PragerU v. Google - YouTube should be held to free speech laws, not discretion

[Zenaan Harkness]

Most folks here are passionate about free speech.

The running debate on whether massive "social media" corporations
ought be allowed to exercise "private club" discretion over their
networks is hitting a US court, thanks to "PragerU", a conservative
digital media organization.

Apparently non-ironically, and thus all the more ironic, some "punks"
declare that corporate "discretionary censorship" policies are just
“A-OK, peachy wid me!”, reaching levels of self-parody rarely seen in
the online world except on this very online, and very "punks" email
list.

Setting aside the ridiculous assertion which some folks try to uphold
- that censorship is different from moderation, and moderation is ok -
the fact that, to pick a totally random example, YouTube, is 20 times
larger in market share as compared to its closest rival:
http://www.businessinsider.com/globally-youtubes-market-share-is-20-times-its-nearest-competitor-2011-12
and can therefore quite reasonably be considered a monopoly, is STILL
not enough for some folks in their [MINISTRY] speak, to back down
from their "companies can do no wrong" propaganda.

Thankfully one onliner, Dennis Prager, is suing YouTube and its
parent Google over alleged censorship of their videos:

 PragerU Sues YouTube and Google over Alleged Censorship
 of Conservatives
 http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/10/24/prageru-sues-youtube-and-google-over-alleged-censorship-of-conservatives/

 According to the Wall Street Journal, the lawsuit, which was filed
 on Monday, “says YouTube’s more than 30 million visitors a day make
 the site so elemental to free speech in the digital age that it
 should be treated as a public forum.”

 “The suit argues the site must use the ‘laws governing free speech,’
 not its own discretion, to make decisions about what to censor,”
 they reported, adding that PragerU “alleges that by limiting access
 to some of its videos without clear criteria YouTube is infringing
 on PragerU’s First Amendment rights.”
 …


Here's hoping that Prager's lawyer/ legal team is not (((completely
compromised))), and to this end I shall repeat what to my amateur
not-a-lawyer mind is self evident, basic logic:


An Open Letter to Dennis Prager:

Dear Dennis, in the interests of you NOT being firetrucked over by
your legal team (not that your particular legal team would ever do so
mind you - this is simply insurance of a sort), consider the
following:

 - insist that every legal document to be put before a court,
   is provided first to you for review, and only after your consent,
   is that document filed or otherwise put, to a court in your court
   case

 - insist that every legal document filed, or otherwise provided to
   your legal team, in relation to your matter, is provided to you,
   for your personal review

 - on any and every appeal process, ALWAYS put the question(s) of law
   proposed by your legal team, to the close analysis of your own
   mind, and where, in your mind appropriate (which for cases such as
   this - matters of basic human rights such as free speech), REALLY
   OUGHT be put to the public - the question of law on appeal is one
   of the most basic ways that mistakes or “mistakes” happen,
   especially in high-profile cases which might affect the profits of
   a large corporation


As a good friend has said many times “the most complicated thing in
law is a double negative”.

Good luck,