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.
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.
www.washingtontimes.com
really
