Freedom of speech on government ran websites?

[Sylvain]

I have a quick question regarding freedom of speech online.

I follow the official White House Youtube channel, I have been doing so for years (Under Obama, Trump, now Biden).

Recently the comments have been turned off in most videos.

Sometimes they are turned on for a few minutes when they post a new video, then all the comments are deleted and the option to leave comments is turned off once again.

Is that considered a violation of free speech?

I know there is no expectation of free speech online when a website is ran by private individual.
Like here on INGO where mods can delete posts without violating people's first amendment rights.

Is it any different when the government is in charge?
Is it not a first amendment issue with Youtube because it's a third party website used by the US government?

It's clearly censorship (especially when they delete comments they don't like) in my opinion but is it legal?

 

[indykid]

First, unfortunately YouTube has been determined to be a private company and not subject to the constitution. Second, we have Biden as president and nobody dare say a bad word about the "Granddaddy President". Welcome to the democrat party run country. Funny, because as a you state, even under King Barack free speech was allowed, but remember that the wrong word instantly made you a racist.

 

[BugI02]

IANAL but I would guess no. It seems more like cleaning graffiti off your building. It isn't the government providing the channel or the space to comment, they are just a content provider

 

[Ingomike]

There is no law pertaining to requiring comment ability, that said, courts have ruled that if an official government social media account (The Mayor of Podunk in the mayors official elected position) does have comments turned on they cannot delete comments they don't like.

I recall AOC lost a case based on this...

 

[OakRiver]

It is an interesting question: if a public figure is unable to block private citizens on Twitter, why can the government prevent comments from private citizens?

 

[JettaKnight]

IANAL but I would guess no. It seems more like cleaning graffiti off your building. It isn't the government providing the channel or the space to comment, they are just a content provider

This. Comments are garbage; I have a Firefox plugin to block them.

1A prevents the govt from limiting speech, but doesn't require the govt to sponsor a conduit for that speech.

IIRC, doesn't the content owner get to manage those comments?

 

[jsx1043]

The reason the comments are off on anything related to the White House is because the comments were overwhelmingly negative and Uncle Joe’s elder care nurse whined about it and had them turned off. Also, people are mad downvoting articles and videos and the media companies are just washing them away.

White House Youtube Account Experiences a Little Funny Business After Biden Inauguration Gets Huge Number of Down Votes

redstate.com

White House makes Inauguration video unlisted after getting ratioed 10:1 on downvotes

The most popular President in history had to hide his Inauguration video because it was getting crushed with downvotes and negative comments. It turns out that suitcases and semi-trailers full of l…

nonvenipacem.com

 

[HoughMade]

Nothing says the government must provide an outlet for speech. Simple as that.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Ingomike]

Nothing says the government must provide an outlet for speech. Simple as that.

But is it also correct that if they do they cannot restrict that speech?

 

[Sylvain]

Nothing says the government must provide an outlet for speech. Simple as that.

I get that.
But when they do provide one (by having comments turn on) and later turn them off (and deleting comments in the process) isn't it a suppression of free speech?

 

[HoughMade]

I get that.
But when they do provide one (by having comments turn on) and later turn them off (and deleting comments in the process) isn't it a suppression of free speech?

No. Not under the law, at least.

 

[smittygj]

I get that.
But when they do provide one (by having comments turn on) and later turn them off (and deleting comments in the process) isn't it a suppression of free speech?

Not against the law, but it should be...

 

[Sylvain]

No. Not under the law, at least.

So it's just morally wrong (in my opinion at least) but not legally censorship.

 

[Old Dog]

I get that.
But when they do provide one (by having comments turn on) and later turn them off (and deleting comments in the process) isn't it a suppression of free speech?

But is the government turning them off, or is a private entity managing the content? #3rd party vendor like you tube managing the account? If 3rd party they can do what they want.

 

[bwframe]

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

 

[Sylvain]

But is the government turning them off, or is a private entity managing the content? #3rd party vendor like you tube managing the account? If 3rd party they can do what they want.

I think both the person running the channel and Youtube can decide to turn the comments off.

After the US Capitol attack Youtube decided to turn off the comments on Trump's channel.

Some Youtubers decide to turn off the comments on their own.

In this case I don't know if the comments are deleted by Youtube or by the White House.

 

[HoughMade]

But is it also correct that if they do they cannot restrict that speech?

The government can control its own resources. A government run newletter can choose what it publishes.

So it's just morally wrong (in my opinion at least) but not legally censorship.

Let me be more clear. I believe that can turn off comments. I believe deleting specific comments or blocking users based upon viewpoint alone and not because of non-viewpoint reasons (language, violence, etc.) may be an issue.

 

[BugI02]

Let me be more clear. I believe that can turn off comments. I believe deleting specific comments or blocking users based upon viewpoint alone and not because of non-viewpoint reasons (language, violence, etc.) may be an issue.

But it is like a running play in football; if it works, they'll keep doing it unless you MAKE them stop. Rule 230 reform won't go far enough. They need to be forced into the neutral carrier mode like phone and cable

 

[Sylvain]

The government can control its own resources. A government run newletter can choose what it publishes.

Let me be more clear. I believe that can turn off comments. I believe deleting specific comments or blocking users based upon viewpoint alone and not because of non-viewpoint reasons (language, violence, etc.) may be an issue.

They can still remove all the comments in order to delete a few that they couldn't specifically target otherwise.

I get the distinction by the result is the same.