My reply to that guy I was talking to since some faggot of a janitor pruned the thread...
I believe they can be taken to court. That this somehow doesn't apply to the internet is a complete anachronism that has only not been amended yet simply because a case of this particular nature has not gone to court thus far.
The more that try the faster it happens.
I have great legal ground to sue Youtube but I have no money. The killed my 10 year account for zero reasons.
>9th circuit court of appeals
good fucking luck lol
Why can't Amazon be sued for false advertisement? I never get packages by the guarenteed delivery date and the same is true for everyone in small towns. This shit is dumb.
You probably could.
another legal theory, in addition to the "public square" one that they have just opened themselves up to is that they are no longer a platform, but instead a publisher...this one could open them to hundreds of millions in damages from thousands of simultaneous and class action lawsuits. This purge, I believe, makes them a publisher now, curating content and no longer a mere platform. Now they have liability for everything published on their site.
here is the thread to which OP is referring
Including their psyops, pedo shit and other stuff?
en.m.wikipedia.org
is the "public square" theory that I was referring to
yes
There was a Supreme Court ruling, Marsh v. Alabama, that a "company town"--a privately owned town--functioned as a public square and people had First Amendment rights.
Another angle is that if Facebook, YouTube etc. are curating content, they are actually publishers and do not get the exemption from CDA.
bump
It's about time law fags on this board do something. I know there are a fuck ton of 1Ls and 2Ls and 3Ls on here at the very least
Your best bet is to sue them in small claims court in San Mateo county California. It’s much harder for big corporations to defend themselves in small claims court.
That's a federal court
Already filed by Prager U
Interesting ... I think they settled this one.
more please. this file isn't related to the PragerU suit, correct?
Right wingers are absolutely
S E E T H I N G
just lmao
Youtube has only been sued 18 times - almost all of those time are out of state petitions requesting subpeonas for discovery. Once they were sued for defamation - case was denied on demurrer - once sued for breach of contract - also denied - once sued in small claims court - guy didn't show up - once by an employee long ago - and the two above. There are probably more federal cases, but those are the only state court cases.
What's interesting is youtube has to either be a publisher - meaning it is liable for defamation because it has control over content - or just a carrier - meaning it is immune from defamation because others control what is published on their site. So the more youtube cracks down on content the more they open themselves up to being called a publisher and thus liable for all the defamation that appears on their website. But they are sued so rarely it hasn't been tested.
That's another case.
Where can I upload pdf's online? Let me know and I'll put the prager complaint there.
Can facebook be charged with something for posting the NZ shooting. Their site. They remove or prevent content. Any SOL still stands.
Yes. Either google/youtube/facebook/twitter represents a platform, a medium, a *public square* for *public discourse*, in which case they can not discriminate against participants.
OR
They are private companies in the open market of publishers, etc., and they are subject to antitrust laws.
They can't have the exceptions to constitutional protections AND total domination over a marketplace.
Honest means have come to an end.
scribd.com
haven't tried it myself, but I think it will work
here's page 1 of that lawsuit
scribd sucks.
>So the more youtube cracks down on content the more they open themselves up to being called a publisher and thus liable
The secret is that they don't care. If they can influence the 2020 election in their favour nothing will be done to punish them. The recent anti-trust probe made them say fuck it and just go ahead and start banning everyone while they still can, they have nothing to lose anyway.
okay, so google another pdf hosting platform. (ironic, eh?)
None of the social media that enjoy the common carrier laws should act like the publisher that they really are.
It's not that they can't censor the speech, it's that they aren't treated as a publisher while doing so. There are very distinct differences and the publishers are financially responsible for what appears on their platform.
It's the distinction between the common carrier and the publisher as well.
They can't curate the speech when they are a common carrier, and as a publisher they are financially responsible for the content on their website. As it stands they want to eat the cookie and have it too.
Prager U complaint
docdroid.net
>they don't care
Why should they? Nobody ever sues them.
excellent, thanks!
This.
But now we have a dillema: because all that they care about is 2020. Nothing else matters. I don't, for a second think that YT cares about making money anymore. They are being sponsored by other companies and organizations and what they are doing is purely political, and they can literally wait us out.
2020 matters, not because of Ytump, cause he will win, but because of the Congressional elections.
You can get 5$ back for each delayed prime delivery, you just need to write the support.