5 ms·

The article does its best to avoid the phrases "free speech" and "censorship". They get only a single, off-hand mention, as part of someone else's position.

by deogeo 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago
Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. Nothing about the US interpretation of free speech implies an obligation for YouTube to host any content or no content. The only reason a question of "censorship" matters is because the safe harbor legal protections American content providers enjoy include a certain (poorly-defined) objectivity regarding their hosting decisions.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. Nothing about the US interpretation of free speech implies an obligation for YouTube to host any content or no content. People always say this when this topic is brought up. But nobody is talking about the constitutional right to free speech. We all understand that Google is allowed to do whatever it wants on its own platforms. Free speech, however, is not only a right. It is an ideal. It is something some people value independent of the constitution and law.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Free speech is valuable for its utility; it helps hold power accountable and can open up avenues for seeking truth of the world. But it can also hinder those efforts, and speech in that direction is no ideal to be upheld.
    - darawk 7y ago
      So, you're for free speech as long as it's the kind of speech you like?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        As long as it's the kind of speech that isn't harmful to people. Whether I like it is immaterial. the right to free speech doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Even the nations with the most liberal interpretations of the meaning of free speech have put constraints on it.
- toast0 7y ago
  > Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. If Google just turns YouTube off completely, that's not really a free speech issue. Sure, your speech is impaired, but businesses shut down. If Google turns off your videos, but leaves up others, it could be a free speech issue. In California, there is case law establishing free speech rights in privately owned, but generally public spaces[1]. I don't know that this applies to YouTube, but it's not that far of a stretch, and it shows that free speech rights do constrain actions by private owners on their properties. I believe, but have not verified, that YouTube has a choice of venue clause prefering California jurisdiction (likely in one of San Mateo or Santa Clara counties). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

The article does its best to avoid the phrases "free speech" and "censorship". They get only a single, off-hand mention, as part of someone else's position.

by deogeo 7y ago

The article does its best to avoid the phrases "free speech" and "censorship". They get only a single, off-hand mention, as part of someone else's position.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. Nothing about the US interpretation of free speech implies an obligation for YouTube to host any content or no content. The only reason a question of "censorship" matters is because the safe harbor legal protections American content providers enjoy include a certain (poorly-defined) objectivity regarding their hosting decisions.

darawk 7y ago
> Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. Nothing about the US interpretation of free speech implies an obligation for YouTube to host any content or no content. People always say this when this topic is brought up. But nobody is talking about the constitutional right to free speech. We all understand that Google is allowed to do whatever it wants on its own platforms. Free speech, however, is not only a right. It is an ideal. It is something some people value independent of the constitution and law.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Free speech is valuable for its utility; it helps hold power accountable and can open up avenues for seeking truth of the world. But it can also hinder those efforts, and speech in that direction is no ideal to be upheld.
  - darawk 7y ago
    So, you're for free speech as long as it's the kind of speech you like?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      As long as it's the kind of speech that isn't harmful to people. Whether I like it is immaterial. the right to free speech doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Even the nations with the most liberal interpretations of the meaning of free speech have put constraints on it.
toast0 7y ago
> Nobody has any free speech rights related to Google-hosted content. If Google pulled the plug on YouTube tomorrow and vended 0% of the videos it hosts, there'd be no recourse for content creators. If Google just turns YouTube off completely, that's not really a free speech issue. Sure, your speech is impaired, but businesses shut down. If Google turns off your videos, but leaves up others, it could be a free speech issue. In California, there is case law establishing free speech rights in privately owned, but generally public spaces[1]. I don't know that this applies to YouTube, but it's not that far of a stretch, and it shows that free speech rights do constrain actions by private owners on their properties. I believe, but have not verified, that YouTube has a choice of venue clause prefering California jurisdiction (likely in one of San Mateo or Santa Clara counties). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...