PragerU v. YouTube | 5 Minute Video — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:02The most important lawsuit in America right now – and perhaps the free world –
2. 0:07is Prager University vs. YouTube.
3. 0:10You might consider this a grandiose statement, especially since I’m the lead attorney for PragerU.
4. 0:16I assure you, it’s not.
5. 0:19That’s because this case is about the most fundamental freedom Americans have: freedom
6. 0:23of speech as enunciated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7. 0:29All our freedoms – the very concept of freedom – springs from this right.
8. 0:33Lose it and we’re no longer free – not as individuals and not as a nation.
9. 0:39I’m not willing to accept that.
10. 0:41PragerU doesn’t accept that.
11. 0:43And you shouldn’t either.
12. 0:45Okay, so how did we get into this situation?
13. 0:48A little background.
14. 0:50PragerU is what is called a 501(c)(3) — a non-profit educational media company.
15. 0:56It’s known primarily for its five-minute videos.
16. 0:59In 2016, viewers began to notice that certain PragerU videos were no longer available.
17. 1:05YouTube had placed them on its “Restricted List,” which prevents the videos from playing
18. 1:10on computers using content filters to screen out violence and pornography.
19. 1:15PragerU assumed this was simply a case of “bad algorithms.”
20. 1:19But YouTube said no, each “restricted” video had been reviewed by a
21. 1:23walking/talking human.
22. 1:26The list included such diverse titles as, “Are the Police Racist?” by Heather Mac Donald,
23. 1:31“Israel’s Legal Founding” by Alan Dershowitz, and even a video on the Ten
24. 1:35Commandments by Dennis Prager.
25. 1:38YouTube deemed each one unsuitable for young people — treating these videos the same
26. 1:43as they do, say, ones containing pornography or excessive violence.
27. 1:48Keep in mind, this is PragerU we’re talking about — as Main Street as you can get.
28. 1:53And that, ultimately, turns out to be the issue.
29. 1:57PragerU’s center-right content – many of their videos, by the way, have no political
30. 2:02theme at all – offends YouTube’s sensibilities.
31. 2:07In other words, the videos aren’t being restricted to protect young people from inappropriate
32. 2:11content; they’re being restricted to protect young people from ideas YouTube disagrees with.
33. 2:18We didn’t want to sue; we tried to reach an accommodation.
34. 2:22But when YouTube wouldn’t take the “offending” videos off their restricted list
35. 2:26— there are now 100 on that list — we had no other option.
36. 2:31YouTube was infringing on our right to free speech.
37. 2:34We filed in federal court in late 2017, and thereafter in California state court.
38. 2:42Wait a second, you might say.
39. 2:44YouTube, which is owned by Google, is a private company.
40. 2:47Can’t they do anything they want?
41. 2:49The answer is: yes and no.
42. 2:52Yes, if they are a publisher.
43. 2:54No, if they are public forum.
44. 2:57So what’s the difference?
45. 2:58This gets right to the nub of the matter.
46. 3:01A publisher chooses the content that resides on its site.
47. 3:05The New York Times is a perfect example.
48. 3:07You can’t write a story and just expect the New York Times to publish it.
49. 3:12The Times chooses what appears on its pages or website.
50. 3:15And if they publish a story that contains a malicious lie, or violate copyright law,
51. 3:21they can be sued.
52. 3:22PragerU is also a publisher.
53. 3:24It decides what material gets placed on its website.
54. 3:27Most sites are publishers.
55. 3:30In contrast, a public forum — which can be a physical location, like the classic town
56. 3:34square or a shopping mall; or a virtual location, like a website — is a place that must allow
57. 3:40individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights.
58. 3:45YouTube is an example of a public forum.
59. 3:47In fact, YouTube describes itself as a public forum.
60. 3:51You make a video.
61. 3:52YouTube hosts it.
62. 3:54And anyone with an Internet connection can watch it.
63. 3:57Facebook is also a public forum.
64. 3:59And so is Twitter.
65. 4:00Here’s why this is so important: A public forum under Section 230 of the Communications
66. 4:06Decency Act — a law co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans and passed by Congress in
67. 4:111996 — is not subject to liability for content placed on its site.
68. 4:17If someone posts a video about how to build a bomb or writes a threatening comment,
69. 4:22the public forum website cannot be held legally responsible for that content.
70. 4:27That’s a good thing.
71. 4:29It gives YouTube and other public forums the chance to host a wide variety of material,
72. 4:33from nature videos to political diatribes, without fear of being sued.
73. 4:38And it worked.
74. 4:40And then it didn’t.
75. 4:42A few years ago, the social media giants – Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter – started
76. 4:48to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
77. 4:52They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites
78. 4:57promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political
79. 5:03and social criteria.
80. 5:05In other words, the social media giants want it both ways.
81. 5:08They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher.
82. 5:14We’re fine if they’re a publisher.
83. 5:16And we’re fine if they’re a public forum.
84. 5:19They just can’t be both.
85. 5:21If we win our legal action, YouTube will have to return to the way things were
86. 5:25when they started.
87. 5:27That’s freedom.
88. 5:28But if we lose, YouTube gets to act as a publisher while pretending to be a public forum.
89. 5:34That would mean much less freedom.
90. 5:36And then eventually, no freedom.
91. 5:39Because the most powerful Internet sites on earth will determine what you see
92. 5:43— and what you don’t.
93. 5:45I’m Eric George, Managing Partner, Brown George Ross, for Prager University.