Posted on Aug 27, 2019
Conservative Group Argues First Amendment Should Apply to YouTube
1.53K
57
21
10
10
0
https://www.wsj.com/articles/conservative-group-argues-first-amendment-should-apply-to-youtube [login to see] 8
Dennis Prager videos should not be censored. Some of his common sense videos can't be viewed in libraries or any schools worldwide with content filters because YouTube considers it adult content even though it is not vulgar. That's how it is right now for some of his Public Service Announcement videos. YouTube and Dennis Prager at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle Washington. A few weeks ago, Dennis Prager was present when Senator Ted Cruz put one of the executives of YouTube on the spot
Dennis Prager videos should not be censored. Some of his common sense videos can't be viewed in libraries or any schools worldwide with content filters because YouTube considers it adult content even though it is not vulgar. That's how it is right now for some of his Public Service Announcement videos. YouTube and Dennis Prager at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle Washington. A few weeks ago, Dennis Prager was present when Senator Ted Cruz put one of the executives of YouTube on the spot
Conservative Group Argues First Amendment Should Apply to YouTube
Posted from wsj.com
YouTube
Freedom
Ethics
Freedom of Speech
Internet
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
5
5
0
I concur with Dennis Prager's assessment my friend LTC (Join to see) that Freedom of Speech and expression should apply to Facebook and Google for that matter
"During arguments before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Prager University, a nonprofit that produces bite-size explainer videos promoting conservative ideas, argued Google’s YouTube violated its First Amendment rights and misled its users when it limited access and demonetized dozens of its videos..
It will be interesting to see how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on this. They tend to lean to the left and that might tee it up for a Supreme Court review next year.
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Greg Henning LTC Jeff Shearer Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan CPT Scott Sharon CWO3 Dennis M. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG William Jones SGT (Join to see) SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski PO1 H Gene Lawrence PO2 Kevin Parker PO3 Bob McCord
"During arguments before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Prager University, a nonprofit that produces bite-size explainer videos promoting conservative ideas, argued Google’s YouTube violated its First Amendment rights and misled its users when it limited access and demonetized dozens of its videos..
It will be interesting to see how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on this. They tend to lean to the left and that might tee it up for a Supreme Court review next year.
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Greg Henning LTC Jeff Shearer Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan CPT Scott Sharon CWO3 Dennis M. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG William Jones SGT (Join to see) SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski PO1 H Gene Lawrence PO2 Kevin Parker PO3 Bob McCord
(5)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Whether I am in favor of it or not is a moot point since it happens regularly and has for centuries and will continue into the future.
Since the government has been taking property for centuries for various and sundry reasons [wartime exigency in Civil War, WWII] and more recently local jurisdictions taking property to build more profitable for the local coffers buildings, you pose a somewhat odd point. Capt Gregory Prickett
Every month businesses go bankrupt, people are evicted from homes, and corporations file for bankruptcy protection. In some nations nationalization of assets takes place [that happened to my wife's family in Cuba when Castro came to power in 1960]
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution that limits the power of eminent domain. "The taking clause requires the entity to pay just compensation on taking private property for public use." This is limited to the federal government.
Since the government has been taking property for centuries for various and sundry reasons [wartime exigency in Civil War, WWII] and more recently local jurisdictions taking property to build more profitable for the local coffers buildings, you pose a somewhat odd point. Capt Gregory Prickett
Every month businesses go bankrupt, people are evicted from homes, and corporations file for bankruptcy protection. In some nations nationalization of assets takes place [that happened to my wife's family in Cuba when Castro came to power in 1960]
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution that limits the power of eminent domain. "The taking clause requires the entity to pay just compensation on taking private property for public use." This is limited to the federal government.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
He is right. And there isn't any other place to view these. They happily support all kinds of garbage but educational material about our constitution and rights, not so much.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google