seventh depends on the others):
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (California Constitution Article I, section 2)
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (First Amendment of the United States Constitution and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (California Unruh Civil Rights Act—Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.)
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.) (CTLaw note: California unfair competition law)
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Lanham Act—15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.) (CTLaw note: Federal unfair competition law)
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief)
I would have expected more grounds, but some may ultimately be addressed by the two unfair competition grounds.
Are anti-trust grounds possible based on any actions Google took to reduce competition in video hosting and monetization?
Are defamation grounds possible on the grounds that Google implies that the restricted videos are objectively worse than other unrestricted videos from non-conservatives?
By hosting Federal and state content (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/user/usarmy) or other relationshps, is Google subject to nondiscrimination provisions of contracting law/regulations?
It may be more clear with Roger Stone’s potential suit against twitter. The primary purpose of Twitter is two-way communication. If Stone can demonstrate that Twitter discriminates based on political belief, he might have a case. There may be relevant caselaw on issues such as selection of newspapers where governments place official notices or selection of how press credentials are given out.