PragerU v. YouTube
Free speech is in jeopardy. Big Tech behemoths like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are putting their thumbs on the free speech scale, “restricting” conservative content they don’t like. PragerU is fighting back with a lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company, Google. The real winner (or loser) will be the American public. In this video, Attorney Eric George, who is representing PragerU, lays out our case. Be the jury.
The most important lawsuit in America right now is _____________________________.
Prager University vs. YouTubeCNN vs. TrumpBrown vs. Board of EducationRoe vs. WadeWhat is the most fundamental freedom Americans have?
freedom of religionfreedom of speechfreedom to peaceably assemblefreedom to own firearmsYouTube is an example of a public forum.
TrueFalseWhich social media giants started to behave like publishers instead of public forums?
FacebookTwitterYouTubeAll of the aboveIf PragerU loses its lawsuit and YouTube gets to act as a publisher while pretending to be a public forum, it would eventually mean _______________________________.
no censorship of contentthat YouTube will have less editorial controlno freedom [of speech]None of the above
- YouTube is a public forum. It cannot benefit from the legal protections of a public forum but then control content like a publisher.
A public forum is a place that must allow individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights.
View sourceYouTube is an example of a public forum. Anyone can make a video and YouTube hosts it, then anyone with an internet connection can watch it.
View sourceA public forum under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not subject to liability for content placed on its site.
View sourceWATCH: Dennis Prager on Google’s Censorship Allegations
View source- If YouTube wants to be treated legally as a public forum, then it must promote “a true diversity of political discourse.”
YouTube has stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse.”
View sourceThe social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher.
View sourcePragerU’s lawsuit against Google/YouTube asserts that tech giant’s “censoring criteria are intentionally vague, undefined, and broad and are designed to allow it to exercise unfettered, unilateral, unbridled, and purely subjective discretion as to what is and is not appropriate.”
View source- By controlling of content is allowed to be seen on its platform based on ideology, YouTube is acting like a publisher, not a public forum.
YouTube placed PragerU videos on its “restricted” list, which prevents the videos from playing on computers using content filters to screen out violence and pornography.
View sourceIn 2016, viewers began to notice that certain PragerU videos were no longer available.
View sourceGoogle claimed “your videos aren't appropriate for the younger audiences..."
View sourceIn addition to putting videos on restricted lists based on subjective criteria, YouTube also arbitrarily demonetizes content.
View source- YouTube has restricted PragerU videos on the Ten Commandments and the founding of Israel—clearly YouTube’s actions are ideologically driven.
Some of the PragerU videos restricted and deemed unsuitable for children by YouTube included topics such as diversity on college campuses, and why we shouldn’t judge minorities differently.
View sourceOne of the restricted videos about the founding of Israel was presented by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
View sourceAnother video restricted by YouTube covered the Ten Commandments.
View sourceCommenting on the restrictions placed on videos, Dennis Prager stated, “Watch any one of our videos and you’ll immediately realize that Google/YouTube censorship is entirely ideologically driven.”
View sourcePragerU’s lawsuit against Google/YouTube accuses the platform of “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair business practices.”
View source- Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom Americans have. YouTube and Google are threating this freedom.
All of our freedoms spring from freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment.
View sourceAs PragerU CEO Marissa Streit put it, YouTube and Google have become “two of the most important public forums in the world.”
View sourceYouTube wants to have the protections of being a public forum, while not upholding freedom of speech, and wanting to control their content like a publisher.
View sourcePragerU founder Dennis Prager warns that “suppression of content on ideological grounds threatens the future of America more than any external enemy.”
View sourceWATCH: “Does Free Speech Offend You?” – Greg Lukianoff
View source
The most important lawsuit in America right now—and perhaps the free world—is Prager University v. YouTube.
You might consider this a grandiose statement, especially since I’m the lead attorney for PragerU. I assure you, it’s not.
That’s because this case is about the most fundamental freedom Americans have: freedom of speech, as enunciated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
All our freedoms—the very concept of freedom—springs from this right. Lose it, and we’re no longer free—not as individuals, and not as a nation.
I’m not willing to accept that. PragerU doesn’t accept that. And you shouldn’t, either.
Okay, so how did we get into this situation? A little background.
PragerU is what is called a 501(c)(3)—a non-profit educational media company. It’s known primarily for its five-minute videos. In 2016, viewers began to notice that certain PragerU videos were no longer available. YouTube had placed them on its “restricted” list, which prevents the videos from playing on computers using content filters to screen out violence and pornography.
PragerU assumed this was simply a case of “bad algorithms.” But YouTube said no—each “restricted” video had been reviewed by a walking, talking human. The list included such diverse titles as “Are the Police Racist?” by Heather Mac Donald, “Israel’s Legal Founding” by Alan Dershowitz, and even a video on the Ten Commandments by Dennis Prager. YouTube deemed each one unsuitable for young people, treating these videos the same as they would, say, for ones containing pornography or excessive violence. Keep in mind, this is PragerU we’re talking about—as Main Street as you can get!
And that, ultimately, turns out to be the issue.
PragerU’s center-right content—many of their videos, by the way, have no political theme at all—offends YouTube’s sensibilities. In other words, the videos aren’t being restricted to protect young people from inappropriate content; they’re being restricted to protect young people from ideas YouTube disagrees with.
We didn’t want to sue. We tried to reach an accommodation. But when YouTube wouldn’t take the “offending” videos off their restricted list—there are now 100 on that list—we had no other option. YouTube was infringing on our right to free speech. We filed in federal court in late 2017, and thereafter in California state court.
Wait a second, you might say—YouTube, which is owned by Google, is a private company. Can’t they do anything they want?
The answer is: Yes…and no.
Yes, if they are a publisher. No, if they are a public forum.
So what’s the difference? This gets right to the nub of the matter.
A publisher chooses the content that resides on its site. The New York Times is a perfect example. You can’t write a story and just expect the New York Times to publish it. The Times chooses what appears on its pages or website. And if they publish a story that contains a malicious lie, or violates copyright law, they can be sued. PragerU is also a publisher. It decides what material gets placed on its website. Most sites are publishers.
In contrast, a public forum—which can be a physical location, like the classic town square or a shopping mall, or a virtual location, like a website—is a place that must allow individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights.
YouTube is an example of a public forum. In fact, YouTube describes itself as a public forum. You make a video. YouTube hosts it. And anyone with an internet connection can watch it. Facebook is also a public forum, and so is Twitter.
Here’s why this is so important:
A public forum under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans and passed by Congress in 1996—is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. If someone posts a video about how to build a bomb or writes a threatening comment, the public forum website cannot be held legally responsible for that content.
That’s a good thing. It gives YouTube and other public forums the chance to host a wide variety of material, from nature videos to political diatribes, without fear of being sued. And it worked.
And then, it didn’t.
A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.
In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher.
We’re fine if they’re a publisher. And we’re fine if they’re a public forum.
They just can’t be both.
If we win our legal action, YouTube will have to return to the way things were when they started. That’s freedom.
But if we lose, YouTube gets to act as a publisher while pretending to be a public forum. That would mean much less freedom.
And then, eventually, no freedom. Because the most powerful internet sites on earth will determine what you see—and what you don’t.
I’m Eric George, Managing Partner, Brown George Ross, for Prager University.
Stay up to date on our latest releases
PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!
Help support our mission
To make a donation over the phone, call (833) PragerU
At $35 or more you’ll be a PragerUnited Member
- Free merch every quarter
- Insider updates
- Free Annual Membership Sticker
Prager University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Tax ID: 27-1763901. Your contribution is fully tax-deductible in the USA.