![]() Prager complained about YouTube’s restricted mode and demonetization, not its access to its core YouTube publishing service.The judge emphatically rejects its applicability to this case: However, to the disappointment of pro-censorship advocates, it’s mostly evolved into a jurisprudential dead-end. That case involved a shopping center being treated the same as a government-operated public forum. Robins ruling as an example of how courts can require private property owners to honor California’s state constitution. State Constitution Protection for Free SpeechĬensorship enthusiasts love citing the California Supreme Court Pruneyard v. The superior court issued a tentative ruling that compellingly rejects every aspect of Prager University’s case. ![]() Separately, Prager refiled the state law claims in California state court. Prager appealed the federal claims to the Ninth Circuit, which heard the appeal in August. In March 2018, Judge Koh dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Prager claimed that YouTube took these steps due to anti-conservative bias, a claim that has zero credibility. YouTube demonetized some of its videos and placed some in “restricted mode,” meaning that users of YouTube’s restricted mode functionality won’t see them. ![]() Prager University publishes videos on YouTube.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |