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?
Courts did rule it was illegal for Trump to block someone on Twitter. What's the difference?
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.
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?