4 ms·
Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't apply t
by asdsa5325 9y ago
Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't apply to a private company like YouTube. YouTube has the right to remove / restrict whatever it likes on it's own site.
- tomsthumb 9y agoYour comment is all good and well, but while the tone is dismissive/combative, its content doesn't interact with peterhandlaw's point. Just so you know :)
- asdsa5325 9y agoI'm just practicing my first amendment rights /s It also does, since I was providing the content of the lawsuit that he happened to fail to mention.
- tomsthumb 8y agoThe context of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the courts statement on puffery aside from being the initiating reason the statement on puffery was made (which we already knew). The court could have made the same statement without Prager filing the suit and it would still be accurate. The context doesn’t change the fact of the statement. So again, your providing context does not change or challenge peterhandlaw’s point r.e. Puffery.
- peterhadlaw 8y agoFor the record, the utility arguments and size and such put aside (rabbit hole not relevant per say), in general, I don't think a private company should be compelled into any speech (including this lawsuit, which, as of now I probably disagree with.) So to conclude, your context / commentary, although appreciated, does not change my statement.
- krautsourced 9y agoI'm curious: currently I'm sure Youtube relies on the "Safe Harbour" clauses to not be liably for what people post. But once they actively curate the content (and not just for Terms of Service violation but for actual content), does this not mean they would lose this protection?