Court Throws Out Conservative Group's Censorship Complaint Against YouTube

Google's YouTube doesn't seem to be engaged in a public function that was traditionally exclusively reserved for the state, such as a private corporation that operates a town's municipal functions or has been given control over a previously public right of way, said U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose Tuesday, granting Google's motion to dismiss Prager University's complaint and its request for a preliminary injunction. The docket 17-cv-6064 order (in Pacer) said Prager's complaint about YouTube's restricted mode feature (see 1801030009) relied heavily on the Supreme Court's Marsh v. Alabama decision, but Marsh "plainly did not go so far" as saying any private property owner operating its property as a public speech forum becomes a state actor that has to comply with the First Amendment. The court also rejected the conservative group plaintiff's argument that limiting some Prager videos via its restricted mode is false advertising by implying they have inappropriate content, saying YouTube didn't say anything publicly about the classification of those videos. Prager counsel didn't comment. Others have argued for years along the same lines as Prager as they sought legal grounds for letting online participants override YouTube's editorial discretion, but that argument "remains devoid of merit," blogged Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute Eric Goldman. He said the District Court ruling also rejects the "currently-chic argument" that the Supreme Court's Packingham v. North Carolina decision restricts social media services' editorial discretion, with Koh correctly reading Packingham as putting limits on state restrictions on access to social media rather than on the social media providers' discretion. He said similar "conservative-voices-hardship cases" making the same arguments, such as cases against Twitter, likely will "meet a similarly hostile reception. ... Perhaps these cases collectively form a solid wall of precedent that will discourage further plaintiffs from seeking to strip Internet services of their editorial discretion."