> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities
I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube.
But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them.
The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech. So they should be liable for all content they post.
I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube.
But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them.
The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech. So they should be liable for all content they post.