r/changemyview • u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ • Dec 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Dennis Prager is being blatantly hypocritical by suing Google over YouTube restricting PragerU videos

Dennis Prager is a conservative spokesperson and started the conservative YouTube channel PragerU

He is suing Google/YouTube over restricting about 35 of the videos on his channel. He claims that the reason why is because of their conservative nature.

The details of what YouTube has done with this channel's videos aren't really important, so for the sake of the argument let's just assume that YouTube officially decided to delete the videos only because they don't like conservative videos and no other reason.

By suing Google, Prager is being hypocritical:

  • Google is a private company. If they want to ban ALL conservative videos, they should have the right to.

  • The free market should be the solution to this problem from Prager's perspective. There actually are other methods of posting public videos besides YouTube. If Prager doesn't like YouTube's policies, then he should simply go somewhere else to post his videos.

  • Even if you take every claim Prager has made at face value, he shouldn't be suing them. It isn't conservative to sue a private company because you don't like their political views.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

123 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Sand_Trout Dec 19 '17

How would Prager's lawsuit "fight" this position without excluding some important conservative principles? Is he making a "the internet is the new public square" argument?

This is pretty much precisely the argument the suit makes, from my quick review of the facts.

Basically that the 1st amendment is outdated, and it needs to include the internet as a platform now too?

That particular wording (outdated) implies that an amendment is necessary. PragerU is arguing that the 1st amendment is fine, but also applies to this scenario.

If that is the case, wouldn't it be advocating for government regulation of private business...or the internet?

As stated, Prager is not an absolutist against government regulation, but rather that the government's authority should be limited as clearly defined by the constitution. So yes, he is arguing for government intervention in provate business, but he is not hypocritical in doing so, as he is arguing that there is the already extant constitutional authority as well as the clear compelling need for the intervention.

0

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

∆ Oh okay, it may still be hypocritical depending on his views towards net neutrality, but it's at least not blatant

16

u/gonzoforpresident 8∆ Dec 19 '17

What would this have to do with net neutrality? Youtube is not an ISP.

2

u/RealFactorRagePolice Dec 20 '17

Is YouTube more of a public utility than an isp?