Author Topic: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"  (Read 1529 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« on: October 30, 2017, 01:12:51 PM »
If you didn't know, Prager U. is bringing a lawsuit against YouTube for demonetizing their videos, as they have done to many other right-leaning channels.

https://ricochet.com/464590/youtube-praegerus-lawsuit/

According to the above, the first amendment argument is just there to get media attention, and their real argument is about breach of contract. I hope Prager has loads of money, or is getting a whole lot of legal defense donations, or pro bono.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2017, 08:10:08 PM »
I was wondering if it would come to this.  When people start looking to youtube as an income, it can get serious.  If nothing else, it would be interesting if they are granted discovery. 


“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2017, 08:18:03 PM »
I noticed a few youtube channels I browse have started posted on Vidme also.  These are sword and ancient weapon guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3lXpXAvRg
One of them got banned for some reason, but 3 or 4 others posted videos talking about it.  I hadn't heard of Vidme until it was mentioned.  I think the guy's account was reinstated.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzb8U0Bje5A
He is a bit long winded but essentially he says he tried to get Youtube to tell him how they calculated the ad earnings and got nowhere.  Getting information like that in discovery would be interesting.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,448
Re: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2017, 08:54:52 AM »
1A argument is likely a loser.  People seem to keep forgetting that 1A is a restriction on the government.  It has not been extended to private entities who restrict speech.  I honestly doubt it will.  Their best bet will be the contract action.  But, like Fistful said, unless Prager has a bunch of cash, or gets legal representation at no cost (contingency fee agreement), don't know that this will go far.  After all, YouTube is a part of Google, and Google could drop a few million on this case without breaking a sweat.
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,741
Re: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2017, 10:43:08 AM »
Prager put out a video explaining their case. They got the attorneys to discount the fees.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 01:47:07 PM by dogmush »

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2017, 01:08:46 PM »
https://ricochet.com/466171/who-censors-youtube-maybe-not-google/

Quote
It would be bad for Google if it turned out that they were using left-wing political groups to target conservative YouTube videos, and it could very well result in financial loss to them, as well as loss of goodwill and public trust. Especially since they have been deliberately secretive about the inner workings of their review process. However, that is not the most disturbing line of thought.

What if some of these hypothetical organizations with the power to restrict YouTube videos are in receipt of public funds, like (say) Planned Parenthood? I don’t think one has to subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history to imagine that that particular organization would be keen to get involved in flagging YouTube videos, given half a chance. And there are probably a lot more like that. It might explain (since Google won’t) how pro-life videos like this one have been restricted. Was it on the say-so of a publicly-funded body? That would surely be unconstitutional, and a slam-dunk for PragerU.

Interesting.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson