Federal Judge: Google and YouTube May Censor at Will

Federal Judge Lucy Koh

Calls Jewish-run online giant a “private actor” with no requirement to be fair or open

Introduction by John I. Johnson: Interestingly, the plaintiff who complained that Jewish-owned Google/YouTube is censoring him, is “conservative” Jew Dennis Prager.

In this decision, the judge said “Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc., did not qualify as ‘state actors’ subject to the First Amendment by creating a ‘public forum’ for speech. ‘Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,’ said Judge Koh.”

Ha, ha. In Jewish-dominated societies no other citizens have such freedoms, despite the fact that they, too, are “private entities” or individuals. No freedom to speak, associate, rent, own, hire, raise their children, practice their religion, run their businesses, or do anything else. Only the ruling class and those Politically Correct elements that serve the interests of that class are free from state control.

* * *

GOOGLE HAS WON the dismissal of a lawsuit in California accusing YouTube of censoring conservative content.

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos, including through its “Restricted Mode” setting, on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.

But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.

“Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” Koh wrote.

“Plaintiff has not shown that defendants have engaged in one of the very few public functions that were traditionally exclusively reserved to the state,” she added.

The San Jose, California-based judge also dismissed a claim that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager’s videos were “inappropriate.”

Koh gave Prager a chance to amend its lawsuit, and said the case “demands an analysis” of California’s state constitution “in the age of social media and the internet.”

Peter Obstler, a lawyer for Prager, said his client will review its legal options, including a possible appeal.

In court papers, Google had acknowledged that deciding which videos to restrict “may involve difficult, subjective judgment calls,” but said it should not be liable for trying to keep YouTube “safe and enjoyable for all users.”

YouTube, in a statement, said Prager’s videos “weren’t excluded from Restricted Mode because of politics or ideology,” and Koh’s decision “vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users.”

Google drew attention last August when it fired an engineer, James Damore, who had written an internal memo saying that biological differences led to fewer women in various technology jobs.

Damore sued Google in January, saying it was biased against White men with conservative views.

The case is Prager University v Google LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-06064.

* * *

Source: Reuters

Previous post

Jews Lying Again; They Want War With Russia

Next post

Reich and the Genetic Barbarians at the Gates


  1. 28 March, 2018 at 2:37 am — Reply

    So a federal lawsuit initiated by a jew, against jewish YouTube and decided by yet another non-White, an Asian judge, has opened the door to full-on censorship. I believe (((they))) set up lawsuits just like this in friendly districts like the (((9th Circuit))) for the specific purpose of beating Whites to the punch and setting the precedents on these crucial issues, especially in the war on free speech. I don’t believe for one minute that (((Praeger))) ever intended to win. In fact, losing was the whole point. The same goes for Jared won’t-name-the-jew Taylor’s lawsuit, as well, also scheduled for the (((9th District))), I believe.

    I also don’t understand how these companies can be considered “private actors” when they are “publicly” traded. In contrast, how can a “private actor” like a guy who owns a bakery be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple against his wishes? I don’t know how anyone doing business in the U.S. isn’t bound by the highest law of the land of the U.S. This idea that only government entities or “public actors”, whatever that means, are mandated to follow the Constitution is more than a little alarming.

    The bottom line is if we don’t create our own platforms of communication NOW, we are screwed.

    • Arvin N. Prebost
      29 March, 2018 at 10:22 am — Reply

      You could well be right—Prager, Taylor and (((them))) are playing “3-D chess” with the goyim, pretending to be our advocates while selling us down the river.

      But won’t this cut into Taylor’s and Prager’s $$$$? Not to mention limiting their ego-time (which is probably more important to them than the $$$$). After all, they are not just some common baker who stands on Christian principles—they are the Leaders.

      I suppose we will see.

  2. Michael R
    28 March, 2018 at 11:16 pm — Reply

    We can create our own platforms for communication – and we will be lucky if they get 1% of the 1.5 BILLION subs Y has.

  3. Travon Martinbuster
    29 March, 2018 at 5:55 am — Reply

    Youtube, Facebook and Twitter should be sued by the AG for monopoly status under anti-trust law, especially as it relates to exposure given political candidates who have no equivalent forums for their political positions unless sufficiently funded to buy broadcast time – which benefits the likes of Hillary Clinton. These few companies have “de-facto” market domination of media dissemination outside of traditional methods e.g. TV advertising. Paul Nehlen’s #ShallNotCensor legislation is needed too.

  4. RazingCane
    31 March, 2018 at 2:58 pm — Reply

    Another biased decision from a California-based judge in the liberal corporate wallet. I am waiting for someone to develop a “private” forum that disallows any typically liberal mantra to be shared or even posted.
    IMO – more evidence why activist judges need to be impeached.

    4 April, 2018 at 5:13 pm — Reply

    Another public show to say the obvious about private censurship…

    It is 100% LEGAL for google and youtube to censure their own sites, just as it is 100% LEGAL for other sites to censure their sites and their site forums.

    May I suggest starting a unique search site and a video site, that does not censure ANYTHING, other than copyright violations, and anything contrary to saying something nice about GOD.

    However, even though most content would not be removed from the site, perhaps the new search site and video site could SEGREGATE all content from nigger/wigger/homo/jews, under the link “content from nigger/wigger/homo/jews”, and/or under the link “trash”, and/or under the link “un-preferred content”.

    p.s. Speaking of public shows, there is also a politically correct public show against racism, even though it is 100% LEGAL to be racist against nigger/wigger/homo/jews (within the limits of the law);

    Can someone post an article that “It is 100% LEGAL to be racist against nigger/wigger/homo/jews (within the limits of the law)” ?



    4 April, 2018 at 6:41 pm — Reply



    Instead of a law suit against the private google/youtube… how about suing the federal/state/local governments, and/or the federal/state/local government funded institutions, for illegally “filtering” all the free speech content from sites such as, and, and the, and, etc., using the jewish approved “filtering” services.

    At the moment, the White People are having difficulties in receiving/sending free speech content from/to other White People, at publicly funded institutions across the usa, because of the illegal “filtering” that is being administered at those publicly funded institutions.

    Each of those sites listed above have “free speech” rights, and therefore, presumably, it is 100% ILLEGAL to “filter” those sites from public access at any publicly funded institution.

    If the “filtered” site is not an “age 18 only site”, similar to stores selling “age 18” books/magazines, then presumably, it is 100% ILLEGAL for public institutions to “filter” any form of “free speech” that is not already age restricted according to the law, such as specific laws that put age 18 restrictions onto the purchasing of certain books/magazines.

    It therefore seems that all those “filters”, at publicly funded institutions, are ONLY able to filter “age 18 material”, and nothing else.

    (p.s. no copyright is claimed on this message)



    4 April, 2018 at 6:45 pm — Reply

    I will also put (institute of historical review) into the “filtered” sites listed in previous comment.



    4 April, 2018 at 7:17 pm — Reply

    I will also put (, into the list of ILLEGALLY “filtered” sites, listed in previous comment.



    • 4 April, 2018 at 8:08 pm — Reply

      If the ADL’s filtering software is blocking in schools, libraries, and elsewhere, then the ADL is doing the cause of White advocacy a favor. Witness some of the misinformation mixed in with half-truths that has been up here for years:

      JewWatch = unreliable

      Nobody ever said fighting the Jew would be a fair fight. It won’t be.

        7 April, 2018 at 4:37 pm — Reply

        (reposting because it seems the comment is not replying to a reply)

        You say is unreliable, but perhaps needs feedback, to correct (unintentional) errors ?

        Apparently not even some phd’s are even familiar with the holohoax, and some phd’s have not even heard of Dr. William Pierce, and some phd’s are not familiar with the 9/11 world trade center building 7 being demolished, and some phd’s are not familiar with all the international jews in the usa freak government doing the 9/11 crime spree, and some phd’s are not familar with the bogus paper money borrowed at interest from the jewish federal reserve in the usa when celebrating their july 4th independence from the jewish “federal reserve” in brittan.

        It can be presumed that has been trying to provide truthful documentary evidence about the jews.

        Some items I found at…

        “jews in clinton cabinet”

        “jews in bush administration”

        And here is a page from jewwatch of articles about the jews in the usa freak government…

        Has anyone from tried working with, to provide feedback to jewwatch about their archived articles, and thereby improve another resource about the international communist gypsy jews ?

        As far as the page you cited from,
        “Real Nazis, Or More Zionist Hoaxes?”,…

        I would look at a page like that, see the title and the story, and believe that page is discussing the issue of jews posing as “nazi” in the usa (and elsewhere);

        Is there something particular on that page that you disagree with ?

        Surely there are a couple articles from that you can agree with ?



  9. cc
    4 April, 2018 at 11:47 pm — Reply

    I never trusted jewwatch. It’s all over the board. That outfit seems to go after racists that don’t subscribe to Christianity, especially National Socialists.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.