3 ms·
> Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
> Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation?
PragerU is a corporation as well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But this decision is absolutely consistent with applying the First Amendment to corporations.
Compulsory speech is not free speech. Why should YouTube be forced to spend their time and money to disseminate PragerU's content on their platform — i.e. to "speak" against their will?
- _-david-_ 7y agoIf a video on YouTube constitutes YouTube's speech then does that mean if somebody posts a video containing something illegal YouTube should be held responsible?
- shadowgovt 7y agoIt's not the video that YouTube creates; it's the metadata of recommendations, classification, and advertising association. PragerU attempted to argue YouTube infringed PragerU's freedom by arranging that metadata in a way PragerU didn't like.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoIf I lend you my megaphone, should I be held responsible if you use it to say something illegal?