YouTube restricted some conservative content — that’s OK, court rules - San Francisco Chronicle

YouTube can’t be sued for restricting access to some of its videos because the company, though a prolific source of information with more than 30 million visitors daily, is not a government agency subject to constitutional guarantees of free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The suit was filed in 2017 by Prager University, a nonprofit that does not hold classes or award degrees but seeks to communicate conservative views by posting short videos aimed at high school, college and graduate students.

Several dozen Prager videos were classified by YouTube as restricted because of what the company considers “mature” content — such as violence, drugs and alcohol, sex, terrorism, war or political conflicts. Most Prager viewers could still see them, but a small number of viewers, including some libraries, schools and businesses, as well as individual families, automatically filter out restricted content.

The suit also challenged YouTube’s decision to prohibit outside advertising on some Prager videos, a classification called “demonetizing” that is also based on content the company views as inappropriate for certain audiences.

Prager, based in Southern California, sued San Bruno-based YouTube and its parent company, Google, in San Jose. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the suit in 2018 and was upheld Wednesday by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The First Amendment prohibits the government — not a private party — from abridging speech,” Judge Margaret McKeown said in the 3-0 ruling.

She said a private organization can act for the government on occasion, when it “conducts a public function,” like running an election or operating a “company town.” But “hosting speech on a private platform” is not a traditional government function, McKeown said.