united-states freedom-of-speech social-media
Was Youtube ruled not to be a public forum in this ruling, contradicting another judge decision that another social network is?
<p>In a former ruling for a case a judge argued Donald Trump's Twitter account was a public forum. </p>

<p>But recently there was another case, where PragerU media sued Youtube, arguing that they infringed freedom of speech because Youtube was a public forum, and it also becomes a state actor (something I came to the same conclusion before reading this case when just thinking about these kind of issues) </p>

<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR1HzjBbvi4l8h4afqdQJ0VVXQG3a5gbCK-DIMkB5fuHM53iDNUsE8bHDVw" rel="nofollow noreferrer">First Amendment doesnt apply on Youtube</a></p>

<p>This last case the judge said</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Supreme Court in that case found that "merely hosting speech by
  others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not
  alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First
  Amendment constraints."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To me this judge is doing a workaround to avoid saying the word "Youtube isnt a public forum", because there are other rulings which said social networks were in other situations, but at the same time the judge seems to be implying it isnt for this case. </p>

<p>Could the Equal Protection Clause apply here? How can a social network like Twitter be under certain circunstances a "public forum", and another social network apparently to be implied not to be? Or how can it be argued that "First Amendment doesnt apply to Youtube", but the First Amendment applies to Twitter?</p>

<p>It looks to me the judges arguments in social networks issues in relation with freedom of speech are getting more and more obscure and fuzzy, to avoid showing there is a double standard.</p>

<h2>The cases are completely different</h2>

<p><strong>YouTube can restrict speech in the space they own because they are not the government. The President can’t because he is the government.</strong></p>

<p>From the article:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>PragerU's claim that YouTube censored PragerU's speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the case of Trump it was he that was limiting access, not YouTube and he can’t do that.</p>
