Sadly, the First Amendment does not apply to Youtube

NewWarriorMan claims that Youtube may have violated his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. He makes his case in these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw3ezoH06_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKXFaOq0PvI


It would be nice if the First Amendment applied to Youtube. I would like it if everyone were guaranteed a voice here and if Youtube couldn't suspend accounts arbitrarily. That would be the case in a perfect world.

But the world is not perfect, and the First Amendment does not apply to businesses.

I explain why Youtube does not have a legal obligation to protect NewWarriorman's right to Free Speech and why any lawsuit against YT for suspending his account would be futile.

I also explain why YT ought to send warnings to content providers before suspending their accounts and why they should be sent explanations after their accounts are suspended.

The First Amendment would only apply to YT if it was government owned or regulated. Youtube has such a dominant role on the internet that perhaps some may argue that it SHOULD be regulated like a utility.

I will leave that argument for others to make. I can think of at least two drawbacks off the top of my head:

1) Government regulation might discourage new competitors from entering the market. Investors might be less likely to sink their money into websites if they fear a government inspector constantly looking over their shoulders.
2) Those with unpopular political views might feel intimidated from posting on Youtube if the they thought there was a possibility government might be able to track them down more easily. Whether or not government would have that ability might not be as important as the chilling effect that might result if people PERCEIVED that they had that ability.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• First
• Amendment
• NewWarriorman
• Youtube
• account
• suspension

[madest]

You're not the press you dumb fuck.