The YouTube page isn't a public forum: it's a one-way tool for the administration to disseminate content. It would be a different story if comments were turned on and only critical ones were being removed, for example.
With the same logic these "private companies" use, that they don't have to abide by the 1st amendment, cant our "private businesses" stop abiding by unconstitutional lockdowns?
The Constitution constrains the state, not private actors. The claim made wrt lockdowns is that they are a legitimate use of the state's police power. One can of course challenge that in the courts.
That's like posting a notice you are going to build a new road, inviting everyone to a public discussion period, and then not letting the public talk. Its just 4-5 people on a stage talking about how great the new road will be. No one is allowed to complain. IRL those people would storm the stage and take the mic.
But you could make the same argument for twitter. It just didn't have an option to disable replies like youtube does. Either can be used as a one-way communication tool or a forum. I think twitter may have added something to disable replies on tweets tough, not sure.
The 1a issue with Trump and Twitter was that he was selectively blocking interlocutors on the basis of viewpoint. Had he disabled all replies to tweets, the issue would not have arisen.
The YouTube page isn't a public forum: it's a one-way tool for the administration to disseminate content. It would be a different story if comments were turned on and only critical ones were being removed, for example.
It’s the same because most all the comments are critical. That’s why they’ve turned off the comments.
They had them on at first, then something caused them to decide to turn them off.
That’s fine, though. There’s no obligation to host a public forum; merely to not engage in viewpoint discrimination if they are hosting one.
With the same logic these "private companies" use, that they don't have to abide by the 1st amendment, cant our "private businesses" stop abiding by unconstitutional lockdowns?
The Constitution constrains the state, not private actors. The claim made wrt lockdowns is that they are a legitimate use of the state's police power. One can of course challenge that in the courts.
That's like posting a notice you are going to build a new road, inviting everyone to a public discussion period, and then not letting the public talk. Its just 4-5 people on a stage talking about how great the new road will be. No one is allowed to complain. IRL those people would storm the stage and take the mic.
But you could make the same argument for twitter. It just didn't have an option to disable replies like youtube does. Either can be used as a one-way communication tool or a forum. I think twitter may have added something to disable replies on tweets tough, not sure.
The 1a issue with Trump and Twitter was that he was selectively blocking interlocutors on the basis of viewpoint. Had he disabled all replies to tweets, the issue would not have arisen.
Shut the fuck up faggot
Someone asked a question about 1a jurisprudence, I answered it.
Cope, snowflake.