> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse.
Of course it does, should the government decide it does.
Just like how the Civil Rights acts mandated that certain private businesses have responsibilities to serve certain classes of citizens equally.
Just like the federal housing law requires landlords, corporate or not, to rent out to all people.
The government is allowed to mandate whatever it wants to benefit the public (the source of its power) so long as such a mandate is not prevented by a higher law.
The courts have found that these laws are constitutional:
> countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for African Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law.
Apparently, all the US government would need to do is argue that YouTube, as a multi-state corporation, is subject to interstate commerce regulations, which is very precedented.
I would suggest that should congress decide to pass a law requiring youtube to carry Rand Paul's videos, the Supreme Court would toss it out as an infringement of youtube's first amendment right to free speech. As they should. If the government can require private media to carry government messages, the first amendment is toast.
> If the government can require private media to carry government messages, the first amendment is toast.
Currently, the government is directly involved in Facebook and Twitter's moderation decisions, by their own admission, and the Supreme Court is doing nothing, so I don't see your hypothetical as being very realistic.
> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse.
Well, for starters I'd be the first to argue that YouTube shouldn't have any legal responsibility for the public discourse. But the opinion that matters on that topic is YouTube's, and they believe they _do_ have a responsibility for the public discourse. That is why they are engaging in this program of censorship.
What I'm arguing here is that their plan to police misinformation is impossible and, consequently, can't work. And that they are showing an outrageous political bias and anyone with even a slight right-lean of opinion should get out now and find a different platform. Here today we see another example where it isn't working well, as YouTube starts clamping down on what are politically mainstream.
This isn't Alex Jones, this isn't Trump. This is now a doctor offering an opinion on medical practice that isn't his exact speciality. YouTube can't be consistently right on this stuff and they are throwing their weight around politically.
It's weird that people have decided that privately owned companies should be required to do things they don't want to do, in the name of freedom.
reply