4 ms·

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion. They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyar

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion. They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1] > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

dfxm12 9y ago
As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years. This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.
    - programmarchy 9y ago
      Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012. YouTube is clearly a common area.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > YouTube is clearly a common area. YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.) It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: > Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. > We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities. > We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular. [1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Users of telephone systems have free speech protections against the operator of those systems not because of the first amendment (and especially not because of applications of that to physical common areas against private property owners, which applications don't actually exist—the First Amendment has specifically and repeatedly been held not to apply even in that case against the property owner), but because of common carrier regulations. > Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: YouTube's PR has very little impact on how constitutional law applies to it.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)

dfxm12 9y ago

As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years. This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.

programmarchy 9y ago
It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012. YouTube is clearly a common area.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > YouTube is clearly a common area. YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.) It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.
      - programmarchy 9y ago
        This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: > Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. > We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities. > We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular. [1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Users of telephone systems have free speech protections against the operator of those systems not because of the first amendment (and especially not because of applications of that to physical common areas against private property owners, which applications don't actually exist—the First Amendment has specifically and repeatedly been held not to apply even in that case against the property owner), but because of common carrier regulations. > Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: YouTube's PR has very little impact on how constitutional law applies to it.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)