YouTube permanently bans pro-life channel Lifesite

[basquebromance]

this makes me cringe

LifeSite silenced by YouTube

YouTube censors have completely shut down the pro-life LifeSite channel, as well as erased all the Christian group’s videos. While YouTube is privately owned, within its free-market rights to pick and choose its posters — come on, now. As if the abortion matter only had one side?

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Anomalism]

All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.

 

[hunarcy]

All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

 

[Anomalism]

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

YouTube is a private business. Your right to free speech is not being trampled on. They're not obligated to host content they don't want to host.

 

[Shelzin]

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

YouTube is a private business. Your right to free speech is not being trampled on. They're not obligated to host content they don't want to host.

Platform vs Publisher. If they are not a platform, they should lose their special legal standing as one. They should be seen as what they are, a publisher.

With that said... being pro-life is a bad thing? If someone is pro-choice, then where is the problem if that choice is life? To me, that just looks bad on Youtube.

Platform, or Publisher?

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private...

www.city-journal.org

When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent op-ed, Cruz reasoned that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums.’ On the flip side, they should be considered to be a ‘publisher or speaker’ of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.” Tech-advocacy organizations and academics cried foul. University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron argued that Cruz “flips [the] reasoning” of the law by demanding neutral forums. Elliot Harmon of the Electronic Freedom Foundation responded that “one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts.”

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

 

[Anomalism]

To me, that just looks bad on Youtube.

Social conservatism is dying. Your views are not popular outside of your church circles.

 

[hunarcy]

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

YouTube is a private business. Your right to free speech is not being trampled on. They're not obligated to host content they don't want to host.

LOL! While YouTube is a private business, it's become part of the public discourse.

 

[Shelzin]

To me, that just looks bad on Youtube.

Social conservatism is dying. Your views are not popular outside of your church circles.

Umm.. I'm not popular with the church. I'm pro-choice for one thing. So...

 

[Anomalism]

LOL! While YouTube is a private business, it's become part of the public discourse.

Well you better bring a good lawyer and a good argument to court, because right now they have no obligation to host anything they don't want to.

 

[Shelzin]

LOL! While YouTube is a private business, it's become part of the public discourse.

Well you better bring a good lawyer and a good argument to court, because right now they have no obligation to host anything they don't want to.

That's right... That's exactly right.

If you can sue a newspaper for what stories it runs and how... I think if companies like Facebook want to do the same thing, then ... They should as well.

Platform vs Publisher.

 

[BULLDOG]

All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

So you think YouTube should just shut up and bake the cake?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So........

Has ANYONE on the Right lifted a finger to start a competitive video hosting service?

Now's the time

People would flock to it

Stop crying about the Communist Left social media and start your own.....NOT ON AMAZON SERVERS !!!!!

 

[Larsky]

Think of youtube as a baker, and lifesite as a gay wedding cake.

 

[hunarcy]

LOL! While YouTube is a private business, it's become part of the public discourse.

Well you better bring a good lawyer and a good argument to court, because right now they have no obligation to host anything they don't want to.

That's kind of a stupid thing to say because we're not talking about a lawsuit yet. We're talking about a company given special privileges by our government because it was a platform to promote free speech that now is acting as if it's a publisher, which means it doesn't deserve the privilege...it's a political discussion.

 

[Shelzin]

Think of youtube as a baker, and lifesite as a gay wedding cake.

Think of Youtube as the Washington Post, and writers are everyday Americans.

The Washington post does not have to print anything... It owns the content. That's why you can sue the WP for the content that it puts out there. The Washington post is a publisher.

A platform is the server that the Washington Post is on. It does not care what is there, it is there for ones and zeros to host whatever is there. If it's not illegal, it doesn't care what ones and zeros you have on it. You cannot sue the platform for something the WP said... It's the WP that owns the content. Not the platform.

RIGHT NOW, Facebook is treated as if it's a platform. When in reality... It's a publisher.

That's the problem.

 

[Coyote]

All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.

All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.

Private platforms are public spaces now?

 

[Coyote]

Think of youtube as a baker, and lifesite as a gay wedding cake.

Think of Youtube as the Washington Post, and writers are everyday Americans.

The Washington post does not have to print anything... It owns the content. That's why you can sue the WP for the content that it puts out there. The Washington post is a publisher.

A platform is the server that the Washington Post is on. It does not care what is there, it is there for ones and zeros to host whatever is there. If it's not illegal, it doesn't care what ones and zeros you have on it. You cannot sue the platform for something the WP said... It's the WP that owns the content. Not the platform.

RIGHT NOW, Facebook is treated as if it's a platform. When in reality... It's a publisher.

That's the problem.

Except - it has Terms of Service and the right to suspend accounts that violate it, even as a platform it has the right to set limits beyond simply what is legal or illegal.

 

[Shelzin]

Private platforms are public spaces now?

Only if they take advantage of not being able to be sued... Personal opinion. I see no reason why they should have that special protection if they are not public spaces.

Edit: I'm open to arguments on why one would.

 

[Larsky]

Think of youtube as a baker, and lifesite as a gay wedding cake.

Think of Youtube as the Washington Post, and writers are everyday Americans.

The Washington post does not have to print anything... It owns the content. That's why you can sue the WP for the content that it puts out there. The Washington post is a publisher.

A platform is the server that the Washington Post is on. It does not care what is there, it is there for ones and zeros to host whatever is there. If it's not illegal, it doesn't care what ones and zeros you have on it. You cannot sue the platform for something the WP said... It's the WP that owns the content. Not the platform.

RIGHT NOW, Facebook is treated as if it's a platform. When in reality... It's a publisher.

That's the problem.

Except - it has Terms of Service and the right to suspend accounts that violate it, even as a platform it has the right to set limits beyond simply what is legal or illegal.

I confess I did not research the banned entity.
But I'll go out on a limb and assume they were airing total lies.

 

[skye]

Youtube bans a pro-life channel? noooooo really



what I always post in this circumstances lol!