PragerU files 2nd lawsuit against Google, YouTube for ‘restricting and restraining’ conservative speech

Dennie Prager has no constitutional rights on Youtube. It's a private site, he isn't being billed to be there and Google can do as they wish. Read the small print before you click accept.

The judge has previously ruled and it wasn't in his favor,  so why does he think that doing the same thing again will be different?  This is a very simple concept to understand. 

A judge holds that YouTube isn't a "public forum" run by a "state actor."

Google has prevailed in a lawsuit that alleged YouTube has been violating the First Amendment by censoring conservative viewpoints. On Monday, a California federal judge agreed to dismiss a complaint from Prager University, run by radio talk-show host Dennis Prager.

The plaintiff produces videos with titles like "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion." In the lawsuit, Prager's company asserted that YouTube professes viewpoint neutrality but censors conservatives by putting age restrictions on certain videos. The decision-making is far from even-handed, Prager contends, pointing to, among others, a restricted video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" compared to better treatment for a  Real Time with Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground .

Prager sought an injunction .

Since the First Amendment free speech guarantee guards against abridgment by a government, the big question for U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh is whether YouTube has become the functional equivalent of a "public forum" run by a "state actor" requiring legal intervention over a constitutional violation.

Koh agrees with Google that it hasn't been sufficiently alleged that YouTube is a state actor as opposed to a private party.

"Plaintiff does not point to any persuasive authority to support the notion that Defendants, by creating a 'video-sharing website' and subsequently restricting access to certain videos that are uploaded on that website, have somehow engaged in one of the 'very few' functions that were traditionally 'exclusively reserved to the State,'" she writes. "Instead, Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendants hold YouTube out 'as a public forum dedicated to freedom of expression to all' and argues that 'a private property owner who operates its property as a public forum for speech is subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.'”

The judge turns to precedent, particularly a 1945 Supreme Court case,  Marsh v. Alabama , that involved a Jehovah's Witness who distributed religious literature in a town that was entirely owned by a private corporation. In that decision, the high court held that the corporation acting as a state actor was required to run the town in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. But Koh then emphasizes later Supreme Court decisions that limited the reach of this holding, including one — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner — where a privately owned shopping center could prohibit anti-Vietnam War protesters from distributing literature. 

hollywoodreporter

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

That analogy only fits if the baker was being forced to carry some other gay bakers "Gay Wedding Cake" products for resale. You cannot tell a deli it has to sell bacon or any other good, but you can require it to sell bacon to blacks, Jews or Gays if they already offer bacon to Christian heterosexuals. Why is this significant difference seemingly ignored by conservatives? It's so simple. A business open to the public cannot refuse to sell their products to specific protected classes, but it also cannot be compelled to sell or offer products or services it doesn't want to. So it would be okay for the baker to say "I don't sell wedding cakes to anyone, so I obviously won't be selling one to the gay couple". That is perfectly legal. Youtube, as company that does business with the general public, they can't say "Hey, we're not going to let conservatives watch Youtube." That would be illegal. But they can say "Hey, we're not going to resell Prager Universities content to our customer base because it's not a product we agree with or endorse". That is perfectly legal and will be seen as such when the courts throw his ass out of court. 

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

Difference is he offers a service at a fee to do business with the public at large to bake.

In opening and holding that license he agreed to the terms afforded to his business.

Google has no such rules to abide by. 

Your assertion isn't even related.

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

How much is Dennis Prager paying YouTube to host his videos?

Political speech isn't a protected class, unlike a person's sexuality.

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges.

It's amazing how misinformed many people are. I doubt that 75% of Americans could pass a high school civics or 100 level political science exam. 

Spend the $30.00 on the download to learn what the Bill of Rights protects and what it doesn't.  John Finn is a great lecturer.

thegreatcourses

The difference,Dean, is that the baker was selectively discriminating based on one religious belief while de facto refusing to recognize the tenets of others while doing business in the public space.

And if I take Praeger’s position, then the NFL had no right to tell players they couldn’t take a knee.

Can’t have it both ways; am I missing something here?

I’m not seeing the difference the NFL owners are instructing their employees on what to do and so is the baker. They both have a vision for what they want their businesses to be, what work they do and how it is to be done. If the player doesn’t want to do what the boss says he is free to look elsewhere for work, same with the baker. The baker is free to reject the work same as the player. 

They both have a vision for what they want their businesses to be, what work they do and how it is to be done. If the player doesn’t want to do what the boss says he is free to look elsewhere for work, same with the baker. The baker is free to reject the work same as the player. 

Not the issue, Dean; the issue is that the baker (and his EMPLOYEES … THE BUSINESS) exert THEIR RIGHTS TO ESSENTIALLY PROTEST against a social phenomenon … the LEGAL right of individuals to practice a particular lifestyle …

… WHILE THE NFL (BUSINESS) denies its EMPLOYEES the RIGHT TO PROTEST the ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!

Can't have it both ways, Dean; either the "employer/the business," under law, permits and practices acts and expressions of protest, or, under law, disallows it.

The irony regarding the NFL … in practice, it ultimately declares/PROTESTS its right as "the employer," to PROHIBIT its EMPLOYEES from PROTESTING.

Thanks for the spam advertising on my seed.  Not!

Is learning something a problem for you?

Then perhaps I should try to persuade you to buy a product and pay your money for it here.  Just to help you learn something.

Go for it.

Dennie Prager has no constitutional rights on Youtube.

This case is based on the California Constitution, which tends be more protective of people from discrimination and unfairness than the federal Constitution.

The judge has previously ruled and it wasn't in his favor,  so why does he think that doing the same thing again will be different?

This lawsuit is on different grounds. The previous ruling has no bearing on the new suit.

This case is based on the California Constitution, which tends be more protective of people from discrimination and unfairness than the federal Constitution.

Google is not a state actor and there is no fee to host videos on YT/Google. YouTube pays some people who post videos because of the advertising traffic that they generate, so there is no free speech rights. 

If you don't like the situation then create your own Conserva-Google. 

Google is not a state actor

Irrelevant given the grounds.

Uhh no

Irrelevant given the grounds.

The idea of state actor is crucial to what our constitutional rights are because rights are only the freedom from undo government interference.  You have claimed to be a lawyer in the past, so you should be well aware of this very basic constitutional concept. Our freedom of speech is only the right not to be fined or jailed by the government for our speech. We most certainly do not have the right of free speech on property that we don't own, the right not to suffer repercussions from other individuals for our speech such as the loss of a job, or the right not to be criticized by others. 

Google is not a state actor so there are no free speech rights on any of their platforms.  Conservatives have the right to boycott their site and to boycott their advertisers as a way to force them to change their policies but we do not have free speech rights on Google or other privately owned sites. 

Google is not a state actor so there are no free speech rights on any of their platforms.

Holy smokes you just do not get it, do you? Prager is not suing over a violation of the 1st Amendment. For the third? time, it doesn't matter that Google is not a state actor because of the grounds of the suit.

Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;” “discriminating against PragerU (and other users) based on political, religious or other discriminatory animus in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Section 51 of the California Civil Code;” “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair businesses practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Laws of the California Business and Professions Code,” and finally “violating YouTube’s terms of use, ‘Community Guidelines,’ and other content-neutral filtering policies and procedures.”

PragerU is not a paid employee of Google, nor has he paid to host videos on their site, so the Unruh regulation doesn't apply to them. YouTube is private property and they have the right to remove content that doesn't meet their standards. 

I guess we shall see what the California courts have to say on the matter. 

The courts spoke once and it wasn't in his favor so I doubt that he has a legal leg to stand on.

The courts spoke once

On different issues. The federal court refused to hear certain claims because it felt they were more properly adjudicated in state court because they were complaints of violations of state law. It actually directed Prager to pursue those claims there, so that's what they are doing. This is not to say federal courts never enforce state law, but with the internet and all, these are matters of first impression as they pertain to state law. It's therefore more appropriate for state courts to handle them.

My favorite You Tube videos about Prager U are the ones that debunk all the nonsense that appears on the official videos.

In this latest suit, Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;

Lol what a waste. They do realize that Google is a private entity right? And thus is not bound by either the federal or state constitutions. Unless you can prove they are in violation of the law (again, not either constitution) or their own terms of service then you have nothing. And good luck proving either of those. 

They do realize that Google is a private entity right?

so was the phone company and they got the shit regulated out of them by our government

in the end the big tech platforms will face the same game.

Google is not a monopoly, the Bell System was.

so was the phone company and they got the shit regulated out of them by our government in the end the big tech platforms will face the same game.

Is Google the only search engine out there? 

it is a complex question.

for instance sites like this or even facebook are not exactly like search engines.

could the phone directory refuse to list or even give out someone's phone number? 

could a phone book put one's number on the back pages because of their politics?

if I called the operator in any city and asked for bill jones on 3rd st....

 would they give me the number for bob jones on main st first?

if they had done those things would we have allowed it?  hell no.

when it comes to "search engines" I do think some lines need to be drawn.

and further access to public money/tax breaks is probably the only stick to beat them with.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

They are effectively close enough to monopoly status

Boy, that's a load of bullshit right there.

Monopoly: noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Maybe you'll understand this if I put it in very small words for you HA.

If a Milk company bought up every milk farm and controlled virtually all milk production such that they could set whatever price they wanted for milk, then they would have monopolized milk. 

But if that milk company didn't buy up all the other milk producers, customers just preferred their brand and thus they had the highest milk sales of any company, well that's doing their job of both marketing their product and giving their customers what they want thus building a large customer base. As long as there are other competing milk companies then it's not a monopoly. 

Google gave people what they wanted in a format they enjoyed and so built a large customer base. But there are still many other search engines out there that steadily service millions still, they just happen to be less popular. If anyone feels Google isn't catering to their extremist conservative views and isn't giving them the conservative search results they want, they can go to Bing, DuckDuckGo, Wiki.com or even Gibiru (Uncensored Anonymous Search for all the wet pant conservatives who think the deep state is spying on them).

So Google isn't a monopoly, is a private company and can pick and choose what content it wants to highlight and what content it wants to censor no matter how furious a tantrum dumb ass conservatives who aren't smart enough to just use a different search engine throw.

Lol you think that is HA? [Deleted]

HA welcome back! I am going to enjoy my numerous suspensions for insulting you!

and am about to delete my google app.

Damn HA, that is cold. Google is gonna feel that one...

It is not complex at all. Unless Google is the only search engine you can access, they are not a monopoly, period. It is literally that simple. People can use, Google, Bing, Yahoo, or whatever in the fuck else is out there. No one is forced to use google or not use the internet at all. And yeah, make an enemy out of Google, that will work out well.

Google is not a monopoly

Pretty close. Close enough to argue it anyway.

MARKET SHARE CATEGORY  Online Video Platforms

YouTube - 77.31%

So what? They have a majority of market share.

Yahoo, MSN, aol, are all still out there

There are also other video sharing sites.

This is just another wet dream that will be ignored out of embarrassment shortly from now.

Totally different and if you would take the time to research it you would find that out

Yahoo, MSN, aol, are all still out there

Indeed. Yahoo has a little over 2% market share. Bing is also at 2%. I don't think MSN and AOL are considered search engines so I'm not sure why you mention them.

There are also other video sharing sites

True. Here is a list of them and their market share . They give YouTube 78.8%, but it's only that low because Netflix and Hulu are included. However, if you have seen those services, you know they don't really do the same thing as YouTube or Vimeo, their next real competitor. Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

That might be because monopolies have nothing to do with market share. If you believe they do, then you need to re-read (or maybe read it for the first time) the definition of monopoly.

Monopoly: noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Where in there does it mention "market share"? No? Is Google in "exclusive possession of or in control of" the ability to search things on the internet? No? Well then it's not a monopoly. The consumer cannot make a company a monopoly, only a company can do that, buy buying out competitors, buying up all lines of access to their product or service, yet dozens of other search engines exist as has been shown.

Just because the majority prefer to use Google over Bing or other search engines does not in any way make them a monopoly. They didn't narrow down the consumers choices by eliminating all competition, they let the consumer choose, and the fact is, no matter how hard some whiny conservatives wish it, those who own and run the most popular search engine on the planet don't share their backwards conservative views and choose not to endorse their bullshit media and slimy lie filled alt-right white nationalist websites.

And let's be honest here, if Google were called "God Search" and run by conservatives who were choosing not to endorse and support liberal agenda videos or liberal conspiracy theory websites, every single one of the hypocritical conservatives screaming about discrimination, freedom of speech and monopolies would be loudly defending such a righteous Christian based company standing up for what they'd see as religious freedom.

I don't think MSN...

Both MSN (internet explorer, bing, and edge) and aol are search engines.

aol is only still active because they have 2.1 million subscribers still on dial-up.

Outside the USA most of my contacts have a yahoo address, I tend to think we are alike. I haven't used explorer in years but still keep a hotmail address. And for some, business related reasons would keep things consistant. 

Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

Even more interesting is you relate "market dominence" to monopoly.

Ya think "Mono" may have thrown a clue?

The Bell System was a monopoly and heavily regulated. They broke themselves up and the market became deregulated all to the delight of stockholders because now it wasn't a utility anymore. They made a fortune off of....the internet.

Where in there does it mention "market share"?

You're going to base your analysis of this issue on a quickie internet definition? There's a little more to it than that. Anti-trust/anti-monopoly legislation is about maintaining fair competition in the market. Extreme market share is a perfectly reasonable red flag for investigating whether or not any enterprise is a monopoly that should be acted upon by government. It also incurs special responsibilities and scrutiny.

In Europe, that happened with Google.

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine

In particular, Google:

• has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

• made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

• has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

***

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.

1) Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps

2) Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search

3) Illegal obstruction of development and distribution of competing Android operating systems

Google also owns YouTube where many of the issues are coming from and that may well even be more of a monopoly than the parent company has overall.

No it isn't. Again if you have other options, which there are, then they are not a monopoly, end of story. 

you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

Nope, because the competition is still operating. Now If Google or Alphabet in general tried to shut down other search engines or video sharing sites then you would have an argument. Just because they a have the best product and a majority market share does not make them a monopoly. 

You're going to base your analysis of this issue on a quickie internet definition? There's a little more to it than that.

No, in this case there isn't. In no way is Google making anyone use their search engine. Google is not the only search engine available to anyone. I can use any search engine I want, and there is nothing Google can do about it. I simply use Google because I prefer it to the others.

Extreme market share is a perfectly reasonable red flag for investigating whether or not any enterprise is a monopoly that should be acted upon by government.

Except not in this case because any other search engine is available to everyone with internet access. All someone has to do is type yahoo.com instead of google.com. See, I just did it in another tab and bam, just like that I am not using Google. Hardly seems like a monopoly to me.

In Europe, that happened with Google.

They have different laws. 

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However,dominant companies have a special responsibilitynot to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Wait, are you advocating that we here in Murica let those socialist Europeans tell us what to do? 

So Google and YouTube are the government now?  I thought they were private companies.  Are they not allowed to run their companies like companies such as Hobby Lobby (no BC for their employees)?  Hobby Lobby should be allowed to make decisions about their company, but Google and YouTube should not be able to?

So if YouTube cannot decide what is on their site should they be forced to upload videos of people killing each other, accident scenes, house fires?  

More tantrums and faulty logic by the alt+right. By this logic TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) will be giving the Satanic Church equal time on it's network? I mean the righties don't want to be -

unlawfully restraining free speech and expression